Building a better Obama (or why Spielberg's movies aren't so good anymore)

[lwcon]

So far, from this admittedly small sample — and a bigger one called the primaries and caucuses to-date — there seems to be some real concern about Obama and/or his support system that is driving people to Hillary Clinton. Or at least keeping them in her camp, despite a tsunami of endorsements and activism for The Transformative One.

All the buzz is with Barack -- including virtually the entire media spectrum (all the way down to Rush Limbaugh) and a new generation of voters — and yet HRC maintains a modest lead.

Well, Hillary has Ann Coulter, though I think it's pretty obvious that Coulter (along with the other rightwing McCain "detractors") is gaming the system to push McCain deeper to the right and to give him air cover with moderates in the general election, so they won't notice how hardcore conservative he really is.

I truly believe that Obama could be a fine candidate and president, but as of now I am gratified that his campaign of vacant groupspeak about "hope" and "change" is coming up a little short.

IMHO, he'd be a much better candidate, and one I'd avidly support (FYI, I'm voting for any Dem in Nov., so let's not go there) if this air of perfection were washed away, if every misstep were not blindly explained away. If he'd stop running on rightwing talking points, and if his supporters weren't ginning up the ol' Clinton hate and generational disrespect.

Point out Hillary's mistakes all you want, and please do, but don't pretend that there isn't an aura that projects Obama as the New Jesus, whereas Hillary has had to take her lumps.

He fuels this devotion with pleasing happy talk that washes away something else: the crimes of the Bush years. Because it's so charmingly chill to promise a pony-filled future of non-partisanship, when we damn well know that across the aisle is nothing but sharks.

As a new Hillary supporter (now that Edwards is out of the race), I freely accept her mistakes as mistakes (though there *is* a difference between voting for the AUMF and being a madman like Bush who will abuse the power and lie to all concerned to justify it), and I don't think she's done a good job of putting it in perspective (either as an apology or an explanation).

And finally, there's the matter of Spielberg: Hillary supporter and, perhaps not coincidentally, someone who knows that sharks, like today's Republicans, are soulless killing machines. I would have said "godless," but the GOP ran a few lights racing to the USPTO and grabbed the rights to the "God" brand, like cybersquatters snarfing up sermononthemount.com.

Spielberg's career began with a series of better-than-could-be-imagined gems. From his memorable made-for-TV turns like "LA 2017" through Close Encounters of the Third Kind, it seemed he could do no wrong.

Famous last words, eh? He flopped miserably with 1941, and then picked himself up and rattled off a couple of more masterpieces. But gradually, one surmises, "could do no wrong" catches up to an artist. It always does, doesn't it?

Who in his massive circle of talented collaborators would tell him that, say, the endings of A.I. and Minority Report were pieces of shit?

How could they? He's Steven Fucking Spielberg!

For Barack Obama to be the best Candidate Obama and President Obama he can be, someone needs to tell him when his political framing is a piece of shit.

The American public is sick to death of the Republican brand.

There is no goddamn reason for us to run as if Karl Rove and Drudge rule our world.

It seems that as this campaign rolls on, Hillary has been figuring this out. And let us note that it is she who coined the term "vast rightwing conspiracy." Even if she has deeply disappointed a lot of us by her rightwing-enabling positions, she gives little indication that she plans to give away the progressive store if and when she gets back to 1600 PA Ave. The perfect progressive? Not even close. She's pushing mandated healthcare, when single-payer would be far saner. She's compromised. Wish she weren't, but she is.

But Obama keeps signaling that he's well past compromising. He wants us to forget that there is a vast conspiracy of sharks. And I, for one, will not forget that. Because the first drop of blood in the water, and the Reagan Revolutionaries will be on our asses faster than you can say 1994 election.

If you didn't like what happened to Bill Clinton's mandate, a mandate won by a charismatic, post-partisan candidate, you're not going to like it much when it happens to charismatic, post-partisan Barack Obama.

So, why not tweak Obama a little? Tell him he needs a bigger boat. And, sorry, we're not talking about a love boat. We need a boat that's ready for shark-infested waters.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Polly Hennessey]

1. lwcon

Agree with you 100 percent. Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.

[lwcon]

2. Thanks.

This race is close enough that I realize that Obama just may be my candidate. If so, I'd like to feel good about that vote.

And hopey changey rainbow sugar sparkle unity ponies aren't enough.

Honestly a little "I feel your pain" would go a long way -- if he was referring to the pain of being reamed by the GOP since Ronnie rode into town on his phony-ass horse.

Since most Americans agree with me about how shitty today's GOP is, that isn't a fringy purity test. It's just good politics at this point.


___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Incredilby astute andw ell written. I am stunned that I am the first rec.

I agree with every word, even about being a once and future Edwards supporter.

[lwcon]

4. I really did wring my hands...

About whom to support after Edwards bowed out. I've written far more critical stuff about Obama in recent months, in part because I'd kind of written off Hillary for her past moves toward the so-called center, so her less-than-ideal record as a progressive wasn't news to me.

But during the campaign, she's struck me as arcing back to us progressives, while Obama is feeding us a lot of so-called "inspirational" platitudes, but really running hard center-right (as documented by many of the links above).

I see no reason for it. For goodness sakes, doesn't anyone remember which party kicked butt in 2006?


___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Nailzberg]

5. RUBBISH! 1941 was brilliant!

[lwcon]

6. I loved Robert Stack in it. And Joe Flaherty's brief role....

... but given the talent that's in it, I'd call it a bit of a misfire.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Nailzberg]

7. Too many bits disrupted the flow. But Slim Pickens was awesome

I actually think of a quote from that movie every time I enter the GD:P.

"If there's one thing I can't stand seeing, it's Americans fighting Americans."

[lwcon]

8. Funny quote. I'll have to use that! n/t

[lwcon]

12. Best response yet (from crosspost at DailyKos)

I feel this discussion matters when this kind of response comes over the intertubes:

"Obama is the savior of America. Don't be so fast to crucify him."

Oy-veh!

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Nailzberg]

13. That's a tad over the top. I don't expect him to be a savior. Just a good president.

[lwcon]

15. My argument is the more people treat him like a savior (and many do)

The less competitive he'll be as a candidate, and the more insulated he'll be as a president.
___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[smalll]

19. LOL -

:rofl: :rofl:

You know, I just have to say, ol' E. D. Hirsch was pretty much right about "cultural literacy" (or rather the cultural illiteracy that sadly spreads ever further each year.)

[Scriptor Ignotus]

9. pssst

Hillary was the front runner. It was her election to lose from day 1.

You have seem to have forgotten the chronology of this primary.

With that in mind, Obama has done quite well with his current boat, thank you very much.

[Radical Activist]

10. Clinton has had the most free media from the start, Bill Clinton and national recognition.

The efforts to suddenly portray her as the victimized underdog are ridiculous. She has every advantage as a candidate and is losing to someone new to the national scene.

So you're voting for someone that you KNOW will compromise with the Republicans based on her past actions because you don't like Obama talking about unity? God forbid someone have a message that inspires people to vote Democratic again. That's just awful.

[TornadoTN]

11. Well written response and perfect.

Sums up my thoughts perfectly.

[lwcon]

14. Excellent point

As soon as the votes were counted in 2006, the mainstream media started giving Hillary a boost.

Starting with this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611090002

[Tactical Progressive]

25. Freely and fully antagonistic media

Against both Hillary and Bill.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

30. So why are we taking the chance with them in this crucial election?

I don't get it. It's not like we ran out of qualified Democrats.

[Schema Thing]

16. When your first sentence is a load of horse shit

I don't read the rest.

[lwcon]

21. Thank you for supporting party unity! n/t

[Cant trust em]

17. I cannot, and never will, forgive the IWR

There were 23 other senators who voted against this including some of our biggest names. Kennedy, Durbin, Feingold and the late Paul Wellstone all saw through what George Bush was trying to do. It was at that point where Hillary Clinton either trusted George Bush or caved to media pressure. Either way, those are not traits that I look for in our president. If she would apologize for that vote I don't know where I would place my vote. She hasn't, so the choice for me is obvious.

While we may disagree, I thank you for your thorough, well written post.

[lwcon]

22. Thanks. A couple of thoughts about the AUMF

1. The two explanations I accept about votes in favor of it. Hillary's is close to the first, though I prefer explanation #2 (in the linked post), which is one reason I preferred Edwards.

2. Per Joe "Plame" Wilson:

After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's--with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive.

We honestly don't know whether Obama would have stood up to the pressure to vote "yes," and his votes in favor of funding the war and general embrace of GOP frames suggests to me that he's not the reliably better alternative to Hillary on these matters.

Ditto, his not voting on the Iran Resolution doesn't really make me feel any warmer and fuzzier than his not showing up to vote on it.

We're picking among two somewhat compromised centrists. For the reasons noted in the OP and the linked posts, I'm betting we get fewer and better compromises with Hillary, and we don't ratify GOP framing that will help another generation of corrupt authoritarians to run on the Reagan legacy. And, there, too. Yes, Hillary has said flattering things about Reagan. But not bronzing his whole tax-and-spend-Dems "transformation" while running for President!

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Cant trust em]

23. Voting in favor of funding the war is tricky

I have always been anti-war since 2002. I want to make that clear before I say that currently keeping the funding alive while George Bush is in office is, in my estimation, the right thing to do. We know at this point that GWB is arrogant to the point where he will run his head into a brick wall before admitting failure. In this analogy, his head is our soldiers and the wall is the escalating civil war in Iraq. He would keep the troops there without being funded just to spite us. In short, I don't blame Clinton or Obama for continuing funding.

Regarding Obama's use of GOP frames, the positive remarks about Reagan didn't really bother me. To me he is being pretty vague about what Reagan did and I understand where he is going. Reagan was able to create a coalition of people who didn't necessarily jump in the same boat and made them all come together. Imagine if we could do that with the democrats? I totally buy into the blurring of the red state/blue state paradigm that seems to be prevalent these days. I believe that there will always be partisans on each side of the debate, but those people certainly do not dominate the debate. America is mostly made up of swing voters these days and we can embrace them with core democratic values like healthcare, education, and civil rights. I don't believe that we get anywhere by drawing a line in the sand. That's how the republicans have won their battles in the last 20 years and it's a battle that we keep losing. We need to change the political game.

Now to tie in the IWR vote with GOP frames. The biggest GOP frame in the early 2000's was the politics of fear which culminated in the invasion of Iraq. Hillary took this one hook, line and sinker. I'd much rather have Obama make vague references to broad themes of government accountability and personal responsibility than have Clinton taking actual issues that they are driving.

[lwcon]

27. I'm just saying that there is every reason to suspect...

... that Obama would have done the same as Hillary and Edwards, and even he wonders whether he would have.

If he were an anti-war crusader, he would have jumped in and made some noise. I've heard every excuse in the book. He was a new Senator. He's black and couldn't get away with being that aggressive. Hillary being chickenshit before the war was bad, but once it's started Obama had to support it, or our boys overseas would have run out of bullets in the middle of a firefight. Yadda yadda yadda.

I simply see no reason to believe he's cut from better cloth from Hillary.

They're both smart, accommodating centrists who mean well.

So, then I have to peel the onion further, and I come out in favor of Hillary because she's on a leftward arc. She speaks with more clarity and passion (even though that's supposed to be Obama's thing) on getting the troops out of Iraq ASAP.

His Reagan comments are quite noxious. He's not just throwing a bone to some people's favorite president, he's saying that Reagan's specialness came from taking on the slow, fat tax-and-spend Democrats. There are a million other ways he could frame what Reagan meant, but he ratifies the one that makes every Repub in the world salivate at the opportunity to claim his dastardly mantle. Lower taxes, everybody wins, hoooray!

That's totally chickenshit, and it's bad for the party.

And if he is such a goddamn student of Reagan, maybe he could notice that Reagan was "transformative" by running hard right, and dragging the rest of the country along with him into new frames.

It seems that the only America that Obama thinks is hurtin' enough to demand that kind of change was Jimmy Carter's America. George Bush's America can be healed by merely stopping the "divisive food fight."

The stupidity of it burns. And someone should tell him to stop that cheap pandering. And just because it impresses some low-information voters doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's necessary, and doesn't mean it's good for the party and the country.

As I've said elsewhere, if Obama is such an all-fired brilliant orator, why doesn't he actually convince people of what the majority of Americans already believe, that the Bush way is a terrible dead end, and we need to go in another direction. Instead he gives us this la-la bullshit about problems being solved by putting away the divisive two-way partisanship of the '60s and '90s. It's so fucking far from reality, from what people know, and from what people feel.

Yes, as a species we're suckers for a well-spoken dude saying "it's all good." But it isn't good, and it isn't going to keep Rupert Murdoch, the Carlyle Group, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the rest of them from putting a boot up our ass when we're not looking -- and Obama is encouraging us not to look.

[Cant trust em]

28. Until I've been lied to I'll give politicians the benefit of the doubt.

Since Obama's statements at the time were in opposition to the war I'm going to believe him. He hasn't lied to me yet. Just as I would give the benefit of the doubt to HRC when people on DU claim that she is some kind of pro-war imperialist. I disagree that Hillary Clinton has been more forceful in getting out of Iraq. She talks about beginning to bring home troops immediately, as does Obama. They've said this in debates and on their websites. The difference though is that Obama talks about bringing home one or two brigades each month and having everyone out in 16 months. Hillary Clinton gives no specifics. No matter how forcefully advocates there are no concrete plans.

Back to Reagan. I'm not a Reaganite or a closet conservative. When looking at the specifics of what Reagan did to this country there shouldn't be a person on DU who doesn't think that he was a bastard. That being said, I understand why Obama is using his broad, vague talking points in terms of Reagan's ability to get people to form a coalition. Additionally, most people in America can agree that having a bloated (loaded word) government is overwhelming. I don't think that Obama is advocating cutting necessary programs. I think that the only people who read between those lines are people who are as intensely into politics as we are. Most folks will totally agree with what he's saying. Since he's a democrat I choose to believe him.

Onto Obama's repudiation of George Bush's America. He's talked about getting us out of the war, closing Gitmo, repealing the bush tax cuts, eliminating taxes for seniors, lowering taxes for the middle and lower class, changing the entire way we've done diplomacy under the Bush regime. These are all of the topics that he raised during the debates. The talk about getting away from divisive politics isn't just a legislative tactic, but a way to bring swing voters into the system and to vote democrat. Like I said earlier, most people aren't so involved in politics that they are reading so far into everything these candidates say. Reaching out to some of these people's instincts will bring more people to the Democratic party and begin moving our party back to the left.

[lwcon]

35. Je répète

If Obama is such a great orator, why doesn't he do what Reagan did and convince people that his party's core agenda is fundamentally correct?

He doesn't really even have to convince them. He's ceding ground that we've already won.

Why does he insist on always using Republican frames, when it is our party that is ascending and the opposition that is going down? When we won a convincing victory in the last election?

To me, every time he claims the source of the problems in DC is that we bicker too much with the Republicans, he's telling one of the biggest, fattest, smelliest lies I can imagine as a concerned citizen today.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Cant trust em]

37. There's bickering and then there's being an opposition party

He's getting to is the idea of Swift Boat Vet ads and race/gender baiting and impeaching presidents because they got a BJ from interns. These aren't democratic values or republican values. These are things that all americans want. People, and I count myself in this category, are tired of having their intelligence insulted by these kinds of silly school yard games. I'm tired of reading the newspaper and rolling my eyes at the pettiness of our tit-for-tat "public discourse". The cheap little comebacks that are used aren't going to fulfill our agenda. Our political system is sounding less like the front page and more like the gossip column every day. I want a candidate that fights the battles that count and not consider a snappy comeback a win.

I do believe that the party's core agenda is being fulfilled by Obama. Repealing tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating subsidies for companies that ship jobs overseas, a good stimulus package for the economy, closing Gitmo, a foreign policy that promotes cooperation and not bullyism are always the center of his debates. He doesn't take a pass at criticizing George Bush. In every debate he throws a punch. I am in full belief that he will support our party's core agenda.

[lwcon]

38. When someone describes...

... the situation in DC as a "divisive food fight," and about 10,000 over whitewashing comments by Obama, like about putting away the partisan divides of the 1960s and 1990s, about forgetting Viet Nam, etc., etc., he's not just talking about Swiftboating.

With all due respect, this argument is simply W.O.R.M.:

http://www.correntewire.com/what_obama_really_meant

[Cant trust em]

40. People take what they want from his comments

After talking with you over this I came to a new understanding of his comments. Clearly, you and I hear this in opposite ways. You and I are both democrats and I believe that we share a common set of progressive values. However, the way we go about producing results is much different. Obama's comments are so vague that while they might turn off some partisan Democrats, they appeal to those like me who are more neutral and to the swing voters and independents that have been the real battleground in the last two major election cycles. They are held in the eye of the beholder.

While I respect your ideas, I think that we're coming to that magical point where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Also I don't know what W.O.R.M. stands for.

[lwcon]

42. When someone has an unending habit of...

... framing things a certain way, it's an act of denial to rationalize away every instance of it.

In that sense, I suppose I agree that people take away what they want, but I also believe in facts and that they are as Reagan presumably meant to say "stubborn things" (and not "stupid things").

I agree that we've probably hit the agree-to-disagree point, but if you are interested in seeing more of why some of us are worried by Obama's approach, the links in the OP will give you some idea about what we're exasperated about.

"W.O.R.M." is explained in this sarcastic but, from where I sit, fundamentally true satirical commentary:

http://www.correntewire.com/what_obama_really_meant

You seem like a nice person, and I'm not trying to be rude with my sometimes snarky tirades. But I am quite frustrated by the bubble of perfection around Obama that's giving the last Transformative President a run for his money Teflon.

It is quite worrisome to me that even his more grounded supporters protect him from well-earned criticism. To double back to the original point of the original post, it makes him a lesser candidate and a lesser potential president than what he's capable of and what the time both demands and allows.

That his campaign is doing pretty well doesn't, I believe mitigate that.

[Cant trust em]

45. I read the W.O.R.M. post

I'm just not seeing the Reagan commetn as the total affront to progressivism as the article makes it out to be. We'll continue to disagree on that. That being said, there are real reasons to worry about Obama's candidacy from a progressive standpoint. His healthcare policy that was criticized by Paul Krugman is a perfect example. That one certainly stings, but it's not enough for me to give up on Obama. If we are going to require that every candidate be perfect then we're not going to have a lot of people to vote for.

[lwcon]

46. Believe me, if I expected every candidate to be perfect...

... I wouldn't be supporting Hillary.

If you're interested in reading more about where I'm coming from (and I appreciate your interest thus far), this landmark post by my fellow blogger Lambert is probably our most detailed explication of the serious and pervasive problems with Obama's framing:

http://correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

Framing matters a lot. It's what allows the GOP to rob the country blind and tilt the system to the already rich and powerful. Buzzwords about the Death Tax, and this "Reform" and that "Reform," etc. convince millions of Americans to vote against their interests. Failing to rewrite the book of memes is done at our peril, and the peril of everyone who depends on a just, strong United States.

[Cant trust em]

49. There's a lot to go over here, so I'll start with the basics

We've been on a steady rightward arc since Reagan took over, or maybe even more accurately, since Nixon took over. Despite the fact that George Bush has screwed up the country massively over the last 8 years, we're not going to end the last 40 years of moving to the right in one election. The Reagan revolution didn't happen in a day and neither will our push back to the left. We're not going to erase 40 years of republican brainwashing overnight. We're going to have to chip away at it day by day before the wall comes down.

That being said, I believe that if we push too hard and too fast people are going to reject what we have to say all together. America is a currently a conservative country by any measure and most people aren't ready to hear a truly progressive message. I feel like if we try to shove too many new ideas in their face we're going to wind up with no movement at all. It takes a long time to get people to move out of their habits. It will take a very unique brand of politician to get them to look at the world in a different way. I believe that this person is Barack Obama.

He has some kind of ability to get people to look at the situation we have created differently. What some people would call the cult of Obama is something real. For whatever reason when he asks people to jump, we say “how high?” You’re right in the fact that framing does matter. By framing his arguments that appeal to a broad base he is bringing more people into his fold and listening to a democrat they will start to fall in our line of liberalism. Then they’ll start electing more liberal representatives to congress moving toward the permanent progressive majority that we’ve been searching for. It's not going to happen tomorrow, so I urge patience.

The author of the post you sent doesn’t seem to think that we can attract more people to the party. It’s like he believes that half of the country is partisan Dem and the other half is partisan GOP. I believe that we can win the swing voters and turn them into democrats. Most people straddle the line.

That’s my case for Obama. You were a former Edwards supporter, right? Edwards was my 2nd choice. I never really considered Clinton because I am interested in change. If you’re leery about Obama’s ability to fight republicans let me just say this. Obama may or may not have supported the IWR if he were in office. We’ll never know. But the fact that Clinton did support it IS known. When the most important issue of our generation came up we KNOW what she did. I’ll take the unknown from Obama compared to the known capitulation we got from Clinton. It’s like when her job or her career is on the line she’ll fight with strong words. When it’s an interest that I hold dear, she’ll cave.

I believe that you and I are coming from the same place on progressivism. Our goals are the same it's just how we're going to get from point A to B is what's sticking. Thanks for hanging in on this long post. I look forward to hearing your response.

[lwcon]

50. We disagree on two fundamental points

First: "I believe that if we push too hard and too fast people are going to reject what we have to say all together. America is a currently a conservative country by any measure and most people aren't ready to hear a truly progressive message."

Please see:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/04/gop/index.html
http://www.correntewire.com/when_is_it_our_turn


Second: I don't agree that Obama is the candidate of change. He, not Hillary, is Bill Clinton II, and the candidate less-prepared to marginalize the Repubicans as they should be.

Please see:
http://www.correntewire.com/triangulation_the_next_generation


Thanks,
LWCON/Vast Left

[BlackVelvet04]

43. But you support a candidate who is going to work with

all those republicans who supported the war. DUH.

[smalll]

18. Brilliant work!

Take a rec. :applause:

[lwcon]

20. We're gonna get ponies???

I do so love ponies!

[smalll]

24. Yes! He's giving out iPods now, but if he gets to be President, we all get ponies -

They'd be sent out to us with our tax refund checks, next year. ;)

[lwcon]

26. Yay! Tax refunds! Way to fix the problems caused by, um...

tax refunds....

[AX10]

29. Excellent post!

[robbedvoter]

31. How can I not keep coming here and miss posts like yours?

"He wants us to forget that there is a vast conspiracy of sharks. And I, for one, will not forget that. Because the first drop of blood in the water, and the Reagan Revolutionaries will be on our asses faster than you can say 1994 election""

[lwcon]

32. Thank you. Do stop by Correntewire, so you can also read...

... my esteemed blogmates, the "Senior Fellows."

I'm one of the least "joinery" people you'll ever meet, but I really respect the truly diverse group of folks who contribute to the site, and I am proud to be among their number.

http://www.correntewire.com

[robbedvoter]

33. Bookmarked since the ponies.

been trying to break the habit of GD-P. You make it hard.:+

[lwcon]

34. But without DU...

How would you ever be reassured that there is no Obama cult?

Hundreds of wild-eyed deniers simply can't be wrong, can they?

[lwcon]

48. That's a movie quote, right?

Is it from "Brokeback Mountain"? :)

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Senator]

36. The Boat We're Looking For Is A (Young) Kerry Swiftboat

The kind that turns into the enemy to counterattack.

That's the trouble with our DC-Dem "leadership" -- Hillabama included. All navigators/strategerists -- No captains/pilots.

To really re-unite our once-great nation we must start with the truth: Impeachment.

---

[incapsulated]

39. Wow, brilliant post and great blog!

Thank you! :)

[lwcon]

41. And thank you, too! n/t

[cooolandrew]

44. yeah, we can't be halppy we might end up with content people and that won't do.

[lwcon]

47. Sorry, I'm not content with the Conservative Movement

Remember what they did last time we got a Democratic president?

Alright, let's just sit contentedly, because nothing like that would ever happen again.

I'll bet Harry Reid is content tonight, because he put away his bickering divisiveness and brought telecom immunity onto the House floor, just like the Repubs wanted him to. No fuss, no muss.

Don't worry. Be happy.