Jun 12 2008
Obamabots Are Crude In Victory Against Hillary And Her Supporters
Boy, you read some of the crap being launched at Hillary and her supporters and you wonder are these people trying to win an election or prop up their insecure male egos? Â Check out this victory lap for Obama:
Like radio waves reaching earth from some cosmic calamity millennia ago, the yarbling of Hillary Clinton sycophants who believe that her candidacy was gang banged into extinction by the mainstream media, right-wing bloggers and Barack Obama acolytes can be faintly heard, although it is so much background noise as Clinton herself and practically everyone else who is determined to take back American link arms and march toward November.
Has it only been five days since Clinton’s extraordinarily gracious concession speech? It seems like light years in this corner of the universe where the political landscape changes by the news cycle, and yet some diehards just can’t seem to face up to the reality that the fancy evening gowns they bought so they could dance the night away with Bill and Hill at her inaugural balls will have to be returned.
The most obnoxious of these diehards claim that their refusal to turn the page, let alone return their dresses, is a sign of gender solidarity, while the most extreme of the obnoxious howl that for good measure they will vote for Mr. McCain or not at all, even though that would improve the chances that it will be John and the woman he has referred to by the four-letter name for her sex organ might be tripping the light fantastic come the evening of January 20, 2009.
Nasty stuff there, clearly aimed at women (with ball dresses). Â And this from a site ironically called “The Moderate Voice’! Do they think America is impressed with this and will want filth like this in the White House? Â In won’t be white any more, and I guess that too is ‘change’.
Uh, so now Obama is responsible for anything anyone says or thinks about Hillary??
Does that apply also to Grumpy McSame? Is the Old Fart responsible for all of Rev. Hagee’s insane ramblings or for the foaming-mouthed utterances of the rabid Michelle Malkin???
Is Rachael Ray really a terrorist bent on subverting Dunkin’ Donuts with her scarf, and will there be an anti-keffiyeh plank in McCain’s Republican platform for ’08?
Such classy people. So open minded. So even tempered and reasonable.
NOT!
AJ,
Only you can write a post that slams a blogger for making inappropriate comments about a candidate and do the exact same thing in your blog. What exactly do you mean when you said this about a possible Obama White House – “In won’t be white any more, and I guess that too is ‘change’”? Really classy post!
As for the underlying point of your post, it reeks of desperation. This is the comment of a single person who has no affiliation with Obama’s campaign. More than 18 million people voted for Obama in the primaries. Do you really think that rationale people will assume that some random bloger speaks for the Obama campaign? Is that all you got? PATHETIC.
One other thing I forgot. In your June 8th post about Clinton supporters, you stated that if Obama got the “celebratory bump in the polls†it would be a sign of a healing of the rifts between the Obama and Clinton camps. He got the bump. That means the rift between the parties is healing based on your own analysis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/obama-polls-number-bump-u_n_106160.html
That is why you have to search the internet to find some random post by an idiot to make it appear as though there is a rift. Because your dream of a continuing rift between Obama and Clinton, which is McCain only realistic hope of winning in November, appears to be falling apart.
Why don’t you focus on why McCain would be a good president rather than spending all of your time trying to smear the other candidate? Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the GOP smear campaigns – I really think it will back-fire on them this year.
Conman,
Clearly you don’t understand the concept of a bump. 2-3 points is not a bump, it is a failure. Bumps are much larger.
AJ,
you need to read the post more carefully – the bump was 5% in the Gallup poll and 3% in the Rassmussen poll. May be you can define what a “bump” constitues in your book and provide some basis for concluding that it is higher than 3% to 5%. I’m fairly confident that no candidiate had more than a 5% bump after securing the nomination, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
You still haven’t explained what you meant by your comment that the White House won’t be “white” anymore under Obama. It appears that you are saying that because Obama is one-half black, which seems pretty racists to me. Nonetheless, I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to explain what you really meant. If you don’t respond, I guess we can assume that my assumption is correct.
It seems to me that this blizzard of vague rumors are a distraction from what we do know that Obama has failed to confront–Rev. Wright’s vicious and destructive lie about AIDS.
Here is what Senator Obama should do if he wants to explode all these rumors. Saying “whitey” is nothing compared to saying the US government made AIDS to kill blacks.
Rev. Wright said that the US government made AIDS to kill blacks.
When he was embarrassed, Senator Obama said he did not believe that “somehow” the US made AIDS to kill blacks.
That’s just not enough. This lie didn’t happen “somehow.” The KGB fabricated and disseminated this lie.
Senator Obama needs to tell that this was a KGB lie. It’s not enough to just say that he “didn’t know” that Rev. Wright said that and he “disagrees” with the view that “somehow” the US made AIDS.
It is a matter of public record that this was a KGB lie–in 1992 the KGB admitted it!
Because of this KGB lie and our history of slavery and racial discrimination, some young blacks actually do believe that their government is trying to kill them. This false belief makes them despairing and careless with their health. 80% of new AIDS cases are young black kids. Researchers have demonstrated a connection between this conspiracy belief and the dangerous behavior of some young blacks.
We know that the KGB spread this lie that the US invented AIDS to genocide blacks. The head of the foreign intelligence, Yevgeni Primakov, admitted this in 1992 and it was published in Izvestia. In 2005, the State Department wrote about this.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-777030.html
The reason the KGB told this lie was to damage race relations in America and also to discredit America abroad, but this lie really hurt blacks and Africans who need to trust us so we can help them fight this disease.
I know a lot about this because in 1987 a childhood friend of mine named Brent Anderson was accused
by the Soviets of being a biological weapon against the USSR.
Here is what really happened. Brent had studied Chinese and went to see China as a tourist before he got too sick with AIDS.
He got really sick in China and no airline would bring him home so the US Air Force made his parents pay 40,000 dollars and they brought him home. He died a few days later in August or September 1987.
The Soviet media wrote that Brent was a biological weapon against the Soviets who had been sent to China by the CIA to infect billions of Chinese “because the USSR has a long border with China.”
Why would the CIA send a dying man to China to give the Soviets AIDS? Get real.
This was just the KGB exploiting the Russian people’s homophobia and xenophobia to defame the US.
In 1987, the State Department pressured the USSR, and the KGB stopped spreading this lie; but the lie was radioactive and kept spreading anyway.
This is the kind of lie that medieval people told about the Jews poisoning the Christians’ wells with plague. It is like an anti-Semitic canard except that it is an anti-American canard.
Senator Obama says he will confront Iran and defend our country, but he still hasn’t spoken out in his own church about this radioactive KGB lie which keeps on giving 20 years after the Russians stopped saying it.
Why doesn’t Senator Obama want to clear up this lie which is so destructive good health and racial relations?
Senator Obama says he wants us to have good race relations, and he says he wants us to have good health.
But his minister is scaring black boys and girls by telling stories that the American “boogieman” is trying to kill them. It is disgusting.
I am old enough to remember that we used to laugh when the black little kid named Buckwheat was scared by the boogieman on The Little Rascals. When we got older, we realized that was racist.
Incredibly, it now seems a black minister is telling boys and girls in church that the boogieman is trying to get them.
It’s not enough that Senator Obama just says “I didn’t know.”
I have been trying to tell him, but he doesn’t listen.
Senator Obama should pound a stake into the heart of this vicious lie that is killing young black kids.
That an American church should be propagating what is basically anti-Semitic canard in the 21st Century is disgusting.
If Senator Obama would tell where this lie came from, lives would be saved, because many young blacks really do believe their government is trying to kill them.
I have the documentation on my site where I explain the history of all of these kinds of lies.
Here is one article about it.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/06/bird-flu-worldwide-pandemic-or-chicken.html
Poor, poor Conman – another math challenged liberal.
Suggest you look up the definition of ‘margin of error’ so that you can grasp the numbers with knowledge instead of ignorance.
You do know what the margin of error means – right?
Public education did you wrong!
The older I get the more I sincerely believe that the Democratic party is designed to appeal to people with serious behavioral health issues lead by the same. They are all about emotion and quite short on logic. And their rhetoric would make Orwell proud.
AJ – why do you insist on misstating the bump. Some polling indicates it is much larger than what you have shown, For example, according to Gallup, pre-bump, women supported Obama over McCain by 48-43. Obama received a bump of 3% to 51; however, at the same time, McBush fell 5%, so Obama’s margin changed from +5% to +13%, a + 8% bump.
The most marked change is that in all the polling, Gallup, Rasmussen, RCP, Obama has moved for the most part from being within the MoE to being OUTSIDE the MoE.
And the full effects of Hillary being out of the race have not been felt yet. Instead of campaigning against an aggressive, effective, energetic, intelligent, articulate woman, Obama is now campaigning against a senescent senior, who is more like to dump a load in his Depends than he is to utter a memorable phrase or an inspiring motif.
Obama v Grumpy McCain. It ought to be stopped on humanitarian grounds.
AJ,
If you are so brilliant, quite ducking my questions. What percentage do you believe would be a sufficient bump? What are you basing that number on – i.e. what historical examples are you using to justify that number. These are simple questions. If you cannot answer these simple questions, then just admit you don’t know what you are talking about.
What do you mean when you say that the White House won’t be “white” any longer under Obama?
Dude,
when you don’t grasp the math what’s the point? I did answer your question, just made you think and demonstrate your ignorance? The answer has to do with my question to you.
Do you know what the margin of error means? Yes or no?
Remember, you started this by claiming my number had nothing to do with the poll results (and I used Gallup and Rassmussen as my reference points).
What do I mean when mudslingers sling mud from the white house and ruin its pure, white image?
Oh, I see! Your inner racist came out and you thought I was talking about Obama’s melanin content of his epidermal organ?
Too funny. Get your mind out of the gutter kid.
After all the “guilt by association” and “outtings” the libs plied against republicans, I find it odd now they have such an aversion to it even being discussed in context of Obama’s relationship or past.
Of course, even pointing that out is a “distraction” from Obama’s message. Awwwwww. Or swiftboating him—depending upon who you are talking to.
Sooth,
Well, we know how poor at math and stats you are! Back for more punishment? The Gallup lead has never been 13. But like all math and science challenged liberals you get the same question:
What does the margin of error mean – what does it define? Until you know this you don’t know what in the world you are talking about!
As for “guilt by association”, nobody is claiming that Obama is guilty of any crime or anything. They are simply noticing that his circle of associates include an exceptionally large number of, shall we say, “interesting characters”. And I believe Americans can forgive being friends with someone who had another side that we weren’t aware of or something but in every case so far, Obama’s “friends” have been either extremely “out there” with their views or, in the case of Rezko, convicted in a public court of all sorts of crimes and wanted in more states on even more crimes. Rezko was to Obama what Hsu was to Clinton.
When you surround yourself with a lot of shady characters, extremists, unrepentant terrorists, outright racists, and radical leftists, what are people SUPPOSED to think? Are they supposed to believe he is just STUPID and that was the reason he picked so many close friends who are so politically damaging? You can’t be “fooled” that many times without being seen as a fool.
He can’t have it both ways. Either he shares the same views and values as his circle of friends, or he is an idiot. Which one is it?
Uh, AJ, as you’re the guy who couldn’t convert metric to inches, don’t lecture me on math. My SAT’s in math were 790.
As I said, and you would know if you could read, Gallup has Obama ahead 51-38 among women. And that is exactly 13%-age points.
Cheeses, you can’t even do simple arithmatic.
So Sooth,
Your usual insults as you cannot answer the question. And you were sooo close!
MOE is the range of equivalent results. If the MOE is +/- 2 points then each number within a +/- 2 points is considered EQUAL! That is why a 45-47 split is statistically a tie (95% of the time) with an MOE of 2. So is a 45-48 split.
A bump can only be measured as a delta outside of this equivalence range. So a 7 point lead is actually only a 3-4 point bump when you remove the zone of the “tie” range from the results.
Duh. Amateurs pretending to grasp hard reality. Really is pathetic some days.
A clear sign that you believe your candidate doesn’t have a prayer is when his defenders bring out personal attacks. OK lets get an idea of how much a beating BHO is going to take just from perusing these replies.
1. Grumpy McSame
2. The Old Fart
3. McBush
4. senescent senior
5. more like to dump a load in his Depends
6. Grumpy McCain
Well it seems that the only way BHO wins is if every one believes McCain is too old to do the job. Interesting so either people will vote for experience, or for child like innocence and hope that candidate doesn’t have a nuclear melt down in his Pampers. (so easy to go personal on a candidate then to discuss the issues) So the idea is to go after his age, which should work well with the AARP crowd, keep it up and the election will be over before it starts.
Ohhh wait I just realized why soothghoul is being so pissy… Oh sorry soothghoul not enough troop deaths to get off to, damn I feel for ya. No wait I don’t, what am I thinking, go back under the rock and reply your Juba videos, they’ll have to do. ghoul.
Oh hey Soothghoul my SAT’s in math were 3,000,000,000 and I am a spaceship pilot, and I have a ray gun, and I am 103 years old, and they make Viagra from my blood. Desperate, I can only begin to imagine your profile on a dating web site. 🙂
AJ,
You really need to review your prior post before opening your mouth and making yourself look stupid. Here is a direct quote of what you said in your June 8th post about Clinton supporters:
“If I am write we should see BO fade by 3-6% points in polls over the next week or so.”
We can take two things from this prediction. First, you were dead wrong and are obviously avoiding my question because you didn’t want to admit it. If your prediction was that Obama would drop by 3-6% drop and he actually increased by 3-5%, I think it is fair to say your prediction is wrong (yet again). Yet being unable to admit you are wrong, you came up with the lame margin of error defense and lame attempts to avoid the question by claiming “my answer is in my question to you”. What the hell does that mean? Which brings me to my second point, which is hilarious – your prediction was within the same margin of error that you now claim is meaningless. If a 3-5% bump is statistically meaningless due to the margin of error, why would you assume a 3-6% drop would be so significant that it would be a sign that Clinton supporters would abandon Obama?
It is okay to be wrong. Just admit it (especially when it is in writing and someone can so easily point it out) and move on.
And yes, I do know what a margin of error means. But apparently you didn’t realize that it applies equally to a drop in numbers.
Wow Conman – you got me! The drop did not happen (but neither did the bump – as pointed out with the MOE).
LOL! What you think I have magical powers or something? I still think Obama fades in the coming weeks. Clearly his bounce was delayed (which makes you wonder why – but more on that later). But whatever it was it was not large and it barely registers outside the MOE.
Dude, as I said, under the scientific method we test theories by making predictions. When they don’t work you work the theories. Hello! This is how science and human knowledge advances – through trial and error.
You think you have discovered hope for Obama in delayed poll reactions. Yes, Clinton supporters ARE abandoning Obama.
Onward Mcduff – you and the libs are Golden and all is well! Your ego can have as much buttering up as it needs! You know what is so funny – if you really were so damn confident you wouldn’t be on this site praying my predictions don’t come true!
Enjoyed your efforts, but Obama did not get more the 3 points in his so called bump. It could go up – but all indications are it won’t.