Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Occupied Oratory

The One Emerges: All Hail!

The president emerged from his hole today, looked around, saw the shadow of the 99% looming over his re-election, and officially announced the early arrival of The American Spring. Punxsutawney Phil has been eclipsed by Osawatomie Obama. Oh say what to me?  Oh sock it to me?  Shades of Nixon seeing the writing on the wall during the Vietnam protests and going on Laugh-In to display his stiff populist cred?  Obama, unlike Tricky Dick, is a natural politician with a tongue of gold. Never one to let an opportunity for political theater go to waste, he jetted out to the Heartland of Kansas, to his mythical roots, to mount the ghostly bully pulpit of the original Bull Moose.

O-gasms echoed throughout liberal land.  Robert Reich called it the most important speech ever in Obama's career.  MSDNC is running reruns upon reruns.  The man we elected is b-a-a-ck. Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me ad infinitum, fool me ad nauseum. The man has made the earth-shaking announcement that Reaganomics is a big fat lie.  Riches do not trickle down after all. He has given Democrats permission to be Democrats.  What chutzpah, coming from the original Closet Republican!

It may have been a break-out speech, but its talking points were hardly original. It borrowed liberally from Bernie Sanders's marathon filibuster speech one year ago this month, that blasted income inequality and the president's own cave on the Bush tax cut extensions. Obama channeled the righteous indignation of cast-aside Elizabeth Warren. He echoed the existential angst of Chris Hedges.  The chameleon skin of this president has taken on the populist stripes of all things Occupy.  This man was all too aware of the protesters penned in like cattle by the NYPD outside of his cash bash last week, holding their signs calling him a corporate puppet. It was turning into a personal political crisis not seen since the Jeremiah Wright kerfuffle. It was Time. For. A. Speech.

Barack Obama is a master at pretending that he hasn't actually been in Washington these past three years. It was the "folks in Congress" who failed to rein in the Wall Street greedheads. Here is a representative snippet from the nearly one hour long speech:

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability.  We should be strengthening them.  Here’s another example.  Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender.  No more.  I’ll be calling for legislation that makes these penalties count – so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.
The fact is, this crisis has left a deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street.  And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit.  At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis, and working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.  The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who have yet to benefit from historically low interest rates.  And they should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, they will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest.  (Bolds mine).
Woulda coulda shoulda... but we'll be sure to beg, ask, push, cajole.  I was happy to hear him say that he will call for legislation to punish fraudulent behavior that is now, for all intents and purposes, just business as usual. But who's he gonna call? Harry Reid? Mitch McConnell? Will he run it by his Wall Street donors? I would have preferred an actual introduction of legislation, written by him and his "team", with a time stamp on it.  I actually would have preferred the acceptance with regret of the resignation of Tim Geithner. Or that the Justice Department was issuing subpoenas even as he spoke. Or that he was announcing an immediate moratorium on foreclosures.

And as Dave Dayen complained, why oh why does he always have to spoil these inspirational speeches by calling for freaking austerity at the end? You'd think that with 25 percent real unemployment, a third of all people in or close to poverty, record foreclosures, 50 million uninsured, he would have stuffed the belt-tightening and deficit crap down the crapper where it belongs.  But no. He seemingly cannot help himself:  
And it will require all of us to take some responsibility to that success. 
It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education, students to study harder, and some workers to start studying all over again.  It will require greater responsibility from homeowners to not take out mortgages they can’t afford.... That’s why we’re cutting programs we don’t need, to pay for those we do.  That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars.... When times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and pay, and so do the owners.
He was basically calling for the One Percent and the 99 Percent to just get the hell along and re-elect him, already.  We are all in this together, America.  Share the pain. Because if Congress doesn't get things done, the wife and kids will have to take a separate jet to their 17-day Hawaii vacation ahead of him. Tighten your belts, pretend you're in the middle class, and feel guilty while you're at it. And send him $5 for a chance to win a dinner.  

Sharing the Sacrifice, Feudal States of America-Style


James F Traynor said...

Karen, that was brilliant. The more pissed off you are the better you write. And you're getting better all the time. And it's also so goddamned, terribly true. This country of ours is in an awful fix and four more years of this man won't make anything better.

The oligarchs are preparing us and the media for some sort of war with Iran. It would be very profitable to continue with at least some sort of hostility. The 'O' knows this, as do the Republican contenders. The oligarchs are chuckling with glee. They're going to steal more, kill more and generally have a hell of a good time. And the American public will cheer them on.

Ormond Otvos said...

I guess Ol' Bama shoulda made a Republican speech, eh?

DreamsAmelia said...

How you ever contained yourself to the staid permissions granted by the Times before your blog is beyond me. To contrast your "TC" Karen-lite comment on the Times editorial with your full-throated-- "O-gasms echoed throughout liberal land." and "Osawatomie=Oh say what to me? Oh sock it to me?"--shows what a true favor the Times did for us all in rejecting your comments and birthing your blog...

Gee, Wally... "The speech felt an awfully long time in coming..."(hand-wrings the Times editorial)... Ah, button your mouth, Beaver! You know the President has a very hard job! We shouldn't expect him to worry about the 99% right away...

No, I'm joining Valerie's anti-NYTimes camp--I'll forgo the "Leave it to Beaver" version of the "news" of New York Times... Sardonicky is far more nifty!

Anonymous said...

Right on, Karen. Amazing that people fall so hard when this guy gives a damn speech. So glad you are blogging and commenting away at the Times.

Jay - Ottawa said...

The press (and certain bloggers) thought they had lost good copy when Bush left office. Remember all the laughs (and gasps) -- from that part of the audience that was still awake -- whenever Bush opened his mouth and out popped another malaprop?

Now, weighed down by the administration of hard times that followed Dubya, the press (and certain unnamed bloggers) are still having one hell of a field day, not so much with the laugh lines but with the opportunities for table-pounding satire. Yes, yes, yes to this post!

Obama loves to play basketball, oh yeah. His favorite move is to the right till he damn near runs out the clock, then a slight faint to the left (as in Kansas), followed by turning the ball over once again to the other team. Great moves, zero points for the 99%. Sometimes you have to wonder whether Star Obama isn't the sixth man for the opposing club. Anyone, except a Yellow Dog Democrat, eventually catches on.

What Fox does for lying, and the Daily Show does for laughing, Sardonicky does, SUPERBLY, as it just did, in mocking The Great Fake.

H.L. Mencken lives -- on Sardonicky. It baffles me why some big paper, or journalism school, or progressive campaigner, isn't snapping up the free agent we have here.

Light humor for the good times; dark humor for the worst of times.

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad I finally visited your blog. I'll be looking for your content here now that NYTimes has kind of killed their commenting system.

Kosmopol said...

Karen it is only 2.29 AM in New Paltz when I write this and I am using the comment box to thank you for your comment on the Times Editorial. The Times OnLine tells me that you filed the comment at 5.29 on December 7 even though it is at this moment only 3.30 on December 7 in New Paltz so I am curious how you managed this.

I will copy the text of your blog post on Obama and probably be back later.

In my comment filed just now at the Times I note that the Times policy of Trusted Commentators seems to be working well.

Larry Lundgren Linkoeping, Sweden Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com

Valerie said...

Bloody brilliant, Karen!

I have learned to watch what Obama DOES and to take his speeches with a grain of salt. Anyone who is excited by this speech is an idiot! Sorry but it is true! This guy has lied and lied to the people who elected him. Anyone with a brain in his/her head can see his entire presidency has been about strengthening the stranglehold the one percent has on the other 99%.

One positive thing I WILL say about this speech is that it indicates his handlers are aware that his disenfranchised base might be a little more important to his re-election than he thought. The pathetic thing is that he thinks his lies and promises will be believed. Oh, yellow dogs like my best friend who gets her news exclusively from the MSM and is a millionaire (hence hasn't been terribly hurt by Obama's selling out to the uber-wealthy) might be taken in, but those of us who have turned to the Internet and blogosphere for our news aren't fooled.

Valerie said...

Good news! The High Court in Britain has ruled that Julian Assange has the right to have his case on extradition to Sweden (where the U.S. can get its "hands" on him and throw him into a pit with Bradley Manning) heard by Britain's Supreme Court.

Jim Kelly-Evans said...

Great post...enjoyed your related comment in the Times...keep it up, this is real! Jim Kelly-Evans (medic Occupyphila)

Denis Neville said...

The Manchurian Candidate has no clothes.

Who knew that his biggest legacy would be the ability to “rain targeted death from the sky?”


Patricia said...

I, too, read about the president's speech and was left wondering who's going to drink this Kool-aid? I agree with everything you wrote. Also, the people I run into in everyday life, who voted for Obama, NONE of them will vote for him again. They are so deeply disappointed in him. I am in a state of utter disbelief, that he can "act" like he cares about what is happening to the 99%, and at the same time allow the brutality that shut down Occupy in so many cities. Does he really think all those students in debt and people foreclosed upon will vote for him, while he gives us the finger from Hawaii?

DreamsAmelia said...

"Emerging mediums are always rending the fabric of community, allowing dangerous and radical ideas to spread unchecked, and foisting a diminished life of vicarious experience and self-blinkered narcissism on those seduced into new modes of literacy. "--from an essay by Rob Horning, "The Trouble With Digital Conservatism" at _The New Inquiry_

This author expresses some of the quandaries I think many of us feel as we thrill at blogs, eschew "social media," and have ambivalence about news website comment boxes--the ones with no apparent moderating standards, like _The Hill_ and _Politico_ will keep you coming back to the NYTimes, only to be lured by gems like Sardonicky...

This _New Inquiry_ is an intriguing literary salon instigated by what the Times called "literary cubs"--about as tame as lioness Sardonicky! It feels like the true pulse of the young 99 percenters...


Anne Lavoie said...

O-gasms! I could go for that, if only O made any kind of effort to get us there. That will be the day. Whispering sweet NOTHINGS is all he can manage.

Personally, I thought Obama's speech was lame, stumbling on his teleprompted words as usual. The only time he ever gets stirred up is when he is addressing the troops, talking about war, or his true Piece de Resistance, fundraising for himself. Then HIS adrenalin is pumping HIM up and making HIM feel good. Otherwise, he goes flat when it comes to us plain folks.

After he got into bed with Wall Street, he's hasn't been the same. It's like a bad marriage we keep together for the sake of the kids while he's out at the country club neglecting the family. Those people make him look and feel good about himself, not to mention powerful and puffed up, while he is simply ashamed of us. No wonder we are left feeling exhausted and empty. He has spent himself elsewhere.

Now that the media has conveniently declared in advance that the OWS DID indeed have a message after all, and it was simple 'Income Inequality!', the media can gush that he gets it. The OWS message and Obama are ONE! O-gasms for all, even if they are fake ones for the sake of the marriage.

When is it our turn anyway?


Valerie said...

OK people! Since I don't bother with the Times anymore EXCEPT to read Karen's comments, you need to tell me where to look! Any links would be greatly appreciated!

Jay - Ottawa said...

Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson.

Anne mentioned him a while ago. You (and I) didn't listen to her then, did we?

This guy is a Summa Cum Laude AND he has received awards from civil libertarians and environmentalists for what he's DONE in office.

Among the things he's DONE is to quit the Democratic Party as a bunch of corporatists.

There IS a Third Party, "The Justice Party," and it has a sterling candidate with brains and experience and a long list of ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Nature and committed citizens abhor a vacuum, which is what we now have with the Republican and Democratic parties. Check out Rocky Anderson.

Start here:

Valerie said...

OMG! I just went over to the Times comments - in search of Karen's comment. What a bunch of brain-dead simpletons! Have they been awake at all in the last three years? Clearly not! Aside from Karen, there was only one comment suggesting that THESE WERE JUST WORDS WRITTEN BY A SPEECHWRITER! I am sure there were comments more critical of Obama but they will be pushed to the end and I couldn't even get through the first 25. I DID enjoy commenting on the comments. But then, my comments require moderation and probably will be nixed.

Valerie said...

Apparently, a family living in a mobile home didn't pay the $75 fire department fee in their area so the fire fighters with their trucks stood by and watched the house burn to the ground while the owners ran in and out trying to salvage a few of their possessions. I assume the fire department was there to step in if the fire spread and someone who HAD paid their “insurance” needed them to put out THAT fire. “South Fulton Mayor David Crocker defended the fire department, saying that if firefighters responded to non-subscribers, no one would have an incentive to pay the fee.” http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

This is a terrifying glimpse into our future where we will be paying private companies to have what were once public services.

Jim Kelly-Evans said...

for Valerie: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/opinion/president-obama-in-osawatomie.html?ref=opinion#commentsContainer

Anne Lavoie said...

@Jay - Ottawa

Thanks Jay for adding your voice to the few of us trying to bring the Justice Party and Rocky Anderson to people's attention.
I hope he manages to get some support, at least in the Occupy community. He could be a voice for us someday, if not a candidate.

And for those who still doubt that domestic drones aren't here to stay in The Homeland, here is a piece by Glenn Greenwald titled 'NPR's Domestic Drone Commercial':



WestVillageGal said...

i could only bear to cherry-pick from the incessant bar(ac)king.
and the blatant hypocrisy:

he giveth . . .
"We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off."

and he taketh away . . .

"It will require greater responsibility from homeowners to not take out mortgages they can't afford."

continued thanks, Karen, for the incisive reportage.

with best wishes -

Kat said...

@Valerie-- amazing isn't it? I just checked out the comments to recommend Karen's. Someone wrote some twaddle about compassion/moral force/killing Bin Laden (yes, killing and compassion were part of the same thought. Whatever.) Who are these people? I guess they're the same ones that fall for David Brooks' "reasonable" ruse, right?

Jackie said...

Karen, I've been reading your comments in the NYT for a long time, and your blog since its inception...LOVE, LOVE what you say and how you say it!!! This is my first comment (and maybe my last, I'm not a very good wordsmith :/), but I just wanted to compliment you and say thanks!

You've also got some great commenters here!

Yves Smith (Naked Capitalism) also had a great post on Obama's speech you all might like:


Karen Garcia said...

Thanks so much for all your support, as well as for sharing your own insights, links, ideas and wonderful selves!

Jay - Ottawa said...

A slight precision:

Karen had not one but two (2) comments under that Times editorial of this morning. The problem was, you had to jump over so much Yellow Dog do-do between her first comment, at the top, and her second comment down the line, that you probably quit scrolling before you got to it.

Anonymous said...

I admit to getting pretty depressed when I look at the news. And then I get more depressed when I look at the comments to news penned by my fellow citizens. I feel like we get the government we deserve. And we don't deserve much.

Then I come here and discover that not everyone in America has gone insane. I find myself nodding in agreement to the posts AND the comments. If I were more articulate, I'd have expressed those thoughts myself!

I don't know what difference it makes, but it's nice to know I'm not alone.

By the way, what the heck happened to the New York Times? I used to love reading it and now I can't stand it.
So much stuff there is either massively biased or plain inaccurate. Did the Times get worse, or did I become a bit less credulous?

Valerie said...


Nice to have you join us. And your word smithing is just fine! Some of us are brilliant writers and others, like me, make mistakes all the time. The readership is very forgiving of that kind of thing. Thanks for the link to Naked Capitalism.

Anne Lavoie said...


I too have lost almost all interest in the New York Times. They HAVE changed, more than just their comments format too.

I used to read most of the opinion pieces, many of the comments, and several news pieces but I rarely do either anymore. I don't even look for Karen's comments as much, although I get a real kick out of reading them here and there.

It would be great if someone would post when/where they see a comment by Karen at the NYT. How about it? Will whoever spots a Karen comment mention it here asap after reading it? I bet I'm not the only one who would appreciate it. Otherwise reading the NYT is a waste of time now!

Jackie said...

@Valerie: Thanks for the welcome :)

@Anne: I received an email from NYT today offering an 8-week subscription for only $0.99...what a bargain! LOL No way will I give them any money. The only thing I will miss is Paul Krugman and Karen's comments. I think anything I would want to read there I can find an outside link to somewhere.

Mickey from Seattle said...

Karen, you hit a home run with this post! It amazes me that anyone still believes Obama is capable of even a minimal level of true feeling for working class Americans. The verbal gyrations that his fanboys must go through trying to persuade the rest of us of his greatness make me dizzy. But, the speeches! the speeches! If only his words and actions had connecting tissue.

I always anticipated your excellent comments at the NYT, and I went looking for the newest one, but, apparently, I have been banned from being able to click on any of their comment pages and peruse the facebookyness. It seems Queen Abramson didn't appreciate my recent email outlining the reasons why I loathe the new commenting system. Her answer to criticism is to cut off the critic's internet access to the newly minted blather. Not much of a loss, I'm afraid.

In any case, I really like your blog. I'll be visiting more often.

Valerie said...

OK, Sardonicky readers! I have been nagging Karen from months to archive her comments so I/ we don't miss any. She is far too modest to do it without a huge show of hands! So what do you say? Shall we all join together and beg her to do us this service?

Actually, Karen, if this is a time consuming project, I am more than happy to do the honours. I just have to figure out how to do it. I am a Luddite after all! I am sure it isn’t complicated.

Denis Neville said...

Morning after O-gasms

“Egyptians obviously have come to realize, as many Americans have as well, that President’s Obama’s pretty, pretty speeches are often not backed up - or are even aggressively negated - by his subsequent actions.”

“U.S. arming Egyptian military crackdown”

President O’s support of the democratic transition in Egypt didn’t last long.


Monkey see, monkey do.

“…on Egyptian state television during the latest violence in Tahrir Square, one official, obviously referring to the Occupy movement, said: “In the West they suppress protests, so why can’t we do it here?”

The Manchurian Candidate has no clothes.

Denis Neville said...

James Fallows @ The Atlantic, “Now It's the Administration's Turn to Be Anti-Science”

“Scientists do not have the final word on all matters of public policy, but this was an expert panel operating in its area of presumed and assigned competence. The decision to overrule them would look clumsily political and anti-science if it had been made in a Bachmann Administration. Unless Sec. Sibelius has better reasons than she has offered so far, it looks that way in an Obama Administration too.”


Morning after O’ pandering.

The Manchurian Candidate has no clothes.

DreamsAmelia said...

Clear your cache, delete your cookies, and you don't have to pay for any website ever again (and NEVER click boxes that say "remember me"). The 1% wants us to feel that they own and control the internet, but you cannot eliminate open-source (i.e., any programmer can tweak any program, any contributor can edit Wikipedia, etc) anymore than you can eliminate oxygen.
What you _can_ do is try to _market_ nifty little cannisters of oxygen as a far superior option to mere "street air"--thus, fancy schmancy "Elite" private schools, "Luxury" condominiums, and country clubs whose annual membership dues would feed 1/2 the population of a famine-stricken nation, thrive in the "land of the free"--because too many are duped by flimsy marketing and don't think deeply about contradictions these things pose to Democracy--so don't feel compelled to fall into the elite news "pay-per-view" trap, either. News is the oxygen of democracy, and the fact that there is a paywall at the Times, and now the 2-tier TC commenters, is reason enough to picket the Times with our flames and pitchforks.

But yes, the quality at the Times has simultaneously gone waaaaay down. I grew up being an exclusive Washington Post snob--it was SUCH a "populist" paper, featuring a reporter who lived a year with an impoverished family in the heart of D.C., and then did an in-depth series; featuring op-eds from a homeless lady; stories about the D.C. police smoking the pot they had just confiscated on the street, and then sharing the remains with the inmates in the jail--and the "straight" news stories had so much more vitality and rooting-for-the-little-guy vividness to them than the same story in the snooty Times, which I always regarded as the rich people's newspaper.

When the WP lost its hippie beads for its corporate suit, I fled to the Times...now, we all seem to be saying, where do we go?

Jay - Ottawa said...


Count me in your battalion of naggers to have Karen somehow somewhere archive her posts to the Times and elsewhere in one place, preferably right here on Sardonicky. It would be a great help to the historians and biographers who come along later to record the issues and events of our time.

Will said...

Count me in! An archive of Karen's NYT comments is a GREAT idea.

P.S. I noticed a new user-friendly mobile version of Sardonicky is now up and running. Life is good and getting better every day.


Marie Burns said...

Brain Dead Simpleton Alert! With a few exceptions, these comments are stunning. You've got the crowd on the other side cheering a stupid, ignorant, lying SOB when he recites Pokeman, and you're complaining because after a couple of years of pushing, Obama makes an eloquent speech that's -- for him -- a hard left turn. Yes, as Dayen, Charles Pierce & others have pointed out, he said things that show there are areas where he still doesn't get it. And there always will be.

But even bloggers & columnists, like me, who have been criticizing Obama for years appropriately gave the president high marks as the quibbled with what was wanting. The tone here is not helpful to anyone but the GOP nominee. Broaden your circle, please, ladies and gentlemen. This is not pretty. If you won't support the guy who says he's on your side, you're going to get the guy who says he isn't. Wake up.

The Constant Weader

Kat said...

You write:
"But even bloggers & columnists, like me, who have been criticizing Obama for years appropriately gave the president high marks as the quibbled with what was wanting."

Okay, you're right. I'm sorry I did not respect the authority of you and the other mentioned bloggers when I commented.

Neil said...

Those who are fat and happy with the status quo naturally support Obama. If they think the tone here is not helpful to anyone but the GOP nominee, they may need a reality check. In my view Mitt Romney is a better choice than Obama, because while Romney shares the same core values as Obama, Romney is a more competent leader. (even if he did drive around for several years with a dog nailed to the roof of his car).

See Chris Hedges for a reality check. (thanks again Will for the links)

Chris Hedges "Death of the Liberal Class"

Chris Hedges Q&A "The Death of the Liberal Class"

In a corporate-fascist world, the US president, and elections, are increasing irrelevant. Real change will come with the coming worldwide economic collapse.

Will said...

"Brain Dead Simpletons." Really? Looks like someone needs to be tested for hyperbolic steroids.

Well, in praise of name-calling, here's one for you: The Stockholm Syndrome Sisters. That's my cute little sobriquet for you and Kate Madison.

Have a nice day.

Kat said...

(even if he did drive around for several years with a dog nailed to the roof of his car).
Thanks for the laugh, although I think the proper story is that one of his kids was nailed to the dog carrier on the roof.

Marie Burns said...

Excuse me, Will. Another commenter called people like ME brain-dead simpletons. I was merely warning you-all that the comment you were about to read was written by a brain-dead simpleton.

Sometimes it helps to follow the thread and be familiar with rhetorical conventions before you accuse someone of name-calling.

It seems to me I'm allowed to call myself the derogatory name another commenter already called me. But then, I could be wrong; I'm just a brain-dead simpleton, so hardly equipped to make a judgment.

Valerie said...

The biggest powers a president has to influence policy and change are the veto, the bully pulpit and his choice of advisors. I am glad the Obama is STARTING to use his bully pulpit A LITTLE. He gets a few points for that. But I want him to name names. I want his to be politically incorrect and say, "Senator Chris Conservative is fighting against the Consumer Protection Agency because he gets huge donations from the banking industry." But Obama can't do that without looking like a total hypocrite so he speaks in generalities.

And before I move on about the Obama speech, it should be obvious to everyone that Obama doesn’t write these speeches. He has speechwriters and a team of press people who determine what is said. It is not like when you or I write something and it comes from our hearts and reflects our paradigm.

I also want Obama to do a “sweep out” of most of his current advisors. As long as Geithner and Bernanke are still there, doing their mischief behind the scenes, Obama's words ring shallow at best and empty at worst. So Obama can SHOW he means what he says when he chooses people like Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Elizabeth Warren as advisors.

For those of us who put Obama into office because we wanted” Change We Could Believe In,” we haven't gotten much more than words. Campaigning Obama and Governing Obama are two different people. No doubt about it, Obama is a charmer, as is Clinton, but their sincerity has been tarnished by their actions which only favour the one percent.

I want Obama to actually DO something that shows he is on the side of the 99% and not in the pocket of the 1%. So far, I have been “ waiting for Godot.”

Will said...

Apparently the only brain-dead simpleton around here is me for not picking up on the term's usage by another commenter earlier in the thread. My sincere apologies.

Let's just say I was a wee bit upset about what I considered to be the annoyingly condescending tone of your post. For that particular judgment--and my layman's diagnosis of you and your friend's unfortunate psychological condition--I do not apologize.

Valerie said...

Let's go back and read what I wrote in an earlier comment, shall we?

Valerie wrote, "OMG! I just went over to the Times comments - in search of Karen's comment. What a bunch of brain-dead simpletons! Have they been awake at all in the last three years? Clearly not! Aside from Karen, there was only one comment suggesting that THESE WERE JUST WORDS WRITTEN BY A SPEECHWRITER!"


How you took that as a crack at you - especially since you are boycotting the comment section of the NYTimes - is beyond me. While you are going to vote for Obama in 2012 from a pragmatic point of view, I have found you to be quite critical of Obama and his actions – or lack of actions - over these past three years. I wasn't under the impression that you swallowed his speech "hook, line and sinker." Rather, I assumed, maybe wrongly, that you thought that his speech was a step in the right direction and that we should be encouraging Obama for this slight swerve to the left. I also assumed you realised that Obama didn't pen the words he spoke himself, but rather they were written by a speech writer.

My words were directed at the bots who believe Obama has turned over a new leaf (as indicated by this one speech) and that the poor guy is a victim of a Republican Congress. As my best friend assures me, once Obama is free of re-election concerns, he will lead the country as the true progressive leader he is – deep down inside. This kind of drivel dominated the first 25 comments – which was about as far as I was willing to read.

I have to wonder why you would assume that my words were directed at you and take personal offence.

Kate Madison said...

Question to you Obama haters out there: How will you feel if/when Newt Gingrich is elected President of the USA in 2012 (with lots of help from aforementioned Obamaphobes who will vote 3rd party, or whatever) and he tries to amend child-labor laws, appoints John Bolton as Secretary of State (this is REALLY heavy), and tries to switch the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, while approving new Israeli settlements in Gaza. Guess you must not be much concerned about the Palestinians. Either that--or you are more interested in trashing the admittedly very flawed Obama than in examining closely what will happen if a nutso Republican is elected POTUS.

But...then again, what would I know? I, like Marie Burns, am a "brain dead simpleton," and both of us are terminal sufferers from Stockholm Syndrome. C'est mauvais. I am glad you are so forward thinking, Will, and have realistic answers for our impossible dilemma.

Peace and health-

Patty Hearst

Karen Garcia said...

I allowed the last comment only because the writer, previously not part of this particular thread but a sometime participant in other discussions on this site, had been referenced in it. Therefore a onetime response is in order.

That is it. The moderator hereby declares this flame war over before it had a chance to get started.