Twerp

I was very disheartened by the Red Phone ad, it’s a fear mongering piece right out of the Karl Rove playbook. I had hoped that the Clintons wouldn’t stoop to pushing such emotional buttons- haven’t we had enough scare tactics over the past seven years from the Republicans? What I see in this is an overwhelming thirst for power. What is even more depressing is that even after all we’ve been through with various boogey men popping out of our TVs(Terrorists, WMD, Homosexuals, Illegal Aliens etc), based on yesterday’s results, the voters fall for it every time.

YouTube => Red Phone Ad . . . originally Mondale, circa 1984
dKos tally of delegate results, yesterday = TheClintons : 185 -v- Obama! : 184
imho, one of the most interesting Talking Points in The Conversation is the spin = canard of The BIG STATE theory (as if, any Republican had any chance whatsoever of taking, say: CA, or NY from either Democratic candidate). Indeed, when we net out: “all the States that voted 2004 Kerry“, because they are highly unlikely to vote McCain 2008, TheClintons‘ BIG STATE “base” evaporates, as it is revealed to be the “base” of the Democratic Party itself, status quo.
imho, Mr. Obama does not have to “go negative” = CHANGE himself . . . because Obama! = the movement is likely to do so, and CHANGE itself into a more aggressive character.
Whether or not the kids have a killer instinct, like we did in ‘68, remains to be seen

Tan, brown, black….Obama is the only one with any honor in this race, no matter the shade of his skin, and those racist-bigots who work for Clinton should be ashamed, as she herself should be, for using this kind of nasty manipulation. Whatever his colour, Obama is so superior to Clinton, that anyone with sense should see through this.

When we saw the red phone ad, my beau paused it and asked, “Did you see that?!”. What we both noticed, on first viewing, was that one of the children is wearing pajamas with the letters “NIG” (nighty-night?) appearing in the top left corner of the screen. Can this be an accident?

Until recently, I have said I could happily vote for either Obama or Clinton in November. That has now changed. The 3 AM ad – a collective fear-instiller at a time when we need to be recovering from 8 years of fear-mongering; also, Hillary’s two slippery qualifiers on the 60 Minutes question about Obama=Muslim rumors. There is only one answer to that: It’s not true and it’s offensive to Muslims for what it means to suggest about them. But Clinton went another way. What’s a little more cultural-religious poison as long as I get to win? Now the “shame on you, Barack Obama” line begins to seem like projection. And today’s Clinton spin “Obama is like Ken Starr” is more than a little ironic given that the Clinton tactics smack of Rove and Atwater. And with all of this, anyone notice how perfectly radiant and happy Hillary looks in most of the latest pics? (I LOVE this sh*t!) It’s beginning to creep me out.

The “shame on you” rant WAS projection! That’s the best way to describe it. It was an outrageous way to talk to another candidate. I’m surprised it didn’t hurt her. The SNL skits are so favorable to her. While they have many of Obama’s mannerisms down, they in no way parody her. What about her turning and furiously attempting to stare him down, an act of open hostility that she has engaged in over and over and over during the debates? You never see it in their characterization of her as a slightly overeager policy wonk beaten up on by mean men. Nothing of her aggression or fury makes the slightest appearance. The show’s creator is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by the Clintons. What’s new? They have always owned that show.