Step Up or Step The Fuck Off

Posted by on . 2 comments.

I haven’t been around much lately, and I’m a bit irritated to come back and read some of the Hillary bashing in comments from people who’ve been reading the site for less than a week. I’m not sure where you all came from, but we do things a bit differently around here. If you are going to make a point, have a link to a credible source. Don’t talk out of your ass, don’t ascribe others’ motives or words to Sarabeth or me, and don’t go off topic. These simply aren’t negotiable rules.

Since we have a whole new generation of Obama fluffers, I’m going to renew my call for someone, anyone to make a substantive defense of the man in response to any/all of the posts linked below. I’ll publish – on the front page – anyone who can make a reasonable case. The cowardice/ineptitude was truly breathtaking the last time around, but then again it isn’t an enviable task. So stop making shit up and arguing against things we didn’t say in comments, the real game is right here:

“Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.”

Barack Obama Doesn’t Care About the Democratic Party

WAY Ahead Of The Curve

Getting Middled

London Calling / Speak the Slang Now

Slipping in the Shiv

Show ‘Em Whatcha Got

I Think There’s a Word for This

If you can’t play at this level, read quietly or go back to wherever you were before you discovered 1115.org.

Comments

  1. Scheky says:
    March 6, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Matt,
    I’m wondering who you are directing this at, and with such anger. I could be considered one of the Obama fluffers, though admittedly I just chose him as the consolation prize when Edwards dropped from the game. I backed my assertions with facts after your little quip, pointing out that Obama did indeed manage to get more through congress than Clinton, and the majority of Clinton’s passages were non-binding resolutions.
    This to me shows substance. Now, do I dispute your articles? No. Could I pull up just as many about Clinton? Yes. Both candidates are seriously flawed.
    The fact is, looking at both, I truly consider Obama to be the better choice for electability (is that really a word?) in a candidate.

    Now, you can go off on any tirades you wish, and I admit there are some who just posted pure drivel, but I was pointed out for my opinions on a article, which I do believe was very interesting, yet still I hold true to what I believe.

    Honestly, I dislike Clinton as president. She seems to act as if it’s her due, and that sort of entitled attitude really gets my ire up. It honestly reminds me of Bush. Heck, she even sank to the right’s technique of pandering on fear for her political gain. Given that, I cannot consider her to be acceptable. I don’t consider McCain to be an acceptable alternative. I think under him we could look forward to more of the same old same. America just can’t take that.
    That leaves one Candidate. He’s lacking in some areas, certainly. He’s flawed, and seems to speak out both sides of his mouth (which isn’t atypical of the political animal) which must be noted. What he has is charisma. He’s got oodles of that. Perhaps that’s what we need right now, somebody who doesn’t just force issues.
    What we don’t need is another term of fear mongering and executive power grabs.

    As for being new, I’ve only posted a few times, but that’s been over more than a year.

    Now, that said, next time you come home to Pittsburgh, drop me an email….I’ll buy you a drink and we can discuss things over a drink with no anger or vehemence.

  2. matt says:
    March 6, 2008 at 11:01 am

    >I backed my assertions with facts after your little quip, pointing out that Obama did indeed manage to get more through congress than Clinton, and the majority of Clinton’s passages were non-binding resolutions.

    if you’ve been here a while, you should remember one of the original fluffers who kept posting voting records and legislation sponsored etc.

    “getting more through congress” isn’t a virtue in itself. remember, one of the things he “got through” was this:

    The bill was sponsored by Senator Barrack Obama (D-IL) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). According to Hatch, “this bill clarifies the law so that those who tithe can continue to live their faith while in bankruptcy.

    The Hatch-Obama bill, S. 4044, was drafted after a bankruptcy judge ruled that Chapter 13 filers could not tithe while still in the process of repaying their debts under bankruptcy protection. Under this new bill, all individuals regardless of income can continue to tithe to a religious organization or make charitable donations. To tithe is to give 10% of your income first before even paying bills.

    clinton isn’t my first or even second choice, and her voting record isn’t great, but that’s not my basis for choosing her or rejecting obama.

    >She seems to act as if it’s her due, and that sort of entitled attitude really gets my ire up.

    this is 100% fair game. i don’t like it either.

    >Heck, she even sank to the right’s technique of pandering on fear for her political gain.

    how is repeating the mantra “hope” any better than using fear? it’s all symbolic and says little about what they’ll actually do. i’ve yet to hear ANYONE describe what part hope has in governing.

    >What he has is charisma. He’s got oodles of that.

    so what? unless he’s pushing issues i’m interested in, i couldn’t care less.

    >Perhaps that’s what we need right now, somebody who doesn’t just force issues.

    so we’re right back to where i’ve been for more than two years now. who is there to compromise with? what would that look like? what is even the best case scenario give the political reality? everyone’s inability to answer this, from readers here, to people handing out obama lit on corners in SF, to the man himself, speaks very loudly to me.

    >we can discuss things over a drink with no anger or vehemence.

    i’m just a vehement guy when it comes to this kind of thing. i think people have been sold a bill of goods, and don’t understand the consequences of their support. not saying you don’t, but unless you can sketch out what compromise and bipartisanship will look like in an obama administration, i’d say you are with the people who arouse (nullus) my vehemence.

    doesn’t mean we can’t have a coke together.