Obama's Hollywood debut

Why do we let hollyweird play such a big role in who we vote for. there are better story lines to follow.

We the people, finally have hope

Obviously this was an amazing coup for O-Man. A junior senator attracting Hollywood's A+ list and hauling in 1.3 mil--for one event--is unthinkable. When he initially raised speculation of a run...I thought he had as much chance of winning the nomination as the Edsel winning car of the year. I've now eulogized that thought...He still may not win the "Oscar", but if HC ekes out a W, she'll need plenty R&R to heal her battle-scarred body. It'll be a great screen test for both combatants. And could produce the type of edge-of-your-seat drama that would make Mr. Hitchcock proud.

Proud OBAMA supporter!

I think we let hollyweird play such a big role because they do it well

Mike Dorning,

This is the perfect, the most representative post. This summarizes it all. Not just The Obama Campaign but American politics in the 21st century... celebrity worship; media hype; fluffier than fluff.

Well done.

Yes, quite a coup. Cozying up to Hollywood worked SO well for Kerry.

Maybe Steven Spielberg and the Film Actors Guild will tell us who to elect for Mayor of Chicago, too.

"Don't sell yourselves short," Obama said. "You are the storytellers of our age."
____________________

Deep Thoughts by Obama. So movies and television shows are stories....finally we understand. And filmmakers have been selling themselves "short" all these years by believing they were what, real estate agents, bartenders, dry cleaners? This is some profound thinking.

O whence doth source of ye cynicism? Leo: This isn't about celebrity worship; it's all about raisin' cash to elect a potential change agent; a restorer of hope; a leader with common-sense in the WH. Unfortunately it's a money-driven process, but O didn't construct it. He's doing what needs to be done, and doing it very well.

America has it's warts, but it didn't rise to prominence on a dour recipe of pessimism, cynicism, defeatism...Yes, Obama has become the poster child for the "If you work hard and belive, anything is possible" mantra. Well, that's a mindset many more of America's YL (young lost generation desparately need to embrace. It has certainly inspired moi, et al...

Somehow I recall a few voices on this blog saying that no one outside of Illinois knows who Sen. Obama is. Seems to me he has quite a following 2300 miles away. I don’t know if I’d put too much stock in the opinion of fantasy land, but it’s obvious they know who the Junior Senator is, and what his message is. I don’t vote on other peoples opinions, but in this case, Hollywood knows as I have for quite some time now, that Obama is the best man for the job.

I truly believe that the hollywood elite, think
that they have all the right answers for us peons. Its alright to have an opinion but you don't have to force it down our throats. You are in the entertainment business,so entertain me.

Whoever Morgan Freeman likes is my man or woman.

I find it troubling that the organizers apparently wanted to limit the press coverage. No cameras permitted inside the ballroom, Obama ducked out the back away from the press, security ejected camera crews and reporters, guests tight-lipped when leaving, and security terminated an interview of one of the guests. What are Obama, his handlers, and/or supporters afraid of?

Reading this more closely is liable to make you sick. $1.3 million from a single fundraiser? This man is bought and paid for by the Hollywood lobby.

Remember the poster saying it would be illegal for Obama to accept millions from a single source? The "bundling" loophole of checks is still letting rich people like Katzenberg and Geffen skirt campaign finance laws. I wouldn't be surprised if every employee they have somehow got a "bonus" in their paycheck that was equal to the the $2,300 cost of a ticket.

And of course, Obama's offensive line made sure that no reporters or representatives of the press who didn't pony up that exorbitant fee were booted. How's that for freedom of the press and transparency? Don't you wonder how the Libune managed to stay?

Aniston, fresh from her latest round of cosmetic surgery, hits the nail on the head with the Hollywood fascination of style over substance that personifies Obama: "He's lovely," she said. Not surprising that she would endorse looks over ideas and experience.

And as if this post wasn't already bad enough, the "reporter" makes sure that all us little people know that we should always listen to do what Natalie Maines tells us to.

Don't sell yourself out short Obama.

Aniston, fresh from her latest round of cosmetic surgery, hits the nail on the head with the Hollywood fascination of style over substance that personifies Obama: "He's lovely," she said. Not surprising that she would endorse looks over ideas and experience.

Posted by: Jeff | Feb 21, 2007 9:48:39 AM

I'm not sticking up for the Hollywoodies who think they should tell us who to vote for, but before you start taking pot shots, at least get your facts straight.

She had surgery for a deviated septum, not to enhance her looks.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/article/urn:newsml:cp.org:20070131:tv-39633024__ER:1

Who cares what Hollywood thinks? It worked so well for Kerry. When idiots like Ben Stiller/Jennifer Aniston and Ashton Kutcher support a candidate it turns as many people off as it does toward that candidate.

Rus Styles says, "This isn't about celebrity worship; it's all about raisin' cash to elect a potential change agent".

I say that Obama has become the poster child for the "If you work hard and can raise $100 million, anything is possible" mantra.

I say that's tragic; that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine and others would tell us this isn't what we had in mind AT ALL, people!

If Barack makes it (or whomever does) I hope he/she serves us well. But there is something distinctly antidemocratic about all of this.

Somewhere in America, right now, there is a child who will grow up to be better and smarter and more creative than anybody else... but s/he can never even hope to become president because s/he isn't connected.

That isn't only her personal loss, it is ours.

REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NOW!

Obama is just like Hollywood. All show and that's it. Obama, also like Hollywood is all fantasy. If anyone really thinks this guy would make a good President we are all in deep trouble. Also, if anyone trhinks this guy can be elected President of the United States they are living in a fantasy world. Not much of a political track record,no on the record real stand on any issues, no foreign policy experience, no nothing. Just like Hollywood,all show and that's it.

The first time I voted, I voted for John F. Kennedy. Since then, like so many others, I held my nose and voted for the candidate that I disliked the least. Senator Obama has inspired in me the same enthusiasm, hope, and optimism that JFK did. Senator Obama has made me remember my ideals, ideals that tarnished over the years with Viet Nam, Watergate, and now the mess in Iraq (and the mess in the White House). I attended the ralley earlier this month at UIC. It was great. He's great. I hope he makes it.

I can't believe Obama is taking money from actors! Why can't he get his money from sources less damaging to our country, like tobacco companies and the gun lobby, like Republicans do?

Meanwhile, Pander Bear McSurge stayed awake long enough to bring 'em to their knees in Des Moines.

Dreaming about my love
You bring me joy and hours of happiness
More or less
I dream my life away

Waiting for you to come
Changing my life for you to emptiness
Meaningless
Minutes just drift by

I don't care if I get nowhere
I can just dream and you'll be there
What else is there to do?

Dreaming about my life
Where are you now, and when will you
Come to me?
I dream my life away.

I don't care if I get nowhere
I can just dream and you'll be there
What else is there to do?

Dreaming about my love
You bring me joy and hours of happiness
More or less
I dream my life away.

Dreaming, dreaming.

I find it fascinating that so many "conservatives" resent wealthy actors making innocuous public political statements but are so willing to defend the even wealthier corporatists that covertly steal from them every day.

"Somewhere in America, right now, there is a child who will grow up to be better and smarter and more creative than anybody else... but s/he can never even hope to become president because s/he isn't connected."

Leo- I really think you're overstating the case. While Obama hardly grew up poor, he grew up no more "connected" than they most middle class Americans. Did Bill Clinton grow up "connected"? Did Guiliani?

Yes, to run for President you have to be "connected" as an adult. That's the nature of the beast. Washington, Adams and Jefferson were all "connected" as an adult, it's a prerequisite for politics. If you don't have a network of people who know, respect and support you, you cannot win in any sort of a democracy.

Jeff C., I wasn't talking about that surgery, I was talking about her amazingly larger boobs that she didn't get an operation for, that just happen to be larger now than they were before, that have absolutely nothing to do with her recent deviated septum surgery. All of this never happened which was never a problem before but is now.

Anyway, it's not a large part of my point. If I offended you Jeff C. or Miss Aniston, I apologize. I'm just one of those people who thinks she looked better circa season one of "Friends" or even before her first nose-job (see "The Leprechaun" if you don't believe there was one) when she looked like a human being and not one of these weird Hollywood starve-yourself women and get lots of work women.

There's a lot worse than what I said in that post in any issue of "Us Weekly."

Disgusting. I am at a loss for words. Only thing that comes to mind is, disgusting!

Nay, Nay, Tom. Morgan Freeman is not the one to follow. Throw in with Morgan Fairchild.

Well someone finally has it right "Dont sell yourselves short". LOOK at the shape of this country since the sixties! "Anything Goes" with the past two generations! It's the "American People" as the politicians say who are responsible for condition, not the President! The Clinton eight years sure didn't help.
Soooooo now to the present generation, "what are you going to do get envolved or watch American Idol? Better get down to the important business of this country. The Roman Empire came to an end too!

Well someone finally has it right "Dont sell yourselves short". LOOK at the shape of this country since the sixties! "Anything Goes" with the past two generations! It's the "American People" as the politicians say who are responsible for condition, not the President! The Clinton eight years sure didn't help.
Soooooo now to the present generation, "what are you going to do get envolved or watch American Idol? Better get down to the important business of this country. The Roman Empire came to an end too!

Why would anyone vote for a President who has the best ideas or vision for America? I want a President that looks good in a flight suit. I don't care if his policies have placed our troops in a meat grinder or if America is going in the wrong direction. Give me a man that looks good in a uniform and I will be proud of my country. I salute you Hero-In-Chief George W. Bush.

The GOP has a love/hate relationship with Hollywood.

They love the stars and the movies and they especially love the stars that agree with their robotic political outlook on the world,...........unfortunatly for them no one out there is a GOP robot unless you count Dennis Miller and Danny Bonaduce as "stars".

This leaves the GOP no other option than to tell their "faithful followers" that they are "above" Hollywood.

OBAMA IN 08 !!!

Don't sell yourselves short," Obama said. "You are the storytellers of our age."
+++
Once again, Barack Obama demonstrates his complete lack of perspective. It would appear that everyone but he knows that one thing Hollywood doesn't do is "sell itself short". If anything, the enormous egos to be found there are at risk only of overselling themselves: in offering up their unsolicited opinions (as they are sure to do at this weekend's Oscars) they often do more harm than good to their chosen candidates. Of that, Obama should be wary.

It is, however, clear that Obama will sell his soul in pandering to Hollywood and the money his Hollywood-generated "Cult of Personality" will garner him.

Another interesting tidbit: Once again, Obama is emphasizing the aspect of story-telling as the key tactic of his campaign for President. The man is nothing without a story.

Hollywood, you are entertainers. Make me laugh you clowns, tell a joke, jump out of a window, or tell the story of the poor gay man who should be able to marry a 17-Year old boy, or whatever freaky wrong thing that you want to make right.

Obama is a liberal, liberal person. Frankly I don't think people realize that.

I say that Obama has become the poster child for the "If you work hard and can raise $100 million, anything is possible" mantra.

I say that's tragic; that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine and others would tell us this isn't what we had in mind AT ALL, people!

If Barack makes it (or whomever does) I hope he/she serves us well. But there is something distinctly antidemocratic about all of this.

Somewhere in America, right now, there is a child who will grow up to be better and smarter and more creative than anybody else... but s/he can never even hope to become president because s/he isn't connected.
Posted by: Leo T | Feb 21, 2007 10:39:02 AM

Welcome to the real world, Leo.
In the days of Madison, Franklin, Jefferson et al., voting as an individual was an impossibility, period. It's why officials were elected to represent whole states, otherwise known as the electoral system. It wasn't until 1788 that citizens themselves could vote.

Getting the word out simply by being there is an impossibility now. To think that people can help work a campaign for free on a full-time basis is just impossible for the working-class. Travel expenses (by any means), lodging, flyers, signs, banners, these are not things that are handed out for the good of a campaign. Sure, they may be discounted by supporters, but people still need to pay their own bills at the end.

Furthermore, to say that people are well-connected does not mean they're "in the pocket" of those same individuals necessarily. Obviously there is a debt of gratitude, and in a perfect world they would simply take the contributions and if elected continue along their merry way in their elected position-- but donations come from people who are like-minded of that canidate. You don't give money to someone who doesn't share your opinion after all.

Obama is doing what the Republicans do--raising money from rich people. The only difference is that Obama's rich people -- Jennifer Anniston, Natalie Maines, Denzel Washington, Tay Diggs-- are more attractive, well-known and interesting than the Republicans rich people--Lee Raymond, Ken Lay, Richard Mellon Scaife!

Jealousy, jealousy!

I love it. It's okay for the Halliburton's and the Jack Abramoff's of the world to pony up money for their candidates, but as soon as it's Hollywood and Democrates, all of the Republican's are up in arms. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Until there is real campaign finance reform, Obama's got to play by the rules to stay in the running.

The reason why there wasn't photos or interviews was because, for a lot of people in this country, Hollywood is too liberal, and if seen as a huge supporter of Obama, then that's not a good thing for him. I've read/heard that to run a viable campaign you need $150-200 million, so you've got to get when you can to survive.

Russ Styles, you're a card. I'll stop questioning Obama (whining, to you) when he stops selling himself to the highest bidder at bundled-check fundraisers. Or gets within single digits of Hillary in the polls. I'm not holding my breath on either count.

Mister Obama is certainly Hollywood handsome.
And he's a very intelligent individual. As a native of Illinois, I have been aware of and liked him for some time. But I don't think any of those things qualifies him to be the President of this nation. We have a long way to go in this campaign, and I'm not giving my $$$ or my support to anyone until they prove themselves worthy of it as well as the oval office. So far, none of the candidates - Democrat or Republican - has done so.

Let's not be too quick to jump on anyone's bandwagon until they prove to us that they've got the right stuff. Mister Obama, for all his fine attributes, may just be a flash in the pan.

Speaking of Obama and Hollywood, this from Mr. Liberal Bill Maher last night on the Tonight Show why Obama will have a very difficult time winning the nomination:

1. "Hillary has a big lead"
2. His "lack of experience"
3. "It's hard to run a national campaign when your name is on the no-fly list."

Not all of Hollywood, it seems, is behind Obama.

one BIG question -

how come none of you "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" liberals are hopping mad about the secrecy of this event?

and please, don't use the "well, the republicans do it all the time" excuse.

p.s. Hey Swamp censors, no one hear wants to know what Russ Styles does to that poor woman who's unfortunate enough to be his lady. Or what sounds come from her. I am, though, willing to take bets that one of those sounds is unabashed laughter.

"..how come none of you "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" liberals are hopping mad about the secrecy of this event.?"

Posted by bob Feb 21,2007 1:40:28 PM

bob,
Because the Republicans do it all the time....

Jeff,

I hadn't heard about the boob job until you mentioned it and I Googled it, just the rumored nose job. I guess I don't keep up as much on my celebrity gossip as I should... Politics is just so much more glamorous!

I thought it was a well written article until the end when I read:
"do what President George Bush could not: Shut her up"
Your kidding right? Do you picture the President of the United States hiding in the shadows waiting to silence people's opinions? Maybe the President of the United States hired the "security man"?

You want to comment, comment. Leave the wackiness for the comedians.

"..how come none of you "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" liberals are hopping mad about the secrecy of this event.?"

Posted by bob Feb 21,2007 1:40:28 PM

This is not a free speech or free press issue.

Oh, yeah, Jeff C., I'm hopelessly addicted to Defamer and thesuperficial.com. I probably should go to rehab for it.

I actually like Aniston as an actress and think she does a pretty good job. I just don't like how in Hollywood the culture is so unabashedly sexist that good actresses like Aniston are forced to starve themselves and ruin their bodies this way to get parts and also play the tabloid games to stay in the public spotlight. That whole Vince Vaughn thing was such a transparent game that it was laughable.

And then, of course, Hollywood power brokers like Katzenberg and Geffen use their money and clout to say how important their opinion is and how right they are and how their candidate should obviously win and people like Obama then tell them they shouldn't "sell themselves short."

Give me 1996 Jennifer Aniston over 2006 any day of the week.

John E., aren't these republicans the people that you and your party are supposedly better and more honest than? Thanks for disabusing us of that dumb idea.

Leo- I really think you're overstating the case. While Obama hardly grew up poor, he grew up no more "connected" than they most...
Yes, to run for President you have to be "connected" as an adult...
Posted by: Tony | Feb 21, 2007 11:07:07 AM

Tony,

WHEN one becomes connected isn't really my point, but how, and how much it costs. (And I'm not particularly ranting about Obama, BTW.)

I also understand that modern communications isn't cheap, and that running for office is going to cost big Bucks, no matter what. (Understood JayD)

But the system is definitely broken when people spend more time fundraising and campaigning for office than serving in that office. It's definitely broken when a candidate MUST (not "should") raise $50 - $100 Mil to even be paid the slightest attention as a prez candidate.

Not only does the system virtually guarantee that the real players are going to be cutting some deals that we, the electors rather they didn't, but also -- as I noted earlier -- qualified people are simply shut out of candidacy.

This simply must change. "That's just the way it is" isn't an argument.

jethro,

how is this not a freedom of the press issue when the press was barred from entering the event?

how the rules change when the shoes on the other foot!

john e,

did you read my entire post?

if you did, you're response makes no sense... or, because it doesn't appear that Democrats have any original ideas, it might make perfect sense.

Yeah, really, Obama's spent more time campaigning and raising money in his first term in the Senate than he has serving the people of Illinois.

Jeff,

We have to be able to beat the Republicans at their own game so that we (Dems) may have the power to change the game for the better.

KKKarl Rove has taken election slime to a whole new level and hopefully we won't have to return to that kind of polluted political process in the near future.

P.S...I've noticed that McCain has hired all of the Rove people who worked on the successful "Swiftboat" campaign in 2004.

Jeff,

I didn't mean to insinuate that you keep up with the celebrity gossip world, it was supposed to be taken as sarcasm. I apologize if you thought I was throwing that out at you.

Posted by: Christina | Feb 21, 2007 1:33:39 PM
Speaking of Obama and Hollywood, this from Mr. Liberal Bill Maher last night on the Tonight Show why Obama will have a very difficult time winning the nomination:

1. "Hillary has a big lead"
2. His "lack of experience"
3. "It's hard to run a national campaign when your name is on the no-fly list."

Not all of Hollywood, it seems, is behind Obama.
(endquote)

I'm sorry, did you... just use BILL MAHER as your argument for Hollywood opinion? I hardly think any real political candidate gives a flip about having Maher backing them, and for that matter that he has the least bit of sway with everyday people.

Let's keep in mind that Maher is a man who thought a funny Halloween costume was dressing up as Steve Irwin with a stingray barb sticking out of his chest, not even two months after Irwin's death.

Next time, find some evidence that actually has some relevance.
And please, to save time, any ideas you have of Anna Nicole's opinion on the matter before her death can be left at the door as well.

The latest appearance altering procedure. The must do new work out craze. The latest pill, the hippest diet...now Obama. See a pattern? These people only care about themselves and whatever flavor of the month that grabs their attention. Let's see how long this craving lasts.

Am I the only one who remembers when Jesse Jackson ran for President? He drew large multi-etnic crowds. He was treated like a rock star. The press followed him around and got intoxicated off of Jesse kool-aid. Hollywood just adored him and thought he was "lovely". Then came time to vote. The rock star who electrified a nation and gave it hope and motivated the un-motivated had a reality slap heard around the world.

I honestly think Obama will do better, maybe even carry some states. Mostly because George Bush has lowered the bar so much that people will accept Ziggy if he just promised not to be Bush. I might be wrong but I think Obama and the Obama addicts have a reality slap coming that will be heard around the world.
Clinton/Obama, now there's a ticket!!!

Did Jennifer Aniston really hit the nail on the head by saying "He's Lovely"? Why would you take that quote so seriously, Jeff. I think you put too much weight on celebrities' words.

OMG Presidential Candidate Groping Season is
upon us already!..But one does have to question
the intelligence level of all these so-called
celebrities brain power must be rated at these
days?..And,especially when their "New Political
Idol" is an empty suit,smiling,charismatic idiot!
..So,I'm sorry but Barack Hussein Obama just
don't have it,upstairs judging bvy his totally
idiotic remarks at his "Secret Fundraiser" an
I don't blame the Security for the event even
shutting down a guest of the event,out of their
own embarassment over what a dud Obama really is,
whether all you Chicago Cult Of Obama Worshippers
like it or not,Obama ain't got it!

Leo T.,

I agree with much of what you say, real campaign finance reform is needed. I also think, however, that Republicans, and their love affair with big corporate money, big corporate welfare, and a general preference for social Darwinism, are most responsible for where we are. For decades, the Dems have had to work with much less money in the campaign kitty, and are only beginning to catch up. I've heard some call from the GOP to limit 'soft money' for all parties, but proposals so far leave enough loop-holes that the Dems would have more to lose, particularly financial support from unions, while corporate money, disportionately favoring Republicans, would still rule the day.

Leo:

There's no question the system is tainted by big money. But--duh...--this is old hat. Historically, there's always been a healthy dose of oligarchy in the political mix. Obama can't change PAU until he's in the position to change Politics As Usual.

Bitchin-on-blogs isn't going to change squat. I'm organizing volunteers, donating my limited time, and offering ideas to improve Obama's campaign. But all I hear from whiners like Jeff is what's wrong with Obama/Clinton. It's feckless fodder. Offer a counter idea or candidate, and give rationale...But, that requires real effort. Any slug can complain. So put or fairmez la bouche!

That's only $4,333.33 per person. I'm disappointed.

Well Sandy, it's only a wild hunch on my part, but my gut tells moi that Mr Obama will not lose a wink of sleep by failing to attract voters possessing your extroadinary powers of articulation, Socratic logic--your ability to string together multiple non sequiturs left my jaw agape--and patrician decorum.

Don't you think you "ain't" got "it" eether?

Pamela S:

If you were hiring a president and VP for your company, why would you want to hire the smarter, more energetic, less tainted, less polarizing person for your second in command?

Let's be objective...Who's the most diplomatic? Who hasn't been craftily positioning themselves for the WH the past umpteen years? Who has the most diverse background? Who worked--practically gratis--to represent members of underpriveledeged communities? Who's the most inspiring speaker/communcator? Hillary knows it. Which is why she's going to milk the EC (Experience Card)--her only ace--till it's frayed at the edges.

Further, I think HRC's super-sized ego would not allow her to select a VP with stronger leadership skills and charisma. As well, it wouldn't be the most effective politico strategy. She'd tap Richardson's southern/hispanic connection; while, in the same breath, not overshadowing her light...Obama--the probable winner--makes the same poligical choice. It's a slam dunk duo.

Hey Jeff C., I didn't take any offense. I meant that seriously. I really have been sucked up by it. I don't buy the magazines or anything but I read them while I'm in line at the grocery store. And with CNN and Fox News covering Britney Spears' antics on their site's homepages it's very difficult to not follow the tabloid press anymore. That's all I meant. And the Tribune isn't helping by giving away that free paper that's always getting left behind on the L train, right when I'm looking for something to read.

I really would like to care less what Britney does or what Jennifer A.'s latest procedure was but it really is right up there above the fold with peace talks in North Korea on all the news sites. So, yeah, I get sucked in.

So, yeah, no apology necessary. I long for the day when dumb stuff isn't reported as news anymore. Until then, I'm in bondage to Britney/Brangelina/Anna Nicole and cannot free myself.

"There's no question the system is tainted by big money. But--duh...--this is old hat....fairmez (sic) la bouche!"
Posted by: Rus Styles | Feb 21, 2007 7:23:39 PM

Rus,

You're usally brighter than this. You've ignored the point. You've casually (dare I say, stupidly) brushed off a valid criticism of the system, and then immediately returned to being The Automatic Obama Platitudes Generator.

I wasn't specifically attacking your Lord and Savior (so you didn't have to call me a slug) but since you're only about Obama, all the time, OK... let's follow that tack.

From what do you get your confidence that The Blessed Obama is going to change politics-as-usual? The Tony Resco deal? From the Obama's ability to use his newfound celebrity to a get $300 K per year "job" for his wife? From Obama hawking Ethonol (an abysmally bad energy source) and, by the way, getting money from agribusiness?

You're a pretty well read, well spoken and generally likable guy, Rus. However a little less ideological rigidity and more critical thinking would suit you better.

dt,

Could it be that the Ds have been getting less corporate money simply because they've been out of power?

In any case, the Ds and Rs both filthy. And I have no patience for "Well you gotta play the game, and those are the rules, so just shut up".

Candidates have to raise money.....I would prefer any day that respected directors and actors donate money than corporate America...Face it there are so many hands in the crooked corporate cookie jar, and believe me they are not looking out for the working American. Wake up America stop it. This man is a hope, an inspiration to us all. You have to give people a chance instead of bashing the person before the race begins. If we would have looked at George W. Bush and Dick Cheny in this way...Well what can I say.
As I said before I prefer Ron Howard to give a donation any-day before any CEO of Pharmaceutical Companies...etc...

Where was the outrage when Scooter Libby was having money raised for his defense fund by Law & Order's Fred Thompson? Why hasnt' anyone on the right told Charlton Heston to go to hell for making his political views known?

Rus Styles let me get this straight. Because you can't refute the FACT that Obama is bought and paid for and the FACT that he has the least amount of experience of any candidate you're just going to call those facts "feckless fodder."

That's rich. I've given many, many examples of why McCain or Giuliani would be a better candidate because of experience and leadership. I'd explain why Hillary would be, but I don't really support her, either, so my heart wouldn't be in it. I will, however, tell you that Bill Richardson has all the experience and shows the leadership qualities necessary to lead our country. If there were ever any Swamp posts about him, I'd say so in them.

All that being said, there's no way you can claim that a Hollywood sell-out, million-dollar fundraiser that's closed to the free press is any kind of victory for democracy. On the contrary, it's the type of back door dealing that would make only a Chicago politician proud.

p.s. Your French is attrocious, too. You shouldn't try to use a language you don't know how to spell or conjugate. Let me school ya:

Fermez le bouche!

Jeff,

Besides H.C. and Richardson, Al Gore is far more qualified (and I'd argue, more principled) than The Divine Barack or any of the others among the Ds.

What all of the above lack is the celebrity status of The Divine Barack; the Oprah endorsement; or a "He's lovely" from Anniston; and all of the gushing worship that these weighty attributes assure.

This great dumbing down of political discourse is part and parcel of the massive amounts of money involved and the campaign "season" balooning to the point where it is no longer a season at all, but a continuum. It creates the perfect conditions for propagandizing.

So I don't understand the nonsense about "hope" and "a breath of fresh air" and other such simpering drivel. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING about Barack Obama indicates that he has the slightest interest in changing the way things are done.

Of course, the same is true for most of the pols, but The Divine Barack is the only one we're allowed to talk about.

"...AS FAR AS OBAMA GOES,I LIKE HIM AND WILL PROBABLY VOTE FOR HIM......"

Posted by Leo T. Jan 26,2007 11:59:27 AM

Leo,did someone die and make you the moderator of the Swamp?
Shut up and leave your comments like everyone else does.

Leo,

Now you're resorting to direct attacks on my intelligence. Using sarcastic natter such as, "the Blessed...", doesn't prove anything except your skin is thin. I never called you a slug. If you inferred that, I apologize. I said any slug can complain, which is inarguable.

My point was, many bloggers here bellyache like a baby who lost their bottle about Obama, yet offer no counter. No candidate is perfect. They all have made mistakes, or take positions we view differently. But, to take shots--multiple times/day--at everything Obama says or does. Then ignore or make light of any endorsements, positive press, etc, simply is (if might say) stupid. Petty. Non-constructive to constructive dialogue, which I presume is the point in blogging. (?)

There's an ecletic demographic in America that staunchly supports O; some even smarter than you and the Gnostical Jeff. These folks have seen all the so-called dirty linen you've repeatedly, and single-mindely pointed out. Yet, his likeability and integrity numbers are off the charts. How's that possible? I suppose they are all under the same messianic spell...

I ask again, what are you and the other HOHs doing--besides scrounging up and spreading blogslime, mixed with admitted mistakes (He has stated on numerous ocassions that Revko was "bonehead")--to improve the system? Simple question. Please don't do a Fred Astaire shuffle by re-attacking me.

Jeff Petty, The Spelling Bee King:

I admit, I'm no French scholar. But, I am fairly proficient with my native tongue. So while you're magnanimously correcting my fourth sub-language, please allow me to advise you on what I assume is your first spelling error of time immemorial...It's atrocious, not "attrocious". I'm sure that rare mis-spelling was just a result of your unbridled anxiousness to correct my French. Merci beaucoup.

Jeff, I wouldn't have gone after this had you not been so specific in knocking Rus Styles' French. I noticed his misspelling, too, but yours isn't really better, if we're going to the trouble of correcting the errors of others.

"Bouche" is feminine, ergo, it would be "fermez LA bouche" rather than "LE bouche." And if you were actually using it in French TO somebody, you'd probably tell them to "ferme TA bouche" or even "ferme TA GUEULE" (the verb form would also change when addressing someone in a declamatory manner).

And "attrocious" is actually "atrocious." One t.

Would that mean you yourself shouldn't use either French OR English?

Sois gentil!

Rus,

1) I'm not an Obama hater, hardcore or otherwise.

2) I do not, have not, taken "shots -- multiple times/day -- at everything Obama says or does."

I have said (and still say) that there are things to admire about Obama. I have also always said that he has some all too human flaws. Those have been coming to the fore lately.

All I'm asking for is for people to have a grip on reality. For example, it is childishly naive -- to put it mildly -- to expect Obama to change the politics-as-usual that I've been complaining about when he manifestly has absolutely no interest in doing so. And yet you and others seem to expect just that.

However, your last post is much more grounded than earlier ones, and I'm thankful for that. Up till now, though, you've been gushing like a schoolgirl over a pop star.

PS: BTW, there should be more to look for in a candidate than some vague "likability".

PPS: On an earlier thread I addressed your (rhetorical?) question: why do some Conservatives like Obama? Maybe you missed it.

John--Muchos gracias mi amigo! Yea, the more Spelling Bee King flaps his know-it-all gums, the deeper he inserts his clay dogs...

Well, of course, John, I was just correcting his "fairmez" to the correct verb. I didn't realize we were going down to the fem/masc la/le distinction. But thanks for the correction.

My main problem with you, Russ, is you complain all day about other posters pointing out factual faults of Obama (that he's 1.) bought and paid for by the Hollywood lobby, 2.) that he endorsed a hack like Todd Stroger, 3.) that his land dealings show he profited from property owned by Tony Rezko, and 4.) that he's done nothing in office but campaign for higher office and profit off his own book sales) but you're still blind to the fact that you offer nothing of substance here and mainly just act as a cheerleader for Obama. Yet you still pee and moan about the mean people that point out his very true faults.

Your average post says nothing more than "rah rah Obama" and has little to no substance, sorry to be harsh but it's true. You want to be a cheerleader? Fine Go to his web site and do cheers there. You'll be called out on that crap here.

Furthering your hypocrisy is your claim that nobody else offers an alternative to the Obasm. Hello? I've extolled the virtues of McCain many times here. Leo offered Bill Richardson and Al Gore. If you have already decided on Obama then fine, but don't belittle people that aren't in the cult that you and Frank James share for not falling in lockstep behind you and then have the gall to say they offer no alternative.

"his likeability and integrity numbers,": What about them? They don't win elections. This statement is either ridiculous or meaningless considering that BO is trailing Hillary Clinton by nearly 20 points in the most generous polls. What does likeability have to do with getting elected? Many people thought Bob Dole was a nice guy, but they didn't want to vote for him for President all the same.

I know all of this will go in one of your ears and out the other, but I have to at least TRY to get you to look at this objectively before you hammer out yet ANOTHER tortured, tired boxing metaphor extolling the virtues of Obama on your poor keyboard.

Try, try to remove your obvious pro-Obama bias filter and look at the candidates objectively and I'm sure you'll discover that the emperor you worship so vehemently indeed has no clothes.

Well after reading must of the posts here, it's obvious to me we will be electing another liberal democrat for president once again. Why just a few years ago we elected the great liberal...uh..uh..uhh. and before that who could forget the great liberal president...uh..uh.., well surely you remember the esteemed liberal statesman just a few election cycles back President um .um...ummm. Well, you folks get the picture....or maybe you don't ?

Jeff...Here's your predictable MO:

A) Shuffle: eschew answering my question regarding your positive contribution(s)--besides posting Obama hate mantra--to improve the current flawed system. Or, explain why so many sharp people, from all demographics, have endorsed Obama. Kinda hard to answer that honestly without being negative, huh?

B) Deflect: paste your hackneyed, knee-jerk HOH Commandments.

C) Then mix in a few of your "tortured, tired" Jeffisms/cheap shots, e.g., "Emperor". "Cult". "Worship". Etc.

Let's face it, 90% of the attacks on Barack are a cacophony of silly sandbox name-callings (which is why I label it whining); tinged with witless sarcasm. Have you ever heard me call Bush, McCain, Cheney or any other repub/demo/indie simple-minded offensive names? (And they all lug plenty of rippable baggage.) Yea, I focus on Obama's upside, and why not? Clearly his too-many-to-mention positives far outweigh his negatives; and I want him to have an opportunity to deliver the much-needed change I and many others believe he's capable of. Because some of us have the audacity of hope and faith ("pro bias filter") in the man doesn't mean we'd drink poisoned kool-aid (Guyana/Jones, circa '78). I've studied the rest, and concluded that BO is the best.

Lastly, your mis-interpretation of "belittling" others...is simply my direct response to your relentless devolution of petty to personal attacks. But, henceforth, no return fire from moi. Do your fault-finding thing; I have bigger dragons to slay.

Rus, no problem, but let me then disagree with your stance. I'm a big Obama fan, too, and I think he has a heckuva lot to offer this country despite the lack of experience.

Your comment about Obama-bashers tickled me a bit because I was so reminded about Bush-bashing comments from the other side. I'm not sure one is better of worse than the other, and I kind of figure that no matter WHICH candidate is being discussed, ANY AND ALL of them will have obvious fans and obvious (disfans??) (anti-fans??) whose gorge rises with anything even slightly related to that person. As pertains to Obama particularly, the factions have been drawing themselves pretty much along the "love Obama, hate Bush" / "hate Obama, love Bush" lines, such as Paulo, JohnD, Bruce, JohnE, Loon, etc., AND they have tended to be rabid and hysterical in either argument. I've learned to ignore almost EVERYTHING they say because I have better use of my life than processing their stupidity. I am specifically excluding both Jeff and LeoT. from this crowd because, although it's clear they're NOT fans of Obama, they raise good points that I like to think about and their arguments are logical. And in this string, I think their point is valid that WE (not necessarily "YOU," Rus, but anyone on our side) needs to be careful in supporting any candidate not to ignore or gloss over their faults too easily, without wondering once in a while if that person is doing the right thing. It's been our criticism of Bushies for at least 3 of the last 6 years (if not all 6), and we can't in any kind of honesty do the same thing in the different camp and think it's not the same thing BECAUSE it's a different camp.

We're allowed to support the candidate of our choice either way, but we need to test reality once in a while, just like anyone would.

And, Jeff, please remember I wouldn't have picked on the grammar and spelling had you not been so pointedly -- well, nasty (sorry) -- in the tone of your comment to Rus. His language error was not much different from yours, and if you're going to come down like gangbusters on somebody for something well outside topic, then you shouldn't allow any kind of mistake on your part to weaken the main body of your arguments. It wasn't worth commenting on, and it lacked civility to boot. Jeff, I really do appreciate the things you have to say and I hope you'll keep up the posts, whether or not you agree with me, but just make sure to pick your fights carefully and make sure your ammo is dry. Okay?

Rus,

You are defining "hate" as any emotion other than unqualified, autonomic adoration.

You claim to have a good command of English -- and I admit, you're better than a lot of people. Nevertheless, you'd better crack the dictionary about "hate", buddy.

The two people on this blog that that you have lately been (ineffectually) crossing pens with the most are Jeff and I. You routinely refer to us as Hardcore (!) Obama Haters (HOH). Yet there is nothing even remotely close to hatred in any of our posts to date... at least not for anybody who knows the meaning of the word.

I've never called anyone names here, Russ. That's your thing, not mine. When I've used words like "the Messiah" to describe Obama I'm doing it because The Swamp has previously referred to him by that name. Check out slate.com for a funny Obama site critiquing the media coverage of Obama using similar terms. Those terms are a criticism of the media and not Obama.

Russ, mention these "positives" for me, because there are more people in this country that don't know them than do. What are they? What's "positive" about them? Do they just make you feel good to support someone or is there some real policy reason for them to be "positive?"

Who are these unnamed "bright people?" If they're Hollywood actors and actresses and out of work senators like Tom Daschle then please don't bother. Candidates need endorsements from politicans who can stay in office and people that know a thing or two about good government, not people who are very good at another skill like acting.

I have never made a personal attack on anybody here. I defy you to find one. Posting an investigative piece from the LA Times is not an attack. It's sharing the reportage of a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper. When I've used the names BO Express or Kid Barack or some other platitude, it's because I'm referring to a name you've used first in a rah-rah, cheerleading manner.

You still don't mention anything BO's actually done in office. Writing books is all well and good but it's not governing, it's at best policy written down without the force of law and at worst taking time away from office to enrich yourself.

Will you at least concede that Obama was far behind in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Illinois before Blair Hull's divorce records were opened up?

You use vague concepts like "change" and even vagueries lifted whole from BO's books like "audacity of hope." Change to what? Isn't that a question that a voter should ask? And a candidate should answer?

None of this matters one bit when it comes to public policy. Give us bills, accomplishments, prosecutions, grace under pressure, demonstrated leadership. Does it at least bother you that Obama has not once disagreed with the Illinois political machine? That he endorsed a nepotism case like Todd Stroger? That he has never made a statement condemning the patronage hiring process in Chicago that recently landed Robert Sorich in jail? That he's never even condemned George Ryan?

Aren't these things a U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois should take a stand on?

McCain and Giuliani have concrete examples of this type of leadership to spare. Even Hillary has at least taken a stand on the issues. Yet, nothing more than platitudes and vague concepts from the Obama camp. Artifice does not cease to be artifice just because it's wholeheartedly endorsed by Tom Daschle and Jennifer Aniston and funded by political financiers like George Soros and David Geffen.

Someone's certainly "drinking the Kool Aid" here and it's not me.

John and Jeff,

Well said, gentlemen.

Jeff-

You really shouldn't use McCain as an example for taking tough stands.

McCain, a victim of torture, and author of the McCain Amendment against torture, tamely voted yes to both the Graham-Levin amendment and the Military Commisions Act, whic effectively gutted his amendmendt, and explicitly condoned torture. He has made himself accessory to torture.

McCain had compromised his priniciples in order to advance his political career. That's not leadership. McCain is either a hypocrit or a coward. Take your pick.

John, I appreciate your tempered view. Though, I'm not sure where we part ways. Please don't mistake healthy enthusiasm for "first-crush" naivete. I know tainted kool-aid when I smell it. Look, it's one thing to point out a candidate's flaws, short-comings, mistakes, etc., with a cogent argument that explains why their so-called weaknesses disqualifies them for the job.

Yes, some of their (Jeff/Leo)points/opinions have semi-reflective merit. However, J in particular, has never--to my knowledge--posted anything but so-called Obama negatives. He'll robotically flip any positive story to a negative...i.e., If O raises alot of money, it's bad; he's bought, a corporate whore, blah-blah. Au contraire, if he raised scant donations, he'd be a loser. Unpopular. His message failed to resonate...He cherry-picks one inane Anniston quote, and deploys it to buttress his fervid anti-Obama view that he's longer on looks, than substance. Which, of course, is painfully preposterous.

Playing fulltime DA can be instructive for shoring up one's "bow". But what emasculates his arguments are the condescending, sarcastic-laced torpedoes he routinely integrates within his verbal assault. How can one listen attentively to--even valid points--when their ear drums are numb from reverberating invective noise?

I'm open to hearing the naysayers. I'm just not open--like Obama's team--for playing the part of a human pinata. I'd certainly like to continue sharing our thoughts on the campaign...

Thanks again...Enjoy your weekend!

Leo:

Please. Are you a literalist? I don't know you or Jeff well enough to know what truly resides in your respective hearts. It's hyperbole. Though, some of these posters--and you know who they are--do sound like genuine, unabashed HOHs.

I've been effectual? Hmmm. I'm working to change the staus quo in a number of concrete ways. I've repeatedly asked what you gents are doing, besides pointing out the littany of Obama negatives that makes him a less-than-ideal candidate for prez, to right the ship.

If you and Jeff want issues/legislation, there's plenty on his website. I've also posted a few, but that somehow gets overlooked. Don't make false accusations that all he does is talk about the issues, when he has a substantial documented history...If you incapable of finding it, we shouldn't be talking. Point out the pieces of legislation you disagree with, and we can debate.

What do you think of Wolfson, who stated that Geffen was O's fundraiser manager, knowing full well that he wasn't. A cheap maneuver to force Obama into denouncing Geffen. Or better yet, bully him into a corner, so either he looks like a hypocrit by swinging back, or a casper milk toast, who allows his adversaries to push him around with impunity.

Take care...

Jeff:

One of the most important issue Obama took a stand on that's costing our country thousands of precious lives; billions of dollars that could have helped us stay out of debt to China and incalulable loss of credibilty and leadership image in the international community. And I could, well, do a dissertation on this mess your boys Bush & Cheney have left for my generation to deal with for--who knows how many--decades. If Obama had been in the bighouse, we wouldn't be in this hellish cauldron. His clairvoyant anti-war speech was spot-on in it's prediction of the current state of affairs. But nah, you wouldn't say good call. No, you'd (probably) say, "Well, he wasn't privvy to all the intel...therefore..." Only 23 other sens had the same intel and common-sense to see through the ruse. And Obama is just as smart and ethical; he would have been #24.

So all these nano-issues you're flaunting, pale--PALE!--in comparison to the politically expedient decision Clinton and others made to place our men and women in peril.

I'd still love to know what civic actions you're commiteed to, besides playing Devils Advocate, to clean-up some of the slime.

Russ, you have outlined a very good policy position Obama has staked out so I applaud you for that.

I'm sorry for the invective environment that I've been a part of creating here so I will make a concerted effort to be less sarcastic and negative in my posts. I'm not just a lonely little misbehaver, though.

In regard to Obama's anti-war speech, it is a very good speech. I've never denigrated Obama's public speaking abilities. There is no doubt that he's an excellent public speaker. But I'd caution that it's very easy for him to say that and then vote for that policy in only non-binding resolutions that do not have the weight of law behind them. Obama never voted on the original Iraq war authorization bills. He wasn't a Senator until 2004. Of course Hillary and the rest weren't clairvoyant enough to see the mess Iraq would become. Obama isn't clairvoyant either. No one is.

You assume that Obama (had he even been in office), would've voted no. Unfortunately Presidential campaigns cannot and should not be built on assumptions.

Cheney and Bush aren't "my boys." I've never once voted for either of them. In 2000 I voted McCain in the primaries and wrote his name in in the general. In 2004 I found the decision so unpalatable that I chose to stay home.

I say this with all due respect to you and Obama, but I can't find a single piece of legislation he's worked on that wasn't previously championed by a much more senior senator whose name also appears on the bill. The anti-pork bill was a 6-year mission of Senator Coburn, whose name is also on the bill. The global warming bill was presented to the senate by McCain in 2004 with Joe Lieberman. The version in front of the senate now with Obama and McCain's names on it is nearly identical to the '04 bill.

McCain has been working on the lobbying reform bill since the passage of McCain-Feingold, the most comprehensive campaign finance legislation of the past 25 years (upheld by the Supreme Court). McCain even had to send Obama a strongly worded letter to keep him from diluting the bill in the authoring stage.

I don't mean to be combative, Russ, but this statement is patently untrue: "his fervid anti-Obama view that he's longer on looks, than substance. Which, of course, is painfully preposterous."

It has not been proven to be preposterous by any stretch of the imagination. He's been in national office for only two years. He's spent much of that time campaigning and writing books. These are not the things he was elected to do. He faced only token opposition in his run for the Senate because of how weak George Ryan's misdeeds have left the Illinois GOP. If Obama would get to work doing the work of a Senator he could still become a great politician but any objective analysis of his time in office up until now shows that he's long on potential and photo ops and short on accomplishment.

I don't care what Wolfson or Geffen said. That's between Obama and Hillary and I don't support her, either.

As for what civic actions I'm committed to, I'll gladly share. I'm a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. We're dedicated to promoting and building a pragmatic, thoughtful, fiscally conservative and inclusive governing majority.

http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/

I'll be the first to admit we haven't had one for some time. McCain is a member and so are some of our better senators. I'm also a supporter of Senator McCain, as you may have gleaned by my posts. I would never give money to a politican but I will probably volunteer my time to him when the campaign heats up.

p.s. Tony, McCain led the fight to keep the Geneva accords in tact. The fact that Bush was President meant he had more negotiating power than anyone in his party in opposition. McCain simply secured the best anti-torture policy he could get under the circumstances, which is laudable in that situation. I'm sure that if McCain were to get elected the first order of business would be a new anti-torture bill.

Sorry, Jeff, I just don't agree. Torture is too important to quietly compromise on. I expect more from a man who has suffered torture.

McCain could have shown some real backbone and leadership by voting against and speaking against Graham-Levin and the MCA. He chose not to. He chose instead to become one of the most prominent supporters of those who commit torture.

I personally think that was an utterly shameful act.

OK Jeff:

I can appreciate that lucid and respectful response. I'm heading out now, but I will provide you some legislation that we can chew on...Examples of co-authored bills, especially with a repub, I perceive as a strength vs a dilution of his effectiveness--so please don't knock it. The upshot is getting the leg cleanly over the bar. Sometimes it requires a team effort; and O is legendary for being able to work with other side. Later...