Senator Barack Obama on The Daily Show
By SilentPatriot Wednesday Aug 22, 2007 7:15pm
lllinois Senator and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama sat down with Jon last night for his second "Daily Show" interview (first is here) to discuss the 2008 election narrative and his vision for America.
Download | play 
Download | play (10 min 14MB file)
Here's John Edwards new speech....
Login or Register to post comments.
baby jesus is first.
Gawd is second...
(hey wait a minute?)
No-bama. Ain't going to happen.
Hillary and Edwards are already planning Edward's new role after Hillary wins the nomination and if she wins the White House. Will Edwards be her veep or will he "settle" for lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court where he could work to help undo the damage done by Bush's reich wing appointees.
And Obama? We'll he and Hillary aren't speaking so I guess he'll be back to the senate for him.
Edwards will be first on race day!
A.Citizen @ 4:
Whoops! I mean election day.....
A.Citizen @ 4:
One can only hope.
Obama is smarter than the whole GOP bench combined. (But I guess that's equally true for Hillary, Edwards, Kucinich, etc.)
I really do hope that Obama wins the nomination.
Ozymandias @ 7:
kucinich 08 now thiers a vote against corporations!
sigh, I've got too admit, I have a man crush on Obama. That's o.k isn't it?
crazy train @ 10:
nothing wrong with that
Ozymandias @ 7:
add Howdy Doody to that list!
I have an Obama sticker on the back of my van, but I fear Hillary's got it locked up. I will struggle to keep (audacious) hope alive.
Obama did really well and it was a pleasure to see Stewart truly using his intellect. I also think that H.Clinton will not let Obama get in her way. I'm not sure that he would actually want to win the next Presidency and have to live with cleaning up after GWB
It may not be in 08 but Obama is going to be a great President someday
big darkness will come soon
What are ye tryin' to say Tyree?
theres big trouble in china!
I've decided to volunteer for Senator Obama's campaign. Or maybe I should volunteer for Hillary's campaign and sabotage it.
If Jenna Bush is pregnant I say congratulations!!!
If George W. Bush touts family values in support of '08 Republicans especially, in attacking out of wedlock pregnancy/ Planned Parenthood, I say STFU.
tyree @ 11:
lol
crazy train @ 10:
Yes it is. I have a girl crush on Rachel Maddow.
Barack Obama supports war of aggression against a sovereign nation, which is an international war crime.
It's what the Nazis were hung for.
He's also too cowardly to call for an independent investigation into the attacks on the day which shall remain unmentioned, which is the single most important issue facing America today.
Regardless of how today's bought and paid for media deliver the narrative, future historians will accurately report on our generations collective complacency in addressing the truth about the worst attack we've ever experienced on our soil.
And it will accurately be noted Obama's no legal scholar, he's no Christian, he's a Goddamn fraud.
We'd be better off with neo-Fascist Mitt Romney running our country, because he'd accelarate America's self-destruction, and we might see REAL change and rebirth within our children's lifetime.
Ali @ 22:
Heck, I have a crush on Rachel too. I'm so confused !
Screw the narratives. I don't need a bedtime story anymore. At least not until a true storyteller comes along (Feingold).
In the meantime give me Edwards.
Or Obama, if need be. Anything to derail what the smoke-filled backrooms have already decided. (Just like the oil-filled backrooms decided when they coronated W and President Cheney.)
crazy train @ 24:
still nothing wrong with that
Karl Bauer @ 23:
Back up your first claim with evidence.
Yeah, I watched this episode last night. Jon Stewart interviewed him for two segments, then ended the show by removing Obama's member from his mouth and going home.
I love Jon Stewart, but man, was he really infatuated with Obama or what?
tyree @ 26:
tyree 4 prez !!!
crazy train @ 29:
yaaaaaa!
crazy train @ 10:
So I take it Bush wouldn't get any from you.
This primary election is going to be a real bitch!! Damn. Damn. Damn
In prior primaries I have had to vote for either the one Democrat who I felt really stood out or the lesser of a shit load of evils.
This year I actually have to think about it. And. I’m thinking about it a lot ... an awful lot.
There are so many exciting Democrats in the 2008 incubation tray that I’m still undecided. I have a feeling that I will be lucky if I can narrow my choices down to only two or three before I actually have to close the curtain and pull the lever.
Thank you GWB and GOP (goofy ole' pedophiles) for putting my party back on the right tracks. Now we just have to put the Blue dogs to sleep.
Jesse @ 28:
Removing Obama's member ? In case you aren't aware, Jon is not a republican.
I don't see the attraction to Obama...as a man or as a candidate.
ohhhhhhhhhh that was so NOT boring.
i like the way his voice resonates....it's a positive wave length.
will he be heard? jon stewert is a great conductor of electricity.
not his own, but the guests..... that is if his guests have got "it".
surplus cheese binds us all
abarts @ 34:
Me either!
tyree @ 36:
I heart tyree.
@27 Obama: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains [in Pakistan] who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
The Times of London characterized Obama's comments as "a threat to invade" Pakistan, a sovereign nation last time I looked. That would confirm @23's claims pretty nicely, I'd say.
Imagine if Hugo Chavez declared he would send Venezuelan troops into Florida to apprehend the man responsible for blowing up a Venezuelan airliner but protected by the American "mullahs". Wouldn't we consider that an act of war against a sovereign nation?
Obama is another establishment tool that no truly progressive person could possibly support.
Mr Pelicano @ 39:
Yeah, but how are you going to get through the fact that he's so gosh darned, cuddly, manly cute?
#27 crazy train:
Don't pay attention much, huh?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,45...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,0,5330...
evening hadenuf
Sound great but says little. All of his plans are future tense, gonna do this, gotta do that.
Dennis Kucinich has the bills on the table ready to go and can't get the DLCer's on board.
Dennis is the REAL Man. Wasn't fooled by Bush, not then, not now.
And all you Edwards fans out there: wasn't your man caught conspiring with Hillary to exclude all the so-called "less serious" candidates from future Democratic debates? How "democratic" of him. This is the same Edwards who is troubled by gay marriage and refuses to advocate the immediate and complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
Again, I'm too often amazed at how much supposed progressives seem willing to compromise in order to embrace candidates who, when all is said and done, reject fundamental progressive political positions. Imagine Edwards saying something like "I'm troubled by interracial marriage" or "I'm troubled by integrated schools".
C'mon people! We should demand better than these clowns. Despite his complete betrayal of the progressive cause in the past, Kucinich remains the only candidate who at least articulates consistent progressive positions.
hadenuf @ 40:
Easy. He's no Antonio Banderas.
Mr Pelicano @ 45:
I haven't seen him lately. How's he holding up?
Hi tyree.
Karl Bauer @ 41:
Obama was quoted saying "at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked." He stated that he was not willing to rule out military action "as a last resort".
You are equating him to the Nazi leadership, who used military action as a first resort in support of conquest and genocide? If you can't see the difference here, may I suggest therapy?
hadenuf @ 46:
I'm glad you asked: http://www.avclub.com/content/files/images/antonio_banderas.jpg
kucinich 08 hes not owned!
kucinich 08 hes not owned!
agreed, tyree
Mr Pelicano @ 44:
Troubled by gay marriage is a far cry from wanting to ban it. You would rather he simply lied about his feelings? The "immediate and complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq" is a pipedream. It is simply not possible ... that is, not physically possible. Safe withdrawal takes months. Finally, excluding the less serious candidates has to happen sometime.
Eventually, the debates have to focus on the views of the candidates who have a realistic chance. The more the fringe candidates speak in debates, the less time the public has to hear the candidates who might actually win and the less informed we all are about our real options. If you enter the race for Democratic candidate and poll at 0%, should you be allowed in the debates as well?
tyree @ 50:
Maybe not, but he's largely irrelevant.
Bob Roberts,
War of aggression against a sovereign nation is an international war crime.
Kennedy, by contrast, categorically stated the U.S. would never wage war of aggression under his watch.
It's why he wouldn't support the CIA's Bay of Pigs Invasion, and it's probably a big part of why he died in Dallas.
Obama's no JFK, Obama's no MLK. Obama's a chicken$#!+ fraud.
"You end up having to vote on stuff that has no relavance." B Obama.
Or you can just vote for what's right and not have to apologize later.
"It's the same way we got into Iraq. No one was willing to ask tough questions." B Obama.
Nobody? Didn't you hear the over 150 speeches that Kucinich gave to not start the war and to not fund the war and to not fund the war again...and again?
Please support Dennis, he is a fighter and not a sell out and may be the best progressive chance since Adlai Stephenson or Upton Sinclair.
...or someone like that anyway...I dunno. Check him out...you'll be glad you did.
Bob Roberts @ 53:
says you!
Explainer @ 43:
yes this is true, the FUTURE GAME is just a game.
hang your hopes in the present.
Dennis is the REAL Man.
the time to stop holding your nose and voteing is over , all you get is more nose holding!
abarts @ 34:
And we should care?
Common Sense......I like it!
Obama '08
Barack Obama supports war of aggression against a sovereign nation, which is an international war crime.
It’s what the Nazis were hung for.
He’s also too cowardly to call for an independent investigation into the attacks on the day which shall remain unmentioned, which is the single most important issue facing America today. ..
--
He's also against impeachment, not for any strategic reason, but because impeachment should be "reserved for 'grave' breaches of the president's authority."
Cantor de Mambo @ 59:
what is that supposed to be? you don't care for my opinion, fine. but the being a total asshat is uncalled for.
crazy train @ 33:
Neither am I. I don't see why anyone would still think he's the "change" candidate, though, and that talking point is almost as offensive as Rudy being called America's mayor.
Bob Roberts @ 52:
No, "troubled by gay marriage" means: "My advisors told me to be non-committal on this issue so as to not alienate a key segment of the electorate." So, actually, I would rather that he told us how he really feels and why instead of resort to political posturing.
So, like, who decides which candidates might actually win? The mainstream media, right, which quickly annoints the front-runners of both party horse-races and determines which are "credible" and "viable". In a real democracy, real progressives would advocate that we hear from all sides.
But I'll be fair here, our two party plutocracy is no democracy, it is a contest between two corporatist entities to divvy up the spoils of being in power. The only principled progressive position, IMHO, is the Bartleby the Scrivener position: "I'd prefer not."
At first I wondered about Barack. Is he experienced enough? When I heard his speech announcing his candidacy, I was floored. His inspirational talk reminded me of JFK. His midwestern values are honest. His heart and head are in the right place and I believe he will do a fine job putting this country back together.
+
OBAMA VOTED AGAINST GOING INTO TO IRAQ!!!
THAT'S A FACT JACK!!!
tyree @ 50:
Thanks. Kucinich is the REAL change candidate.
I want to know if Jon Stewart will have Kucinich on, and if he'll press HIM on any issues. He could, because Dennis actually takes strong stances, while Obama hems and haws and everyone swoons over him for it.
Col. Lingus @ 65:
Yeah, he voted against it, then continued to vote to fund it. And the funding is the problem. No funds = no war. Obama voted FOR war, continuously.
* THAT'S * a fact, Jack!
Col. Lingus @ 65:
where did he vote at he was in no position of government to vote against going into iraq? hes for takeing all the troops out of iraq and inserting them into afganistan , then he said hed intrude into packistan if he had too, for alkida or osamma ,big talk
Kucincih is also the only candidate to be currnetly advocating not only bills wirtten to rpovide universal health care, but also bills to start articles of impeachment against this administration fof th ecrimes you and I know htey committed.
We don't nee d apreisdent who will vote for matters of no nrelevance.
We need a president every second of his four years in office to make the right decision and chart the right course every time.
It may be that Bush and company aren't guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors - but without an impeachment, we'll simply never know.
[...] Clark Senator Barack Obama on The Daily Show » This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Thursday, August 23, 2007 [...]
We have an array of outstanding candidates running for President in 2008, but only one of them will be chosen for the job.
American people are interested in change for this country and I just think that Senator Obama clearly represents that in his message.
well give me a forinstence ,
it seems to me all we have to pick from are warmongers , except for kucinich or gravel
I'd be relieved to vote for someone like Mr. Obama. But I'd be truly happy to vote for Dennis Kucinich.
Karl Bauer @ 41:
What specifically should I be paying attention to ? Any particular sentence that isn't backed by the authors opinion ?
So, was Jon Stewart's guest tonight, part of the pro-Iraq War media blitz???
Jesse @ 63:
So who is your change candidate ? For the record, mine is Dennis the menace.
Obama's one of the 3 most charismatic people I've seen in my lifetime
I stand corrected on the Iraq vote. Fact is, Obama came out publicly against the war in Iraq long before the vote.
The enemy is bin Laden and the base. Anyone who wants to give them a pass because war is immoral, does not understand Darwin.
yes the war on terriorism will be won the minute osammas hung , alkada will be finnished the day the last ones shot , then the next ones will be the sons of alkada then the sons of the sons of alkada kind of like sequils in movies!
I have to say, Obama really inspires some confidence I haven't had in a politician in a long long time. He seems... well remarkably sincere. I don't feel pandered to or like he's just trying to ego-stroke people.
Maybe I'm wrong of course - its entirely possible; but I am definitely finding him impressive as a candidate.
I have to say though, I honestly find the Democratic field pretty impressive overall. Admittedly folks like Kucinich and Edwards are unlikely to get enough of a chance - but still; there are few who I consider less-than-good; and only one (Hillary) who has any real chance.
And Hillary is *still* ten-times better than anyone on the GOP side in my mind.
So yah, I'm feeling pretty damn good about '08.
crazy train @ 77:
I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich.
tyree @ 80:
Heh, if only it were true.
I swear, if I thought the threat of terrorism could somehow be eliminated by killing bin Laden, I'd be out there hunting him myself.
Of course we're all smart enough to realize that bin Laden, much like Zarqawi, is nothing more than a figurehead really. For every head you cut off - the hydra grows two more.
The only solution of course, is to seal the necks with flame - but that fire has to be the spread of ideal and thought, not bombs and guns as so many would believe.
JJohnson @ 83:
I think that's why he put :"then the next ones will be the sons of alkada then the sons of the sons of alkada kind of like sequils in movies!"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGuzIgUj6_w
Wow! Obama is not an idiot! That's so unlike our current president (who was never really elected in the first place).
that man has the *potential* to go down in history in the same category as MLK. Time will tell if he is authentic (appears to be) and whether or sick media will allow it (not likely)
I am not sure he can win the nomination, but one thing is for sure..He is certainly more comfortable in his own skin than any of the other candidates.
I was looking through a very interesting series of polls at Rasmussen Reports. The pollsters first ask dems and repukes how they'll vote for out of the nominees for their respective party. Rudy is ahead on the repuke side,and the dem side had Hillary, Barack, Edwards in that order. So Hillary may be likely to win the nomination, if you believe this poll is predictive at all. Next, they pooled the dems and repukes together and asked them in each of the possible repuke-dem match ups who would get their vote. So let's say there are 5 repukes and 5 dems, then they asked them about 25 different match ups. Interestingly, Hillary and Barack lost many of their match ups with repukes BUT Edwards won EVERY SINGLE ONE. Hillary lost the match up against Rudy, while Barack and Edwards beat Rudy out. Edwards win by a larger margin here. This adds to my fear that Hillary will win the nomination but lose the race. I think Edwards with Barack as VP is the dems best chance of taking back the White House.
Seth @ 88:
Very insightful, man. Quite useful. what I think this means is that Hillary is marketed, in that her popularity is really flatlined as it's been from the beginning. But she's familiar NOT LIKED AT ALL just familiar thanks to marketing that began l8 months ago touting her as "The Phenomenon" while we blinked in puzzlement. Murdock & Rove at your cervix.
I've said from the beginning, there's nothing the repukes would like more than Hillary as the dem nominee and they've been pushing it on us for quite some time now.
But we honestly like Edwards. Which is why he won all the other matchups.
I'm afraid you're correct, sir.
Wondering if the truth of Hillary's fundamental bad taste in our mouth is what Rove is referring to when he spoke of her "fatal flaw" about 10 days ago.
tyree @ 73:
Gravel is always last in line with the least time to speak, probably because he lies the least of all of them...the most plainspeaking man of the bunch..one of the true old school democrats.
Kucinich is clear as a bell in his thinking, would completely trust his instincts. I'm afraid all those meateaters would eat him for breakfast.
Ohno, the people who are really exited about Obama don't know why, but it's something about the way he looks and the way he uses his voice and his handsomeness and the way he is marketed and thinks he's got "it" etc.
In other words, they are still completely blinded by the superficial and they are pudding in the hands of any half-decent marketing and PR effort.
The way to fix America isn't by voting in someone who is only superficially different. The way a person uses his voice might increase his chances in the end, but it does not guarantee he's a good president. He could still be the biggest psycho in the world. Those people know how to appear charming and bright.
Hillary and Obama will both be in great danger of loosing to a Republican. Dont' tell me the grassroot Democrats will be fooled again to run their weakest candidates as Presidential Candidate. How many times will this happen?
Gore, America and the world needs you!
crazy train @ 10:
Sure is. It means you respect him too. He does have great appeal. I loved his "back-handed compliment"; peels of laughter here too. He's my guy too, but I'm not sure I have a crush on him. (I find smart guys sexy, so you can imagine how ill Bush makes me.) I'll bet he doesn't wear Aqua Velva either. (Who would??)
I love this guy, but I'm afraid to say he's just not catching fire like I was hoping. Stewart was leaving him all the room he wanted, but he came across as a nice guy academic who used words like "deconstruct". He needs a little more fire, and just a touch more anger. If he could connect better with a crowd of average people, whew.
I can't wait until Sunday when Sen. Obama speaks in Lexington. It'll be my first presidential campaign rally ever. :-)
This was not the usual fireball Jon Stewart and he seemed to be cowed by Obama. In turn, Obama didn't raise his profile or break new ground. That Granada joke bombed. We already invaded Granada, remember?
Obama is a good man who would be a terrific president.
If the critics in C&L of Obama & Hillary would admit they
are sexist pigs & racists to the core then at least honesty
would be part of the equation.
Mike @ 98:
would you lick thier ass ? hey whats not to lick
Being from the south and surrounded by closet racists, some of these comments against Obama sound more racist than just a casual observation or opinion. Some comments are very hostile, something I haven't seen in other blogs by progressives against a Democratic candidate. Those who say he is promoting aggression against Pakistan and Iran should go back and read what he actually said. I think he is the only candidate who would surround himself with the best advisors, regardless of party affiliation, to provide the best government for the people, not for one party.
Obama has an excellent command of the English language. However, talking about change for change's sake without any real platform isn't meaningful. I am ecstatic that he is getting the youth engaged, but we baby-boomers aren't ready to be tossed out to pasture. We lived through turbulent times in the 60's and 70's and saw what happens when people work together. We also had the benefit of learning about the depression and World War II through our parents' memories. We need to learn from the past to help find our way in the future. We 60's people know what "rock" is and aren't disconnected. We even have learned to blog. We want more than slogans,we want plans. We don't want to make our children " be us" , but we do want to give our children the opportunities that we had. We really believed that there was an American dream and really wanted to make this dream true for all. This is why Edwards has my vote now.
Hillary can win. This isn't a wishful statement, but an obvious one.
Yes, she has built in negatives...but those are changing as time (a short period of time) goes by. She has assumed built in negatives, and we know what they are already. You can fix that.
As far as "Obama" being great, etc...
http://wonkette.com/politics/ask-a-lobbyist-dept%27/i-really-get-a-dirty...
He's positioning, triangulating, postering, just like EVERY other candidate. It disturbs me that he's being idolized for his appearance, and skin color. This guy is all flash, and no substance (right NOW), that will change with time.
Hillary will win the nomination, and if we all want at least a turn in the right direction, we'll stop being so negative about who we don't support.
what is wrong with you folks? havent you been watching what these politicians have been saying on tv ? read what they have said ? how about watching them saying it on tv, obamma said hed withdraw american troops from iraq, he said hed insert all of them into afganistan , he said when asked about packistan if he felt he must hed cross into packistan to go after alkida or osamma bin ladden , and that irans a threat, sounds like a war monger to me, hillery takes money from airpac and corporations and then says its ok because just because you accept corporation money doesnt mean your beholding to them, she uses about the same thoughts of obamma about increasing the war in afganistan and says irans a possible threat ,sounds like a corporate war monger to me, kucinich is against war and corporations and lobbiests wheres the logic? you want more war ? more graft ? vote obamma or hillery,
all the Obama fans - please tell the rest of us what firm policy stands he has taken.
All I hear is a bunch of theoretical/kinda/sorta "in the future maybe this maybe that" crap - Hillary and Obama sound like naked ambition with a hint of policy.
Kucinich has the clearest policy positions.
Edwards at least has taken some stands that Hillary and Obama haven't.
So continue with the fluffy "Ohhhh he's cute,..." but if don't vote for packaging over substance then WTF???
OBAMA/KUCINICH 08
I don't think any Dem candidate is perfect; DK is good, but I don't like short people.
Imagine what an Obama presidency would say to the world. After we get rid of the preppy, spoiled, pasty little twit who likes to play dress up, we go with a smart, good-hearted, multi-racial uniter-type. I think we'd get a lot of bang for our buck when it comes to repairing the U.S. reputation. I also think he'd be good at winning the world over on his merits once he gets out there.
I do fear that the backward-ass, racist crackers would come out of the woodwork to vote against him, though.
E @ 106:
not a thing wrong with short people ,now im six ft four so im not comeing from predigess on people not being giants, dureing ww 2 short people were in much demand working in tight places where large folks couldnt go, even the navy had midgets in thier ranks , the thing is heighth doesnt mean your smarter or less smarter then anyone else, it just means they can get things done that others cant!
Mr Pelicano @ 44:
I just knew this was going to end up being a plug for Kucinich. You guys are so predictable ...
Sailor Art Thomas Jr. @ 108:
and your preference is????????its your nickel!
Sailor Art Thomas Jr. @ 108:
Actually, I will not vote for Kucinich or for any other Democratic Party candidate. My point is simply that Kucinich is the only candidate from that party who articulates a consistently progressive position.
My own position is that the sooner Americans stop participating in federal elections altogether the better off we will all be. The current "two-party system" is a sham and both parties are so totally compromised by their dependence on corporate money - including the handsome, articulate, oh-so-charismatic Obama, that the only way to get rid of them is to stop playing their game. The only thing that voting does is provide window-dressing for this potemkin "democracy".
Blaming racism for lack of faith in Obamas run for presidency is right. But it's not my personal racism, only pragmatic thinking.
After browsing through American internet forums, there seems to be A LOT of racism still in America. The rampant xenophobia against Mexicans etc shows that although liberals have been ready for a black president for years, a lot of other people will be skeptical and easily manipulated on this issue. The 2008 election might be the most important election in several decades, and running a black man and woman as the only opponents to tyrannical Fascists might not be the safest bet? Can we all agree on that?
Yes, America needs something new, and a black man would be new, as would a woman. But they are only "new" on the outside. These superficial traits means nothing. I would rather suggest that people who are blinded by Obama simply because he is charming and looks like a minority are racists. They look at him and think that a superficial trait like skin color also brings with it other change, while in reality, there is no connection.
The first ethnic minority and/or woman President of the US will be something to celebrate, and the time will come soon enough, but first you need to save your Democracy. On thing at the time.
There WILL be election fraud again. Hackable / unreliable Electronic voting machines WILL be used in many places. There WILL be whatever other dirty tricks the Republicans always pull off. The election will not be a landslide for Democrats since they too have failed at doing the bidding of the people. Again things are going the way of the new Republican Fascism.
It's a sad reality that minorities and women still have some handicap, but it's something one needs to deal with. Be a bit pragmatic, please.
I see a lot of blissful Dems already celebrating victory in 2008, but to me it seems that they are still playing Checkers, and the Republicans are still playing Chess.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
He fears Ron Paul as well.
Senator Obama does not have a plan to bring home all the troops from Iraq. He has also made reference to "all options are on the table with Iran" and possible attacking Pakistan. Obama sounds like he will be just another president that supports US involvement in wars. Other than voting to invade Iraq, I see little difference between Hillary and Barack when it comes to perpetual war. Edwards would also keep our military in Iraq. Only Governor Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis Kucinich would bring home all the troops. So if you really want to end this Iraqi occupation, then you would support either Richardson or Kucinich for president in 2008.
jr @ 78:
Unfortunately, the next president will need more than charisma to begin fixing the mess that will be left behind by this current administration.
You'd think that people living in the most spammed down society in the world commercially would spot "designed charisma" when they see it. Unfortunately not all people do.
The "focus group" thinking and the Machiavellian marketing shills are the real morally destructive factors of western society. They have turned liberalism into a perversion of itself, and they cannot possibly be on the side of the people they professionally try to deceive.
Charisma can be a sign of intelligence or a sociopath or a careful marketing effort. This kind of naive thinking is what made people vote for Bush in the first place.
I've read that higher percentages of Democrats are happy with their current crop of candidates than the Republicans are with theirs.
@114 Celsius nails it on the head. We're talking "product marketing 101" here, folks. The sort of thing you learn in B-School. These campaigns are focus-group testing and fine-tuning of "the product" which will be trotted out next November for your pleasure, in yet another one of those quadrennial "Coke vs. Pepsi" taste-offs.
At the end of the day you're still stuck with sickening shit that rots your teeth and your brain.
Getting enthusiastic about any of these ass hats / clowns is like getting enthusiastic over "Cherry Coke" or "Diet Pepsi".
Just say an emphatic "No!" to the whole charade.
[Deleted. Off topic flamebaiting]
The Daily Howler had a great dissection yesterday of the distortion of Michelle Obama's comments.
Mr Pelicano @ 109:
So you plan to do what exactly? Stay home on voting day? Throw your vote away in a meaningless protest? Hold your breath?
This democracy is the only game in town. By announcing that you are not playing, you simply render your views irrelevant. It seems to me that your position is that if you cannot have massive changes to American society, economics and politics overnight, then you will not vote to make incremental improvements.
Col. Lingus @ 65:
When and where exactly did he do that?
jr @ 78:
You can't have seen many people at all, then. Obama doesn't have an iota of charisma.
Sinto @ 85:
What does "Opie Gets Laid" have to do with Obama?
"so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it’s not true, people know it’s not true,
all the insiders understand that we’re just game-playing and in the meantime you’ve got these hugely serious problems which are true…"
Vierotchka @ 120:
guess this guys embarassed cause like most obamma supporters he dont know jack shit!
Obama and Bill Richardson, otherwise I'm not interested.
I'm not going to vote Republican (under any circumstance) but I will be
disappointed if Hillary is the nominee.
Login or Register to post comments.