Cause and Effect.

I tried to write this in a polite way, but screw that - aint happening. I’m pissed. I’m angry. I’m downright ready to go kick a Clinton in the crotch (either one - it doesn’t matter). Who the fuck do they think they are? When did it become OK for a candidate (or her horribly disappointing ex-president husband) to question the patriotism of a rival? Who the hell are they to start launching swift-boat attacks against Barack Obama?

Not sure what I mean? Oh well then allow me to enlighten you on how scummy that family is. Only a week or so after Hillary suggests that REPUBLICAN candidate John McCain would make a better Commander in Chief than Senator Obama (way to go Judas!) her husband, her slimy, philandering, piece of crap ex-president of a husband stood in front of a crowd in North Carolina and discussed a General Election night match up between John McCain and his wife (and yes his wife only!) said:

“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” he said in Charlotte, N.C. “And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”

So what are you saying Bill - that if the Democratic front-runner were to face off against John McCain we wouldn’t have two candidates who love this country? Wait that is EXACTLY what you are saying (and no you Hillary apologists out there, you can’t spin it. There is no other way to read that.). You’re saying that because you are know that right now you can play off white America’s sudden fear of Jeremiah Wrights sermons. You know that right now you can reinforce the suddenly shocking idea that Barack Obama is a black man.

You disgust me.

You disgust me because no matter how I read the content of your words, I cannot find a context in which it is not character assassination and race-baiting. It is Roveian in its brilliance. Question a man’s love for his country. Cast doubt on his patriotism. It worked to put a draft-dodging coke-head in the White House over a war hero, so certainly it will work to put a white woman there over a scary black man. Someone call Atticus Finch quick because I think Barack just got Tom Robinsoned.

Looks like Hillary is married to Bob Ewell. And if you don’t get any of those references go read a book. Honestly, if more people did maybe they wouldn’t fall for this shit.

And fall for it they will. The same way they fell for the 29 second clip of Jeremiah Wright screaming about Nagasaki, about Hiroshima and used it to condemn both him and Senator Obama. It doesn’t matter that the clip was classic content without context. It doesn’t matter that the whole clip is an interesting discussion that weaves the bible, Malcolm X and Edward Peck (former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq, former deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under the Reagan Administration and former U.S. Ambassador to a number of countries oh yeah and lily white.) together to remind people that ACTIONS have CONSEQUENCES. Nope that doesn’t matter at all. All that matters is a black man said something BAD about America.

Go grab the rope, it’s time to lynch us a candidate boys.

Personally, I think that any candidate that doesn’t get the idea that our actions have consequences isn’t fit to serve. I think any candidate who doesn’t understand that eventually all chickens come home to roost is too stupid to be president. That isn’t anti-American, it Pro-Common Sense. We’ve had 7+ years of an asshole who doesn’t get Cause and Effect, why are we not embracing a candidate who does?

Oh wait, because a man in a funny outfit and dark skin DARED to question American foreign policy while preaching a sermon. Not the candidate, his pastor, but hey this is America and that’s enough. Especially if your a black man living in the United States. And we wonder WHY Pastor Wright is so indignant about racial injustice?

I’m not accusing the Clinton campaign of releasing the bullshit, sliced and diced video. I’m not saying they are behind the racially motivated character assassination of Senator Obama, but they sure seem to be using it to their advantage. Anything to win seems to be there motto. Anything. No matter how false, despicable or disgusting it is.

Well Hillary, actions do have consequences. Cause does have effect. This just cost you my vote. Democrats better pray she doesn’t win the primary.

23 Responses to “Cause and Effect.”

  1. steve Says:

    This has all been hugely entertaining for me. The Clinton’s are gripping because Bill may not be the 1st black president anymore. What a way to lose too? Wasn’t it supposed to be “her turn”?

    I can’t wait until the Clinton divorce in 2009…

  2. manapp99 Says:

    I find this entertaining as well. I even watch Mathews and Olberman these days because it is interesting to watch partisan hacks go after their own. It is as if these people just woke up and realized what scum the Clintons are. Amazing. If they had of only watched a reputable news outlet in the 90’s they would already known what they are learning now.
    I see the same disconnect watching CNN political analyst Bill Schneider wonder how McCain can be running even or slightly ahead of the either Obama or Clinton in the head to head polls even thought 80% of those polled see McCain closely tied to the Bush policies.
    How can this be they wonder? Doesn’t the public understand that they are supposed to hate bush as much as they do? It is not as if CNN hasn’t been spewing Bush hate for over 7 years now. Oh yeah, check the ratings, more people watch Fox. Where they know they get honest news.

  3. Tom Baker Says:

    No, more people watch anything BUT Fox. There is a huge difference between being the highest rated show and the show the majority watches. The vast majority of folks do not in fact watch Faux news. It’s just a certain segment of the population likes to be spoon fed Right Wing Pablum like 3 year olds who cannot handle reality.

  4. me Says:

    Only a week or so after Hillary suggests that REPUBLICAN candidate John McCain would make a better Commander in Chief than Senator Obama (way to go Judas!) her husband, her slimy, philandering , piece of crap ex-president of a husband stood in front of a crowd in North Carolina and discussed a General Election night match up between John McCain and his wife (and yes his wife only!) said

    I feel sorta silly pointing this out but Bill Clinton is Hillary Clinton’s husband…who is running against Barak Obama and therefore — oh, how to put this — he doesn’t want to see a general election between John McCain and Barak Obama. He wants to see a general election between his wife and McCain.

    I would expect Bill to say how he’d like to see a general election between McCain and Obama about the same time that Obama’s wife says she’d be proud of her country for only the second time in her adult life if 2008 saw a general election between John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

    I wanna get some of what you’re smoking. :-)

    I do think, though, that Bill’s comments ought absolutely to be read as a backhanded swipe at Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag on his lapel and his twenty year sojourn with his “God Damn America singing, 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost” pastor and only recently dismissed spiritual guide and campaign adviser and, thus, fueling already existing suspicions of Obama’s patriotism.

  5. me Says:

    Where’s Boo Radley when you need him? Heh!

  6. rube cretin Says:

    you folks need to relax. its just march. this and more will be coming down after the nomination stuff has been settles. all this stuff just toughens folks for the general. and besides if you don’t think all politicians lie to you, you ain’t been paying attention. lets see now. the general election will occur just after a major pulse of the system. wonder if that pulse will occur in the energy or economic area?

  7. me Says:

    Of course, in that scenario, Boo would be saving poor Barak “Scout and Jem Finch” Obama from Bill and Hillary “White Trash” Clinton. Given that Scout and Jem are but small children, helpless in the clutches of (the collective) Hillary and Bill Ewell, I’m not sure that’s quite the literary image that is wanted for someone aspiring to be President of the United States.

  8. me Says:

    Hey, Rube, I’m relaxed, already. Like Steve said, this is all quite entertaining. If I can’t have a Republican President in 2008–, and it isn’t altogether certain that we won’t, however unlikely it would seem — I should at least have an entertaining primary and, perhaps, Democratic convention to watch.

  9. Tom Baker Says:

    Hey Craig,

    Tom was Obama in my reference. Hence i said we’re going to lynch us a candidate.

    Of course if you want to paint him as the youngins that’s OK too. Bill Richardson can play the part of Boo. I know her certainly made Hillary cry this week.

  10. me Says:


    Sorry. I guess I missed your point. Somehow, though, I don’t think it’ll work out that way. I seriously don’t think that Clinton will defeat Obama. I’m guessing the Superdelegates will, jury-like, come down with a not-guilty verdict and Obama will end up to be town sheriff. ;-)

  11. Liberal Jarhead Says:

    From what I’ve been reading, a majority of the superdelegates (a weird and elitist concept anyway - why do the Democrats want to recreate the stupidity of the electoral college system within the party?) are saying their votes will align with their constituencies’ preferences as expressed in the primaries or caucuses. If that’s how they actually vote, Obama will probably be a clear winner.

    The Clinton campaign’s tactics have indeed been sleazy, disappointing, and revealing. Character will out, especially under stress, and what we’re seeing from Hillary Clinton is ugly. They’re operating in the spirit of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, and the basic philosophy seems to be that the country somehow owes Hillary Clinton the presidency - there’s a nasty attitude of entitlement showing, and a mirroring of Bush’s “if you don’t back me you’re a traitor” attitude, except in her case it’s “if you don’t back me you’re a bigot”.

    If she did become president, I’d expect to see a White House that had a confrontational relationship with the Congress and the media and used Nixon/Bush style tactics against people that got on the enemies list they would definitely keep.

  12. me Says:

    Why would a Democratic Hillary, whose husband was able to so well triangulate with a Republican led Congress, have to be confrontational with a Democrat led Congress? What’s the point of having Bill’s wife in the Oval Office if Bill won’t be pulling the levers from behind the curtains? Do you really think people are working so hard to elect Hillary if they really thought Hillary would be running things?

  13. Liberal Jarhead Says:

    I think Hillary Clinton would be confrontational because she’s not a collaborative type - she wants it her way, period. She would get confrontational with a Democratic Congress anytime they questioned or disagreed with her; for example, if they tried to rein in various aspects of the executive branch power grab and semi-marginalization of the other two branches that has characterized the last seven years. In that respect I think her style would be a lot like Bush’s, or like Perot’s would have been. It would be the same thing with the media. Any reporter who confronted her on anything would become an enemy and would trigger that belligerent tone she takes on when she feels threatened.

  14. Liberal Jarhead Says:

    And whether or not Bill thinks he would be pulling the strings behind the scene, I think she would put him in his place hard and fast in that regard. I think she’d kind of relish doing it, too.

  15. Jet Netwal Says:

    “…his twenty year sojourn with his “God Damn America singing, 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost” pastor… “

    You are aware Craig, that the “chickens coming home to roost” was Wright quoting former ambassador Peck and not a scary black man like FOX protrayed, aren’t you? I put the video up if you aren’t.

  16. me Says:


    Okay. Fair enough. I think she’d be foolish to put Bill in his place, as you put it. Between the two of them, he’s by far the more skilled politician but you may well be right.


    Yes, I am aware. It hardly matters. He quoted it approvingly. It fitted his rhetorical needs, disposition and thought process perfectly. Of course it is no less fatuous coming from a former ambassador as from a black minister. You can’t quote without criticism a comment like that and not receive the full measure of criticism that the comment deserves.

    Craig R. Harmon

  17. me Says:

    It could probably be argued that both Peck and Wright were quoting Malcom X, who made almost exactly the same comment about Kennedy’s assassination in the 60s. Does it matter who first said it or about what? Hardly anyone, these days, says anything that cannot be traced to someone earlier. It is not the origin of the quote that matters in this instance, it was Rev. Wright’s expropriation of it in that situation.

  18. me Says:

    And do you suppose that former ambassador Peck also sings “God Damn America!” or has said that HIV-AIDS was invented by the CIA to commit genocide against people of color? Or that the government is deliberately doling out crack in order to ruin the lives of African Americans? Or…

    Craig R. Harmon

  19. Jet Netwal Says:

    No Craig, what I’m saying is that in the Wright speech, found here:

    Wright clearly attibutes his source but that the media deliberately omits that in order to reframe the story, To make it even more absurd, former Ambassador Peck said the chickens quote while giving an interview on FOX! Wright attributed the quote to him, but when FOX ran it, they edited the attribution portion off and ran it like it was Wright’s words when they knew damn well it was something Peck said ON THEIR PROGRAMMING!!!! This is dishonest, and manipulative. It damn sure is not unbiased journalism.

    Based on your argument, everything that Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, Hagee, Dobson and other’s say should be equally demonized. We don’t see that tho, but the bad scary black preacher, now that guy needs a lesson.

    It’s a double standard that you need to see, Craig. After listening to the whole sermon, which I encourage you to do, I don’t find anyhing that out there about it. I can’t say the same about Robertson et al.

  20. me Says:

    Well, I have no desire to defend Fox News Channel and I won’t. I haven’t watched it in years so I would have no basis for doing so even if I had the desire.

    But if you’re saying that everything Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hagee, Dobson and others have not been reported on or demonized, I guess I’d just have to disagree. I’ve read many a news report quoting them, responses of critics lined up in the report and liberal commentators and bloggers demonizing them so I just don’t see the basis for your complaint.

  21. me Says:

    The difference is, I think, no one running for president this time around has ever made any of those men their pastor for 20 years nor such close friends nor long time political and spiritual adviser. In that respect, Obama’s relationship with Wright is unique and nothing remotely like their relationship finds anything similar in any other candidate. Yes, McCain, having roundly criticized Evangelical pastors such as those mentioned in his 2000 run for president, has sought out their support but (a) McCain didn’t need the sort of public crisis Obama has faced over his relationship to Wright in order to criticize the wacky things these guys have said and (b) there’s been no long-term relationship between McCain and them, (c) long-term financial support by McCain of them, (d) 20 years of membership in their Church regularly attending and listening to preaching of their hatred.

    Finally. I would not say that people should not vote for Obama over his relationship to Wright, any more than I think no one should vote for McCain over seeking support of Evangelical leaders. Both McCain and Obama open themselves up for legitimate criticism and I have criticized them both. But the difference here is, as I’ve said, the unique relationship that Obama had with Wright.

  22. Jet Netwal Says:

    Again, I say to you, if you are reading twenty years woth of full sermons and can show me all this “hate”, bring it on. If not, I’m calling Bullshit, and I’d appreciate it if you would stop wholesale labeling to fit your argument.

    Really. If I did this Craig, you would call me out on it. Stop it.

  23. me Says:

    Rev. Wright is a scholar of a certain type of theology: black liberation theology. I’m not one but I’ve made some small study of it. It equates Rome, in the New Testament documents with the white power structure. Its purpose is to deconstruct that power structure. I’m not saying that it isn’t possible for a black liberation theologian to separate righteous anger about that structure, culture, system and the inequities that it breeds from hatred of whites as the symbol of that structure, culture and system but what I’m saying is, from what I’ve heard from Wright, Wright did not always make that distinction. And when that distinction is not explicitly drawn, even when the preacher doesn’t hate whites, his listeners can. After all, if whites are responsible for just about everything wrong in the black community and for black suffering and oppression, how can some listeners NOT develop hate of white people?

    That is to say, Wright’s theology is a breeding ground for just this sort of hate of which we have actual examples and, furthermore, we have actual evidence that Wright did not always make a distinction between hating the white-run system and loving the white man. I don’t need twenty years of sermons to prove it; I have Obama’s speech in which he admits to hearing things that were divisive, counter-effectual, warped and ignorant. It is no defense of the relationship to say that Wright didn’t go off on these rants every Sunday for twenty years (or that I cannot prove that he did from 20 years of sermons) because (a) I know that behind those rants is the entire theological structure to which Wright has devoted his scholarship and preaching ministry there in Chicago and (b) he went off on them often enough that Obama admits having heard them and continued that relationship over a twenty year or more period of time and only ended that relationship when Wright’s words and ideas became publicly known.

    Having explained my basis for such, I shall attempt to stop wholesale labeling and admit that Rev. Wright did much that is good. But I don’t have to go any further than Obama’s speech to prove that, in Obama’s own eyes, Wright also did harm; all I have to do is take Obama at his word.

    Craig R. Harmon

Leave a Reply