 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Michael Moore’s Blueprint for an Obama LossPosted on Aug 13, 2008
He’s been rather quiet recently, but Flint’s finest is always a lively voice. His latest missive is a six-point plan for how the Democrats can still blow the easiest election they’ve faced in decades. Summary? Don’t be so darn nice!
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Here We Go Again
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
By cyrena, August 14, 2008 at 7:55 pm #
Well, looks like at least some of us got the point that Michael Moore is making…
Some are saying that the “Dems” are too nice. That depends on which ones we’re talking about.
But yes, Obama has attempted (and largely succeeded) at maintaining the high road, and avoided succumbing to swamp politics. He can’t do that for much longer, because the reality is that nice guys usually don’t win. (at least not by being nice). He can ‘be nice’ after he’s won, but when a snake is poised to strike with venomous poison from all directions, you don’t try to ‘dodge’ the strikes, you SHOOT the damn thing!!
So now there’s this collection of political pornography that’s just been published, full of slander, smear, and beyond mere distortion, or exaggeration, because they’re outright LIES. That took some work, because the stuff had to be CREATED from nothing, which is exactly the problem the fascists have had with his candidacy. He has no dirt, so they’ve had to keep creating it, and not much of the created stuff has stuck.
Still, it’s time to expose the snakes that are attacking from the swamp. For die hards, it’s not going to matter. They will vote ‘against’ him anyway.
But for those who really DON’T have a clue to the background of McCain, it might make a difference if they know his gangster background, and his part in pushing the destruction that we’ve experienced to date.
So, time to get with it. Here’s a ‘primer’ and I’ll add more goodies as they become available.
http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/david_icke.htm
Report thisBy Johnny Plumber, August 14, 2008 at 6:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t always agree with him, but Moore’s right about this one. Only he doesn’t go far enough. The Dems need to hit back harder and not just defend Obama when he’s attacked. Jerome “Swift Boat” Corsi is out with a new book, “Obama Nation,” which is full of his usual smears, innuendos and flat-out lies about his subject. Because of bulk buying, I’ve read that it’s going to the top of the NYT bestseller list. Pathetic!
Report thisDems need to find a rotten S.O.B. in their ranks to write the McCain “Swift Boat” book. At the very least, as Moore points out, stop praising McCain!! Clarke was right when he said that riding a jet down to the ground, being captured and imprisoned, does not make him a war hero. Real war heros were the likes of John Kennedy and John Kerry. And how did they get rewarded for their bravery? One was shot and one was smeared out of an election.
Come on Dems and Obama people! Fight back, go on the offensive. You sure have enough ammo against McCain and his Bush III agenda. That is all…..
By thebeerdoctor, August 14, 2008 at 4:06 pm #
re: Ed Harges
Report thisYes I have. Yes I will. Yes I can!
Peace and blessings, BD
By tomack, August 14, 2008 at 3:44 pm #
that speach will help gain votes from the “moderates”. .
Report thisBy Ed Harges, August 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm #
correction:
The rest is on subsequent pages: beerdoctor, did you forget to look at the other pages? I think it’s all there.
Report thisBy Ed Harges, August 14, 2008 at 3:30 pm #
re: By thebeerdoctor, August 13 at 3:06 pm:
Mr. thebeerdoctor writes:
“Alternet posted an edited version that completely lacks the punch of the original.”
Yes, they did, beerdoctor. And aren’t we all so surprised - NOT - that alternet chose to leave out this zinger:
Keep writing speeches for Obama like the one in front of the American Israeli lobbying group the day after the final primaries. Here’s what he said: “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” And: “Let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation.”
Sounds like a speech McCain would give. Sounds like he’s ready to invade Iran. He staked out an even worse position for the Palestinians vis-a-vis Jerusalem than the one held by George W Bush. Keep that up and more and more supporters will be less and less enthused.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/michael.moore.us.elections.barack.obama
Report thisBy tomack, August 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm #
It’s Me: I’m not talking about Clinton versus Obama, or who Moore backed then or now, or whether or not Clinton should have won, or even who played it tougher during the dem fight. All I said was that he is right: dems play too soft when it counts. Maybe Hillary would have played it tougher with mcain, maybe, but I doubt it because they are so damned concerned about being centric they loose sight of how to FIGHT. And the Right, they know how to fight…unfortunately.
I’m holding out hope that he grows some cohonnes (sp?), and fast.
Report thisBy Eric L. Prentis, August 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hurray for Michael Moore, who I support 100 percent.
Report thisBy It's Me, August 14, 2008 at 1:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
tomack…during the primaries Clinton trounced Obama on every metric critical to a general election win. Obama only edged her out on about 114 state delegates (out of almost 4,000 total delegates) from undemocratic caucuses in small red states Dems don’t win and typically don’t need to win a general election. Period. Btw, that’s the one metric that has proven to lead to the most humiliating defeats ever suffered by a Dem in a White House bid. Which accounts for the whole purpose of the superdelegates (since ‘84) and their duty to override such an outcome in the primaries.
And while Clinton was trouncing Obama on every metric critical to a general election win, public figures like Michael Moore were wringing their hands and parroting the Obama Campaign-fabricated talking point that she and Bill were going negative, “liars”, even racists.
He is one of those people who gave 352 superdelegates cover for giving Obama the nomination despite his obvious general election weaknesses and despite the fact that their main reason for supporting Obama was because, themselves politicians who need to win in November, they didn’t want to get on the wrong side of Obama’s George Soros/MoveOn.org endorsement.
Now hypocrite Moore wants his chosen candidate to get tough in ways he blasted Clinton for in the primaries.
Too little…too late…too wrongheaded from the get-go.
Report thisBy Jaded Prole, August 14, 2008 at 10:11 am #
The Dims play by rules—The Repugs practice the will to power tactics of fascists. The repugs have a real, consistent, philosophy driven agenda. The Dims are basically political opportunists who wind up dancing like puppets to the Repugs who know how to play their opportunism like an old fiddle.
Moore is right on target but what the Dims are running on is not “change” but a more competent version of the same corporate imperialist agenda.
We need real change but most people aren’t willing to support a candidate that hasn’t been vetted by the corporate elite. Thus, we, the People have no voice and the changes we all want will remain a fantasy.
Report thisBy tomack, August 14, 2008 at 9:50 am #
Its Me…you say “If the dems loose the election they can thank people like Michael Moore for it.”
Are YOU kidding? The guy is exactly right: the dems are too nice. Most recent polls (if they can be believed) show an alarmingly close race. And to me anything other than a 10 point swing is alarming.
Also, to another post: America does love a war hero (unfortunately), and in November that angle will be played up more often than a bed pan change at a diarrhea clinic. If you follow the tv pundits and news you’ll notice less talk about the war and more talk about the economy. That is the right’s way of leveling the playing field.
Watch out. Fingers and toes crossed.
Report thisBy It's Me, August 13, 2008 at 9:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
He’s kidding, right?
Is this the same Michael Moore who denounced Hillary Clinton (and consequently declared his support for Obama) for daring to run more than a marshmallow fight campaign against Barack Obama?
If the Dems lose this election, they can thank people exactly like Michael Moore for it.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 13, 2008 at 9:01 pm #
I read this on Alternet myself, and was going to post it, for the benefit of all who have voiced the same complaints about Obama being too nice, allegedly moving to the center.
It’s just as well that I didn’t, since I was unaware then, that it was an edited version. This is better.
Report thisBy troublesum, August 13, 2008 at 8:58 pm #
Except for the people who think Russia is bombing the state of Georgia tonight, I think most of us are sick of war and that “war hero” won’t mean much come November. If McCain were president today we would have American troops fighting on three fronts in the ME and one in Georgia. His first thought is to send in the Marines. I think most people have wised up in the last seven years.
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, August 13, 2008 at 7:06 pm #
Thank you Truthdig for actually posting a link to the actual article, Alternet posted an “edited” version that completely lacks the punch of the original.
Report thishttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/09/michael.moore.us.elections.barack.obama