Grasping at Straws

So let me get this straight.  When the focus of the national press was erroneous comments Barack Obama’s minister made, you could take the high road and say you didn’t have a comment about it and this shouldn’t be a central issue, but almost two weeks later when everybody’s talking about your “misstatements” now you want to bring it up?

Give me a break.

Oh, I love this Hillary quote:  “(Obama releasing his income taxes) is a good first step. Now he should release his records from being in the state senate and any other information that the public and the press need to know from his experience, because I think that, you know, we should continue to make available the information that we have.”

So is that why you haven’t released your income tax records?  Or why you haven’t released documents related to financing of the Clinton Library or the Clinton Foundation?  Or why you wouldn’t release records of your time as First Lady until a Freedom of Information Act law suit? 

Now Bill Clinton is saying that Obama wants to “disenfranchise” Michigan and Floridian voters because he knows Clinton will win them.  Want to guess how many votes Obama cast in favor of not allowing early states to be seated?  How about the total number of votes Obama cast to move up the primaries?  I’ll give you a hint; it’s the total number of votes Obama cast when both states decided not to revote.

The answer to all three, in case you’re delusional enough to actually believe Obama somehow had an active part in the “disenfranchment” of the two states, is zero.  But the logic is classic Clinton:  “Everybody would know how much voters in each state love Hillary if they stopped allowing Obama to block the vote.”

I really hope at some point in the future the Clintons at least act like they respect my intelligence.



Filed under politics

5 responses to “Grasping at Straws

  1. Fred

    OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Do you agree with these statements made by Rev. Wright’s mentor, James Cone, which discuss the nature of Obama’s religion, black liberation theology? 1. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people. 2. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. 3. All white men are responsible for white oppression. 4. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.” 5. If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it. 6. “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” ** All of these statements are taken directly from Cone’s seminal work on black theology entitled “Black Theology and Black Power.” This is the “theology” to which Obama has been subjecting his innocent children.

  2. Hillary wants to talk about putting distance between something, she probably has 50 members of her camp that have said way worse than that preacher. Let’s not forget her husband, who cheated on her in the White House then “mispoke” about it. The only reason she stayed with him is she couldn’t let go of the power.

  3. thegreatgeno

    Well, the first statement doesn’t seem to exclude non-blacks on the surface, so I’d agree with that. I think it’s racist to say blacks aren’t included in God’s chosen people. Not to imply that your comments are racist; it’s entirely possible the line was used in an inflammatory context. But on the surface, I certainly would not argue against the claim that blacks are part of God’s chosen people.

    Also, the third comment, that only white’s are responsible for white oppression, doesn’t seem that far fetched. Last time I checked, there weren’t a lot of black people enslaving whites throughout history. I don’t remember hearing of any black people, say, ripping off their employee’s retirement funds so they could sell off company stock before it was worthless. Or black cops beating white truck drivers unmercifully.

    Though I will admit the other three are pretty much terrible. Certainly this wasn’t a book I would enjoy reading.

    But now we’re voting against Obama because of a guy who wrote a book that was read by the minister of Obama’s church? There’s not any evidence that Cone and Wright ever met, let alone that he was Wright’s “mentor.” There’s a big difference between being inspired by a book and making it a life’s mission to enact it, which I thought was pretty self-evident (apparently not). And to say Obama is “subjecting his innocent children” to such teaching is not only stretching things a little, it’s teleporting them to another dimension.

    But on the positive side, I can’t think of any better a comment for a post titled: “Grasping at Straws.” You’ve shown an incredible ability to do so.

    Oh, and good job of completely ignoring the issues in the post. I heard there’s a job at Clinton headquarters you may be interested in.

  4. 1dumblonde

    Hey, back here at Clinton headquarters, we just want to say, Hillary should have let Rev. Wright alone. Obama can have who he wants as his pastor. I just read a blog that posted Tim Wise’s op-ed on Rev. Wright, and it was very good. It puts Wright in context as well as all this discussion about race.

    I think the candidates are worn out. They have said all they can, probably, and probably they will just hurt themselves if they keep talking about each other. They should go after McCain.

  5. thegreatgeno

    You’re absolutely right. At this point, the campaign should be won based upon who has the best strategy to beat him, and it’s probably about the only thing that will change most voters mind after all this time, anyway.

    Plus, regardless of who wins, going after each other will only hurt them while going after McCain and letting the voters decide on who’s more effective can only help the victor.

Please, retort!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s