January 2, 2008

"I don't know who that actress is or how much Clinton is paying her to 'live' with her...."

"... but I'll take my Hillary straight-up smart, ambitious, and cutthroat, thank you very much. I want the woman who makes Republicans cry at night and strikes fear into the hearts of conservative children everywhere, not this phony who drinks coffee and looks at old photos (Hillary scrapbooking?) in the kitchen, of all rooms, with her 'mom.' Feh."

LOL. Sacha Zimmerman hilariously reviews the candidates' ads.

On Obama:
The Harvard Law impresario [Laurence Tribe] is downright inspired by Obama, who could have "written his ticket on Wall Street," but decided instead to "devote [his brilliance] to the community." This is something I can relate to. I dropped out of law school at Georgetown--where I could have learned how to become a highly paid attorney--but decided instead to devote my genius to critiquing ad campaigns. You're welcome, America; you are welcome.

10 comments:

Der Hahn said...

...not this phony..

He's got that part right at least.

George said...

The Romney ads all shriek 1984--the flag, the treacly music, the hairdo, the suit...get in line, obey the law.

If he and Huckabee ever touch fingertips, they'll both explode...that matter/anti-matter reaction....

PatCA said...

I would like to see Hillary blow her stack one day. Please, Hillary, show us there's something besides a stern, boring schoolmarm beneath that mask.

Lawgiver said...

...in the kitchen, of all rooms...

I want to see all the candidates in a bake off a la Iron Chef. Whoever wins would be crowned the Iron Chief. Let's see if they can follow recipe instructions, work under pressure, make on the fly changes in ingredients, and just how creative they really are. Can they lead their team to victory or are they just wannabes?

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't mind "straight-up smart, ambitious, and cutthoat". And, I do think that is better than the cluseless of Obama, but what it should also take into account is that she is also venal, corrupt, and prone to abuses of power.

But, in the end, if we have to have a Democratic president, I would prefer Hillary over her opposition. She may lie, steal, and abuse her position, but she is more likely to be right on the big stuff than Obama or Edwards. So, we just have to be willing to count the silver after she leaves office, and maybe indict some of her minions, and we can probably survive another 4 years of Clintons in the White House.

LoafingOaf said...

She may lie, steal, and abuse her position, but she is more likely to be right on the big stuff than Obama....

Oh, please. Obama's statement pre-Iraq invasion looks so good now, Hillary wishes she had made it.

And I hope everyone is done with that B.S. about how Hillary knows what's going on in Pakistan while Obama is supposedly too inexperienced to have a clue. I'm talking about when everyone was misrepresenting Obama's rather intelligent speech on Pakistan policy (some of which Bush is now stealing from, because his own Pakistan policy was a failure). I see in the news today that Hillary is so clueless about Pakistan that she thought President Musharraf was gonna be on the ballot in the parliamentary election. How can she not have even a basic grasp of Pakistan's government? Didn't she have a front row seat in the White House for 8 years? Didn't she say last week that personally knew Bhutto?

Hillasry is not just a crook and a phoney. She is clueless and unqualified.

Cedarford said...

loafingoaf - Oh, please. Obama's statement pre-Iraq invasion looks so good now, Hillary wishes she had made it.

Oh. please indeed. Obama's vote and several others came through a demand that several state senators longtime Left Activist Congress Rep Janice Schakowsky mentored and supported would join in a symbolic vote against war and not vote "present" as had been Obama's preference on any symbolic or controversial vote that would limit his being all things to all people by pinning him down on votes or policy.

His vote was more of schmooching his mentors backside than any great act of wisdom or courage.....

But he sure has milked it as singularly pointing to his greatness, hasn't he??

Lawgiver - I would prefer each voter demonstrate they can read instructions, follow them, as a prerequisite to be allowed to vote. And show they paid Fed income taxes over the last 10 years 5 years of the time filing jointly or separately, proving they are a contributor not a parasite seeking the tax dollars of others "for free".

************************
oaf - Hillasry is not just a crook and a phoney. She is clueless and unqualified.

So is Edwards the Trial Lawyer.

Obama is also clueless, unqualified, and a phoney. He is not a crook. Then again, he never held an executive position to see if he could lead an organization in an ethical matter and use funds in an honest fashion.
Obama came to his amazing good judgement and deep insight into foreign affairs without ever being in a position that demanded an executive with good judgement and insight. In fact, because he has absolutely no background in a position that would help him develop judgement or deep insight into overseas issues is exactly why Obama is so great at both, if you believe his argument.

BTW, Hillary is not just all the bad things - crook, phoney, clueless and unqualified - she is our closest shot at emulating Pakistani Dynastic politics. Should the Potemkin Candidate in the pantsuit get your vote?

LoafingOaf said...

Obama's vote and several others came through a demand that several state senators longtime Left Activist Congress Rep Janice Schakowsky mentored and supported would join in a symbolic vote against war and not vote "present" as had been Obama's preference on any symbolic or controversial vote that would limit his being all things to all people by pinning him down on votes or policy.

Obama made a whole speech, and it looks good today. This upsets you so you're posting this BS as a way for you to pretend Obama's statement before the invasion should be dismissed. If you disagree with his pre-invasion statement, fair enough. If you think he had it right but don't want people to pay attention to that because it doesn't fit your attempt to label Obama as clueless, then you're just playing games.

The previous poster said Hillary is more likely than Obama to be right on "the big stuff". And now you come along to tell me I can't give Obama credit for being way more right than Hillary on the biggest matter in the last decade. Hillary claims she was misled and that's why she got the biggest issue of the last decade wrong. Hillary had far more access to information than Obama did, but it is Obama who doesn't have to try and spin away his stance on the biggest issue of the last ten years. Hillary wants us to believe she's more qualified than Obama on foreign policy even though she is the one who regrets her position on the biggest foreign policy matter of the last decade, while Obama's statement looks so good he doesn't have to run away from a word of it. But because he can still stand behind his pre-invasion position - every word of it - you tell us he is "milking" it.

If you remember the climate before the Iraq invasion, it was difficult for mainstream politicians to buck the conventional wisdom. It was difficult for us all. I supported invading Iraq at the time and regret that now. I wish I had listened to Obama back then.

The point I was trying to make is I remember how people went on and on on this blog about how Hillary was so much better qualified than Obama because she understood Pakistan better than he did. But there's nothing in Obama's speech about Pakistan that he has to run away from. In fact, Bush is currently stealing from it as he changes some of his policies. Hillary, OTOH, has now shown she hasn't even spent 10 minutes reading up on Pakistan's government. At least she knows Musharraf's name, which is more than Bush knew when he ran for president. But does she know much more?

Fen said...

Bruce: But, in the end, if we have to have a Democratic president, I would prefer Hillary over her opposition. She may lie, steal, and abuse her position, but she is more likely to be right on the big stuff than Obama or Edwards.

I agree. I trust Hillary with national security more than those other Dem losers, if only because she won't be able to loot the US Treasury/Smithsonian/National Archives if Al Queda blows up DC.

Fen said...

Hillary claims she was misled and that's why she got the biggest issue of the last decade wrong.

She didn't get it wrong. She voted according to the polling data and [inadvertently] got it right. We were right to liberate Iraq. History will agree.

Hillary had far more access to information than Obama did, but it is Obama who doesn't have to try and spin away his stance on the biggest issue of the last ten years.

Obama didn't have access to the same intelligence that Hillary did. If he had, Obama would have reached the same conclusion Hillary did. He's banking on the luxury of ignorance.