Jack & Jill Politics

Are you flirting with humble devout hermit me again?

Hermit: – 1 a: one that retires from society and lives in solitude….

For what it's worth, here is a link to a post on politicalcarnival.com that says that huge previous lead was a statistical fluke because they couldn't find enough people to identify themselves as Republicans.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/0…

Most Americans' and Europeans' pockebooks are already suffering – we're nearing a global depression much greater than that of 1929 because it will be compounded by so many negative economic factors, not the least of which is the lack of credibility of the Federal Reserve, let alone the fact that our dough isn't worth the paper it is priinted on. Both the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclay's Bank recently warned that globally we're in dire finanncial straits:

From Barclay's:

There is an inflation shock underway. This is going to be very negative for financial assets. We are going into tortoise mood and are retreating into our shell. Investors will do well if they can preserve their wealth.

Royal Bank of Scotland:

On the global economy:
Our macro economic road map is playing out – slow growth for longer, deep into 2009, with the pain spreading globally, gradually. People are beginning to wake up to the view that 2009 growth will be stagnant and weaker than 2008.

The twist however is inflation, and in particular how central bankers deal with this stubborn problem. The worry is that the ECB raises [interests] rates even as growth falters, leading to bigger cuts in 2009.

In the US, policy paralysis is possible, whatever the Fed jaw-boning. And in Asia, uncertainty reigns. All in all, a poor backdrop for risk assets and a sure fire recipe for higher volatility.

Israel isn't about to attack Iran – check out what's going on over there right now. And remember, Lebanon is still unstable, and Turkey is also in an uproar, as is Pakistan. At this time, the terrorists are winning in the Middle East.

No, not even the US war criminals will do anymore than they are already doing which is to talk a bunch of junk, most probably because they know that Iran is making deals right and left with the Iraqi government, and there' s absolutely nothing they can do about it. Except talk.

CPL,

What About Our Daughters had a different take on this.

No, I do not believe that McMumbles has the proverbial snowball's chance of winning the nomination. In fact, Shrub stole the 2000 nomination from Surly, just as he stole the GE from Albert P. Gore, thus eliminating Surly from ever becoming president.

I haven't seen any arrogance or cockiness in Obama; were he fully caucasian rather than half white, he would not be labeled as such.

ITA with ljw: Polls prior to September are worthless; Obama is positioning himself to attract voters from all political ideologies, and he hasn't been officially nominated and won't be until the convention. After the DNC Convention ends, then I'll occasionally peruse the polls, though still with a fairly cynical/skeptical eye.

My research on Obama doesn't allow me to see him as leftist or liberal or even populist (which is why I initially supported Edwards) simply because he opposed the death penalty or because he was a successful community activist to the disenfrancised and the poor. Unlike Billy Jeff Clinton, Obama is a true moderate dem who sometimes leans left and sometimes leans right, depending on the issues. His constitutional law background only enhances his moderate political leanings.

As for this:

Disillusionment among loyal Democrats has already begun and is mounting rapidly.

He's 47 years old, but has spent the bulk of his adult life either coddled in an out-of-touch academia or perennially running for one office after another. He has not even had to stare down or discipline teenage children, for goodness' sake.

I call bullfeathers on each word. The author sounds – and writes – like a right wing nutter/bitter Hilary supporter.

Were I you, I'd flip that script because it is McMorton who is liable to lose by a landslide.

You can find it here: http://bp0.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/SHp2Ki8qjiI…

When they booked him, they knew he was a risque comedian with politically incorrect jokes bound to offend some portion of the audience.

Bernie Mac is not a campaign issue and I see no reason for the brouhaha regarding his comments UNLESS he wasn't funny, and failed to entertain the attendees who ponied up a lot of dough to be in the house.

When you're paying top dollar like they were, you want broiled lobster tails, poached salmon, filet mignon, and exceptional entertainment. Baked chicken and unfunny jokes are disallowed.

If he didn't deliver maximum funny, then yeah, he should have been booed off stage. Otherwise, pfft on more of the media trolls' tabloid journalism.

Interesting comment.

Wow….umm….damn….this is supposed to be satire

The Obama campaign has responded to this cover. “Tasteless and offensive”.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/07…

Lord knows I try to laugh some of this stuff off. But, it gets harder by the minute. The cover has a “where's Waldo” kinda thing happening. One glance you see Michelle's afro, next…Barack wearing Muslim attire, next the flag burning in the fireplace…Osama on the wall…oh and Michelle in militant gear.

I'm trying really hard to find the humor folks…but as a person of color..this shit ain't funny.

Exactly. I don't care if you are being “ironic”, it's just not okay to perpetuate stereotypes. How many people's negative image of the Obamas will that image reinforce?

Angela1: Thanks for this information.

UPDATE — Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

UPDATE to the UPDATE — McCain spokesman Tucker “Outward” Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

::

Kudos to both campaigns. (I can give credit where it is due, even to McCain's people.)

Ryan Lizza tends to write balanced articles. But I'm not feeling this one as balanced.

With that cover, clearly The New Yorker is peddling a different agenda for the general election.

For the record, it actually IS satire. But it doesn't read as satire and that's the problem.

This is slick propaganda peddling and fear mongering, not to mention all the isms.

Tasteless and offensive, indeed.

Maybe Jesse Has a Point

http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx071208

Yeah right….and they're laughing their asses off because the damage is done…and they didn't have to lift a finger.

For the record, it actually IS satire. But it doesn't read as satire and that's the problem.

I agree so so hard with it doesn't read as satire.

I love satire. Love it heart and soul. Have actually done some myself.

And real satire by others keeps me sane some days when nothing else works.

THIS, as Craig points out, is not actually functioning as satire. It isn't funny. It isn't clever or interesting or intelligent or insightful. Unoriginal and entirely useless on that level. Satire is an art that requires actual intelligence and work and deep analysis under the surface that shows in what is visible. Satire offers something good and useful.

This on the other hand is someone picking up others' stinking trash, slapping it into an image, claiming credit for doing something while not doing any real work at all, and naming it as something it isn't. Satire my ass. This is garbage.

This image has blown a circuit for me. I can't quite feel this yet. When my weird psychic novocaine wears off this shit is going to HURT.

Barack made the following comments at La Raza:

“But I know how hard you’re working. I know the difference you’re making in our communities. And I’m here today to make you this promise: I will be a President who stands with you, and fights for you, and walks with you every step of the way.”

I wish he had the same praise for us.

Um, why in the hell would they invite Bernie Mac as the entertainment? Haven't they seen his standup or Kings of Comedy?

In any other context, this wouldn't have been a big deal, but you know people are going to try to make something of it.

He does. This woman's comment I thought particularly cogent:

I live on an Indian Reservation so I have some experience with the “targeting” of communities based on racial stereotypes. Would Obama dare feel free to lecture Native Americans about absentee fathers or garbage?… Or give the same speeches in Appalachia? My point is that these are NOT issues based on the color of one's skin, but rather on socio-economic circumstances.

That is why Jesse Jackson is RIGHT and Obama is WRONG. Jackson recognizes the plight of all poor communities. Notably two decades ago Jackson campaigned extensively in West Virginia during the 1988 Presidential primaries, so he saw firsthand how poor white people live. Whereas, Obama deigned to visit West Virginia only once and momentarily. That exemplifies the difference between Jackson and Obama. Jackson is a proven humanist, but Obama is becoming known as an opportunist. Obama uses the black community for his own political purposes, and that includes pandering to white voters by lecturing to blacks about their shortcomings… all for media consumption.

Um, why in the hell would they invite Bernie Mac as the entertainment? Haven't they seen his standup or Kings of Comedy?

In any other context, this wouldn't have been a big deal, but you know people are going to try to make something of it.

He does. This woman's comment I thought particularly cogent:

I live on an Indian Reservation so I have some experience with the “targeting” of communities based on racial stereotypes. Would Obama dare feel free to lecture Native Americans about absentee fathers or garbage?… Or give the same speeches in Appalachia? My point is that these are NOT issues based on the color of one's skin, but rather on socio-economic circumstances.

That is why Jesse Jackson is RIGHT and Obama is WRONG. Jackson recognizes the plight of all poor communities. Notably two decades ago Jackson campaigned extensively in West Virginia during the 1988 Presidential primaries, so he saw firsthand how poor white people live. Whereas, Obama deigned to visit West Virginia only once and momentarily. That exemplifies the difference between Jackson and Obama. Jackson is a proven humanist, but Obama is becoming known as an opportunist. Obama uses the black community for his own political purposes, and that includes pandering to white voters by lecturing to blacks about their shortcomings… all for media consumption.

Um, why in the hell would they invite Bernie Mac as the entertainment? Haven't they seen his standup or Kings of Comedy?

In any other context, this wouldn't have been a big deal, but you know people are going to try to make something of it.

He does. This woman's comment I thought particularly cogent:

I live on an Indian Reservation so I have some experience with the “targeting” of communities based on racial stereotypes. Would Obama dare feel free to lecture Native Americans about absentee fathers or garbage?… Or give the same speeches in Appalachia? My point is that these are NOT issues based on the color of one's skin, but rather on socio-economic circumstances.

That is why Jesse Jackson is RIGHT and Obama is WRONG. Jackson recognizes the plight of all poor communities. Notably two decades ago Jackson campaigned extensively in West Virginia during the 1988 Presidential primaries, so he saw firsthand how poor white people live. Whereas, Obama deigned to visit West Virginia only once and momentarily. That exemplifies the difference between Jackson and Obama. Jackson is a proven humanist, but Obama is becoming known as an opportunist. Obama uses the black community for his own political purposes, and that includes pandering to white voters by lecturing to blacks about their shortcomings… all for media consumption.