Media Overexposes 'Obama Is Overexposed' Complaint

To push health care reform, President Obama will appear on five Sunday talk shows (on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Univision) and on Letterman Monday; this, after last week's speech to Congress and his 60 Minutes and CNBC appearances. And, as they did in March and in May and in July, the media are in fretting that, lord love a duck, Barack Obama is "overexposed." If he keeps this up, he's going to block our view of all the tea-party folk screaming "You lie!" in their "I'm With Joe Wilson" T-shirts.

"We've never had a president with this all-consuming need to be on television 24/7," raged Rush Limbaugh. "This is like Castro!" A Kansas City Star writer was more concerned about Obama's hold on the nation's bubblegum grannies, asking, "Will Barack Obama be the next Ricky Martin?"

Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski concurred. "I'm worrying he's making a mistake," she said, while her guest, The New York Times's Mark Leibovich, proffered that maybe Obama is "showing off" and, citing the Univision appearance, asked, "How do you say 'overexposure' in Spanish?"

Later in the same show, the refreshing Gail Collins zeroed in on her colleagues' own overexposure. Sure, the Times columnist said, Obama seems ubiquitous to us in the media because "we watch every one" of his appearances, but "the average American" might catch only one out of those half dozen upcoming shows, and then maybe only a few clips.

Which reminds me of the ad world's "Rule of Seven." Consumers, according to this rough formula, are more likely to buy a product after they've been exposed to an ad at least seven times.

The rule is too pat, but the idea is sound: be it for POTUS or Palmolive, a message is unlikely to even register unless it's repeated ad nauseum.

How else did the town-howlers "bend the curve" on the health care debate? And how did those ads for the (un-free) FreeCreditReport.com break through? For that matter, how did "Morning Joe--Brewed by Starbucks" win that very lucrative contract unless it had promised to shamelessly "overexpose" the sponsor?

We can argue over whether Obama is doing too much TV and not enough social media, or whether it's dumb to skip Fox News this weekend. And we can, and should, argue about what he actually says on these shows. But the handwringing over the sheer frequency of his media appearances is worse than disingenuous.

For the political right and the corporate media--especially those three- or four-hour-a-day radio and cable TV hosts--whining that Obama hits the screens too much, or is in general "doing too much," is their way of telling him to be more like a Republican president than a Democratic one: To do nothing on health care, economic justice, student loans, or whatever the issue may be. Oh, they tell the president, make the occasional speech that we can hype as do-or-die, but then obey the status quo lobby's instructions: Shut up and don't annoy the scaaarrry Republicans. (Hey, Max Baucus--BOO!)

But wasn't it just last week that Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for underexposing himself during that crucial month of August when, as Frank Rich wrote, the crazies were "poisoning the national discourse while the president bided his time"? And in fairness, some talking heads aren't buying the "overexposed" canard. "We live in 24-hour news cycles now," former McCain media consultant Mark McKinnon told ABC, "and if the president isn't filling the vacuum, his opponents will be."

Too much of the MSM, however, plays dumb, as if they've never heard of such a McLuhanesque notion. Similarly, they act as if this were the first time they'd ever warned Obama about the danger of being seen in public too often--when in fact they were tooting the same horn not only every other month since Inaugural Day but throughout the final months of the 2008 campaign. Remember how Obama's Berlin speech was deemed overattended? How McCain tried to equate Obama with Paris Hilton as overpopular?

Of course the media want to forget that: Every time they warned of the calamities that would befall Obama for the sin of media oversaturation, he survived quite nicely.

The worst of the tsk-tskers are simply trying to shame the guy. Like, only a loser desperate for attention shows up at every party he's invited himself to, and talks and talks and talks.

Could it be that the sight of this attractive, adroit, reasonable, and unflappable black man hurts GOP peepers? It's probably a lot like seeing the girl who beat you out of prom queen in homeroom every day. He's a constant reminder of their own political and ideological collapse, and it's just too much that he goes about his job with far more worldwide acceptance than poor old George W. Bush.

Comments (125)

1. Now the Nation writers are becoming Obama apologists. I never thought I'd see the day when the Nation became just another rag in the pocket of a political party.

   What's next threads seeking donations for the DNC?

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 5:36pm

2. And then there is this new polling that shows Obama as the new face of the US to Islam is a failure

   <Throughout the Bush presidency, opinion polling from the Pew Research Center trumpeted America's "abysmal" approval ratings across the globe. The problem, pollsters suggested with numbing regularity, was that a "cowboy president" had inflamed the Muslim world--and America's European allies--The remedy, of course, was a new administration with a fresh approach: a president committed to multilateralism, smart diplomacy, and American soft powerwith his "unilateral" war on terrorism.

   This hagiographic storyline, however, is evaporating like a morning mist. A newer Pew survey suggests that most Islamic countries distrust the United States under the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under President George W. Bush. Yes, majorities of the Muslim populations interviewed still believe that America plays a mostly destructive role in the world. Most view the United States as "an enemy" and "a military threat" to their own country. Most disapprove of the American-led effort to combat terrorism. Large numbers, in fact, voice strong support for terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Western Europeans, though expressing positive personal views of Obama, show little enthusiasm for key U.S. foreign policy objectives. In other words, anti-Americanism is alive and well in the age of Obama.edy, of course, was a new administration with a fresh approach: a president committed to multilateralism, smart diplomacy, and American soft power.

   http://tinyurl.com/l2r8s9

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 6:00pm

3. The point that Leslie is trying to make is, a) mainstream media complains that the president is overexposed by overexposing that point (see: title), and b) he is doing it to try to wrestle conrtol of the healthcare "debate" away from those who oppose healthcare reform. What does being "an Obama apologist" and the Muslim world's approval rating of the U.S. have anything to do with this blog post?

   Posted by NterthaW at 09/19/2009 @ 6:23pm

4. I think some of this "overexposure" business has come about because of a couple recent presidents & their penchant for clearing brush, building fences & saddling horses. This activity was promoted by handlers & media as "regular guy" stuff. Regular guys are expected to do hobby & honeydo things 95% of the time, leaving them the remaining 5% to promote wars & insure maximization of corporate profit. Not much need for public instruction there. Regular guys save their mental energy for telling jokes & warning about internal & external threats.

   Naturally our current president might have to spend a little more time explaining repetitively a >somewhat< progressive social agenda to a public unaccustomed to anything other than the casual front of an imperial presidency.

   Posted by Sorelish at 09/19/2009 @ 6:32pm

5. sobreexpuesto

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2009 @ 6:33pm

6. Overexposed means too much of the same thing. Mr. Rapid Multiple Post Reverend Always Right can be counted on to sprinkle these oyvehs early and often - totalitarian Leftist liberal socialist. This time he didn't flinch at criticizing his own overexposed behavior in another, because? Yep, he's not a neocon.

   Or maybe I'm wrong.

   Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 6:35pm

7. Naturally our current president might have to spend a little more time explaining repetitively a >somewhat< progressive social agenda to a public unaccustomed to anything other than the casual front of an imperial presidency.

   Posted by Sorelish at 09/19/2009 @ 6:32pm

   Sorelish translated=Obama must spend a lot of time through media manipulation and propaganda, attempting to get the people to accept a socialist transformation since they would not do so willingly.

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:41pm

8. Yep, he's not a neocon.

   Or maybe I'm wrong.

   Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 6:35pm

   You're wrong. I'm not a neocon. I'm a libertarian who supports strong national defense, in the classic liberalism mode.

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:46pm

9. "A newer Pew survey suggests that most Islamic countries distrust the United States under the leadership of President Obama about as much as they did under President George W. Bush. Yes, majorities of the Muslim populations interviewed still believe that America plays a mostly destructive role in the world."

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 6:00pm

   And your point is?

   I'm not seeing a heckuvalot of difference, myself.

   And I am not focused solely on foreign policy, as the rest of the world is.

   Even the health care issue, which we both seem to hate with equal passion, for different reasons, is really not as "radical" as you seem to think.

   It is in fact, just more of the same. Corporate giveaways with little to negative, potential benefit.

   Posted by Malcontent at 09/19/2009 @ 9:23pm

10. "Socialised" medicine in Australia equates to long waits (several years) for elective surgery and about 60% of the "socialised" which includes a fair chunk of the working "poor" and aged pensioners opting to take out private cover in lieu of the "free" socialised stuff.

    I think you may find that private health insurance is a little more popular in some of the EU countries like Germany and France for much the same reasons.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/19/2009 @ 10:43pm

11. You're wrong. I'm not a neocon. I'm a libertarian who supports strong national defense, in the classic liberalism mode.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:46pm \\

    Me too. Except as a genuine libertarian, I know that the national defense starts with health security. I recognize the threat Eisenhower and Lincoln spoke of regarding the root of all evil and its corrupting force. This and your silence and/or positions on endless Cheney-Rush-Bush topics reveals you to be a real McCoy neocon with a thin libertarian mask.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 11:03pm

12. L.Savan: ".....the handwringing over the sheer frequency of his media appearances is worse than disingenuous."

    First, the serious stuff!

    Texas over Texas Tech, 34-24!

    Next, the slightly less serious, Washington over #3 USC, 16-13!

    Now the funny stuff, the only handwringing is obviously in the Lib camp,.....hahahaha!

    Please put BHO on every channel like the Bud Light (hat tip to SRJ) commercials....man of genius trying to sell Tastes Great, Less Filing, Less Cost, More Care, Long Live Grannie (unless she lives past 75).....like there is anyone else as dumb as he.....LOL!

    Oh, sorry, 2/3 of Dems ARE as dumb as Magic!

    Posted by Happy at 09/19/2009 @ 11:08pm

13. Even the health care issue, which we both seem to hate with equal passion, for different reasons, is really not as "radical" as you seem to think. It is in fact, just more of the same. Corporate giveaways with little to negative, potential benefit. Posted by Malcontent at 09/19/2009 @ 9:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you crazy right-winger you!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/19/2009 @ 11:40pm

14. Leslie Savan: "...is their way of telling him to be more like a Republican president than a Democratic one: To do nothing on

    health care, CHECK

    economic justice, CHECK

    student loans, CHECK

    or whatever the issue may be." (IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN...CHECK & CHECK

    --the President is obeying orders very well. God forbid he actually live up to some campaign promises and the general 'CHANGE' we can believe in promise...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:35am

15. Leslie Savan: "Oh, they tell the president, make the occasional espeech that we can hype as do-or-die, but then obey the status quo lobby's instructions: Shut up and don't annoy the scaaarrry Republicans."

    --"Republians" can be replaced by blue-dog DEMOCRATS! I seem to remember the number 60 getting lots 'o hype last fall...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:38am

16. think some of this "overexposure" business has come about because of a couple recent presidents & their penchant for clearing brush, building fences & saddling horses....

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/19/2009 @ 6:32pm

    You are absolutely correct. All of that kabuki theater with the Crawford Ranch as the setting was gobbled up by the media ad naseam.

    Also, there was a Fox News ad which ran in The Washington Post claiming the major networks and CNN did not cover the tea baggerama that took place last Saturday.

    It's funny how the President of the US is on TV too much but the 60,000 howling, kool aid induced wackaloons weren't on TV enough.

    Also, the 9/12 exhibition of angst and sore losership was exaggerated by Rushbo, Beck, Fox and Friends et al... to be as large as 2 million people.

    Does the fact that the right wing noise makers lied about the numbers mean that this protest wasn't a big deal?

    Posted by koroviev at 09/20/2009 @ 01:39am

17. Leslie Savan: "Could it be that the sight of this attractive, adroit, reasonable, and unflappable black man hurts GOP peepers?"

    --"attractive"?--beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but I think he's an objectively good looking man.

    --"adroit"--he certainly was at getting elected...

    --"reasonable"--euphamism for 'status quo'?

    --"unflappable"--the 'idiot' comment re: the cambridge police dept. should prove he's not unflappable (no human is though; and methinks George W. Bush would not have been able to hide his anger if he was called a liar during a speech to Congress).

    Leslie Savan: "He's a constant reminder of their own political and ideological collapse"

    --in what way? we're still in iraq and afghanistan. at most a weak public option is going to pass re: health care. the stimulus and bailouts have done little to improve the economy and reduce unemployment; and he's even turning to protectionism (tire tariffs) like both bushes and reagan did. if you're going to use "ideological collapse" shouldn't the ideas not still be in full force? just because the actors have changed doesn't mean the play's any different.

    Leslie Savan: "and it's just too much that he goes about his job with far more worldwide acceptance than poor old George W. Bush."

    --this is actually very sad (not about Bush, he deserved to be unpopular b/c he was a bad president). It's sad because now people like Mask (and most liberals or democrat commenters on these threads) won't hold Obama accountable. Obama's not Bush (policies are irrelevant; Obama is literally not Bush, flesh-and-blood; and that's enough)...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 01:50am

18. Nice post. urmygyro. Obama is NOT a liberal in the true sense, i.e. someone who supports 'liberal' rights for the working class. That's the problem; 'liberals' (I'm a REAL one) are so busy fighting Repugs that they've forgotten what they were fighting for and are content to let a black-neocon-zionist-elitist-establishment-liar con them into thinking he's their guy, just because he's not Bush. Suckers and fools. Not as violent or as sociopath as the GOP, but every bit as stupid and far more cowardly.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/20/2009 @ 04:37am

19. Posted by lrjones4 at 09/19/2009 @ 10:43pm |

    Interesting info you have there, LR.

    It puts a bit of a hole in the "public options will kill private health insurance" rigamarole touted by our rightwingnuts here.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/20/2009 @ 06:05am

20. I agree that Obama is overexposed. And the problem with overexposure is that it gives rise to familiarity. And familiarity breeds contempt. Obama is no longer seen as this stately, Sphinx-like oracle of wisdom and oration. He's becoming as common as a "King of Queens" rerun.

    I've lost count of how many speeches he's made in just 7 months that were billed as "critically important" and "capable of changing the debate". And whether or not I or many people actually watch the speech has nothing to do with the overexposure. Because even if I don't, I have to be reminded the he IS GOING TO MAKE A SPEECH at the top of every hour on radio news 3 or 4 days before the speech.

    See, the hype and advertising of the speech is PART of the overexposure.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 07:22am

21. I agree that Obama is overexposed. And the problem with overexposure is that it gives rise to familiarity. And familiarity breeds contempt. Obama is no longer seen as this stately, Sphinx-like oracle of wisdom and oration. He's becoming as common as a "King of Queens" rerun.

    I've lost count of how many speeches he's made in just 7 months that were billed as "critically important" and "capable of changing the debate". And whether or not I or many people actually watch the speech has nothing to do with the overexposure. Because even if I don't, I have to be reminded the he IS GOING TO MAKE A SPEECH at the top of every hour on radio news 3 or 4 days before the speech.

    See, the hype and advertising of the speech is PART of the overexposure.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 07:22am

22. I agree that Obama is overexposed. And the problem with overexposure is that it gives rise to familiarity. And familiarity breeds contempt. Obama is no longer seen as this stately, Sphinx-like oracle of wisdom and oration. He's becoming as common as a "King of Queens" rerun.

    I've lost count of how many speeches he's made in just 7 months that were billed as "critically important" and "capable of changing the debate". And whether or not I or many people actually watch the speech has nothing to do with the overexposure. Because even if I don't, I have to be reminded the he IS GOING TO MAKE A SPEECH at the top of every hour on radio news 3 or 4 days before the speech.

    See, the hype and advertising of the speech is PART of the overexposure.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/20/2009 @ 07:22am

23. What we get from the tv heads like Morning Joe and his girl, and the crowd on CNN and msnbc and Meet the Press, and all these so-called journalists, is the echo of their conversations at DC cocktail parties, or wherever they all hang out together. During one of these tv discussions, just close your eyes and see how easy it is to imagine you're in some swank townhouse in Georgetown. You can bet that whatever it is they're nattering about on tv, they were nattering about it at Mika's house or Cokie's estate or at lunch with Stephanopolous. So, now -- predictable as a rainy spring in New England when you've made plans to go camping -- they're bored with Obama. They're bored with the healthcare situation. They became bored with our two never-ending wars years ago. They have the attention spans of a 10-year-old. They need bright and shiny new things to amuse them. Healthcare reform.... so boring. Yahoos hating Obama... now that's interesting. The hillbilly from the Stupid State who yelled out "You lie!"... fascinating, we can talk about that for weeks.

    We need to be informed, but we do not need to waste our time listening to these puppets.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/20/2009 @ 10:37am

24. This is laughable. President Obama is not going to find anyone who veiws NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN or even Univision (whatever that is) who greatly disagrees with his HC plan.

    The people he wants to reach watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio.

    This is a President who is in love with himself and really can't distinguish his success with the 'yes we can' crusade prior to his election and the post election overkill that his 24/7 exposure is producing. Look at the polls and look at the growth in the Tea Party movement.

    Fox News is killing all the other networks combined in it's ratings. If you were a smart politician, wouldn't you want to 'use' them to reach people who ignore you? I would. Preaching to the choir does nothing to move the ball forward. This is why Barack Obama will be a one term President. He doesn't kepp his enemies close enough to him.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 10:53am

25. You're wrong. I'm not a neocon. I'm a libertarian who supports strong national defense, in the classic liberalism mode.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:46pm \\

    Me too. Except as a genuine libertarian, I know that the national defense starts with health security. I recognize the threat Eisenhower and Lincoln spoke of regarding the root of all evil and its corrupting force. This and your silence and/or positions on endless Cheney-Rush-Bush topics reveals you to be a real McCoy neocon with a thin libertarian mask.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/19/2009 @ 11:03pm

    It is I who reflects Eisenhower's Farewell Address and not you. Nor did Ike call the military the root of all evil; quite the contrary

    From Eisenhower's Farewell Address

    <A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 11:03am

26. "socialist transformation" = rolling back some of the most egregious and radical bush policies.

    and if antisocialist wasn't already totally fraudulent, now he claims he's a libertarian?!

    oh, man. that's a keeper.

    this from a guy who supported bush's most radically unconstitutional moves (read: wiretapping), his two invasions of foreign countries who weren't a threat to us, and who (i think) supported waterboarding.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 11:14am

27. On the subject of the Tea Party rally, the liberal media was quick to try to play down the success of the rally by highlighting signs held up by lunatics or leftist infiltrators. Below, are some of the signs they didn't show you, which were the very vast majority.

    'Can You Hear Us Now?'

    'Silence Is Consent. Can You Hear Us Now?'

    'Your Wallet, The Only Place Democrats Are Willing To Drill'

    'Don't Share My Wealth, Share My Work Ethic'

    'Obama Lied, Freedom Died'

    'Madam Speaker, Kiss Our Astroturf'

    'Congress Enslaves America'

    'Don't Tread On Me'

    'Stop Making Profit, Report All Capitalist Activities To Flag@Whitehouse.Gov'

    'Politicians Are Like Diapers. They Both Require Changing For The Same Reasons'

    'No ACORN, No Czars, No Cap and Trade, NObama'

    'DHS, Certified Right Wing Extremeist' with (photo of pistol and Constitution)

    'I Don't Belong To The Party Of No, I'm With The Party Of Hell No' - poster held by family of blacks.

    'Support Class Envy. Don't You Want Your Neighbors Piggy Bank To Look Like This?' (photo of emaciated pig with coin slot.

    Tee Shirts worn by middle-aged middle class couple...I Am The Mob, words above American flag with family of four superimposed over it.

    And my favorite.....A black man carrying a poster of the front cover of Mad Magazine with Obama seen as Alfred E. Newman holding a sign that says, 'Yes We Can't'.....The words Blowing Mad Money highlighted on the poster.

    For all of you leftists or Obamaites out there who watch nothing but the liberal media, how many of these signs have you seen before? Get the point?

    That's all of my Sunday you get.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 11:14am

28. It puts a bit of a hole in the "public options will kill private health insurance" rigamarole touted by our rightwingnuts here.

    Posted by snowball777 at 09/20/2009 @ 06:05am

    I was aware that implication could be drawn, 21. It's not a debate that really interests me but my guess is that it probably is a proxy issue in the hands of opponents with more fundamental ideological differences about where Obama fits in the political spectrum.

    As a notional conservative, compromised by living in a country with "socialised" health care, my suggestion is that in some countries where it is practiced it has nothing to do with conservatism or socialism but springs out of an altruistic desire to help one's fellow man.

    For example we have long had publically (government aka as once (pre-tax) our money) funded hospitals but many if not most patients who want the advantages of private health care also use the often better equipped public hospitals in which to have their treatments.

    Our "left wing" government (which is not much further left that your obviously, from our perspective, conservative Obama) tries to give each individual, rich or poor, a fair shake by heavily funding options like private health care and private schooling, generally without means testing, on the basis I guess that there is no difference in need between Jack and his master. Which stance I'm sure would not endear it to many of the Nation's journos or their fellow travelers.

    Incidentally my opinion of Obama is that he seems to be a very nice man, who makes nice but very predictable speeches that, I can see, would appeal to hollywoodised Americans but I wonder when he will do something on his own initiative. Bush may have been no talk and all action but I wonder, is that worse than all talk and no action?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/20/2009 @ 11:18am

29. "For all of you leftists or Obamaites out there who watch nothing but the liberal media, how many of these signs have you seen before? Get the point?"

    gunslinger, i'm fairly certain that you're not very well educated on the subject of media studies.

    the number 1 rule in media studies is this:

    the media is not liberal.

    the number 2 rule is this:

    just because the media is relatively friendly towards obama does not make it liberal.

    and finally: obama is not a "leftist". he's a conservative democrat. the only leftist in congress is bernie sanders.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 11:23am

30. "Fox News is killing all the other networks combined in it's ratings. "

    i guess even *more* proof that the media definitely isn't liberal, if fox news is killing all the other networks.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 11:32am

31. Nice post. urmygyro. Obama is NOT a liberal in the true sense, i.e. someone who supports 'liberal' rights for the working class. That's the problem; 'liberals' (I'm a REAL one) are so busy fighting Repugs that they've forgotten what they were fighting for and are content to let a black-neocon-zionist-elitist-establishment-liar con them into thinking he's their guy, just because he's not Bush. Suckers and fools. Not as violent or as sociopath as the GOP, but every bit as stupid and far more cowardly.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/20/2009 @ 04:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --we're "right-wingers" for criticizing obama..don't cha know?!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 11:53am

32. Posted by koroviev at 09/20/09 @ 1:39am

    Yes, all the anti-imperial rallies & demonstrations in the Days of Dubya were labeled by the "left wing media" as made up of the fringe left, that is, people with no need to show up at work. Comparisons were made between these people & the caftan wearing multitudes regularly crowding the streets of any middle eastern city called out by mullahs & terrorists for anti-American hatred.

    Funny how now they're calling the tea bagging, gun toting, raging loonies of the right as "legitimate populists" with permissible questions as to the intended direction of our present administration.

    Welcome to the Land of Lost Opportunity, that Utopian dreamland that presages a "return to normality." Is it too late for enrollment in a Charles Atlas course for our leadership?

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/20/2009 @ 11:56am

33. No Anti, it is in fact I who reflects Eisenhower's Farewell Address and not you - exactly why I made the point. You never have demonstrated a grasp of the 'military industrial complex'. Most importantly, while our veterans were being slaughtered in Iraq you were lost in your rigid fantasy. You and the other neocons here, especially Happy, just prattle on and on with your high school Ayn Rand craps. socialism, liberalism, fantasies. All projection. You are for a "strong " defense as opposed to what? Anyone with real libertarian gonads is far more concerned with the 'military industrial complex'. Your posts are laden with bogus, immature debate tactics. I don't have time to school you or untangle your irrational mental tantrums. Your primary illusion is that you have a grip on political and historical reality. You are the same as Happy just with better grammar.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/20/2009 @ 1:02pm

34. Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 11:14am

    Someone cursed him to eternally chase his own tail. But worse, to also believe with abandon it to be the tail of some being that he hates!

    Posted by winyahn at 09/20/2009 @ 1:06pm

35. overexposure?

    jeez - guess the talking head punditocracy can't find something legit to blab about, eh?

    absurd topic of conversation.

    on the other hand i am furious that mr. O is talking about forcing me to do business with those murderous, evil, parasites (whose 4-5 decade opposition to progress has caused the uneeded sufferig and utimely deaths of untold millions) the health insurance companies.

    goddamn it! dems have an effing majority - they can ram some good legislaton if they find their nads and FIGHT!!!

    but i am FIRMLY opposed to ANY GODDAMNED piece of shit legislation that forces me to do business with those leaches. THAT does come scarily close to some kind of FASCISM.

    what an effing INSULT, mr. obama. what a betrayal! what a goddamned sellout!

    i'd rather have nothinng tha be forced to do business with those murderous bastards. shit! they act horribly for decades ad pay off a few treacherous sellouts like that sonofabitch, baucus and his ilk - and GET REWARDED FOR THEIR WICKED PERFIDY!!!!

    for the first time i'm actually getting pissed with obama. single payer option is do-able, but it will take time to hash and fight it out. unlike the clinton failure on healthcare, this time the longer it is drawn out, the better chance to do somethig decent. rammig through facist bullshit that forces people to enrich those who have been screwing them for decades - NO!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2009 @ 1:22pm

36. ibble, calm down...it's the Lords' Day!

    winyahn, take a good hard look at your 1:02 & 1:06 pm posts and tell me if you're the kettle or the pot? LOL!

    Ahhhhh.....the angst of the Left....pure Sound of Music....

    Be forewarned, gang.......HAPPY here is heading to Vegas next Sat. for ~9 days of R&R, tire-kick some Vegas condos & also hanging out at some Nat'l Parks in Utah....I could be scarce....love & kisses :~)))))! Memo to self & mark this down, first empty-nest trip in, oh, about 25 years....yippee!

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2009 @ 1:44pm

37. No Anti, it is in fact I who reflects Eisenhower's Farewell Address and not you - exactly why I made the point. You never have demonstrated a grasp of the 'military industrial complex'. Most importantly, while our veterans were being slaughtered in Iraq you were lost in your rigid fantasy. You and the other neocons here, especially Happy, just prattle on and on with your high school Ayn Rand craps. socialism, liberalism, fantasies. All projection. You are for a "strong " defense as opposed to what? Anyone with real libertarian gonads is far more concerned with the 'military industrial complex'. Your posts are laden with bogus, immature debate tactics. I don't have time to school you or untangle your irrational mental tantrums. Your primary illusion is that you have a grip on political and historical reality. You are the same as Happy just with better grammar.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/20/2009 @ 1:02pm

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Any time you want to tangle in real debate, let me know. I'm still waiting for your first rational and cogent posting.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 1:48pm

38. for the first time i'm actually getting pissed with obama. single payer option is do-able, but it will take time to hash and fight it out. unlike the clinton failure on healthcare, this time the longer it is drawn out, the better chance to do somethig decent. rammig through facist bullshit that forces people to enrich those who have been screwing them for decades - NO!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2009 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --the rantings of a right-winger, right Mask? heheh

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 1:49pm

39. Be forewarned, gang.......HAPPY here is heading to Vegas next Sat. for ~9 days of R&R, tire-kick some Vegas condos & also hanging out at some Nat'l Parks in Utah....I could be scarce....love & kisses :~)))))! Memo to self & mark this down, first empty-nest trip in, oh, about 25 years....yippee!

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --enjoy your trip (stay off the craps tables!)

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/20/2009 @ 1:50pm

40. Posted by Happy at 09/20/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yeah - working out some frustrations here, not all related to policy decisions...lol...

    perhaps i should log out and return as my evil sock puppet, dexter666...

    feeling more dexteresque here today...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2009 @ 1:55pm

41. but hap, you gotta admit this silly gibberish about overexposure is stupid - regardless of which side of the fence it is flung from.

    cause i've been hearing it from lunkheads left and right for a while. jeez, if thats the best "news you can't use" at least shut up and run something entertaining, like naked co-ed vollyball or something...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2009 @ 1:58pm

42. winyahn, take a good hard look at your 1:02 & 1:06 pm posts and tell me if you're the kettle or the pot? LOL!

    Ahhhhh.....the angst of the Left....pure Sound of Music....

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2009 @ 1:44pm

    I think he is both the pot and the kettle

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 2:19pm

43. There's a local TV station here....

    Mostly televised karaoke, restored tractor parades, and fishing shows.

    Haven't seen Barak on that channel yet.

    But that's the ONLY one he hasn't given an interview.

    Then again being from Kansas, Obama may be a closet tractor restorer.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 09/20/2009 @ 2:52pm

44. Been traveling through Las Vegas between the Pac NW & the SW since I was a baby.

    Played my first slot machine in Tonopah, Nev in the Mizpah Hotel & Casino at the age of four, when an old porter lifted me up in front of a crowd to drop a silver dollar in a real one-armed bandit. Rest stop stuff, not a destination.

    Las Vegas was a suckhole back then in the Bugsy Siegel days, when it was slightly more than nothing & it still is. A fool's paradise.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/20/2009 @ 3:21pm

45. ....this silly gibberish about overexposure is stupid - regardless of which side of the fence it is flung from.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/20/2009 @ 1:58pm

    Agreed! 2/3 of the Dems can't get enough of him.....while the Repubs buy into Limbaugh's casting The One as narrcistic (image of John Edward preening his hair, but w/O's lean & mean face) anyway.

    ==============================

    winyahn, take a good hard look at your 1:02 & 1:06 pm posts and tell me if you're the kettle or the pot? LOL!

    Ahhhhh.....the angst of the Left....pure Sound of Music....

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2009 @ 1:44pm

    I think he is both the pot and the kettle

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 2:19pm

    Hey, barelyinterested, if you're out there, here's one reason we hang here......lookey, anti isn't prone to humor much but even he can let loose a good one, on Sunday....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 09/20/2009 @ 3:29pm

46. Here we have Leslie Savan defending Obama with the bald admission: he is down to the stock Madison Avenue formula.

    Repeat, "Camels Taste Better" over and over. Put it on billboards everywhere. Let radio and TV reiterate it again and again and again; make it ubiquitous.

    And whether it is true or not, sensible or not, healthy or not, the message will get through; it will be bought.

    That incidentally was also Joseph Goebbels' chief tactic, and the Reds used it no less. It worked for them because whoever objected, exposed or mocked their endless lies was shut down or shot down.

    But in the US that propaganda will be countered. The debunking invariably will go overboard, which will be denounced as racism, which it will be, in part.

    You cannot turn the nation into a Strassbourg goose, stuff Obama down its throat endlessly, and expect it not to gag and retch. That is provoking racism; it is scratching for a reason to explain failure.

    Posted by Pirovano at 09/20/2009 @ 4:04pm

47. Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 11:23am

    You never answered the question. How many of those signs did you see on NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN or even Univision?

    You can't answer it because you can't admit that those networks are predominately liberal though I'm not even sure what Univision is all about. While Fox was showing wide panaramas of the crowd, MSNBC and CNN showed two or three protesters grouped together, one or more carrying a Hitler reference sign. So, what were they trying to portray?

    Fox it destroying the networks and other cable news shows because they aren't hiding anything from the people. Why wouldn't all those other stations cover a major rally like we saw last week on the Mall? The answer is because it didn't fit their 'AGENDA', their 'LIBERAL' agenda.

    But you did see some Hitler signs and racist signs didn't you. The other networks couldn't find any black people to interview but Fox found plenty.

    It's easy to see these things when you take a seat in the center. You should try it sometime.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 4:07pm

48. And of course, it was the same story with van Jones and ACORN. All the other networks had their heads in the sand while Fox was breaking the stories of Communists and corruption at taxpayer expense.

    I know that Fox wasn't very forthcoming during the Bush administration either but at least they presented both sides.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 4:10pm

49. here, gunsling.

    perhaps blooooomberg is a more reliable source:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a_zs1Y1FspIM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2009 @ 4:18pm

50. "Fox it destroying the networks and other cable news shows because they aren't hiding anything from the people"

    (quote of the day)

    "Why wouldn't all those other stations cover a major rally like we saw last week on the Mall? The answer is because it didn't fit their 'AGENDA', their 'LIBERAL' agenda"

    all of the networks covered the rally. all of them.

    in fact, that weekend, i couldn't stop hearing about it.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 5:08pm

51. And on and on we insist on the dribble about our fake fear. We have finally elected a truly intelligent man who is substantive and if we can convince ourselves that he is over exposed we can somehow muzzle this guy. Sorry folks this guy tips the i.q. scale well above the middle of our little bell shaped curve arguments. The dept of his understanding of us is well beyond our self understanding. My question is, Why the hell does he bother? Is it because he loves our country and has two young daughters and unlike some of us he truly does want them to inherit a better future? Anti Christ indeed! Jesus must be having one hell of a belly laugh. Why is it that some Christian religions and some politicians encourage people to opt for being brain dead. Jesus was a universal man and extremely intelligent, then he was taken over by the Roman empire and dumbed down to fit a failing and corrupt empire.Why are we repeating the same mistake?

    Posted by julien38 at 09/20/2009 @ 6:31pm

52. Look up the definition of fascism then listen to Jim Demint and read some of the Armey emails. Hitler, by the way, was a serious Roman Catholic. And there were some blacks at the 70,000 rally? Wow Michael Steel is black, Alberto Gonzales is Hispanic, John Yoo clearly Asian. These guys tried to dismantle the American constitution and damn near succeeded.

    Posted by julien38 at 09/20/2009 @ 6:42pm

53. I don't understand why the issue of HEALTH CARE has become a fight between CONSERVATIVES and LIBERALS. If somebody becomes seriously ill, INSURANCE COMPANIES won't care if that person is conservative or liberal, they will try to DENY COVERAGE no matter what. The hardships of our ECONOMY affect the same conservatives and liberals. Every body knows that the cost of health care has doubled in the last 10 years, and is rising almost EXPONENTIALLY. How long are we going to wait to fix this problem? We have been waiting for 40 years. Do we think insurance companies are going to fix it? Most of the WASTE of money that is breaking our economy is actually the EXCESSIVE PROFIT that they are making. Every year 45,000 Americans, conservatives and liberals, DIE for lack of healthcare access. Insurance companies are the real DEATH PANELS that, making profit and denying health coverage, bring every day DEATH and BANKRUPTCY to our country. The only way we can save our economy is reducing their profit And the government is the ONLY one that can do that. Who else can? More COMPETITION and more CHOICE for the American people is the only solution. A modest PUBLIC OPTION similar to MEDICARE, which has a 94% CONSUMER APPROVAL, can make that happen. We need to STOP fighting between us and make that happen. Insurance companies are spending every single day MILLIONS buying politicians, conservatives and liberals, to KILL the reform and PROTECT their profit. But if insurance companies win, we the American people, conservatives and liberals, LOOSE. So please people, try to be constructive, try to bring positive ideas to de table, and try to fix the imperfections of the reform, not to kill it. Do it for the PROSPERITY of AMERICA, do it for our CHILDREN, both conservatives and liberals.

    Posted by FindTheTruth at 09/20/2009 @ 6:52pm

54. Look up the definition of fascism then listen to Jim Demint and read some of the Armey emails. Hitler, by the way, was a serious Roman Catholic. And there were some blacks at the 70,000 rally? Wow Michael Steel is black, Alberto Gonzales is Hispanic, John Yoo clearly Asian. These guys tried to dismantle the American constitution and damn near succeeded.

    Posted by julien38 at 09/20/2009 @ 6:42pm

    Hitler hated Christianity and killed many Christians.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/20/2009 @ 8:10pm

55. Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 5:08pm

    Well then maybe you were watching Fox after all. All I know is that every time I tuned in to one of th other networks to see how they were covering it, they were short stories, focused on the small fringe element that was there. I did not see one black person at the rally interviewed on any station except for Fox. Now Darla, why is that?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:11pm

56. Posted by julien38 at 09/20/2009 @ 6:31pm

    We haven't 'finally' elected a truly intelligent man. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, the only President to have been so. That's intelligence. Now, the Monica thing kind of defined his Presidency which only proves that when blood rushes from one head to the other, it doesn't matter how smart you are. That's why women have all the power.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:20pm

57. Jesus was a universal man and extremely intelligent, then he was taken over by the Roman empire and dumbed down to fit a failing and corrupt empire.Why are we repeating the same mistake?

    Posted by julien38 at 09/20/2009 @ 6:31pm

    So that's why Rush Limbaugh calls Obama the Messiah.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:24pm

58. Sorry Julien. Hate to burst your bubble but Barack Obama isn't the second coming of Christ. Hell, I'm not even convinced that the first coming was accurate. No, Obama is just a politician who sees things through the prism of his background. He's got some good ideas but the but this redistribution of people's wealth is never gonna fly.

    That's why the more he talks, the more he's outed. He should just shut up for at least one solid week.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:28pm

59. Posted by FindTheTruth at 09/20/2009 @ 6:52pm

    Enact Tort reform.

    Make it illegal for insurance companies to deny anyone coverage because of 'prior condition.

    Strengethen Medicare and Medicaid.

    Provide a voluntary insurance policy for everyone against catastrophic illness.

    Provide free clinics in poor areas to accomadate those who have no health insurance.

    This is the solution. It's not perfect but it will bring down the cost of health care and it will not force anyone to change a policy they are happy with.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:33pm

60. "He's got some good ideas but the but this redistribution of people's wealth is never gonna fly"

    "redistribution of wealth" = rolling back the most egregious of bush tax cuts to reagan-era levels.

    yup, that's socialism for ya.

    and btw, the entire point of taxes is "redistribution of wealth," so you need to be very careful when you throw that term around.

    because the way you, and others, use it, it has no meaning whatsoever. but that goes for most of what the radical right says....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 9:19pm

61. in one of obama's interviews today, he said:

    "You know, I'm amused. I can't tell you how many foreign leaders who are heads of center-right governments say to me, I don't understand why people would call you socialist, in my country, you'd be considered a conservative."

    bingo! this pretty much sums up the sheer, breathtaking stupidity of the teabagger crowd.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 10:23pm

62. It is amusing to see the arrogant elitist marxists and their leader the Obamanaition in such dispair over the unacceptability to the people of this nation of their power play to takeover our healthcare.

    All they can manage is to slur, vilify and denegrate their fellow American citizens who are practicing dissent against their runaway socilaist plans to disreguard our constitutional representative government in favor of their regressive dictatorship.

    The Obamanation is in such dispair he spent all day mincing words and trying to disguise his failed program to little avail. However arrogant pride would not allow him to do otherwise.

    I do hope the left does continue belittling the broad opposition to this failed plan and reap just rewards and riddiculing those who read the bills and vehemently oppose the Obamanation and Demoncrats! It is the best thing to kill it once and for all!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/20/2009 @ 11:08pm

63. It's interesting that the two most violent incidents at this summer's town hall meetings came when a union thug beat up a 65-year-old black conservative in Missouri and when a liberal protester bit off part of a man's finger in California.

    These incidents don't justify a conclusion that all liberals are violent. But they are more evidence that American liberals, unused to hearing dissent, have an impulse to shut it down.

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/21/2009 @ 12:39am

64. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yup, keep quoting Limbaugh. And where did Bush graduate from. Rhodes scholar?

    Posted by julien38 at 09/21/2009 @ 01:46am

65. Posted by julien38 at 09/21/2009 @ 01:46am

    Actually, in fairness, Bush did graduate from Yale.

    Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck on the other hand...all college drop-outs.

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:17am

66. and btw, the entire point of taxes is "redistribution of wealth," so you need to be very careful when you throw that term around.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 9:19pm

    I prefer to think that the point of taxes is to generate revenue to pay for the expenses of government. Not a mechanism by which the government merely takes from one group of Americans and gives it to another group.

    I don't mind so much when my wealth is "redistributed" to a construction company re-paving I-70.

    I DO object when my money is redistributed, say, to people who had no business getting a loan for a house, had no chance of paying it back on a variable rate loan, and probably lied on their loan application to get it. And that the bank giving them the loan was probably pressured to do so for political reasons is just so much icing on the cake.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/21/2009 @ 07:48am

67. and btw, the entire point of taxes is "redistribution of wealth," so you need to be very careful when you throw that term around.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 9:19pm

    I prefer to think that the point of taxes is to generate revenue to pay for the expenses of government. Not a mechanism by which the government merely takes from one group of Americans and gives it to another group.

    I don't mind so much when my wealth is "redistributed" to a construction company re-paving I-70.

    I DO object when my money is redistributed, say, to people who had no business getting a loan for a house, had no chance of paying it back on a variable rate loan, and probably lied on their loan application to get it. And that the bank giving them the loan was probably pressured to do so for political reasons is just so much icing on the cake.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/21/2009 @ 07:48am

68. and btw, the entire point of taxes is "redistribution of wealth," so you need to be very careful when you throw that term around.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 9:19pm

    I prefer to think that the point of taxes is to generate revenue to pay for the expenses of government. Not a mechanism by which the government merely takes from one group of Americans and gives it to another group.

    I don't mind so much when my wealth is "redistributed" to a construction company re-paving I-70.

    I DO object when my money is redistributed, say, to people who had no business getting a loan for a house, had no chance of paying it back on a variable rate loan, and probably lied on their loan application to get it. And that the bank giving them the loan was probably pressured to do so for political reasons is just so much icing on the cake.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/21/2009 @ 07:48am

69. Posted by NterthaW at 09/19/2009 @ 6:23pm

    Larry has to get in his dose of Daily Hate, or Jesus won't love him anymore.

    ----

    Is someone really quoting Limbaugh? The guy that rants on the air 3 hours a day, then complains and cries when the President does a few interviews?

    these ass clowns have zero shame, zero sense of self

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/18-2

    give it a read, cons, you may learn something about yourselves.

    --------------

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/20/2009 @ 8:20pm

    If you don't think Obama is smart, well I just don't know what would qualify him in your book. Harvard grad, lecturer on Constitutional Law at a preeminent law school, and most importantly, he can put English into actual sentences. Unlike his predecessor.

    funny that you take issue with a reference to JC, as the right wing candidates for multiple offices use those type of references almost daily. See the references to King David by the latest repub to be caught with his cock in the wrong girl...family values not withstanding.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 08:08am

70. "I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which the same people who hate you for being a socialist simultaneously hate you for being a fascist.

    I really don't know what to say anymore, about a country in which angry mobs of supposed anti-socialist demonstrators scream at their congressional representatives to "keep your government hands off my Medicare". " David Green

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 08:09am

71. Sorelish translated=Obama must spend a lot of time through media manipulation and propaganda, attempting to get the people to accept a socialist transformation since they would not do so willingly.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:41pm

    Do tell us again about Saddams wmd's, links to AQ, his drone planes, how Brownie did a "Heckuva job" while Bush set up a PR set in New Orleans, how Rush/Hannity/Oreily/Beck etc are NOT propagandists using media manipulation and how "death panels", Obama taking our guns, how Obama is not a US citizen and how he is simultaneously a socialist/fascist/communist. Write some more about how your Man, GWB, was found guilty of using govt money to spread propaganda, but you ignored it. Tell us why, ideologue.

    Then write some more nonsense about leftwing propaganda from the White House.

    You have become the thing that you claimed to hate , Rev. You attack our President during war, giving fuel to those that would destroy us. As you and many other cons told us years running, Bin Laden must love you useful idiots!! Can you imagine his glees seeing so many people holding pictures of Obama the witch doctor, telling Obama to go back to Kenya, hours of Obama Hatred swelling the airwaves daily (not propaganda, of course). You must swell with pride helping your friend Bin Laden bring down the Us govt that you hate so much.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 08:18am

72. Posted by darladoon at 09/20/2009 @ 9:19pm

    You sure have a comprehension problem. I'm not radical anything. I've said that a dozen or so times now. When it comes to redistribution of wealth, there are ways that the extremely wealthy could be held to account for their tax shelters and breaks, even as they move our jobs overseas. But that's what happens when they're over taxed. I simply do not believe in redistribution of wealth just to give people who haven't earned it free money. If that were the case, our whole system would collapse. I don't believe in trickle down either. I also believe in paying unions a FAIR wage.

    Under the Obama plan there would be no incentive for the wealthy to keep hiring and producing and no incentive for the lazy to get off their asses and go to work. There are jobs out there. It may not be the job you want but there are jobs to be had.

    Barack Obama needs to begin a massive rebuilding of our infrastructure, roads, bridges, interstates anddams and tell people here's your opportunity now get the hell to work. That includes all trades and general laborers as well as the welfare Queens who need to put their eight or nine kids into schools daycare and get a job. And while they're at it, make sure their kids get breakfast and do their homework.

    Maybe then people like me and those who are marching in the Tea Paety will feel better about the robbery of their hard earned wages.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:24am

73. Oh Darla, you've been hood-winked again. Please stop the worship and open your eyes.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:25am

74. Posted by BigPasture at 09/20/2009 @ 11:08pm

    These people are still pissed because George W. Bushes first act in office was to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. They're pissed because they felt slighted. Welfare, food stamps, low-income housing, day-care, tax cuts, minority scholarships and affirmative action weren't enough. They want MORE. MORE DAMMIT!!!!!!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:29am

75. Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 08:08am

    I never said that Obama was stupid but there are clearly defined levels of intelligence. I merely pointed out that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, something that Obama didn't qualify for. It's comparing apples to oranges, just like comparing Obama's oratory skills to GWB's is also apples and oranges.

    Bill Clinton used a tele-prompter but he didn't need it. Barack Obama would not be able to give a speech without one, except of course on the campaign trail where he kept shouting, "Yes we can," in every other sentence.

    As for Obama's exposure, he's already made more television appearances than the last three President's combined. And he's only been in office for just under nine months. It's getting soooo old.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:37am

76. Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 08:18am

    An honest President would be nice.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:38am

77. "It is amusing to see the arrogant elitist marxists and their leader the Obamanaition in such dispair over the unacceptability to the people of this nation of their power play to takeover our healthcare."

    "our" healthcare? oh, i'm sorry, you mean, "the insurance companies'" healthcare. that's right. we all know you're opposed to taking away money from those respectable people.

    "I DO object when my money is redistributed, say, to people who had no business getting a loan for a house, had no chance of paying it back on a variable rate loan, and probably lied on their loan application to get it. And that the bank giving them the loan was probably pressured to do so for political reasons is just so much icing on the cake."

    oh, i'm sorry, you mean when wall street basically pressured the congress to change the rules? oh, yeah. that was all about poor black and brown folks stealing your money. poor you.

    and gunslinger, you are clueless dude.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 10:43am

78. "These people are still pissed because George W. Bushes first act in office was to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. "----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:29am

    So tell me, gunny....why was there not ONE....zero....zip....nada...."Tea Parties" held in protest of the Bush tax cuts? Or a Trillion in DEBT for invading Iraq???

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 10:54am

79. "These people are still pissed because George W. Bushes first act in office was to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. "----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:29am

    So tell me, gunny....why was there not ONE....zero....zip....nada...."Tea Parties" held in protest of the Bush tax cuts? Or a Trillion in DEBT for invading Iraq???

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 10:58am

80. and gunslinger, you are clueless dude.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 10:43am

    Really? How so? Because I disagree with you and agree with the Tea Party movement. What exactly are you afraid of anyway.?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:01am

81. Sorry for the double...Little Citizen_Carrier'itis.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:01am

82. Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 10:54am | ignore this person

    That's simple, but you already know the answer. The Tea Party arose how of both parties wasteful spending. It's a movement that in truth but not in organized identity really began forty years ago. It's like Mt. St. Helens, boiling and boiling and now it has erupted. This is a movement that has no use for politicians who say one thing and do another, something they are ALL guilty of. Maybe they'll start listening. Some people like yourself are resisting the reality but you'll come around.

    Bush tax cuts held them off for awhile and the war in Iraq as unpopular as it was was won and the lights will stay on for a little longer. That's an over-simplification of the problem over there but all one needs to do is to go back to the Carter years, actually to the Truman years and read up on the history of our interest in that reason and why we are there. If George Bush simply told everyone that he was there for the oil, (which he actually did say once in an off guard moment), the liberals would have crucufied him even worse, even while they enjoyed American Idol, hot showers and their automobiles.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:09am

83. Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:01am

    No problem, say it again and maybe you'll begin to convince yourself.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:10am

84. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 11:09am

    Okay, so Bush's tax cuts which you guys "opposed"...didn't do it.

    A TRILLION in debt for the Iraq War....didn't do it.

    But "amazingly" just about the time Obama was elected and passed a stimulus bill, that was "the straw that broke the camel's back" and got those folks out there with their "Obama=Hitler" signs and "Keep your Gov't hands off my Medicare" signs and little children holding up "How will I pay this off?" signs?

    Though you were "seething mad" all throughout the Dubya years....that one stimulus bill and that one guy who can't supply his 'real' birth certificate was what it REALLY took to get you to take to the streets?

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 11:21am

85. "It's comparing apples to oranges, just like comparing Obama's oratory skills to GWB's is also apples and oranges". -GUNSLINGER

    It's like comparing a freshly picked apple to a WWII e-ration. The e-ration also came with propaganda and a pithy little slogan.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 11:25am

86. gunslinger just can't get himself to admit that the resistance towards obama has to do with two things:

    *he's a democrat

    *he's black

    the resistance is not borne, in part, because he's a liberal, or because he's a socialist or marxist.

    he's neither liberal, nor marxist, nor socialist. not even the president of france or canada is a liberal, and their governments are way to the left of the united states, while still governing from the center-right.

    that just goes to show how:

    a) far bush pushed the country to the right.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 11:36am

87. I always love the extremely low bar of expectations that the war mongers place on their war-of-choice/socialized hospitals/schools/crossing guards(mercenaries) in Iraq!

    GUN, among others, claims again that the war in Iraq is WON!!

    Wars over...why can't we go home?

    "By Elizabeth Arrott Cairo 10 September 2009

    Iraqi officials say a truck bomb has killed at least 20 people and wounded 27 others in a Kurdish village in northern Iraq. "

    -VOAnews.com

    " Monday, September 7, 2009, 21:27

    At least 17 people are thought to have died in a series of bomb attacks in Iraq today.

    A suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into a police checkpoint just outside Iraq's western city of Ramadi, killing nine people and wounding at least 13."

    Irishtimes.com

    "A roadside bomb has killed a police chief and at least four of his colleagues in a northern Iraqi town.

    The attack happened in Amirli, home to a sizeable Shia population in an area with an Arab and Kurdish Sunni majority south of the regional oil hub, Kirkuk. "

    -BBC.com

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 11:38am

88. I always love the extremely low bar of expectations that the war mongers place on their war-of-choice/socialized hospitals/schools/crossing guards(mercenaries) in Iraq!

    GUN, among others, claims again that the war in Iraq is WON!!

    Wars over...why can't we go home?

    "By Elizabeth Arrott Cairo 10 September 2009

    Iraqi officials say a truck bomb has killed at least 20 people and wounded 27 others in a Kurdish village in northern Iraq. "

    -VOAnews.com

    " Monday, September 7, 2009, 21:27

    At least 17 people are thought to have died in a series of bomb attacks in Iraq today.

    A suicide bomber drove a car packed with explosives into a police checkpoint just outside Iraq's western city of Ramadi, killing nine people and wounding at least 13."

    Irishtimes.com

    "A roadside bomb has killed a police chief and at least four of his colleagues in a northern Iraqi town.

    The attack happened in Amirli, home to a sizeable Shia population in an area with an Arab and Kurdish Sunni majority south of the regional oil hub, Kirkuk. "

    -BBC.com

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 11:38am

89. The war is OVER baby!

    Over and WON!..We know this because of the stability of Iraq.

    This is easy to believe if ones core system is based on the belief in fantasy. If one can believe in a Man in the Sky, one can easily be afraid of the non-existent.

    Nukes that don't exist? Easy...be afraid

    Black Welfare Queens?...Easy...The Other is to be feared...

    Death Panels... of course...we know the left sponsors racially based euthanasia!

    We have proof of the number of tea baggers overwhelming Marxist Brother Obamas DC...

    "When the mainstream media didn't pick up on the story, several conservative bloggers began distributing a photo of protesters clogging the DC mall.

    Problem: the photo is from a totally different event.

    '...problem with the photograph: it doesn't include the National Museum of the American Indian, a building located at the corner of Fourth St. and Independence Ave. that opened on Sept. 14, 2004…That means the picture was taken before the museum opened exactly five years ago. So clearly the photo doesn't show the "tea party" crowd from the Sept. 12 protest.'- "- Christian Science Monitor

    Next...Larry warns us of the evils of presidential propaganda...

    "By Emily Heil CongressDaily May 20, 2004

    The Bush administration violated anti-propaganda law when it distributed videos to news stations earlier this year about the newly passed Medicare prescription drug law, the General Accounting Office said Wednesday.

    Parts of the "video news releases" that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued were not properly identified as coming from a government source, the GAO found, making their distribution a violation of the law that bans the use of public funds for publicity or propaganda."

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 11:51am

90. ah, but crabwalk, as antisocialist might say, "the constitution enumerates war powers" or something like that.....and therefore *all* war expenses are constitutional....and totally justified.

    teh stupid. it hurts.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 11:52am

91. Where were the tea baggers?

    Where was the outrage?

    "May 5, 2005 ... Americans overseeing cash handouts for rebuilding in southern Iraq could not adequately account for almost $100 million"-MSNBC

    "By JAMES GLANZ Published: July 28, 2006

    BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 27 -- The United States is dropping Bechtel, the American construction giant, from a project to build a high-tech children's hospital in the southern Iraqi city of Basra after the project fell nearly a year behind schedule and exceeded its expected cost by as much as 150 percent.

    Called the Basra Children's Hospital, the project has been consistently championed by the first lady, Laura Bush, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and was designed to house sophisticated equipment for treating childhood cancer."

    Could you imagine the tea bagging outrage if the Michelle Obama/ACORN Memorial Hospital in Chicago ran years overdue and 150% over budget...then was canceled !!

    Why...Why....we would want to "TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!"

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 12:01pm

92. Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 11:52am

    I wonder how Larry is doing in therapy. To have twice voted for and defended religiously in public such a LIBERAL as George W. Bush...

    I guess that accounts for his fall into the deep end of the Delusional Pool recently.

    Defend GITMO...warn us of the totalitarian Obama Death Panels...

    Defend wiretapping of US citizens... warn us of the unconstitutionality of covering those without access to basic health care...

    It's all perfectly logical...if the Man in the Sky agrees with you!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/21/2009 @ 12:07pm

93. without any sensible leadership in the republican party, the void is filled with the fringe.

    and the teabaggers are that fringe.

    and obama has amazingly reached out to them (Because he's such a nice guy), and yet they still call him a marxist

    Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 12:16pm

94. Antisocialist--After crabwalk reduced you to fresh road pizza, I must admit I have misgivings about stepping on a downed individual regardless of how warped & sinister he may be.

    People like your wingnut bloviators (fatty, ratty & catty) of the airwaves have been very successful in placing blinders on a significant slice of the general public. It will take the President many repeated lectures to turn the tide after years of repub hypnotic demonology.

    Repubs continue to pursue the same twisted & destructive course to overlay disaster with disaster after the financial meltdown & accompanying increases in human misery after decades of neglect.

    Almost like the owners of the White Star Line telling the world that after rebuilding a duplicate copy of the Titanic, the next voyage would include a retinue of preachers to see to spiritual needs in case another iceberg got in the way.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/21/2009 @ 12:40pm

95. Sorelish translated=Obama must spend a lot of time through media manipulation and propaganda, attempting to get the people to accept a socialist transformation since they would not do so willingly.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/19/2009 @ 8:41pm

    It's funny that you say this, because when people made the same claim about Bush using the media and propaganda to sell his war people were so adamant that he was just appearing to "debunk the liberal lies." Now the shoe is on the other foot and you unabashadly take the other side without even contemplating the sheer hypocrisy being stepped into. Every President uses the media to send a message and to debunk lies. His use of the media is no different than Bushes. It's just that he unlike previous Presidents his more in tune with the modern age and therefore knows how to use it better than previous Presidents. I think even our right wingers here can concede that to him.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/21/2009 @ 1:21pm

96. Anybody here REALLY believe gunslinger's line about the Tea Partyers opposing the Bush tax cuts...or the debt from the "War on Terror"...

    but Obama's stimulus plan was "the final straw"????

    Anybody????

    Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 1:47pm

97. mask, i'm certain antisocialist believes it, because:

    a) war funding is unlimited per the constitution

    b) actually bush tax cuts actually created revenue

    yeah, teh stupid. it hurts.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 1:55pm

98. Bradgelina Rev Happ in full agreement forever and ever. May your union be blessed with endless years of blissful agreement on how weak, socialist, etc., etc., all us unAmerican "Leftist" posters are. Amen.

    Posted by winyahn at 09/21/2009 @ 2:11pm

99. "These people are still pissed because George W. Bushes first act in office was to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. "----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 10:29am So tell me, gunny....why was there not ONE....zero....zip....nada...."Tea Parties" held in protest of the Bush tax cuts? Or a Trillion in DEBT for invading Iraq??? Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 10:54am | ignore this person |

    --there's no doubt "Right-wing" media (like Fox) want to tout the "tea parties" as vigorous, "we the (regular) people" protests...

    however, it's not necessarily contradictory for a regular joe to be bothered about universal health care (big gov't spending) but not about wars (also big gov't spending). antiscocialist is a perfect example: he believes money spent on "defense" (read: wars helping promote the economy via bombs and oil) is money well spent; and money spent on healthcare isn't.

    Is he wrong? In my opinion (and many others): very much so. But it's not necessarily contradictory or hypocritical to be for big spending in one area of gov't and against it in another. But that seems to be all you're concerned about Mask: pointing out what you think is a contradiction in this arena, over and over and over...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 3:14pm

100. Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 1:47pm

     If you are content with government waste, fraud and pork, which every party is guilty of, you are in the distinct minority. You just haven't realized it yet but you will. The people who have joined what is called the 'Tea Party' movement are not just conservatives.

     Stop listening to Olbermann, Chris, (tingle leg), Matthews, Maddow and the rest. If you want the pork, fraud and waste to end, get on board. Start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. That is of course you're happy with the status quo.

     The Bush administration is over. Get over it. During that administration Limbaugh and even Hannity were heavily critical of the republican spending that took place. They criticisized republicans as acting like tax and spend liberals. You probably don't know this because you think Fox News and talk radio are your enemies. We have a whole new bunch of thieves running the country now. Try thinking like an independent. Don't be an enabler.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:27pm

101. Try thinking like an independent. Don't be an enabler.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:27pm

     Please. I am now saying Olberman or any of those idiots are fair. But you coming hear and trumpeting the call of Hannity or Limbaugh as being balanced shows that you are far from thinking like an independent. Those two are just as biased as olbermann and lie just as much. They are just as much a part of the status quo. The fact that you are praising them shows your not even close to an independent.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:37pm

102. not*

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:42pm

103. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:37pm

     I'm not 'praising' anyone. I just don't have my head in the sand. I'm able to listen to both sides and make my own point. No doubt, Limbaugh and Hannity are as far right as Olbermann and Matthews are far left. I only stated that Limbaugh and Hannity were heavily critical of republican spenind when Bush was President. That's a fact.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:48pm

104. " During that administration Limbaugh and even Hannity were heavily critical of the republican spending that took place"

     a truly amazing statement!!

     (while they cheered on the war)

     and YES, it is definitely contradictory and hypocritical to be against spending, so long as its healthcare spending, and not war spending.

     totally, flatly, blatantly, and obviously hypocritical.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 4:20pm

105. Sorry Darla but that analogy doesn't fly. You are mixing apples with oranges. We will always be spending serious money looking out for America's interests, namely oil but that is not the spending that Limbaugh and Hannity were upset about. But you already know that.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 4:29pm

106. Posted by julien38 at 09/21/2009 @ 01:46am Actually, in fairness, Bush did graduate from Yale. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck on the other hand...all college drop-outs.

     Posted by Mask at 09/21/2009 @ 07:17am | ignore this person |

     --ted kennedy was kicked out of harvard for cheating.

     --the drop outs you mention are far more successful than you'll ever be (and you're obsession with them finally became clear when I read a post by you mentioning you've done some radio (hosting or deejaying or whatever)...you're JEALOUS that they make money at it and you don't!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 4:37pm

107. that just goes to show how: a) far bush pushed the country to the right. Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 11:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --he who's approval ratings were in the low twenties (or even teens) according to most polls during the last year+ of his presidency?

     please.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 4:39pm

108. without any sensible leadership in the republican party, the void is filled with the fringe. and the teabaggers are that fringe. and obama has amazingly reached out to them (Because he's such a nice guy), and yet they still call him a marxist Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --reached out because he's a nice guy? or could it be, like you said, that he's a "conservative democrat"...perhaps even more "conservative" than you care to admit...

     but as long as he's not George Bush (not policies, mind you, simply just not flesh-and-blood George Bush...Obama gets a pass)...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 4:41pm

109. and YES, it is definitely contradictory and hypocritical to be against spending, so long as its healthcare spending, and not war spending. totally, flatly, blatantly, and obviously hypocritical. Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --why? because if one is for spending in one arena they HAVE to be for spending in another? what's the logic you're using to say it's hypocritical...enlighten us please...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 4:44pm

110. The problem with the President being on the tube 24/7 and going on all those talk shows is that eventually he'll be caught in a bold faced lie. Well, yesterday George Stephanopoulos asked him about ACORN. The President's reply; "I didn't know that ACORN was getting federal money." Of course he was lying through his teeth. His connections to ACORN are ledgendary.

     Now, that is about as big a lie as Bill Clinton telling America that he didn't have sex with that woman.

     So, if you are an Obama supporter, do you just overlook being lied to? Anybody want to take a shot?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 4:53pm

111. The problem with the President being on the tube 24/7 and going on all those talk shows is that eventually he'll be caught in a bold faced lie. Well, yesterday George Stephanopoulos asked him about ACORN. The President's reply; "I didn't know that ACORN was getting federal money." Of course he was lying through his teeth. His connections to ACORN are ledgendary. Now, that is about as big a lie as Bill Clinton telling America that he didn't have sex with that woman. So, if you are an Obama supporter, do you just overlook being lied to? Anybody want to take a shot? Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 4:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --George Bush used to plead ignorance all the time too when it came to nitpicky questions...in the leadup to the '03 invasion of Iraq, when his buddies at the oil companies (and his VP's company Halliburton) were preparing to rake in the dough...Bush chose to simply play the "we can't afford to see the evidence in the form of a mushroom cloud" line over and over and over...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:15pm

112. No gunslinger1, what are YOU afraid of? You and Anti, JoMamma, Big P, well I could go on forever, its you guys who are afraid of Govt, liberals, education, HC, smart people, Acorn(Haha), the list is endless, you guys are cry babies unless it you guys in power, and you did it so well last time didn't you Hmmmmm.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:24pm

113. No gunslinger1, what are YOU afraid of? You and Anti, JoMamma, Big P, well I could go on forever, its you guys who are afraid of Govt, liberals, education, HC, smart people, Acorn(Haha), the list is endless, you guys are cry babies unless it you guys in power, and you did it so well last time didn't you Hmmmmm. Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --another non-responsive denise post...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:27pm

114. Urmy can you do one post without bringing Mask up, over and over and over and over?

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:34pm

115. We have a whole new bunch of thieves running the country now. Try thinking like an independent. Don't be an enabler.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     fallacy of equal perfidy. nobody's perfect but its fallacious to assume equal perfidy between tow opposed groups.

     lazy thinking, unless its true, of course

     look forward to slinging bullets with you.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/21/2009 @ 5:42pm

116. No Urmy, heres a non-responsive post "bite the big green weeny"

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:45pm

117. Make that "bite the big green weenie A#*hole"

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:47pm

118. Urmy can you do one post without bringing Mask up, over and over and over and over? Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --saying you're being "nonresponsive" has nothing to do with Mask.

     --and saying all I do is bring up Mask is a joke...I haven't counted the number of posts I've made to do, but a vast, super-majority of them have not addressed or concerned Mask.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:51pm

119. No Urmy, heres a non-responsive post "bite the big green weeny" Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person Make that "bite the big green weenie A#*hole" Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --quite the scholarly gal denise...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 5:52pm

120. Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 5:24pm

     Ok. But what about Obama's lie that he didn't know ACORN was recieving federal money. it doesn't even pass the laugh test. Care to respond this time?

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:26pm

121. Denise, trust me, Barack Obama is a nice guy but he's a politician first and foremost, which makes him no different than any other. The more he appears on the tube, the more lies he'll be caught in. Why do you think he won't go on Fox? No, it's not because he doesn't want to dignify them or give them ammunition, it's because he's afraid of hard questions. The liberal media keeps tossing him softballs. Some change huh?

     Tonight he'll be on Letterman. Wow, that's the stuff that journalism is made of.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:30pm

122. gunslinger1---you concede the same about Bush, right?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 6:50pm

123. Get real gunslinger, if anyone could go up against the goons at faux it Obama, or don't you remember him going up against McCain and Clinton? Obama knows what a bunch of hard right weirdos are on fox and that their big thing will be to get the prez to blow it, you know like one of Urmys gotcha moments with Mask, why give them the ammunition? Hes doing what he needs to do to get his message across, personally I don't think the message is strong enough, but hey at this juncture I'll take anything on HC, and hope we can improve on it later.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:56pm

124. but hey at this juncture I'll take anything on HC, and hope we can improve on it later. Posted by Denise29 at 09/21/2009 @ 6:56pm | ignore this person

     --and obama smiles at the low, low bar, 'cause with a really flexible spine, he can limbo with the best of 'em...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2009 @ 7:27pm

125. "Now, that is about as big a lie as Bill Clinton telling America that he didn't have sex with that woman"

     er, exactly! both lies were over completely irrelevant and trivial matters.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/21/2009 @ 10:01pm