Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

January 11, 2010

My Theory of Bill Clinton's Coffee Remark: The Game-Change Mystery Woman

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 5:52 pm

I’m the one who called him “Lower than a Yard Dog” in my last post about him. But I think he might have sunk even lower in my estimation.

Somehow part of me had, evidently, continued to be conned by his “sincerity” about civil rights. It was his best schtick — the Southern white boy who resisted the culture of segregation and racism. I mean there’s some truth there, isn’t there?

But the reports from Game Change, the new book about the 2008 presidential election, are — and as yet Clinton has not denied them — that he tried to make a joke to Teddy about Obama when ostensibly seeking Teddy’s endorsement for Hillary. He joked that Obama was so unready that a few years ago he would have been serving them coffee.

It’s that “serving them” thing that is so obtuse and offensive, and we must assume that the story came from Teddy Kennedy or someone he told it to before he died.

What more could he have done than to alienate the ailing senator whose family identification with the civil rights cause was one of the chief glories of its decidedly mixed record?

Advertisements

39 Comments »

  1. […] Read the entire story here. […]

    Pingback by Pajamas Media » My Theory on Clinton’s ‘Coffee’ Remark — January 11, 2010 @ 8:46 pm | Reply

  2. If he had to live in the White House he’d be like a chained yard dog.

    This thought struck me many times during the campaign. He would have had to escort his unattractive wife to many a glamorous affair thronged with untouchable hotties, sit through fusty “first dude” functions while DC’s randiest bachelors had all the fun, pretend to love a woman who apparently berates and despises him, regret his daily loss of youth, and smile through the whole ordeal. Four years or more of sheer hell.

    Comment by arhooley — January 11, 2010 @ 9:20 pm | Reply

  3. “The Solis-Doyle Confessions, Or How dba Obama Is Removing Hillary As 2012 Presidency Rival” –

    Too early to come with an opinion about this book, because it looks to be just a job, an ugly one, but just a job (I am a rabid conservative, so I hope no one will suspect me of being a Clintonite, PUMA or otherwise) –
    The book, per Politico, is almost entirely based on Solis-Doyle confessions (they approximated this @ a prudent 80% of the material), i.e. from a woman who was unceremoniously fired by Hillary in 2008 from the job of… campaign appointments manager –

    Now, this Solis-Doyle harpie hauls from a Chicago political family (some describe them as community activists, some as some realy nasty bottom feeders – take your pick), who happened to walk in the wrong camp in 2008 (a Lucianne Goldberg?) and after a while with the Clintons, fired since she was remarkably inept (Lucianne is not) –
    Then, not long after having been fired, Solis-Doyle was observed in the Obama compounds dilligently carrying buckets of water for the Barack H. Obama International brigades, then she got a sort of promotion for some mystery merits (if I am not wrong she is school District something in Chicago), of course, she has no competence whatsoever, but what did Blago say during his keen negociations for the Illinois senator appointment: “And I want for Patricia a job at the hospital like Michelle’s!”

    Man, oh, man! This is such a howl! Simply unbelievable! “I want for Patricia a job at the hospital like Michelle’s!”
    Hey, I’d go for that hospital job anytime – bitter white guy in Brooks suit I am, but I still don’t make $ 360.000 a year for just showing up at some fundrising parties taking about my comfort zone – and I am willing to wear beads as well –

    So, again, I think the book is just an early, preemptive job to discredit Hillary before a possible confrontation for the 2012 nomination – who cares, the Dems’ business –

    Now coming to Rosenbaum’s take on Clinton channeling Biden channeling Reid –

    No matter how much I enjoy this mess, I cannot see a racial implication in Clinton’s words because no one really thinks of blacks as waiters – a gopher, maybe, yet the “coffee” nuance doesn’t carry the “shoe shine” boy implication –
    However, as far as the other implication of the term, I kinda agree with Clinton – while I see not many qualities in dba Obama, there definitely is a lackey “je ne sai quoi” about him (remember Nixon being described as always having the demeanor of someone looking for a job?) –

    Whatever – Hillary is off to Pernambuco, and the Clintons tend to return favors, so it looks like we’ll have a lot of excitement ahead –

    Comment by misanthropicus — January 11, 2010 @ 11:00 pm | Reply

  4. Your scandal reference is obviously about John Edwards. If you don’t respond to this comment, I’ll take that as a yes.

    Comment by e — January 11, 2010 @ 11:40 pm | Reply

  5. […] My Theory on Clinton’s ‘Coffee’ Remarkby Ron Rosenbaum […]

    Pingback by Pajamas Media » AP Poll Bias … Against Cats — January 12, 2010 @ 12:29 am | Reply

  6. Based on e’s curiosity, I went back and read the 2007 post. Interesting moral dilemma. I suggest you do a braindump on the National Enquirer editor and walk away. Whatever happens, happens.

    Comment by arhooley — January 12, 2010 @ 2:42 am | Reply

  7. Maybe. But more then likely it was the good ole Arkansaw redneck Bubba engaging in a bit of honest sentiment. And honesty is clearly something he is uncomfortable with.

    Comment by carla — January 12, 2010 @ 4:14 am | Reply

  8. e, it’s not about Edwards, since Rosenbaum specifically said in his October 29, 2007 post, “By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.”

    Comment by ForNow — January 12, 2010 @ 6:49 am | Reply

  9. Interesting theory. I think it is entirely possible that Clinton was referring to Obama’s lack of experience. An intern candidate.

    Comment by mnewman — January 12, 2010 @ 8:16 am | Reply

  10. Ron,Keep it simple He’s a Racist

    Comment by Ancona — January 12, 2010 @ 9:21 am | Reply

  11. “I think it is entirely possible that Clinton was referring to Obama’s lack of experience. An intern candidate.”

    Precisely. Occam’s razor, and all that. I’m no fan of Bubba, I’m just realistic about what he would have said to someone like Teddy who had as much clout as he did before the nomination.

    As for being First Gent crimping Bubba’s style, I doubt it would have. Presidential spouses have had a habit of making lots of independent trips for good causes (or in this case for a “good time”), and President Hillary would have been all too willing to look the other way to avoid the personal embarrassment. And would the media have let the first female President be seen to be a wronged woman? Nope, just like they covered for the first Roman Catholic President, they would have made sure we didn’t find out. That’s actually their core competency.

    Comment by sherlock — January 12, 2010 @ 1:48 pm | Reply

  12. I think this is a distinct possibility. The guy is a political wizard, so it’s hard to imagine he would make a ‘gaf’ like that, and to the Lion. And it is also why your theory of alterior motive fits well. Interesting angle Mr. Rosenbaum.

    Another thing I wondered for a brief moment was why “coffee”. I figured it was a reference to their staffer’s typical duties or something. Of course, none of this says anything about how a conservative would be evaluated of such comments, which is what some people are upset about.

    But to be honest, I feel dis-serviced by the MSM focus on this, as it is yet another aptly timed diversion from what fate is being sealed behind closed doors as we speak – against on-MSM-camera promises. Somewhat sad really. The media is not fulfilling their ordained duty.

    Comment by Distraught — January 13, 2010 @ 2:56 am | Reply

  13. People might have to observe every PC nicety in public speech, but I think it’s going to be tough to eradicate it in private speech.

    Comment by Banjo — January 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am | Reply

  14. The whole point of this book is to beard for Obama. Lines like “Obama adores his wife” and “prefers to spend time with his wife and children” are so vanilla and saccharine (and not true, as Michelle herself has talked candidly about BO’s vanity and the diffulties in their marriage) that one automatically has to raise a flag. Racial comments from politicians are also automatic. Why? because pollsters have taught them to “profile” and “stereotype” the great unwashed. Bill Clinton, of course, sent that postcard of a “watermelon eating pickaninny” to his grandma when he was at Oxford, and Harry Reid was the king of the Nevada boxing commission, where manflesh of all kinds is verbally raised in racial (and homosexual) terms. As to Reid’s comment the Kinsley rule about “they only get offended when someone actually utters the truth” applies. Jesse Jackson himself made comments about Obama’s blackness (and even his balls!) when miked at a Chicago radio station, during the 2008 campaign. What we need is a Lenny Bruce (who handed Wilt Chamberlain a smoke ringside at the Copa, commenting he “niggerlipped it”) or a Totie Fields or a Richard Pryor to be called in as an MSM mediator whenever some pol or celebrity says something offensive, you know, kind of a “confession session” with an edge to bring the humor out.

    Comment by charlie finch — January 15, 2010 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  15. By the way , the 2008 scandal is that Obama is allegedly gay (spends alot of time at the gym, doesn’t gain a pound, fashion plate, handsome star athlete body man, finicky habits such as needs a specific brand of throat lozenge). There have been some veiled references to this, especially in Maureen Dowd’s Obama/Reggie Love references and in Vanessa Grigoriadis’ “New York” mag profile of Michelle Obama last spring. (By the way, I am very pro gay and pro gay marriage)

    Comment by charlie finch — January 15, 2010 @ 11:30 am | Reply

  16. the whole liberal battle between blacks and women because of Obama squeezing out Hilary is still very much in play; it is at the root of Harold Ford’s challenge to Gillenbrand and Dowd’s snarkiness about the President and Clinton’s remark…poor white trash like Clinton has more of that plantation stuff going on than all the Beauregard’s vis. (satire alert): “no uppity house nigrah gonna talk back to our wimmen”, even though he’s schtuppin’ Sally Hemins’ in da woodshed

    Comment by charlie finch — January 15, 2010 @ 1:13 pm | Reply

  17. Of course, to pretend that “Bill Clinton having a girlfriend” was the big “scandal” of the 2008 campaign is just ridiculous. Jeez, by then every comedian was doing Clinton horndog jokes and the populace just assumed that he must have one. Nope, it was the possible affairs of Obama and Hillary and the sudden emergence of “the body man ” and “the body woman” as some great campaign tradition going back to Coolidge. Ah, but if you are talking about same sex affairs what a perfect cover is “the body person” who just happens to have to be around the candidate 24/7. This job used to be called “valet” and, in the theater “the dresser”. How perfect for the prudish MSM to emphasize the “double-entendre” of “body man” (or woman). This week’s “New York” magazine excerpt from the Halperin/Heileman book blares on the cover “things impossible to believe about the Edwards” campaign, almost 2 years after any of these sordid tales have any relevance to the body politic. The 64 grand question is this: why, after Donna Rice, Monica, Condit, Gingrich’s affairs, Speaker Livingston’s affair, Mark Foley, McGreevey, EMK and all the Ks, Nelson Rockefeller, Wilbur Mills, Bush Sr and his secretary, Spitzer, David Pateron’s Motel 6 hookups, Rielle Hunter, Paula Jones, the harassment of Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Jesse Jackson’s love child, Mark Sandford, the Louisiana Senator with the prostitute, Senator Ensign and on and on and on DOES THE MEDIA (including Ron weirdly being against naming “the girfriend”, when her pic has been all over the media for years) STILL ACT LIKE A PRUDISH, PURITAN DIVINE COVERING HIS EYES !!??????

    Comment by charlie finch — January 15, 2010 @ 4:48 pm | Reply

  18. As a Canadian, I am interested that we should see as ‘racist’ Reid’s comment about Obama being the sort of “Black” now acceptable to the average American voter. I mean, it is so obvious, just the sort of strategic thinking necessary in the political arena. Especially when the Dems were wanting to break the Clintons’ power. Which they did. With a good looking light coloured African American who can “talk right”, who went to Harvard, and who “cleans up well” (as per Biden).

    Now compare Obama to Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas. There is no comparison, is there? Let’s face it, the latter 2 are both kind of darkish, and ‘negroid’ in appearance, which would make a certain kind of person ‘uncomfortable’ ESPECIALLY an ignorant media concerned only with Democratic narrative and appearance. It must be such a relief to this crew, to be able to prove their lack of racism while embracing a good looking light skinned harvard graduate African American leftist!!! Bow down and worship the great looking godling (they did!)

    Interesting note: Up Here in Canada, where most of the media is owned by the government, there is little or no knowledge of Climate Gate, and even political folk think Obama is sailing easily into a second term.

    Hmmm. Charley, I would never have thought of (perhaps) Obama being interested in guys during his off hours. I HAD seen hints of Hillary’s same sex interests, and of course, Bill Clinton is FAMOUS.

    I totally love gossip. But I believe that IF Obama swings for the ‘other team’ well, I don’t think that has anything to do with his inherent narcissism and hubris. He is just world class jerk.

    Comment by heathermc — January 15, 2010 @ 8:57 pm | Reply

  19. Thomas Sowell looks and sounds like Moses (as in the Pentateuch). Google “Barack Obama and Reggie Love” and see what you come up with; wouldn’t acting out such an open secret at the pinnacle of the world precisely be the thing to elevate vanity and hubris? It certainly did so for JFK, another secret sexual sharer, as it did for Clinton.

    Comment by charlie finch — January 15, 2010 @ 9:08 pm | Reply

  20. Well, I did goggle Roggie Love with Barack Obama.

    I suppose that the trip up to the top of the mountain must be done with a strong and loving companion… just thinking, tho, about being Reggie Love… being The One with the special lozenges on hand…

    And what must Michelle be like? What would these people be like at home? Do we want to know?

    I’m interested in Scottish history. James VI of Scotland became James I of England after Elizabeth’s death. He had ALWAYS been a king, from his infancy, and so he understood what being a ‘king’ meant. He floated the idea of “Divine Right of Kings” but he also understood his limits because he knew about the nobility and parliament and money. His son, Charles II, however, became heir to the throne rather late, and being shy and rigid, went with the “idea” of Divine Right of Kings and sowed and then reaped the whirlwind of civil war and execution.

    I think Obama has never left the mean streets of Chicago. I wonder if he even knows what whirlwind he is living in right now? Is there no one around him who will let him know that he should put on some clothes?

    As to Sowell, he does think and write well, but he does tend to mumble. No Churchill (or Moses), he.

    Comment by heathermc — January 15, 2010 @ 9:40 pm | Reply

  21. Charles I

    Comment by charlie finch — January 16, 2010 @ 5:03 am | Reply

  22. “I’m against printing uncorroborated stories”…hmmm, well that would pretty much shut down much of the MSM, who print stories based on leaks from one source in the government every day, and DON’T print stuff that is embarrassing precisely to protect the powerful sources who feed them

    Comment by charlie finch — January 16, 2010 @ 7:49 am | Reply

  23. I believe that the USA is in such dire straits that we need to extend out good will to President Obama. I believed the same thing about Bush. I supported Bush in 2004 and, in spite of my deep admiration for John McCain and enjoyment of Sarah Palin, supported Obama in 2008. Have you noticed that no former girlfriends have come out of the woodwork to reminisce about Barack? (doggies not barkin’, Heather!!) And where are barack’s detailed reminiscences about his three month trip to Pakistan with his best friends (all Pakis) while he was an undergraduate at Occidental College? How about Barack’s rooming with a guy on Amsterdam Avenue, while BO was at Columbia, who later turned up as a homeless drug dealer in Union Square? How about the fact that Fox News surveyed 400 Columbia classmates of Barack Obama at Columbia, including George Stephanopolous, and NONE of them remembered him? To me, this hard leavening of mystery makes Obama MORE fascinating and MORE qualified to be President. You know what truly sucks? The Becks and the Olbermanns, the Limbaughs and the Katrina vanden Heuvel’s, the O’Reilly’s and the Ariannas, people without an ounce of nuance or subtlety in their tattered souls. Where’s their “corroboration”? But give me a dram of intuition, inject it into my pituitary gland and spread the wings of mystery as the mind flies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by charlie finch — January 16, 2010 @ 9:39 am | Reply

  24. In the Styles section of the Times tomorrow, there is a piece called “Elizabeth Edwards Off Her Pedestal”. The article describes the negative stuff about Edwards as “often unsourced and omniscient’ (i.e. uncorroborated). But, what strikes me about this piece is this: the need for the elites to sponge off the rest of us defies even “common sense”, to wit: now that the Edwards story is no longer a make-or-break narrative to the power meme, “corroborability” ceases to be a fig leaf for not reporting the story and the needs to feed the masses with a “feet of clay” tale about one of the elite’s own as a means of pacification takes precedence. In the same number of the stupid Times, it is announced that Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush will wrangle the chaotic Haitian relief effort. So the elites must also reassert their primacy over chaos, in other words, the destruction of half an island and 100,000 poor people is only a means to reify the self-importance of elite identity (W’s elite bone fides trumps the need of one part of the elite to crucify him to reify itself, when a world disaster threatens the integrity of elitist hegemony.) Allow me to sum up: the self-preservation of our elites is the one and only necessity of said elites and its requirement shift according to the magnitude and degree of chaos of the threat. (Hence, for example, the risk of elite primogeniture, to speak metaphorically, is greater via a pre-emptive strike on Teheran’s siloes than the risk of continued elitist appeasement of Amedinajad and his thugs)

    Comment by charlie finch — January 16, 2010 @ 10:50 am | Reply

  25. yup. Charles I. Those Stewarts, what losers. Charles I was very short also. His son The Two was very tall. This means nothing.

    So, how do you know that BO travelled to Pakistan with some Paki buddies??? Now that is INTERESTING!

    Thinking of ‘elites’ in a democracy such as the USA: I think their position has been safe so long as no-one thought of them as ‘elite.’ Now that the label sticks, their position is more than a little flimsy.

    Charles I of England had no idea of the political reality of his world. Thus he caused a terrible civil war, among other things. From what I have seen, Obama has no idea of what exactly he must do to BE a ‘president.’ All along, he has thought that looking presidential would be enough to be successful. Charles I was also, in his time, very charming and smart.

    Comment by heathermc — January 16, 2010 @ 11:54 pm | Reply

  26. The utter sickness of the elitist Bible, “The NY Times”, vis: in today’s edition, “Lonely Trek for Terrorist Suspect between Longing in this life and a Desire for the Next”. Of course, the underwear bomber had become a famous writer or entrepreneur, the stupid Times would write “Child of Influential African Banker Helped by Privileged Background.” Obama’s Paki trip well-documented by Chicago journalists, speaking of treks.

    Comment by charlie finch — January 17, 2010 @ 10:17 am | Reply

  27. I wonder when or if anyone will be able to write a genuine biography of Obama? I know that (I think) Stanley Kurz attempted to look at his Annenberg experiences, but found that the documents were suddenly unavailable.

    I am not a “truther” but there are so many holes in the Obama life that no wonder there are so many rumours, crazy and not crazy. This is very dangerous for the US of A.

    Comment by heathermc — January 17, 2010 @ 1:36 pm | Reply

  28. You know who is singlehandedly attempting to transform all this Puritan MSM/denial/corroboration/cheating/affair codependence between skeevy pols and ballless media? My all time favorite governor, the real Obama, David Paterson. He’s blind, he’s a rebel, yesterday he canoodled with a woman not his wife openly in a Jersey restaurant. He give the finger to Andrew Cuomo and Caroline Kennedy, illegally appoints a Lieutenant Governor only to have the courts surprisingly uphold him, lecturess all his former cronies in the corrupt Legislature for being the reprobates that they are, withholds earmarked money to New York’s counties, and makes a chubby blonde protegee a U.S. Senator. And what does everyone from the President to, I don’t know, Ron Rosenbaum (just kidding) say, “We can’t have this!! someone who is bold and honest!! Why he is a buffooon.” (Aaaaaaaand, as politically correct as they are supposed to be, all these Pelosians and Huffingtonians are saying this stuff about a blind, black guy!). You know, if Obama had even ONE of David Paterson’s balls in his underwear, he would have already thrown Bin Laden’s corpse atop the Wailing Wall, set fire to it, bunker busted Teheran’s nukies, kidnapped Amedinajad for trial, given Eric Holder a wedgie and had sex with is body man in the Lincoln bedroom while his wife watched. I have had a few encounters with Governor Paterson and, I gotta tell ya, he’s every bit of the backslapping party animal as advertised and he is NOT a phony schmoozer like Bill Clinton or Joe Cool from Honolulu, Kenya. He is that VERY rara avis, a public official who is REAL

    Comment by charlie finch — January 17, 2010 @ 9:28 pm | Reply

  29. It takes awhile to stumble onto a good way to explain what I think is going wrong with Obama (aside from – if that is true – he has to hide his real caring relationships)…
    it’s like Charles I, who really thought that wearing a crown meant he was King… Obama thought that when he sat down at the desk in the Oval Office, he really is the President. This is a terrible time for the US of A.

    So interesting what you say about Paterson.. the kind of insights you have are completely unknown to me, even tho I am a political junkie. To me, Paterson is kind of a clown place holder. Thanks for another way of looking at him, Charlie.

    Comment by heathermc — January 17, 2010 @ 10:26 pm | Reply

  30. If you can’t have some fun with politics, Heather, what’s the point? And remember that are new commander-in-chief is whiping out far more Al Qaedans with drones than Bush did

    Comment by charlie finch — January 18, 2010 @ 6:10 am | Reply

  31. Everyone should run for office at least once. It is a disorienting, masochistic experience, because, when you meet the voters, your first instinct is to agree with everything each voter says and to conceal everything about yourself that a voter might find disagreeable. I ran for Congress in New York’s Silk Stocking District in 1986. My Democratic primary opponent (small world) was Ron Rosenbaum’s magazine publisher (at “New Times”, a terrific magazine which, unfortunately, had the same name as Stalin’s Soviet version of “Life” magazine) George Hirsch. I had worked for Gary Hart and was a New York delegate to the 1984 Democratic National Convention in SF. First thing that I did after announcing my longshot candidacy (the incumbent was affable liberal Repub S. William Green) was visit political reporter Frank Lynn and powerful editorial page editor (and close family friend) Roger Starr at “The New York Times”. They interviewed me with respect (as the Times then did to all the candidates) and Frank Lynn kindly published a small piece on my candidacy. My poor mother, God rest your beautiful soul, was mortified. I then set about collecting petition signatures in the heat of the early summer and debating George Hirsch (a millionaire runner and, additionally, founder of “Runner’s World”) who looked upon my incursion with derision. I had run petitioning drives for other candidates. Then and now, New York has, by far, the most onerous petition rules in any place short of Pyongyang. I needed 15,000 signatures in a month, which means, in New York, you need 40,000 sigs, if you don’t have machine backing, to avoid getting knocked off the ballot on technicalities (or worse, sued for fraud). During the drive, which consisted of just me shaking hands outside subway stations and 9 out of 10 voters spitting at or glaring at me for ruining their turgid commutes, those who signed for me all said I was basically nuts (true enough, I guess). In the end I submitted 17,500 pristine signatures and millionaire Rosenbaum enabler Hirsch informed me that he had had to shell out thousands of bucks to State Senator Martin Connor, the Simon Legree of election lawyers to promptly knock me off the ballot. Which he did. In ten minutes before a judge. As result, my mother came out of the cellar, I spent the rest of the summer surfing at Breezy Point and have always, in self-justification and as a former George McGovern aide, that is is the losers who are the fulcrum of our wonderful democracy. George Hirsch was trounced in November.

    Comment by charlie finch — January 18, 2010 @ 7:06 am | Reply

  32. I wonder if the usual tricks will be successful in future? The 2 really disgusting actions by Coakley (protecting a pedophile torturer, and keeping Amirault in jail) are available because the internet makes it possible to discover this stuff. Before, one had to know the right people, be able to spend hours looking at microfilm records, track down pamphlets, etc etc.

    And that tiny video clip of Melendez, telling us all about how she works the absentee ballot scam: this is definitely something new.

    Personally, I am of the opinion (I’m a foreigner of course), that this absentee voting ought to be expunged. One vote on one day. It should be a civic event, voting day. All this motor voter absentee has given rise to a remarkable level of dishonesty, perhaps even greater than in the good old days of the 19th century.

    Also, many people are voting for Brown because they voted for Obama and THEIR LIVES HAVEN’T CHANGED. How about an IQ test too.

    Comment by heathermc — January 19, 2010 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  33. Obama deserved the voters’ kick in the butt. Needs to be more hawkish, much less elitist, funnel money to the middle class, stand up to China and to Wall Street. Irony of a conservative State Senator (white guy with a military record) rising to the Senate and then to Prez (?) a strange mirror image of Barack.

    Comment by charlie finch — January 20, 2010 @ 5:38 am | Reply

  34. Charlie, have you heard the new Blind Boys of Alabama duet with Lou Reed of Jesus? check out the great performance on Letterman

    Comment by bryan — January 22, 2010 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  35. thanks, Heather and kudos on the MASS win; pill popper Pelosi folded like a tent

    Comment by charlie finch — January 22, 2010 @ 11:19 am | Reply

  36. Say what you will about JFK’s book “Profiles in Courage”: it is a book about Congressmen who welcomed defeat in defense of principle. There is not a single person in Congress today of whom that can be said and that is the problem.

    Comment by charlie finch — January 22, 2010 @ 11:51 am | Reply

  37. The supreme court is full of morons and economic perverts. Outrageous, beyond hyperbole: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?hp

    Comment by Tim Rinaldi — January 22, 2010 @ 7:01 pm | Reply

  38. We need to go back to the 1880s and reverse the perverse ruling that corporations are persons under the law

    Comment by charlie finch — January 22, 2010 @ 7:28 pm | Reply

  39. Yeah. Whatever Noam Chomsky said. It was a while ago, but I agreed with it when I read it. While these navel-gazing weasels roll around and goose each other in their black murderer’s robes, we will now be actually bought and sold by our sleazy, fatso representatives at all levels. The incompetence of these pompous, overrated jargon fetishists…go and get your pitchforks, folks. This is a really bad one.

    Comment by Tim Rinaldi — January 22, 2010 @ 8:36 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: