Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's Whole Wheat Bread Is Now Toast

MJS's picture

From teh gay to duh pay Barack Obama is ready to be put on a plate next to some whole grain cereal and a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up.

It's Monday, October 29th, 2007 and Barack Obama's chances of becoming the 2008 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party are done-diddly-diddily-done-done-done. Where does this leave those who consider themselves to be members of the Democratic Party (I include myself in this group)? It's not even Halloween and Hillary Clinton, a corporate/delphic oracle who speaks on high from the Land of Our Betters has already won the nomination. Chris Dodd is great, but will not be the nominee (Maureen Dowd can't snark about him the way that she would like to, so it's a no-go). John Edwards is a good candidate, but not a great candidate, and will also not get the nomination--too many powerful, scaly corporations no-likey-dragon-slayers.

Hillary Clinton will have to stumble and fall and not get up before Al Gore would deign to put himself in front of all the media whores and their shit-flinging armaments, and that's the way it is. Hillary is standing high upon the Acropolis and can survery the land with certitude: There it is. Take it.

++++

Can we who consider ourselves to be progressives get candidates to speak of actual issues in an honest fashion, of what has happened (and is happening) to our Constitutional Democracy? Will anyone speak in a way that informs and does not manipulate the public? Will we have a nominee who will speak about renewable energy and responsible and affordable healthcare and attending to our nation's infrastructure? Does a woman have sovereignty over her own body or not (say it, damn you!) What of the New Christianist Crusades that have shoved mythology into government quite beyond anything any of us living have ever seen in a Democracy?

Will we just have to take it on faith that Hillary Clinton will respect our Constitution and not seek to further reduce the rights of "We, the People?" As climate change progresses the opportunity for demagoguery increases, as human beings from old social, racial and economic divisions begin to search for solid ground to save them (us) from the rising waters. Will Hillary be Our Captain, Oh, Captain, who can keep the crew from steering us into the rocks? Will mere survival be the new goal, instead of the best and the brightest working to make life better for the most people and animals and plants and...?

I don't know the answers to those questions(surprise!). The only thing I do know today is this: the Democratic nominee ain't gonna be Barack Obama. Now, were he to run as a Republican (which some might argue he already is trying to do) he could have made some noise in the race...perhaps he would have considered his core messages more carefully had he known he sounded like the Hollow Men of the GOP: that sorry, angry group of old, white guys who would bomb far-away countries first and decline to ask any questions later, unless they could ask the questions while torturing someone brown.

The GOP is looking for a few, good men. Obama? Are you listening?

++++

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

I mean, "new politics" and all, and the first thing we get is pandering to those who hate teh gay, and then we get Social Security put back in play? WTF?

Were all Obama's consultants moles for Hillary, or what?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Submitted by lambert on

And did the right thing with Dodd on the hold and filibuster.

WTF is going on? I'm not seeing any consistency here.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Just not ready for primetime, many felt he was making this move way too early in his career and here it is, no coherence to the message. There are second acts in American politics but this screwup will take some doing to put in the past. With any luck he'll make good on his promise to rip Hillary and with both of them down we'll get Edwards, who will bring Dodd along as VP. My dream team now, with Gore that lazy slut apparently sitting it out.

Submitted by lambert on

My impression was that our famously free press deked Obama into declaring early, then Hillary had to go, then the calendar got screwed up as the early states leapfrogged each other, and now we're on a death march to an election day that's almost a year away.

By that time, Hillary's going to look and sound like the incumbent, paving the way for a surprise come-from-behind victory by, oh, Huckabee, after Bush pulls an October surprise out of his ass. Now, pleae convince me I'm wrong about all this.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

MJS's picture
Submitted by MJS on

and like Icarus, he flew too close to the sun, and too soon at that. And then said some really strange shit. And then he fell from my view of the sky and I hope he doesn't hit too many folks on his way down.

Gore is a lazy slut? News to me. How I miss the days of the energetic whores...

++++

Submitted by lambert on

Oh, well.

I like Obama. I think he's genuinely thoughtful. But I agree with bringiton that he's unseasoned. (Before there was JFK there was JFK's monstrous father, and Boston politics; JFK was plenty seasoned.)

In a way, this reminds me of Dukakis -- a regional, not to say provincial, powerbase not, or no longer, suited for the national stage. Masschusetts in the case of Dukakis, Illinois in the case of Obama. Both Hillary and in his own way Edwards have gone to some lengths to move beyond that model, although for very different reasons.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

Kids, go back and read the speech where Obama made his rep, and then tell me why anybody thought this man was a liberal.

I'd like to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as well, hoping that a few years more experience will make him a better candidate, but I'm afraid that Obama will become more conservative as the years pass, not less.

...for the rest of us

Submitted by lambert on

... but it's a damn good speech--and a Conservative couldn't have written it. Take this line:

My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success.

But ... "conflict free is content free." I think in the past there may have been "one America,"* but today? Isn't it pretty too think so...

NOTE * Modulo that pesky 3/5th of a man thing, Jim Crow, and the Southern strategy, and whatever the name for the movement that Louise Day Hicks represented in the North.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

[hoping to help with the hit meter] is an affectionate chide for someone generally loved and usually productive who isn't getting done what you want them to do right this minute, as in "Oscar, Emmy, Nobel, fine, but what have you done for me lately you lazy slut?" The expression comes out of G&L culture, mjs, perhaps not universally recognized.

Dr. S, funny the levels of qualification there are for acceptance as a "liberal" or "progressive" and no mercy for those who fall even a hair short, eh? I remember a lecture by Gloria Steinem where an audience member asserted pretty stridently that Sandra Day O'Conner could not possibly be considered a feminist. Steinem fixed the questioner with that icy stare, waited a couple of beats and replied "If Justice O'Conner isn't a feminist, then neither am I."

Obama's alright, but he's young and inexperienced and without, as Lambert points out, an established political and criminal organization behind him.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

in newsrooms, and the military.

Oh, sure, Pulitzer, but that was yesterday, you lazy slut.

Oh, yeah, Presidential Citation, Distinguished Flying Cross, Queen's Thanks, Congressional Medal of Honor -- so what have you done in *this* war, you lazy slut?

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

appears to have spread far wider, or shall I say penetrated deeper, into society than even the most fearful had imagined. Gay lingo in the military and in journalism; is nothing sacred?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Believe it or not, dear friends, it is not you guys who will decide the Democratic nominee. It is the great unwashed masses of Democrats out there - people who dont necessarily read blogs, or buy into the framings that gets one gold stars from the netroots.

Obama has not backed down one inch on his stand on gay issues. But he has made it clear that he will not shun one part of the natural Democratic constituency because they are horribly wrong on this issue. He will invite them to the party, while telling them what he thinks. In the long run, or perhaps the medium run, this will pay great benefits for the community, for Obama will not back down, but the anti-gay forces will see a different perspective - coming from someone who respects them, even though he doesnt respect their view on this one issue.

Obama's SS plan is a good one. Although the system is not in crisis (nor does he say it is), the fact is that in order for the federal government to pay back the trust fund, it will have to raise a lot more revenue.

You can do this one of two ways. (OK there may be many more, but for this discussion....). You can do nothing, leaving the SS tax structure as regressive as it is, and then fight, year in and year out to raise sufficient revenue in order to pay back the trust fund without suffering deep cuts to discretionary spending (and the pressure to do that will be relentless from the right).

Or, you can solve it now, by making the SS tax structure more progressive, and forestalling the need to raise that money, year in and year out, through genreal revenues.

Sorry to say this folks, but I think Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than folks around here, and a better leader. Y'all are stuck in the weeds of the moment, and don't have the vision to see long term solutions.

And you think Obama is toast? Let me guess. You thought Kerry was toast 4 years ago today. It certainly was the CW, wasn't it.

Then the people spoke. And for some reason, they seemed blissfully unaware of the hype inside the beltway, and in the blogosphere.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

really. and as for obama's SS plan- you yourself admit that a simple change is all it takes to "fix" what isn't broken. we call it "raise the cap." no need for a complex plan that does little more than make some rich folks on wall st richer.

and i'll say it again, to you and obama and anyone else who thinks his interaction with religious fundies and/or closet cases is a form of progress: get real. there is *no* compromising with people who believe that an ancient desert dweller's redacted and rewritten fables is more important than my constitutional rights. wake up and pay attention- triangulation has brought is nothing but failure and weakness to the once proudly liberal democratic party.

...do a little research about what reall motivates people to vote, who votes and who does not, and of course, how those votes are counted. then get back to me about what "the people" want and express.

Submitted by lambert on

Here:

There is no crisis
So, anyway, having someone suggest that Social Security is a problem which needs to be dealt with by any serious candidate is like the bat signal for people like me. There is no problem with Social Security. None at all. Whatever broader fiscal time bombs exist have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security. Once you get Fred Hiatt and the gang opining about the need fix that Social Security problem, you've increased the likelihood of something very bad happening.

There are a lot of other things that are far more important. The only reason I can think of that Obama wants to touch what he himself labels "the third rail of politics" is to demonstrate courage to the sort of people who care about the issue, and that's the Village; the Beltway insiders. New kind of politics, my sweet Aunt Fanny.

As to your other remarks, let me just say: This is a C-list blog. We're not in it because we want to grow up to be pundits, or consultants -- not that there's anything wrong with that, and certainly people from the netroots would be a hell of a lot more effective than the tired old retreads from the Village. I'd say we're closer to "the people" than they are, and far more representative. Sure, the "netroots" (whatever they are) are not identical to "the people" (the "unwashed" is you oh-so-ironically call them) but to put the netroots on one side and the people on the other? That's just stupid.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

Obama’s alright, but he’s young and inexperienced and without, as Lambert points out, an established political and criminal organization behind him.

What with the joyrides on air force one with dear leader, it seems its working out quite nicely for him.

As our Uncle Obama commenter demonstrates, he's accumulating a core of Faithful, which is the first step to being an important part of the Company cabal.

He's almost ready to run with Hillary.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

'Twas a nice speech, indeed, but totally non-ideological. The crux of the presentation was the call to reject cynicism for hope, and both exist on either side of the liberal/conservative divide. In retrospect, we needed something more substantial than a call for unity, but hindsight is 20/20. It was also a fine wish list, but with little suggestion of how those wishes might become reality. You may be right, Lambert, that a conservative couldn't have given that speech, but change the personal references, and Dr. Phil could have. And that's the problem.

Bringiton, there's no shame in supporting the practical while at the same time holding out hope that someday we may achieve the ideal. Should Obama receive the Democratic nomination, I would vote for him. That doesn't mean that I have to like him, or give up hope that something better will come along someday. In my view, a liberal is someone willing to offer a criticism of capitalism and imperialism, and eventually help formulate alternatives. I admit that my definition of "liberal" is closer to a lot of people's definition of "socialist", but without a viable American socialism, moving the Overton window to the left becomes that much more difficult.

The discussions between Democrats and Republicans over policy are like discussions over whether we should make the trip from New York to Philadelphia via the New Jersey Turnpike or via US 1. Nobody is suggesting that we make the destination Boston instead, and that is the missing element in American politics today.

...for the rest of us

Submitted by lambert on

You write:

The discussions between Democrats and Republicans over policy are like discussions over whether we should make the trip from New York to Philadelphia via the New Jersey Turnpike or via US 1.

More like:

The discussions between Democrats and Republicans over policy are like discussions over whether we should make the trip from New York to Philadelphia via the New Jersey Turnpike (Democrats) or via US 1 with a rest stop at R'lyeh (Republicans).

The Democrats have plenty of problems, but being bug-fuck crazy isn't one of them.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

The Democrats have plenty of problems, but being bug-fuck crazy isn’t one of them.

And I'm Chuck Norris's stunt double on the days Jackie Chan doesn't need me.

Flying bleeding Jesu Hare Christo on a raft of oyster crackers, Good Friday afternoon in the cold hard rain, with applewood bacon white-wine gorgonzola habanero sauce and roasted tofu balls!

The Democrats aren't crazy?
Of course they are. Why the hell else would they run?
It just so happens their brand of crazy, USUALLY, is less detrimental to the working folks who aren't crazy enough to run.

Are they liars? Dude, they're politicians.
Are they money-hungry? Dude, they're politicians.
Are they crooked? Dude, they're politicians.

Are they organized criminals? Fuck no, they're Democrats.

But they are every bit as batshit-in-fucking-sane crazy as any other population similar in size and demographics as the Republicans at the very least, and it would be wise to remember this. Politics is. show. business. for. people. who. can't. entertain.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

but not all. really. i've met enough, at the national and state level, to come to belive that the Crazy is really most at home in the other party. after all, the Dems condemn their "crazies" like move on and stark.

the ones in question aren't "crazy," they are weak, spineless, and mushy. that's a difference both i and medical science recognize.

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

When the car's going over the cliff, it's a little late to question the competence of the driver...

The Republicans - at least the ones that matter - aren't crazy either. I don't buy the incompetence story one bit. The Christianists are for the most part a distraction. The Republicans that matter believe as Margaret Thatcher does, that there is no such thing as society, that the Hobbsean war of all against all is the natural state of humanity, and those unprepared to survive that struggle are unfit to live in the first place. They are making a deliberate effort to destroy the social contract, and doing their best to make sure that a new one cannot be created.

...for the rest of us

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Dr S writes;

"The discussions between Democrats and Republicans over policy are like discussions over whether we should make the trip from New York to Philadelphia via the New Jersey Turnpike or via US 1."

The difference is that no matter which route we use the Republicans will take all our money and clothes and put us out naked and hungry on the side of the road in a bad part of Newark. The Democrats on the other hand will get in a huge argument over something arcane and put the whole car off the road and into a ditch, but at least we'll all be together and can pass around a fat blunt and some of Feral's wine and listen to good music while we figure out what to do next.

I'm cruising with the Dems until a better offer comes along. Anyone who doesn't feel there's a difference, by all means take the Repub ride and leave the rest of us some more leg room.

Ruth's picture
Submitted by Ruth on

It's consigning the rest of us to another term of GoPerv rule, and dangerous to our kids/grandkids. There is a difference and its huge and the past two terms of the occupied White House have proved it beyond any doubt. Anyone still saying there's no difference doesn't recognize the hell this country has been put through, and deserves it to be repeated. The rest of us don't.

Ruth

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and read me again. I say there is a difference, the Democratic Party has plenty of faults and shortcomings and likely won't take us all the way to where we need to go but the Republican Party has become a flat-out criminal enterprise and must be stopped, period.

I'm on board with the Dems to drive out the GoPervs; then we need to set about making the Dems over into a progressive vehicle. Steny and the BlueDogs will have to go, but first the Repubs.

Ruth's picture
Submitted by Ruth on

your ending, telling anyone who doesn't think there's a difference to jump on and ride the GoPervs down. What I can't do is let them keep saying - like Nader - that there's not a difference, and just keep on lettng the criminals into office.

Ruth

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

are the ones who will sit in the back seat and bitch nonstop about Nancy's driving, gets on my nerves. Plus I'm just calling their bluff - they're gonna say whatever they're gonna say, but we all know they want to ride with the cool kids and not with the perverts.

Submitted by lambert on

Various upthread details:

1. Dr. S, I know you didn't say the Republicans are bug fuck crazy. I'm saying they are. That doesn't meant that they're incompetent, or that they can't make their way in the world, but they're delusional. It's beyond ideological. They just make shit up, and then act on it. Routinely. All the tribalism, the authoritarianism, the delusion: I don't have a general theory of crazification (or a special one) but craziness it is.

2. As far as Leader Nance: She and Harry Reid both sold the Constitution down the river when they arranged to pass that FISA abomination at midnight before leaving on vacation in August. Whether she believes in it, is complicit in it, rolled over for Bush, or Bush has the tapes of her, Harry, and the goats, the net result is the same. Fuck her and fuck him, because the net was, of course, that Bush pushed even harder, and now retroactive immunity for the telcos is in play, which really is the end of the rule of law. Doesn't mean I'll ever vote for a Republican, of course, but at this point the massive suckitude of this Congress should be apparent to all--measured by the scale of the problems they need to address, they haven't done squat, and some problems (restoration of Constitutional government) they've made worse. Of course, there's still time for them to see the light and reform, and I'm doing my little bit for that by trying to inflict as much pain on them as I can (and also rewarding good behavior with money, phone calls, etc.).

To the main point: Bringiton's seemingly innocuous car metaphor is destructive, because it implies (1) that you're in or out of the Democratic Party ("the car"). In fact, nothing prevents me or anyone else for trying to use the party instrumentally without being in it or out of it. (This, to me, is one reason there is a difference; this tactic will work with some Democrats, but wouldn't have a hope in hell with all Republicans.)

Worse, (2) the subtext is authoritarian, because a car has but one driver--in this case, Leader Nance, and the happy, blunt-smoking passengers are merely along for the ride--having nothing to do with the direction of the vehicle, and certainly not the source of sovreignty. Gee, I think I'll go shopping now.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

because we must defend the Partei.

Damn it, look at the facts.
I call bullshit on the idea that the Democrats are not crazy, the notion that they are the sole hope for salvation of the nation, the very idea that they're not complicit in the wreckage of the Constitution, the armed forces, and our national sense of purpose that's been going on in broad daylight, out in front of God and everybody, since November 2000.

The plain fact is we the people don't count any more. We can toss donations and wear out fax lines and email ourselves blue in the face and RUN UP OUR OWN PHONE BILLS to infinity (and beyond) and it won't matter a damn.

We don't have the money.
We don't have the power.
We don't have the influence.
We can't make the Dems look good on camera.
We don't have the media.
We can't make the Dems look good in print.
We don't have the contracts.
We can't make the Dems feel safer.

Pelosi found it unappetizing that people hung around her house to protest the war.
It made no damn difference to the way she voted.

Like students in a university, voters in our nation are a necessary evil to the members of our government -- we're the pain in the bum they have to put up with to keep pulling down their wages and benefits, but our demands on their valuable time and our incessant drain on their precious attention annoys them.

They have better things to do than govern, don't you see?

Woody--Tokin Librul's picture
Submitted by Woody--Tokin Librul on

You said it, gal...Remember the Iron Law of Institutions: Holders of power in an institution will suffer, or permit, even condone a loss of power to the institution as long as their power within the institution remains undiminished.

by the way, is "GOPerv" okay, while "GOPuke" exceeds the bonds of decorum?
just askin...
Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

I just wanted you to show off how brilliant you are, instead of being a kleptomaniacal underachieving parrot of the "kewlkidz".

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

1. Credit where credit is due: Dr S (may I call you S?) offered the Two Routes to Philly metaphor. Lambert expanded by including the possibility of a Rest Stop. Somehow I got the idea that these metaphorical allusions included the concept of travel by automobile, a leap I know but I made it. Could have been on foot, or by mule, but modern times and all I went with a car. You two deserve all the credit for this metaphor; I only came along, ahem, for the ride.

2. An authoritarian subtext? Really? You see that? Well. I’m going to restrain myself and not launch into any speculation about the possible meaning of this sort of projection, the whole thread has veered waaaay off topic already. Suffice it to say that:

(A) All cars need a driver if they’re to go anywhere, such as from NYC to Philly, and once constrained by the car metaphor it is a required element, not an advocacy of authoritarianism, for pity’s sake.

(B) Being the driver does not convey or imply ownership. Just because you’re behind the wheel does not mean you hold the pink slip.

(C) Being the driver does obligate one to responsibly navigate towards a destination and avoid obstacles and dangers on the way, but it does not mean that the driver has absolute authority concerning the destination itself regardless of the wishes or concerns of the passengers – that would be kidnapping, not driving.

(D) The biggest problem the Democrats, and the Left as a whole, have always faced is the absence of a focused responsible driver. When we’ve had one in recent times, like FDR, Truman and Johnson, the progressive agenda has made substantive progress (flaws and mistakes acknowledged, save the keystrokes). When the driver was distracted by operational minutia or illicit sex, then not so much.

(E) Wrestling over the wheel is not responsible driving, nor is it possible to safely drive by committee; the decision to accelerate or brake in response to a yellow light is one best left to the driver, as is the decision on how fast to drive in dangerous weather. That isn’t authoritarian; it’s being responsible.

(F) A hired driver, like Nancy, ought to heed the desires of the passengers regarding destination and pace - unless she honestly thinks them to be dangerous. If the passengers don’t like the hired hand’s decision-making they should get themselves a new driver and no, I’m not interested in a bunch of whiny-butt excuses about how hard that is to do – political change is damn difficult, deal with it.

(G) It is a lot more likely that someone on board will be heard than someone standing outside, but by all means position yourself as you wish.

3. Third-Person Safety Statement: Bringiton in no way actually advocates the consumption of any substance that would impair mechanical ability while in or about an automobile. Metaphors are techniques for discussion, not plans for living.

4. Third-Person Political Bent Statement: Bringiton despises and opposes authoritarianism in all its forms and regardless of the source. Allegations to the contrary are specious.

Can we walk away from this car kafuffle now and get back to the real topic of import on this thread, namely the subtext of racism implicit in the titular proximate conjunction of “Obama” and “toast”?

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

's a taxi.

Pelosi's the Driver.
Reid's the Dispatcher.
We, the People, are the passengers.
We're paying the bills.
We know where we want to go.
We are being taken for a ride.

I didn't see racism in the headline but I'll grant it might be there.

I would have written a different headline, though.

Obama Fails To Correct 'Anti-Gay' Gaffe

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Sarah, one thing in particular strikes me about your taxi metaphor; there are no Republicans mentioned or any Blue Dog Plutocrats. It’s all about Nancy and Harry as the bad guys which just doesn't make sense to me. If you like Taxi as a metaphorical, ah, vehicle then Nancy is Elaine and Harry is Latka, they are certainly open to criticism as ineffectual but the real nemesis is Louie and whoever employs him.

My last paragraph just above about Obama and toast was absurdist; Lambert is no more a closet racist than I am a closet authoritarian. A determined person can take any statement and conjure some nefarious meaning without any substance whatsoever. Doesn’t, for me, provide interesting or productive conversation but other’s perceptions and tastes may vary.

MJS's picture
Submitted by MJS on

but it has a short shelf life. The only option for it (in its post-toasted condition) is maybe--maybe--a gig as a crouton.

And thanks for playing the toast/racism/absurdism card. No matter how you slice it, if you try to sandwich in too many metaphors you end up with egg on your face instead of on the bread.

As for this thread, it would have been great in the Driving Miss Crazy analogies if someone decided that Nancy was pregnant behind the wheel. Then, when she drives the car into the ditch because we were all making too much noise in the back, we could deliver her baby and name him/her "Ditches McCoy-Pelosi." Wouldn't that be great?

That would just be so great. (sound fx of a big, long toke) Totally fuckin' great.

++++

Submitted by lambert on

Nancy never talks about them. Why is that?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

mjs:

My green grocer doesn't stock nice-hot-cup-of- shut-the-fuck-up. Can I substitute eat-shit-and-die or that just inviting trouble?

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

I hear the State Department wants to send people there.

They go, but for some reason they don't call back.

The Democrats want to build a new floodwall for R’lyeh so it won't drown again.

The Republicans want to give R’lyeh's perky entrepreneurs an even break on Free Trade.

Compassionate Old Gods don't discount the Christianista, because those thousand points of light are the stars aligning right, and they know they're both in it for the main course that's yet to be placed on the table.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Submitted by lambert on

R’lyeh’s perky entrepreneurs... Oh. My. God.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan