whoa whoa, wait a minute, I read that and it was *amazing* read as ironic satire (on the media). (read the "crime is in the coverup" line again and tell me he's not joking.) anyone who doesn't see that 10 update piece of comedy gold as a masterpiece is missing something in their sensibilities.

OOPS!

SORRY I hadn't clicked the link and assumed you were talking about this:
http://legalinsurrection...bamas-dijon-mustard.html

Bloggers or no bloggers, LG was right about our best days being behind us, for sure. Gotta give him that much.

And I am chuffed about the Ray's Hell mustard thing. I already loathe, hate and despise our shiny new president and my only consolation has been that he takes his cheeseburgers precisely as I do mine, which I took as a barely-perceptible ray of hope that he may yet find and restore his basic human decency to some level of functioning, completely obliterated by that pea-testicled Hannity.

Man, good thing he didn't go to the local chicken shack and order dark, I'm afraid they would have to call for impeachment then.
Thank God fer the tuubes.

I forgot to say, if Glen, Sean and Lindsey aren't in the closet, I'll eat my hat.

Judge wants ACORN case tossed

Link

bloggers = americans

Apparently Hoft caught the allusion in the "Ray's Hell Burgers" and found it necessary to change the name of the shop to Joe's Hell Burgers.

As a loyal X-St. Louis resident I too am ashamed of Jim Hoft. And what's with the mustard put-down? the only reason to order a charred puck of ground beef is to have something to slather mustard on and top with pickles and onions. It's the mustard that makes a burger sparkle.

Dear Lindsey Graham,

Fine words from a man that doesn't even know html, xhtml, php, or mysql. And I highly doubt TCPIP as well.

Here's 120 other comments setting soon-to-be ex-senator graham to don't let the door hit his on the way out in 2010.

http://thinkprogress.org...9/05/06/graham-bloggers/

Since when do politicians listen to the people Period. Bloggers are people. However if you are out there blogging it is evident that our education and understanding are only based on what they are told from the stories they read. No unlearned responses.

Being an outside the box thinker I am very often misinterpreted and all I am trying to do is open minds to new perspectives when most(lightly) people can only understand the lines in which they have been taught by others. (The system works this way) WHY?

The amount of prejudice when you are hidding behind a screen name is astonishing.(Including) Those Dems, those Reps, those Libs, those Cons. Politicians eat it up, playing hands, while behind the scenes they all eat and play together.

First look at the meat.
http://i86.photobucket.c...oLivingWitnessMEAT-1.gif

Then tell them to jump!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yge311sFhC8

That's my journalistic thing for the day, perhaps three people could verify it.

Our best days in three decades are ahead if we get rid of "representatives" like Lindsey Graham, and the rest of his sorry posse.

"I hear it's delish with arugula lettuce."

From Wikipedia:
Arugula: Plantae, Angiosperms, Eudicots, Rosids, Brassicales, Brassicaceae, Eruca, E. sativa
Lettuce: Plantae, Angiosperms, Eudicots, Asterids, Asterales, Asteraceae, Lactuca, L. sativa
Eudicots: "...A large number of familiar plants are eudicots. A few are forget-me-not, cabbage, apple, dandelion, buttercup, maple and macadamia.

So "I hear it's delish with arugula maple syrup" or "I hear it's delish with arugula applesauce" would have been just as accurate.

If you start from the Arugula line:
Arugula: Plantae, Angiosperms, Eudicots, Rosids, Brassicales, Brassicaceae, you also get... Mustard!

Oh, well; wingnuts don't need science.

And I am chuffed about the Ray's Hell mustard thing. I already loathe, hate and despise our shiny new president

I'm curious what presidents from the past 40 years you would consider better than Obama?

disclaimer: I didn't vote for Obama, but I think overall he's doing a decent job so far, esp in comparison to other presidents during my lifelime.

On-topic:
Is it really a surprise when republicans don't 'get it'? Its like the republican 'listening tour' which became the republican 'teaching tour' after Rush got his tentacles involved.

When wormtongue speaks, who is it that's listening anymore?

disillusioned

I liked Carter a lot. I've since learned some things that made me like him not quite as much.

I was going to love Bobby big time, but, of course, they murdered him. I think he would have fit into your 40-year time frame.

I think the only way anyone could think Obama is doing a good job is if they are not paying close enough attention... falling for the mouth instead of the actual. I'm pretty sure that has to be the explanation. If you want to know precisely what I feel constitutes his perfectly hateful start in the job, just go here. I've kept a darn close accounting for you or anyone else who cares to contemplate it.

[There are already 310 posts in that category, so you just click "Older Posts" when you get to the bottom of each page.]

99 said:

"I think the only way anyone could think Obama is doing a good job is if they are not paying close enough attention..."

I'm paying very close attention, and I think it's way premature to be able to conclude, at this time, whether he's doing a "good job" yet or not, given the mess he walked into (and note: I didn't vote for him either). He is doing a very good job, in some areas and in some respect, and not a very good job in others, where there may (or may not) be good reason at this early date.

I think it's incredibly premature, and even counter-productive, to have decided to "already loathe, hate and despise our shiny new president", but that's just my opinion, which is not necessarily the same one held by all BRAD BLOG comment moderators, of course

They have it set up just right IMO if they want to pull the plug on him, all they have to do is blame the haters

I DID vote for him, because he was our only hope and I was terrified the Republicans would throw the election yet again unless a tsunami voted against them, but, er, if you have been paying close attention, I don't see how you can say it is premature. He has committed himself fully to a number of extremely *-like actions, including now letting the polar bear thing stand, and covering up for torturers and leaving loopholes torturers can drive trucks through in order to continue torturing and, well, I'll go postal if I keep enumerating his huge failures, his abysmal start.

I'm heavily in favor of optimism when there is a basis for it, but there isn't one on too many vital fronts. He has very speedily committed himself to not only perpetuating, but worsening, some awful things. I have to let go of how much I only want to like him, and I think others should too.

But in any case, at least stop taking what he only says as good or bad, and look at what he does. That's when you start seeing who you've got.

I so totally grant you that he was handed the worst mess ever handed a president, except maybe FDR, but not even really because I don't think the government itself has ever been this thoroughly broken before, even for the Civil War. I would not feel this harshly if Obama had been making real efforts in accord with the Constitution and that clearly favor the good of the people over the plutocrats. Even if he failed with those sorts of efforts, I would not hold it against him because he would have shown that he is here for The People. He hasn't done that. He's appeased criminals and corporate megaliths at HUGE cost to The People in terms of food, shelter, life and limb instead.

Hey 99, earlier today I erased my post to you cuz I thought it was harsh...but Brad seems to have filled in...I would just like you to knoow
THINGS ARE CHANGING...no matter how slow!

99, your incredibly articulate and right on mostly, but its Mums Day and we all might take a moment to thank OUR Mothers' good judgement to breath right now.

I try not to wait for Mother's Day... because it's easily forgotten when you don't let the MSM intrude on your psyche... and because she never waits for Daughter's Day either.

Look, the last place I'd like to be is in one of defending Obama here. But I guess I'll have to, for the moment.

He has committed himself fully to a number of extremely *-like actions, including now letting the polar bear thing stand, and covering up for torturers and leaving loopholes torturers can drive trucks through in order to continue torturing

Perhaps you don't recall the job the Rs and their friends in the media did on both Carter and Clinton when they came in too gangbusters (as they saw it), right off the bat? You don't notice the effectiveness of moving forward cautiously in these early days, solidifying support with the American people, even while the Rs shoot themselves in the face at the same time (as they think they're dealing with Carter or Clinton, and thus making fools of themselves as they call plays from the wrong playbook?)

There is plenty that I'd prefer he do very differently. But if you're unable to a) Note all of the very positive stuff he has done, along with b) the possible political reasons for taking far-less than good stances, at this time, on a number of issues, than you're being very shortsighted.

Just one example: While the overstated notion that he's "covering up for torturers" is debatable at best (in truth, it's not his call whether to prosecute, and he has given leeway to his AG, whose call it is to make, on whether and how to move forward or not), there is a very real politik calculation to be made as to whether being seen as directly pushing forward with torture/war crimes trials might make health care and environmental objectives wholly unattainable in his first term entirely, due to out-and-out partisan spite/retaliation in the bargain.

While I'd strongly suggest torture/war crimes accountability must move forward no matter what --- as should health care and environment efforts --- a legitimate argument can be made that in doing so one risks losing the other two entirely for many more years, at a time when both efforts are imperative, and more politically feasible than ever before.

I don't dig that cynical political calculation, frankly, but I understand it, and recognize the reality of it, and that chess players win out over checkers players in general. I also think he'd be making a mistake to fall prey to that cynicism. However, to take those considerations and turn them into "covering up for torturers" and reason to "already loathe, hate and despise" him would be, as you charged, would be, as I suggested earlier, both premature and shortsighted.

I would not feel this harshly if Obama had been making real efforts in accord with the Constitution and that clearly favor the good of the people over the plutocrats.

But he has. Perhaps not enough for you (or for me), or enough for now, but to overlook those places where he has done so, and otherwise ignore the real politik conditions that he must negotiate if he wishes to pull off so many things over (his hopeful) two terms would be either politically naive or shortsighted in evaluation after just over 100 days in office. IMHO, of course.

I'd also remind you that no politician ever does anything just because it's the right thing to do (at least in most cases). It's usually a matter of people rallying, and then politicians coming to the front of the parade to the wave the flag. If you give up, or inappropriately write off your best potential flag waver too early, you are also doing your own causes a disservice, IMO.

I'm sorry, Brad. I don't mean to be insulting, truly, but it all just crashes onto my eyeballs like sophistry. The REALITY of the situation is that our government is broken, and the politicians in it are never acting in good faith. Arguing the perspective of realpolitik is just psychedelic nowadays.

Obama has gone to court to argue for positions * took and over which all of us were utterly scandalized. He's taken legal positions that are flat out un-Constitutional, including perpetuating the fallacy that he can tell the AG what to prosecute and what not to prosecute.

He's upped the drone bombings of innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He's completely caved on the "Long War" CRAP and we just have to hope Iraq can make it impossible for him to defy the deadline to butt out... and they probably can't.

I don't want to argue about this stuff. I've given links before and a link to a universe of links that attest to the veracity of my position.

He's doing a shit job.

I happen to think he's doing it at gunpoint, but that is no excuse.

THAT IS NO EXCUSE.

As usual, right on Brad.

I always think of O's mama and how she raised him and what she did in her lifetime that was impressed on him...I think he'll do the right thing

In fact, I'm beginning to suspect *'s obsession with the notion that history would vindicate him has to do with us all figuring out that he was doing it at gunpoint. Everybody gets stuck on the notion that Congress is being blackmailed. Despite all the institutionalized mechanisms for outright meretricious action in our government, and the certainty that there is plenty to blackmail them with, I think the stakes are a lot higher than having their greed, lawlessness and indiscretions exposed.

No, really! That stuff is tossed off almost without a care on a regular basis nowadays. They can't honestly fear it that much.

Maybe I'm just too naïve, but I think they are all under some kind of much more horrible threat. That explains this psychedelic "government" to me, where nothing else does.

And, again, that is NO excuse.

Flo, I think he's long since buried the lessons from his Mom, except for where they could be trotted out to soften us all up. Check his votes in the Senate, and look at his actions now.

In my mind 99, that is political ambition/posturing, he would have gotten no where without it.
IMO, if he had voted like we want him to vote back then, he would have been relegated to the nose bleed seats politically, especially the presnutcy.
He is very good at it, better than Arlen anyway

...on the other hand, O's Grandma was a banker, so there is a clash of impressions there

Precisely, Flo, precisely! And he belongs in the nose bleed seats if he did not use his peerless political skills to get in there to save lives, save our country, stop the psychedelic allegiance to fascistic principles that is all that functions in our government anymore!

I just read this a minute ago.

I was so strongly against Hillary because I knew in my bones she would do this stuff with alacrity. Obama was the only one who offered any hope against it, and he's dashed that hope.

And, lotta just made a link on another thread that also helps make my point:

http://rawstory.com/08/n...-commissions-may-return/

The flippin' military commissions breach of Constitution....

I just now finally worked up the moxie to blubber my way through the half hour radio tribute to John we posted the other day. As I was blubbering my way through it, it struck me that my feeling for John is exactly what I'm talking about not going off what Obama says but what he does. I never met John. I had one email with him. I loved, trusted and respected him from what showed up every day here from him. I knew him from his deeds. John Gideon was high on my list of great people, without even having to call it anything, without doing anything to get my attention, just flat out performing.

Why do we let politicians say stuff to cover or color what they do? What they do should do all their speaking.... Our attention should be on the actual performance of their tasks, not their performance in front of the microphone.

...waddya expect from a lindsey graham cracker . . .
~

In case there is any question, 99, I assure you, my attention is, in fact, on what Obama (and all the others) do, rather than what they say.

My comments above are made with that in mind. Just in case there was any misconceptions you may have had about that.

Wilburrr... ~ Brad's on'em like flies on shit . . .
~

99, John didn't have to get elected to the presidency. That may sound like a cop-out, but its not if you consider the realistic viewpoint. Its one thing to be strongly opinionated, its another thing to be elected and strongly opinionated.

As Obama mentioned in is very early Senate career .... he was quickly learning that "politics is a team sport". He knows, even as president, that he can't ramrod every possible change down the country's throats. He ultimately needs the support of congress, and if he needs that, he has to play the political games necessary to that end. He ultimately has to pick his battles and not take on every single issue. If the ONLY thing he does is tackle healthcare insurance and resolve it, that would be more than the vast majority of presidents have accomplished since this nation started. Yet, he appears poised to possibly do much more that just that. Think of how much of his first 100 days has been spent 'undoing' 8 years of bush doctrine. Surely he doesn't want his legacy to just be "the president that undid bush", so he's trying to pick battles that will help the country consistent with his world view.

Maybe your biggest problem with him is that you voted for him. I made that mistake in 2004 by voting for Kerry (same logic as you indicate voting for Obama). Never again. I voted for REAL change even if there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of it occurring. I knew Obama would be a corporate shill, but at least LESS of one than Clinton or even McCain, and certainly less than bush. Thus far I'd say he's more of a corporate shill than I thought he would be, but its at least believably motivated by an underlying need to save jobs at this point in time (bailing out auto companies will save millions of jobs, esp when you consider vendors that supply parts and services to those companies). I wish he'd do more on the constitutional issues as well, but I can at least understand he's only got so many hours per day, and if he pursued every bush injustice, he'd likely alienate certain elements from which he will need support to get his healthcare and other ideas passed.

His philosophy appears to be "you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar". While I'd like to see him eventually drown the flies with vinegar, I'm not holding my breath, and in the meantime hopefully he can get some decent stuff passed (and un-passed), albeit with the help of those flies.

No, I thought of the voting for him angle, and I checked my gut again. I checked it eighteen ways to Sunday before I voted for him. I had three reasons --- beside the terror of another stolen election, that is. [1] He was the only choice where there was any hope of truly positive action; [2] the kids were batshit crazy for him; and [3] it was a chance to help make Martin's dream come true. None of my intensely-held good reasons to try my hardest to trust in the hope he held out, slim as it was, have been ruined by his shit performance.

My problem is that I have way more time to look at and read the many reports of the many AWFUL things he's DOING while we can't hear him pontificating.

Here's just one more example from today. He's actively trying to thwart the prosecution of torturers. His excuse for it is LAME... outright barnswoggle on its face, and don't even get me started on this latest crap about "healthcare reform" or I'll go postal.

Maybe I'm suffering under the delusion that he should be able to see clearly that being such a purely political animal spells doom for a huge swath of the global population, and discern that no matter if he's positive it will make things harder for him, or even LETHAL for him, there are certain things he should do anyway. But everywhere I look he is outright caving to the huge money interests, slitting our throats in the bank bailouts with NO help for homeowners, on healthcare, on MILITARY ADVENTURISM, flouting the rule of law, the CONSTITUTION, plain decency, without even grumbling about it.

The only excuse for it I would ultimately accept is that he's been playing along while he cleans the federal government of the moles who are driving all this global perfidy. I'm pretty sure he's not doing that. He's basking in his presidentude while criminals continue to loot and get away with it, and war criminals get to go on tv and try to define torture down to patriotic toughness.

I'm certainly not going to be an Obama apologist, but I just see it differently. Thanks for the link on torture though, its good to see how 'active' his administration is about covering up bush's destruction of our constitution and treaties.

I suspect he sees the torture thing as such a gigantic can of worms that it would stalemate the government, preventing any real movement on other areas like healthcare, SS, basic research, and alternative energies. I'm not saying I AGREE with that kind of a position, but I could at least see the logic behind it.

I often wonder if he doesn't question frequently who killed Kennedy, and that keeps him in check on certain issues as well.