McBama: The Long-Awaited Unveiling of The Official Establishment Tool

[partypup]

Marion, I don’t know what proof you would require of my race or my education (and for the record, I never said I was a CEO; I am a senior vice president), nor do I feel compelled to provide any. I wouldn’t say the company that I work for is all that “prestigious”, unless you love watching television.

you obviously and mistakenly think that all African American people are monolithic in their thought processes. If you take Obama to task, you can’t possible be black. What kind of juvenile thinking is that? 2/3 of my extended family supports Obama, but 1/3 does not. And incidentally, the ones who support Obama also happen to be some of the dimmest bulbs in the bunch who also blindly proclaimed OJ’s innocence in the face of common sense and evidence.

All blacks must support Obama? How ironic coming from a woman who seethes when other make assumptions about the color of an African American’s skin. Just as you and I recognize that being African American doesn’t mean necessarily having dark skin, you should also recognize that being African American doesn’t mean that one should blindly follow Obama off a cliff and refuse to hold him accountable for his lack of core values and alarming propensity to change his positions.

And for the record, it’s offensive for you to challenge my race or education when you have no proof whatsoever to the contrary. I spent more than 17 HOURS along with 84 other editors of Harvard Law Review in a marathon election process in 1990 trying to get Obama elected as the first African American president of that publication.

I am a “fake” playing both ends against the middle? Please, I am only playing one end: I’m looking for truth whereas you and so many others seemed resigned to look the other way.

And here’s another blow to your long list of presumptions: I am a woman.

Lastly, it is curious that you have no response to the actual assertions in my post. No problem with his pre-fascist FISA vote? No problem with his Bush-esque blurring of church and state? No problem with threats against Pakistan.

What will it take for you to wake up and realize that Obama is simply the “velvet glove” that the Establishment is using to accomplish what they would have trouble accomplishing under McCain? And it’s working. Because people like yourself are OVERLOOKING troublesome signs that you would readily identify in any other candidate, simply because he is Obama.

I swear, Marion. You would probably vote for George Bush — if he were black, charming and in his mid-40s.

[partypup]

“I’m not really an Obama supporter. I like most of these changes. These seem like rational, real-world, pragmatic positions, rather than the rhetorical idealistic positions held previously.
One example: Iraq – Do you want him to say that regardless of the conditions on the ground he should order an immediate withdrawal, based on the fact that 10-12 months ago he thought that was the proper course of action. Just to save face ? To me, adapting to what has changed in Iraq and the willingness to reconsider his position is a HUGE improvement over GWB, who usually takes a position and never lets go, regardless.
These changes demonstrate adaptibility and maturity. He’s starting to me to look more electable and presidential, rather than an idealogue.”

I never said a candidate shouldn’t be permitted to change his mind and re-assess issues as new facts come to light. Only a fool (Bush comes to mind) will stick to a position even as it turns out to be clearly wrong. And I don’t mind some of the flips, either. Take gun control. I actually have guns, myself, so I obviously welcome his new position on this issue.

But my problem with Obama is these flips came so soon after he cinched the nomination. What new facts have come to light on the ground in Iraq that would necessitate his belief that our troops may stay longer than 16 months? If anything, it *appears* that the Surge is working and Iraq is on the road to being able to police itself. Do I believe this? Nope. But that’s what the media is spinning. The reports of Iraqi violence are down considerably in the past 6 months. So I ask myself: why flip now? Why not flip when a new and frightening wave of violence sweeps the country? And the answer is because Obama is flipping at the behest of others: the Establishment.

My problem with Obama is that he has flipped an EXTRAORDINARY number of times. Seriously, nine flips in 2 months? Why even bother to take a position? I thought we were electing a president, not a mood ring. Maybe he needs to more seriously investigate the facts before taking a position. In any event, I have never seen a candidate flip this much, so fast. It’s astounding.

My biggest problem with Obama is the NATURE of his flips. He has flipped on critical issues that are now life and death, in my opinion. I disagree that these flips reflect “rational, real-world, pragmatic” positions. How is it rational to permit warrantless wiretapping? In what universe is it now acceptable to subvert my civil liberties? This is only rational to a person who has no concept of the importance of the Fourth Amendment or the horrible ramifications of its violation. I strongly urge you not to brush this off. You obviously have no clue where this slippery slope could lead. Here’s a hint: a fascist republic.

And Obama did NOT have to vote this way. He had promised to filibuster, and he folded like a patio chair. Can you imagine any member of the electorate, in a red OR blue state, deciding to vote against Obama because he choose to protect their civil liberties?? It’s ridiculous to think that this move reflects anything other than a favor to the Establishment.

Ditto for his threats against Pakistan. How in the world is this beneficial? Who can possibly think that we have either the (a) global standing to enter another country without permission or (b) the resources to do so? It’s simply inflammatory and dangerous, and I am quite surprised that Obama supporters have consumed so much Kool Aid that they can’t see how this man is now exhibiting signs that we all easily identified in Bush. Obama was supposed to be the candidate of “change”. What “change” does this foreign policy represent?? All voters, both GOP and Dem, are sick and tired of war. All we want now are peace and jobs. Period.

If you think that a candidate has to shred the Constitution and continue this country’s imperialist foreign policy in order to be “electable”, then you must have been very pleased with the 8 years that George Bush has given us.

[partypup]

“I’m not really an Obama supporter. I like most of these changes. These seem like rational, real-world, pragmatic positions, rather than the rhetorical idealistic positions held previously.
One example: Iraq – Do you want him to say that regardless of the conditions on the ground he should order an immediate withdrawal, based on the fact that 10-12 months ago he thought that was the proper course of action. Just to save face ? To me, adapting to what has changed in Iraq and the willingness to reconsider his position is a HUGE improvement over GWB, who usually takes a position and never lets go, regardless.
These changes demonstrate adaptibility and maturity. He’s starting to me to look more electable and presidential, rather than an idealogue.”

I never said a candidate shouldn’t be permitted to change his mind and re-assess issues as new facts come to light. Only a fool (Bush comes to mind) will stick to a position even as it turns out to be clearly wrong. And I don’t mind some of the flips, either. Take gun control. I actually have guns, myself, so I obviously welcome his new position on this issue.

But my problem with Obama is these flips came so soon after he cinched the nomination. What new facts have come to light on the ground in Iraq that would necessitate his belief that our troops may stay longer than 16 months? If anything, it *appears* that the Surge is working and Iraq is on the road to being able to police itself. Do I believe this? Nope. But that’s what the media is spinning. The reports of Iraqi violence are down considerably in the past 6 months. So I ask myself: why flip now? Why not flip when a new and frightening wave of violence sweeps the country? And the answer is because Obama is flipping at the behest of others: the Establishment.

My problem with Obama is that he has flipped an EXTRAORDINARY number of times. Seriously, nine flips in 2 months? Why even bother to take a position? I thought we were electing a president, not a mood ring. Maybe he needs to more seriously investigate the facts before taking a position. In any event, I have never seen a candidate flip this much, so fast. It’s astounding.

My biggest problem with Obama is the NATURE of his flips. He has flipped on critical issues that are now life and death, in my opinion. I disagree that these flips reflect “rational, real-world, pragmatic” positions. How is it rational to permit warrantless wiretapping? In what universe is it now acceptable to subvert my civil liberties? This is only rational to a person who has no concept of the importance of the Fourth Amendment or the horrible ramifications of its violation. I strongly urge you not to brush this off. You obviously have no clue where this slippery slope could lead. Here’s a hint: a fascist republic.

And Obama did NOT have to vote this way. He had promised to filibuster, and he folded like a patio chair. Can you imagine any member of the electorate, in a red OR blue state, deciding to vote against Obama because he choose to protect their civil liberties?? It’s ridiculous to think that this move reflects anything other than a favor to the Establishment.

Ditto for his threats against Pakistan. How in the world is this beneficial? Who can possibly think that we have either the (a) global standing to enter another country without permission or (b) the resources to do so? It’s simply inflammatory and dangerous, and I am quite surprised that Obama supporters have consumed so much Kool Aid that they can’t see how this man is now exhibiting signs that we all easily identified in Bush. Obama was supposed to be the candidate of “change”. What “change” does this foreign policy represent?? All voters, both GOP and Dem, are sick and tired of war. All we want now are peace and jobs. Period.

If you think that a candidate has to shred the Constitution and continue this country’s imperialist foreign policy in order to be “electable”, then you must have been very pleased with the 8 years that George Bush has given us.

[partypup]

“I’m not really an Obama supporter. I like most of these changes. These seem like rational, real-world, pragmatic positions, rather than the rhetorical idealistic positions held previously.
One example: Iraq – Do you want him to say that regardless of the conditions on the ground he should order an immediate withdrawal, based on the fact that 10-12 months ago he thought that was the proper course of action. Just to save face ? To me, adapting to what has changed in Iraq and the willingness to reconsider his position is a HUGE improvement over GWB, who usually takes a position and never lets go, regardless.
These changes demonstrate adaptibility and maturity. He’s starting to me to look more electable and presidential, rather than an idealogue.”

I never said a candidate shouldn’t be permitted to change his mind and re-assess issues as new facts come to light. Only a fool (Bush comes to mind) will stick to a position even as it turns out to be clearly wrong. And I don’t mind some of the flips, either. Take gun control. I actually have guns, myself, so I obviously welcome his new position on this issue.

But my problem with Obama is these flips came so soon after he cinched the nomination. What new facts have come to light on the ground in Iraq that would necessitate his belief that our troops may stay longer than 16 months? If anything, it *appears* that the Surge is working and Iraq is on the road to being able to police itself. Do I believe this? Nope. But that’s what the media is spinning. The reports of Iraqi violence are down considerably in the past 6 months. So I ask myself: why flip now? Why not flip when a new and frightening wave of violence sweeps the country? And the answer is because Obama is flipping at the behest of others: the Establishment.

My problem with Obama is that he has flipped an EXTRAORDINARY number of times. Seriously, nine flips in 2 months? Why even bother to take a position? I thought we were electing a president, not a mood ring. Maybe he needs to more seriously investigate the facts before taking a position. In any event, I have never seen a candidate flip this much, so fast. It’s astounding.

My biggest problem with Obama is the NATURE of his flips. He has flipped on critical issues that are now life and death, in my opinion. I disagree that these flips reflect “rational, real-world, pragmatic” positions. How is it rational to permit warrantless wiretapping? In what universe is it now acceptable to subvert my civil liberties? This is only rational to a person who has no concept of the importance of the Fourth Amendment or the horrible ramifications of its violation. I strongly urge you not to brush this off. You obviously have no clue where this slippery slope could lead. Here’s a hint: a fascist republic.

And Obama did NOT have to vote this way. He had promised to filibuster, and he folded like a patio chair. Can you imagine any member of the electorate, in a red OR blue state, deciding to vote against Obama because he choose to protect their civil liberties?? It’s ridiculous to think that this move reflects anything other than a favor to the Establishment.

Ditto for his threats against Pakistan. How in the world is this beneficial? Who can possibly think that we have either the (a) global standing to enter another country without permission or (b) the resources to do so? It’s simply inflammatory and dangerous, and I am quite surprised that Obama supporters have consumed so much Kool Aid that they can’t see how this man is now exhibiting signs that we all easily identified in Bush. Obama was supposed to be the candidate of “change”. What “change” does this foreign policy represent?? All voters, both GOP and Dem, are sick and tired of war. All we want now are peace and jobs. Period.

If you think that a candidate has to shred the Constitution and continue this country’s imperialist foreign policy in order to be “electable”, then you must have been very pleased with the 8 years that George Bush has given us.

[partypup]

“I’m not really an Obama supporter. I like most of these changes. These seem like rational, real-world, pragmatic positions, rather than the rhetorical idealistic positions held previously.
One example: Iraq – Do you want him to say that regardless of the conditions on the ground he should order an immediate withdrawal, based on the fact that 10-12 months ago he thought that was the proper course of action. Just to save face ? To me, adapting to what has changed in Iraq and the willingness to reconsider his position is a HUGE improvement over GWB, who usually takes a position and never lets go, regardless.
These changes demonstrate adaptibility and maturity. He’s starting to me to look more electable and presidential, rather than an idealogue.”

I never said a candidate shouldn’t be permitted to change his mind and re-assess issues as new facts come to light. Only a fool (Bush comes to mind) will stick to a position even as it turns out to be clearly wrong. And I don’t mind some of the flips, either. Take gun control. I actually have guns, myself, so I obviously welcome his new position on this issue.

But my problem with Obama is these flips came so soon after he cinched the nomination. What new facts have come to light on the ground in Iraq that would necessitate his belief that our troops may stay longer than 16 months? If anything, it *appears* that the Surge is working and Iraq is on the road to being able to police itself. Do I believe this? Nope. But that’s what the media is spinning. The reports of Iraqi violence are down considerably in the past 6 months. So I ask myself: why flip now? Why not flip when a new and frightening wave of violence sweeps the country? And the answer is because Obama is flipping at the behest of others: the Establishment.

My problem with Obama is that he has flipped an EXTRAORDINARY number of times. Seriously, nine flips in 2 months? Why even bother to take a position? I thought we were electing a president, not a mood ring. Maybe he needs to more seriously investigate the facts before taking a position. In any event, I have never seen a candidate flip this much, so fast. It’s astounding.

My biggest problem with Obama is the NATURE of his flips. He has flipped on critical issues that are now life and death, in my opinion. I disagree that these flips reflect “rational, real-world, pragmatic” positions. How is it rational to permit warrantless wiretapping? In what universe is it now acceptable to subvert my civil liberties? This is only rational to a person who has no concept of the importance of the Fourth Amendment or the horrible ramifications of its violation. I strongly urge you not to brush this off. You obviously have no clue where this slippery slope could lead. Here’s a hint: a fascist republic.

And Obama did NOT have to vote this way. He had promised to filibuster, and he folded like a patio chair. Can you imagine any member of the electorate, in a red OR blue state, deciding to vote against Obama because he choose to protect their civil liberties?? It’s ridiculous to think that this move reflects anything other than a favor to the Establishment.

Ditto for his threats against Pakistan. How in the world is this beneficial? Who can possibly think that we have either the (a) global standing to enter another country without permission or (b) the resources to do so? It’s simply inflammatory and dangerous, and I am quite surprised that Obama supporters have consumed so much Kool Aid that they can’t see how this man is now exhibiting signs that we all easily identified in Bush. Obama was supposed to be the candidate of “change”. What “change” does this foreign policy represent?? All voters, both GOP and Dem, are sick and tired of war. All we want now are peace and jobs. Period.

If you think that a candidate has to shred the Constitution and continue this country’s imperialist foreign policy in order to be “electable”, then you must have been very pleased with the 8 years that George Bush has given us.

[partypup]

“I’m not really an Obama supporter. I like most of these changes. These seem like rational, real-world, pragmatic positions, rather than the rhetorical idealistic positions held previously.
One example: Iraq – Do you want him to say that regardless of the conditions on the ground he should order an immediate withdrawal, based on the fact that 10-12 months ago he thought that was the proper course of action. Just to save face ? To me, adapting to what has changed in Iraq and the willingness to reconsider his position is a HUGE improvement over GWB, who usually takes a position and never lets go, regardless.
These changes demonstrate adaptibility and maturity. He’s starting to me to look more electable and presidential, rather than an idealogue.”

I never said a candidate shouldn’t be permitted to change his mind and re-assess issues as new facts come to light. Only a fool (Bush comes to mind) will stick to a position even as it turns out to be clearly wrong. And I don’t mind some of the flips, either. Take gun control. I actually have guns, myself, so I obviously welcome his new position on this issue.

But my problem with Obama is these flips came so soon after he cinched the nomination. What new facts have come to light on the ground in Iraq that would necessitate his belief that our troops may stay longer than 16 months? If anything, it *appears* that the Surge is working and Iraq is on the road to being able to police itself. Do I believe this? Nope. But that’s what the media is spinning. The reports of Iraqi violence are down considerably in the past 6 months. So I ask myself: why flip now? Why not flip when a new and frightening wave of violence sweeps the country? And the answer is because Obama is flipping at the behest of others: the Establishment.

My problem with Obama is that he has flipped an EXTRAORDINARY number of times. Seriously, nine flips in 2 months? Why even bother to take a position? I thought we were electing a president, not a mood ring. Maybe he needs to more seriously investigate the facts before taking a position. In any event, I have never seen a candidate flip this much, so fast. It’s astounding.

My biggest problem with Obama is the NATURE of his flips. He has flipped on critical issues that are now life and death, in my opinion. I disagree that these flips reflect “rational, real-world, pragmatic” positions. How is it rational to permit warrantless wiretapping? In what universe is it now acceptable to subvert my civil liberties? This is only rational to a person who has no concept of the importance of the Fourth Amendment or the horrible ramifications of its violation. I strongly urge you not to brush this off. You obviously have no clue where this slippery slope could lead. Here’s a hint: a fascist republic.

And Obama did NOT have to vote this way. He had promised to filibuster, and he folded like a patio chair. Can you imagine any member of the electorate, in a red OR blue state, deciding to vote against Obama because he choose to protect their civil liberties?? It’s ridiculous to think that this move reflects anything other than a favor to the Establishment.

Ditto for his threats against Pakistan. How in the world is this beneficial? Who can possibly think that we have either the (a) global standing to enter another country without permission or (b) the resources to do so? It’s simply inflammatory and dangerous, and I am quite surprised that Obama supporters have consumed so much Kool Aid that they can’t see how this man is now exhibiting signs that we all easily identified in Bush. Obama was supposed to be the candidate of “change”. What “change” does this foreign policy represent?? All voters, both GOP and Dem, are sick and tired of war. All we want now are peace and jobs. Period.

If you think that a candidate has to shred the Constitution and continue this country’s imperialist foreign policy in order to be “electable”, then you must have been very pleased with the 8 years that George Bush has given us.

[dumbrenter]

When a politician moves with the times and decides to change his ways/thoughts, and acts according to constraints set by forces outside his control, you accuse him of being a flip-flopper.

When a politician stands to his position and defends it come what may, you accuse him of being an idealist, out of touch, hard-headed or Bush (depending on your party affiliation).

What will ever satisfy you people? You would have went after some of the greatest men who ever lived: Were you living in Jefferson’s time, he would have been the flip-flopper for Louisiana purchase. You would have accused Lincoln for being a flip-flopper OR an idealist depending on which period of his time you decided to judge him.
Same goes for Franklin, Madison, FDR and many others.

Both Obama and McCain have demonstrated that they are street-smart and have enough common sense to solicit support from constituencies that are generally known to oppose them.

[dumbrenter]

When a politician moves with the times and decides to change his ways/thoughts, and acts according to constraints set by forces outside his control, you accuse him of being a flip-flopper.

When a politician stands to his position and defends it come what may, you accuse him of being an idealist, out of touch, hard-headed or Bush (depending on your party affiliation).

What will ever satisfy you people? You would have went after some of the greatest men who ever lived: Were you living in Jefferson’s time, he would have been the flip-flopper for Louisiana purchase. You would have accused Lincoln for being a flip-flopper OR an idealist depending on which period of his time you decided to judge him.
Same goes for Franklin, Madison, FDR and many others.

Both Obama and McCain have demonstrated that they are street-smart and have enough common sense to solicit support from constituencies that are generally known to oppose them.

[dumbrenter]

When a politician moves with the times and decides to change his ways/thoughts, and acts according to constraints set by forces outside his control, you accuse him of being a flip-flopper.

When a politician stands to his position and defends it come what may, you accuse him of being an idealist, out of touch, hard-headed or Bush (depending on your party affiliation).

What will ever satisfy you people? You would have went after some of the greatest men who ever lived: Were you living in Jefferson’s time, he would have been the flip-flopper for Louisiana purchase. You would have accused Lincoln for being a flip-flopper OR an idealist depending on which period of his time you decided to judge him.
Same goes for Franklin, Madison, FDR and many others.

Both Obama and McCain have demonstrated that they are street-smart and have enough common sense to solicit support from constituencies that are generally known to oppose them.

[dumbrenter]

When a politician moves with the times and decides to change his ways/thoughts, and acts according to constraints set by forces outside his control, you accuse him of being a flip-flopper.

When a politician stands to his position and defends it come what may, you accuse him of being an idealist, out of touch, hard-headed or Bush (depending on your party affiliation).

What will ever satisfy you people? You would have went after some of the greatest men who ever lived: Were you living in Jefferson’s time, he would have been the flip-flopper for Louisiana purchase. You would have accused Lincoln for being a flip-flopper OR an idealist depending on which period of his time you decided to judge him.
Same goes for Franklin, Madison, FDR and many others.

Both Obama and McCain have demonstrated that they are street-smart and have enough common sense to solicit support from constituencies that are generally known to oppose them.

[dumbrenter]

When a politician moves with the times and decides to change his ways/thoughts, and acts according to constraints set by forces outside his control, you accuse him of being a flip-flopper.

When a politician stands to his position and defends it come what may, you accuse him of being an idealist, out of touch, hard-headed or Bush (depending on your party affiliation).

What will ever satisfy you people? You would have went after some of the greatest men who ever lived: Were you living in Jefferson’s time, he would have been the flip-flopper for Louisiana purchase. You would have accused Lincoln for being a flip-flopper OR an idealist depending on which period of his time you decided to judge him.
Same goes for Franklin, Madison, FDR and many others.

Both Obama and McCain have demonstrated that they are street-smart and have enough common sense to solicit support from constituencies that are generally known to oppose them.

[rnen]

Well said Partypup.

I think more than a few of us have grown tired of Marion’s “I’m a black woman victim therefore I am the spokes person for all blacks” attitude.

Am I the only one who is tired of reading Marion’s self-rightious post’s?

Get over yourself Marion.

[rnen]

Well said Partypup.

I think more than a few of us have grown tired of Marion’s “I’m a black woman victim therefore I am the spokes person for all blacks” attitude.

Am I the only one who is tired of reading Marion’s self-rightious post’s?

Get over yourself Marion.

[rnen]

Well said Partypup.

I think more than a few of us have grown tired of Marion’s “I’m a black woman victim therefore I am the spokes person for all blacks” attitude.

Am I the only one who is tired of reading Marion’s self-rightious post’s?

Get over yourself Marion.

[rnen]

Well said Partypup.

I think more than a few of us have grown tired of Marion’s “I’m a black woman victim therefore I am the spokes person for all blacks” attitude.

Am I the only one who is tired of reading Marion’s self-rightious post’s?

Get over yourself Marion.

[Author]

Posts