faboo mama

In the Don’t you Ever Learn? category:

The Clinton’s campaign is hollering over a WSJ article that states that Sen. Obama favored ending Federal oversight on the Teamsters. The Clinton’s campaign and the WSJ both made it seem as though Obama only said that to the Teamsters to get their endorsement.

The Obama campaign pointed to a piece from 2004 that stated that Sen. Obama said he favored ending this Federal oversight. In the tradition of the faux-NAFTA outrage generated by the Clinton’s campaign, they accuse Sen. Obama of doing something (telling the Canadians one thing while saying something different to the American public) that they’ve done. The Teamsters stepped up to say that the Clinton’s said the same exact thing to them while seeking their endorsement.

Sen. Clinton’s statement to the Canadians Teamsters:

I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.

Now that they’ve been caught out, the Clinton’s campaign is now being disengenious by making it about Obama’s statement on ABC this morning where he said he wouldn’t make blanket statements. As a commenter turnip at TPM put it:

Obama supports less federeal oversight of the Teamsters. He has since 2004. Apparently so does Senator Clinton according to her statments from 2007.

These positions are essentially the same and whether it’s a “promise” or a “suggestion”, both candidates have historically been on the side of the Teamsters with respect to lessening the enforcement measure in the Consent Decree.

Today Obama reinforces that is his position.

Today Clinton attacks that position.

Wolfson and Clinton supporters can try to thread a needle of semantics on this one, but it’s another case of what is the meaning of “is”.

Posted by turnip
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink

It’s all really so many levels of smack me on the head stupid ain’t it?

notgoth posted this link, but for whatever reason it’s not showing up:

The next time some Clinton supporter whines that the media is mean to Clinton just say ‘Tuzla’. See, I’m not getting it…Obama’s Reverend says stuff that unhinges a nation. To make it worse, the words were taken out of context and when you read the entire sermon, make a lot of sense. Sigh. But stupid people are stupid people and they’re actually getting upset and demanding that Obama leave his church. Let me repeat that. These people think Obama should leave his church based on 40 seconds of words snipped from a 30 year career. To make it worse, some of them even say that means that he shouldn’t be president…because of some one else’s words.

Huh?

So, it’s been proven–again–that Sen. Clinton is a bald-faced liar. Now, remember that she’s been on about her trip to Bosnia and all the sniper fire. You’ll remember that back on March 11, before all this Rev. Wright stupidity, The Sleuth ran a story with Sinbad who was also on that trip.

“I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I’m going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.’”

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.”

Say what? As Sinbad put it: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ’cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’”

You’d think that the media would have picked up on this, but they didn’t it. Apparently to be mean to Clinton. So, then video showed up late last week, definitely making Clinton’s words lies. You’d think that on the Sunday talkshows, it would The Story, you know, since a presidential candidate was caught in a lie. But on Meet The Press, Tim “Obama is BLACK–like Farrakhan!!!” Russert merely glossed over it:

MR. RUSSERT: Chuck Todd, Hillary Clinton released–had some documents released about her experience as first lady, which brought up again her foreign policy experience as she has articulated it. Here she was last Monday, talking about a trip she made to Bosnia in 1996, suggesting they sent her rather than her husband because of the danger involved. And here she is.

(Videotape)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead, we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Yesterday in a column called “Factchecker” by Michael Dobbs in The Washington Post, Dobbs wrote this: “Clinton’s tale of landing at the Tuzla airport `under sniper fire’ and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.” Which is the highest you can get, which means a whopper in terms of exaggeration. Now, the Clinton campaign has responded by having a speechwriter who was with Hillary Clinton saying, in fact, it was a dangerous situation. And General Nash, who had told Michael Dobbs there was no sniper fire, said that he was aware of some security concerns, but The Post stands by the four Pinocchios. The credibility issue, truth telling, is this a problem for Senator Clinton?

MR. TODD: Well, it’s been–the thing, the nagging thing throughout this whole campaign. When you ask that question of honest and trustworthy, she has always consistently scored lower than Obama, though I am curious what things are going to look like next week, because now, as John Meacham put it, Obama’s mortal, and now he is going to be viewed as just another politician. And so how much does he take a hit, for instance, on that one question. But I, for the life of me, haven’t understood why they have pushed this story. They knew that, well, somebody went after and reinterviewed Sinbad, who was on that trip, the former comedian, and I put “comedian” in quotes, that he was on that trip and doesn’t remember it being that harried or anything like that, and yet she went out and, and retold the story. They have an, an amazing sometimes, with the, the Clinton campaign, where they continue to push something like the, the Ireland thing, which was, her role in the Irish peace process, there appears to be that she certainly played some role or she was involved with it, but what was it? And they, they seem to, to push it. They didn’t need to retell this story because, if they had not, then they wouldn’t have gotten this four Pinocchio thing under The Washington Post and given the Obama’s campaign something to, to hit them with.

That was it. Remember Russert needling Sen. Obama about Farrakhan? Didn’t it look lame that Russert was pushing on Obama to distance himself from something Farrakhan said almost 18 years ago? Then on Monday, this went viral:

That was handmade for the media, but nothing. After getting very strong headlines supergluing Obama to his pastor’s 40 seconds words out of a 30 year carreer, we see “Clinton says she misspoke” or “Clinton backpedals on Bosnia“…all because the media is out to get Clinton.

The media is so evil to Clinton that they just reported the spin lies from their campaign spokesperson. Here we have a candidate who flat out lied. She lied. She’s a liar. I haven’t seen any pundits going, “Well, what does this mean for Hillary?” Meanwhile, Obama gets calls to end his campaign because of 40 seconds of snippets out of a 30 year career that were spoken by someone else?

If anyone ever complains about Clinton’s media portrayal just mention ‘Tuzla’ because trust, if Obama had made a statement like that with video that clearly proved he was lying, the Clinton campaign would be all over this like stank on shit and the media would do their best to drum Obama out of the race.

This whole stupid flap over his dad marching with King could have been put to sleep if Romney would just not talk. For those of you lucky enough not to see this, media entities have been writing on this as if it’s news and/or interesting. Romney said:

During his recent speech on faith, the former Massachusetts governor told his audience how he had witnessed his father, George Romney, marching with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Romney repeated the claim that his father, who was the governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, had marched with King on NBC’s Meet the Press last weekend, growing emotional as he discussed his own reaction when he learned that Mormon leadership had decided to allow black people to participate fully in church rites. (CNN).

Awwwwww…sounds like somebody like Black people. I’m still not voting for your pandering ass Romney. But this is Romney, so you knew there was a lie in there somewhere. The media–that almost useless entity that couldn’t be bothered with fact-checking shrubya’s campaign claims, flat-out fairy tales on WMD, made only a passing reference to the Plame scandal and who seems to be okay with letting telecoms have retroactive immunity to illegally spying on Americas–they diligently researched (gasp!) Romney’s claims and (yawn) found them to be a lie.

But historical evidence, including news accounts at the time, shows that George Romney never marched with King, though he supported King’s agenda.

Susan Englander, assistant editor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, who is editing the King papers from that era, told the Globe yesterday: “I researched this question, and indeed it is untrue that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King.”(BG)

So Romney lied. Again. He’s a Republican politician. It’s what they do.

Ah, but Romney is an attention seeking ego-maniac. Quick to show the world how utterly brilliant he is, he always manages to make more of a mess than before. For example, his explanation for the above lie:

“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” Romney told reporters in Iowa. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar, and it’s very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.

|:-/

A figure of speech.

I don’t know who that’s supposed to impress, but I’m thinking maybe Romney should take some remedial English courses.

“I’m an English literature major. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series,’ it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there,” he said.

Oh he was an English major. Okay

Did you catch that sample sentence though?

Sports fans will know why that’s such a stupid and funny statement. Let me tell you, that says all I need to know about Romney, the non-marching English major.

Now, he’s saying the WH lied about the Plame leak. What’s with all this unethical Republicans that only get the nerve to speak up after they “retire to spend more time with their families”? And how is it possible that all the people who decide to finally speak up after the Constitution and this government have been shredded manage to never to be at fault for their own unethical actions and downright lies?

Oh wait, they got books to sell.

Fuckers.

They certainly don’t seem to know what to do with their apostrophe, but I just thought I toss this out there to the few uninformed people who may stumble across my sad little blog.

First off, I will not link to the site. You can look it up yourself. I have no desire to add traffic to a propaganda site. I know I’m lagging on this, but I can’t just let this pass.

Freedom(’)s Watch is spending $15M on TV advertising in GOP strongholds to convince the sheeple Republicans that all is really, really hunky-dory in Iraq. This group is being fronted by former White House spokesmutant Ari Fleisher. I guess he really missed being the US Disinformation Minister. Or something. As I said, it’s just propaganda arm of the White House. Only the ignorant and gullible would believe this shit.

But my goodness, how low they will go on this. From their “about us” page:

Freedom’s Watch is organized as a nonprofit corporation and operated in a manner consistent with section 501 (c) (4) of the federal income tax laws. Freedom’s Watch is dedicated to educating individuals about and advancing public policies that protect America’s interests at home and abroad, foster economic prosperity, and strengthen families. (ed note: do people fall for this shit?) Through outreach and education, communications to key members of Congress, and bold public awareness initiatives, Freedom’s Watch is fighting for the ideals and policies that keep America strong and prosperous. We welcome all those who share our values to join our efforts.

I’m curious…, no make that bi-curious about “communications to key members of Congress”. Which “key members of Congress” are the Freedom(’)s Watch people talking to? I think we all have a right to know if our Congressional representatives are participating in this propaganda. I’d love for everyone to contact their Congress(wo)man and Senators and have them go on record if they’re working with this propaganda group.

More bullshit from this group:

Has America forgotten that there are terrorists around the world who wish to bring harm to our nation and its citizens? Have some forgotten the scars left on our nation by the events that took place 6 years ago? Have some forgotten the reason our troops are abroad, fighting to preserve the freedoms we enjoy? It would appear that they have. Even now, some are trying to put a stop to the war on terror, when the threat to our nation is still very real. (ed note: GASP! People are trying to stop a war! The horrors!)

Our military and their families have made great sacrifices, and they’ve made significant military progress. We must complete our mission and successfully stabilize Iraq so the Iraqis can safely run their own affairs. We must not quit now and hand a victory to those who seek to strike the American homeland. This cannot be allowed to happen. (GOP to normal people translation: SSDD - Cut and run, “We must stand up so the Iraqis can stand down”, bin LadenAl-Qaeda, Iraq=Vietnam…oh wait, no it isn’t…yeah it is!)

Okay, this is easy. So easy, even a Republican can follow it. I completely understand that Republicans are scared and love to live their lives in fear. I get that. What I don’t get is how “scars left on our nation by the events that took place 6 years ago” are logically tied to “the reason our troops are abroad”. That’s just not true. I laughed at the entire sentence actually, ” Have some forgotten the reason our troops are abroad, fighting to preserve the freedoms we enjoy?” You mean the freedom to have our phones taps by our goverment without a court order? The freedom to protest miles away from the president? The freedom to be arrested over a T-shirt? The freedom to get beaten to death if you’re gay, perceived gay, or not Christian? Those freedoms?

But the kicker in all this is the phone number. I saw the number and thought, “Now why is there a toll-free number for Congress? That’s weird. Turns out that number, the phone number on all the TV ads and on their website does not go to Congress. How’s that for typical GOP honesty? Funny thing is that your typical Republican is so sheeplike that s/he’d never even check to see if the number was legit.