Marsh Madness
Tas pointed out Taylor Marsh's fact-challenged support of Hillary Clinton. That doesn't compare to Marsh's hysterical post claiming Obama supporters are an evil cult.
Let me also add that many of the new people who found my site have been driven away from some of the biggest progressive blogs on the web, because their commenters wouldn't allow them to speak, or the proprietors don't let them in. That's what has happened to Obamabots who try to post here, because they simply cannot control their vitriol, and I don't have time to babysit them. Many Hillary supporters are ticked off at being maligned and censored just because they back Clinton. They have every right to feel that way. As for the conversation in comment sections across the web that Obama's campaign is a "cult," well, many of us who are watching what is happening are worried. We're not in small numbers. We're nominating a president, not a motivational preacher, Elmer Gantry, or L. Ron Hubbard replacement.
Exactly what progressive blogs are cencoring commenters? Would Marsh care to explain? I like to hear it just for a good laugh.
I share Marsh's concerns about Obama's lack of policy substance. That doesn't mean he is running a cult.
Labels: humor, taylor marsh
posted by Michael Hussey @ 10:34 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Let me also add that many of the new people who found my site have been driven away from some of the biggest progressive blogs on the web, because their commenters wouldn't allow them to speak, or the proprietors don't let them in.
It's funny she should imply censorship from other big blogs here, since a comment I posted in Paul's thread never made it through her moderation queue. My comment included a link to my post on SLiD and simply said "Paul plays fast and loose with the facts. My reply -- showing that Obama's actually ahead -- doesn't." I don't think this contains any "vitriol" that Taylor "Liar Liar Propagandist on Fire" Marsh has complained about, but hey... If she and her other bloggers have already started lying, why should they let somebody ruin their fun?
I see she's taken the Johnny A-List approach at administrating a blog. I can't wait until she deletes her unpopular posts!
are you for Clinton or Obama or...? I guess I know :)
I'm running a poll of American liberal bloggers on my European blog. thank you in advance for visiting and voting.
ciao!
I'm voting for Obama. I can't speak for Michael, though -- he hasn't told me.
Nice profile photo, btw.
LOL !!! (on the both above)
I don't know about obama's cult but Oprah has a cult and she is behind everything that's behind obama.
it's like what came first? Obama or oprah????
If she thought she could get elected she would have run instead but she has more fun giving cars away. ....
(sorry tas, and I haven't made up my mind yet, they both CREEP ME OUT)but not as much as mcmann
They all scare me -- Obama too. I don't like the fact that he'll use signing statements for bills, ala Bush.. And he's a bit too moderate of a candidate then I would normally vote for. But.. Call me crazy.. I sense a certain amount of trust from him, though.
Issues matter, but some pundits think they are paramount during an election. But they're not. If issues were the only thing which mattered, then in 2000 there truly would have been no difference between Bush and Gore. Both ran and relatively moderate to conservative candidates -- both had conservative backgrounds, as well. Of course, we all know what happened after Bush was "elected"... Moderate he was not.
McCain is going to start more wars and be an American imperialist if he's elected, this we know -- no matter what he says, trust me, that's what he will do. Clinton -- Hillary or Bill -- I've just never trusted, period. Bill had the charisma to get away with a lot of shit, like bombing Iraq practically every week during his administration. I never thought he was much of a liberal, and I don't imagine Hillary relinquishing any of the new, overarching powers the executive office has garnered during the Bush administration. I just don't trust her: never have, never will. And I decided that I wouldn't vote for her long before I even heard of Obama.
Obama will probably governor like a moderate, but.. He won't purposely start new wars, and I don't see him being as devious as Hillary could be with the overarching powers of the presidency. In short, Obama's a politician but he gives me the "He's not a shithead" vibe.
Of course, hardcore Hillary supports -- the Clintonistas -- are paranoid enough to think that Obama is some sort of closet conservative, but those morons will believe anything. They'll believe that Bill Clinton's administration presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity despite his war in Kosovo, constant bombardment of Iraq, and a genocide in Rwanda that he didn't do a damn thing about. As for prosperity, he was blessed with presiding over the Technology Bubble -- sheer luck -- but he also signed NAFTA, supported unfair free trade, and the migration of good paying manufacturing and technology jobs from our national borders started during his administration. Sure, he was better than Bush, but do you really want 4 more years of that?
I would want Bill Clinton's economic team. Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Brad Delong, and Jonathan Talisman is serious brain power. Summers is a smart guy but politically tone deaf.
The dot com bubble was created by the Clinton administration making the internet public. The middle class tax cut and deficit reduction played a huge part in jump starting the economy. The most important thing is Bill Clinton hired smart people to run the Treasury Department. Bush was going to make Andy Card Sec of Treasury. That leaked and Bush backed off the idea.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home