Monday, February 04, 2008

Letter to an Old Friend: With One Day to Go, It's Obama for This Radical

Dear Old Friend,

Thanks for your passionate email yesterday about Barack Obama. I keep missing something about him that makes everyone else excited and ready to cast this historic vote: perhaps it is that I haven't seen him in person, as so many have. But I would also say that my problem is more intellectual than visceral. I think that, in his policy positions, he is sending all the signals that he will not depart from neoliberal Democratic policies. In particular, as Paul Krugman wrote today in the New York Times, he is advocating a national health policy that only covers people who elect to be part of it. This is a biggie for me, since we know that a range of people will make the choice not to be covered when they are poor, or unable to understand how to complete the paperwork, or --like a lot of healthy young freelancers with great educations we know who were raised with good health care, simply don't believe that they will become sick. And then we will chastise and penalize such people for having made an unwise or an uneducated decision rather than enroll them and care for them. This strikes me as awful, uncompassionate and no departure from the bourgeois Progressive ideologies that the twentieth century welfare state in the United States was founded on, and that have brought us to this pass in the first place.

In other words, Obama misses the point of a national health care policy entirely. It isn't just that every American doesn't have access to the same rational choices, it's that good health care shouldn't be about choice. And national policy shouldn't be about individuals. This is a fundamentally conservative position, and it needs to be recognized as such.

That said, I am going to follow your lead, dear friend -- and the lead of many people whose opinions and values I respect, and vote for Obama anyway. This is my own version of Hope. I can't escape it that practically everyone I love and care for (you and the range of voters in your household included) believes an Obama presidency is a move in the right direction. I can't make the argument that Hillary is demonstrably "better" since she and Bill were the architects of the neo-liberal turn in the first place. You are right: welfare as we knew it -- the system that put women in college instead of putting them to work cleaning the streets -- flawed as it was, was dismantled under Clintonian neoliberalism, and has relegated hundreds of thousands of families to permanent poverty and homelessness. In place of education, we offer women marriage training programs as a strategy to pull themselves out of destitution. Furthermore, I very much fear that a McCain-Clinton contest could become a centrist struggle for independent voters, and a competition to swing liberal Republican and conservative Democratic votes into the opposite party. This could really solidify national policy in the ugly middle, and leave those of us pushing for leftist reforms out in the cold. No one could miss how different a Democratic ticket with Obama on the top is from the old, stale political contests where both parties are fighting for four percent of the vote in three states, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

So no, I don't believe in Obama the way others do -- I hate the "Change and Hope" rhetoric that is utterly devoid of any plan for what changes will occur and what we are hoping for from this man. You have to go to his website -- have a computer, be literate -- to go beyond a mass media display that has crafted Obama as our latest Man for All Seasons. But I would like to believe as others do, and I don't suppose I will have a chance to even try if he isn't nominated.

So here goes! I'll do what I can to get the Nutmeg State's 48 democratic votes into the Obama column.

Love, and thanks for the conversation,

your devoted friend,

The Tenured Radical

PS. And yes, I wanted very much to vote for the first woman President. Very much.


LumpenProf said...

Welcome aboard! It's going to be an exciting ride.

Anonymous said...

You'll be sorry.

Tenured Radical said...


Why? It's not all about me, y'know. Few people know that I recognize this fundamental fact about how the universe operates and how outcomes are reached despite my participation, but I do.


Anonymous said...

I agree that Obama's health care plan is a big problem, but he was so much better than Clinton on almost every other issue in the debate last week, especially in his refusal to blame undocumented workers for drawing jobs away from African Americans. They're both neoliberal candidates, for sure, but I too have been won over....

Debrah said...

I find it totally delicious and ironic-to-the-max that TR is now supporting the same candidate as the incomparable Diva.

Such Diva madness!

Debrah said...

And all this is due to the magnificent and the brilliant KC Johnson.....

......who was onboard the Obama train right from the start.

GayProf said...

I have to be honest -- I find it hard to see any major differences between the two in terms of what they are proposing.

Notorious Ph.D. said...

Food for thought. I always referred to B. Clinton as "the first Republican I ever voted for."

Anonymous said...

I am so sorry that you're supporting Obama. There is no there there. What's his health plan like? Health plan? Uhhh.... Who supports him as in donates the bid bucks? I'd say it's big money. Then there is the problem of his fundamental honesty. (This is a Chicago thing; but find out about who sold him--very cheaply--the strip of land to widen the lot on which his house sits.) I'd say he's pretty much politics as usual. Chicago style.

Anonymous said...

PS "Chicago style" is not a compliment.

Anonymous said...

Obama sold out gays twice (his pretty speech does not excuse his actions). Obama thinks social security is in crisis (a Republican talking point) and that Ronald Reagan and the conversatives had good ideas. Obama believes you can have workable healthcare without mandating coverage (which experts agree won't work). Obama has been running a "Harry and Louise" style ad that will undermine actual accomplishment of universal healthcare, suggesting he doesn't believe in it (or is willing to sacrifice it to get elected). Obama stifled Stephen Colbert's campaign in SC then complained when Clinton supposedly objected to the casino precincts in NV. Obama has no diversity on his campaign staff (only African Americans and European Americans, no Hispanic or Asian staffers), suggesting that race matters to him and that he is unwilling to be inclusive (might alienate black voters). Obama refused to shake hands with Clinton but pretends he was just busy (he is as able to tell lies as anyone else). Obama is less qualified and has done less in the Senate but for some reason his aspirations are more important than electing our first female president (African Americans are 12% of the pop while women are 50+%). I just don't see how people can vote for him over Clinton.

Anonymous said...

National polls consistently show that Obama beats McCain in a general election. Those same polls show Clinton losing. Nothing will unite the conservatives more than candidate Hillary Clinton.

Please don't throw away a vote for Clinton. The only possible winner for the Democratic party is Barack Obama.

If anyone caught the "This Week" program on Sunday, then you saw the future (and past) of a Clinton candidacy in one word. Hillary said she was much more vetted by the republicants and the media than Obama, and she went on to note that it is "unlikely" that anything else will turn up. Freudian slip?

There is either a skeleton there or not. "Unlikely" was a very strange choice of words. Moreover, don't think the republicants will not go back to Travelgate, impeachment, cattle futures, Harry & Louise, Wal-Mart, Tyson, Whitewater, bimbo eruption responses, strange campaign finance bedfellows, Vince Foster, etc.

I see anonymous at 4:43 pm has complained about Obama's alleged use of "Harry and Louise." Does anyone think the republicants will be more gentle with Hillary? I would expect to see what Obama has done x 1000.

Anonymous said...

Read Paul Krugman in the New York Times today. I'm voting for the hope of universal health care. And that's a vote for Hillary Clinton.

I'm a bit bored with polls telling me that Clinton can't beat Obama and I'm appalled that anyone would tell me I was throwing away my vote by voting for someone who might give me a chance to get universal health care.

As far as I'm concerned, a vote for Obama is a vote for politics as usual. Look at his biggest supporters.

Anonymous said...

So, do you put people in jail who don't sign up for universal health care? Do you fine them? Do you put the doctors in jail who try a private practice? What about the doctors that move offshore or to other countries? Will we have floating hospitals and clinics 10 miles out to sea?

Hillary Clinton couldn't answer this type of question on "This Week" yesterday, so I don't suppose you will be able to do so today.

Thank goodness Barack Obama is now leading in the Democratic national polls and, more specifically, in California. He will provide insightful, yet pragmatic, leadership.

For all of Bill Clinton's promises, my votes for him turned out to be my first votes for a republicant in my life. Do you think Hillary will be different? On the contrary, she may be even more poll-driven than Bill.

Anonymous said...

I think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate around. I like her. I think it's hysterically funny to watch people who can't stand the thought of a smart woman winning the Democratic nomination, let alone, the presidential election, come up with excuses to oppose her.

Vote however you like, but universal health care is important.
If this were a European country, we wouldn't be having the conversation about "paying" for health care. It would be a given. So, I'm not concerned about that.

Why would anyone who could refuse to pay for health care? And, what would someone who didn't pay for health care and suddenly needed it do?

And, I don't care about how Republicans attack Democrats. I consider the source and ignore them.

Anonymous said...

If this were a European country, we wouldn't be having the conversation about "paying" for health care. It would be a given. So, I'm not concerned about that.


Why would anyone who could refuse to pay for health care? And, what would someone who didn't pay for health care and suddenly needed it do?


And, I don't care about how Republicans attack Democrats. I consider the source and ignore them.


Debrah said...

Obama a Mac.....Hill is, well.....a PC

Obama is definitely a sleek IMAC!

Anonymous said...

Have you seen/heard this pro Obama song/speech/video yet?

*be sure to push play button

jackie said...

I feel the same way you do, but have not yet decided how to cast my vote.

Anonymous said...

As a fan of you, your work, and your blog, I have to admit that I don't understand how the sum of this post and those previous equal a confident vote for Obama. It seems an illogical conclusion after admitting that his "Change and Hope" rhetoric is devoid of substance and that his health care plan misses the point entirely.This among many other reasons, is why I'll be voting for Hillary. Not only does Hillary get this point, she was the only one talking and being heard on this point back in 1993 and she has consistently championed this as a necessity and priority ever since. It also seems that we continue to discuss "The Clintons" without recognizing that Hillary is her own person, another Clinton in the white house does not necessarily mean more of the same. It means more of the issues that Hillary has fought for - true universal healthcare, women's rights as human rights, etc.

Without a doubt Obama is charismatic and has mobilized/capitalized on the messages of hope from great men before him (Martin Luther King Jr, Cesar Chavez, JFK), but we need more than charisma. It saddens me that so many are comforted by his maleness and his rockstar/American idol appeal when Hillary is attacked as a politically ambitious woman for not being "likeable." Obama is running for president too - all presidential candidates have great ambition. Yet it's his campaign and debating style that seem narcissistic to me. Male narcissism is old hat, nothing new there, that doesn't feel like change to me. I too wanted to feel about Obama the way that many others do, but in the end I don't and could not bring myself to cast a vote for rhetoric or recycled messages even though more than anything I am hopeful and want change.

Debrah said...

TO 3:40 PM--

Surely you jest when you say that Hillary is "her own woman".

She's a vile under-the-table dealing rider-on-the-coattails of a man who kept a chubby intern under his desk while in the Oval Office....among a whole other roster of trailer sows.

Try as you might, I must tell you that there is no real woman with any real respect for herself or her daughter who would gloss over what happened back in 1998 and stay with a man under such circumstances.

That whole Arkansas hick extravaganza showed normal people just what Hillary will endure to get and keep a little power.

Even rabid Lefty Rosie O'Donnell was repulsed by Hillary's "standing by her man".

The demeanor--pursed, thin slits-for-lips, wall-eyed rage, and condescending tone--used on Obama in the debate as she spewed the word "slumlord" ....with all the ghetto-ized impressions that word carries, was all the voters needed to see and hear to bring back the memories of the Hill they know so well.

Bubba Clinton will be as much a part of everything as he always has been, if she were to accidentally fall back into the White House.

I don't believe the American people have stomachs strong enough for another go with Mack Truck Hillary and limp-membered Bill.

Obama will prevail as the Democratic nominee.

cantdance said...

For an interesting take on Obama, and how race factors into this election cycle, check out Shelby Steele on NPR's Word for Word.
I didn't agree w/ everything he said, but the speech sure got me thinking about Obama's empty "hope" message.

Debrah said...

Indeed, Shelby Steele is excellent.

You will like this interview even better.

Most provocative.

gwoertendyke said...

wow, i have to say, the fact that debrah DIVA and her KC suger daddy are for obama gives me pause....

if the inspirational train can rally these two, perhaps it all really is lost.

but clinton doesn't offer much--that would leave the off-the-chart left. nader anyone? he's likely running as a green again....

Anonymous said...

Ok, so the primary votes are coming in. I should still think of giving up my support for Hillary Clinton & universal health care because pollsters say she can't win in November? I don't think so.

B. Obama is politics as usual. New in the Illinois legislature? Play poker and golf with the boys. Buying a new home and want a bigger lawn? Have a political crony (now in jail) sell you a strip of the property he's just happened to buy on the very same day as you bought your house...I'm so very impressed by Obama. Not. at. all.

Anonymous said...

If 9:39 EST is an Obama supporter (what silly arguments and unnecessary bull dog attacks); I am glad I am not.

If the US won't elect a woman, then perhaps it deserves McCain or whomever the Republicans. The argument that Clinton can't win the presidency only Obama can does not impress.

Tenured Radical said...

Maybe this is just the internet speaking in these comments, but I am honestly shocked at how very polarized the supporters of the two candidates are. I do think that if we want to elect a Democratic President in the fall it would be wise not to engage in discussions in which the "other" candidate is framed as *so* unacceptable by comparison (anyone who has ever been in an academic hiring meeting should know what I am talking about.) This, I think, is the flip side of the energy initially injected by the Obama campaign, and then ramped up by the Clinton response (which frankly I think has been admirable.) Like Hannah Arendt, I find a lot of that energy -- particularly the use of catch phrases and visuals entirely devoid of content that are intended to mobilize the masses -- too close to fascism for comfort. The Obama campaign started it; both sides are now doing it.

And Clinton supporters -- it isn't all about sexism. I am completely ready to vote for a woman for president. I wanted to -- *and* it isn't an absolute value. You can't completely dismiss what the Clintons did to push the Democratic party to the right, the traditional constituencies they betrayed along the way, and the fact that Hillary's candidacy has been produced by a system that wants to make the choice of a presidential candidate the prerogative of a party elite and major fundraisers. If sexism is the only thing at work, I have to ask you: why not some *other* woman? Do we really think after all these years that Hillary is our only qualified female candidate?

I think that the Obama people, most of them (me included, as I said) *are* ready to elect a woman as president. But we are also ready to elect a black man as president. For Clinton supporters to claim sexism relentlessly and then be shocked that they could possibly be perceived as racist, or that the racism deployed by the Clinton campaign in South Carolina is unimportant, seems peculiar to me.

While I don't agree with Gayprof that the two candidates are the same, I do agree with the spirit of his remark, in that both candidates are machine pols. Both are canny strategists with big-money backers who are claiming to be driven by grass-roots support. Both are mobilizing the politics of race and gender to make emotional appeals to their constituencies that ask people to vote with their hearts, not their heads.

And yes -- Hillary's policies are better: please note that her revised health plan is *John Edwards'* health plan. I agree. And it is not in the least clear to me that she will not make the compromises that Bill did back in the day. What good are better policies if pragmatism consistently pushes you to the center and causes you to abandon them?

Neither of these candidates is progressive. Neither. And yes, the fact that so many conservatives and centrists are wild about Obama is worrisome. But this is what coalition politics looks like: clasping the hand of those who have different values -- not telling them that they suck and they are obvious bigots since they don't agree with you.

And what we need is a veto-proof Democratic Congress. A candidate who will get Democrats to the polls in blue, red and purple states will be critical to this much more important mission, in my view.


Debrah said...

This article provides insight on Obama's mass appeal.

Debrah said...

Priceless info from that article:

Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine. Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power — whether they are political opponents, women from Bill Clinton's past or independent counsels.

When the Clintons were doing this in the 1990s, it was viewed by many Democrats as perfectly acceptable. Some even applauded them for their brass-knuckle tactics. But now that the Clintons are roughing up an inspiring young man who appears to represent the hope and future of the Democratic Party, the liberal establishment is reacting with outrage.

Anonymous said...

Democrats have to start considering the issue of electability now. Next month is too late. I know that Clinton supporters want to avoid the issue, but McCain and Huckabee on the same ticket, or, even stronger, McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Crist, will beat Hillary Clinton. All the national polls indicate this would happen. McCain would get a simply massive independent turnout, there is a large portion of voters who dislike "Billary," and Crist would basically hand Florida to the Republicans. The only way to stop a Republican ticket like that is Obama with a wise choice for Vice-President.

The good news is that the next few primaries and caucuses all look great for Obama:

“Conventional wisdom holds that a tie [on Super Tuesday] favors Obama. The first round of votes after Super Tuesday comes Feb. 9, when two states — Washington and Nebraska — caucus, while Louisiana and the U.S. Virgin Islands stage primaries. Clinton’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said yesterday that caucuses favor Obama, whose campaign has been shaped by grass-roots enthusiasm and expensive organization.”

Obama should have the delegate lead and even more momentum by the end of this stretch.

Anonymous said...

Let me be clear: I don't think Obama is electable. If you want to keep going on about who is electable. We won't know until November, will we?
I don't think Obama has much to say. "Move" and "change" are great, but where's the meat?

He won't get my vote. I'd rather stay home.

Anonymous said...

Let me be clear: I don't think Obama is electable. If you want to keep going on about who is electable. We won't know until November, will we?
I don't think Obama has much to say. "Move" and "change" are great, but where's the meat?

He won't get my vote. I'd rather stay home.

Debrah said...

For all of you former Edwards supporters, this explains much about why he eventually fizzled.

Anonymous said...

Not to worry--you'll still get a chance to vote for the first woman President this Nov.

Anonymous said...

Why do people keep repeating the Clinton mantra that Obama has not explained specifics? Just a quick search on the internet, and you'd know quickly that it's untrue. This is the same type of smear campaign that has caused "Billary" to be reviled by so many people.

Here is why Obama wins:

1. Polls have showed him cutting into the lead and then taking the lead from HRC. He has momentum.

2. Obama has received more than 2x the campaign contributions of HRC in the last month. The Clintons have poured $5 million of personal wealth into the campaign to STAY EVEN with Obama.

3. The Democratic establishment has only begun to choose Obama. They could've made the choice for the "inevitable" HRC months or even weeks ago.

4. The next month will be Obama's on the campaign trail. He has dominated caucuses and there are a bunch of them, and the primaries are in pro-Obama areas. More big mo, more $.

5. The more people get to know Obama, the more they like him. That is why his national poll numbers keep going up. He will have more than a month to get ready for Ohio and Pennsylvanvia.

6. People will finally realize that Obama is electable and HRC is not. (This includes us Janes and Joes as well as the Super-Delegates).

7. Bill Clinton will screw up again. The HRC "crying game" will show diminishing returns as the campaign goes on.

8. Hispanics are coming around to Obama, and Texas has a much different Hispanic demographic than California. Also, Obama has time to win their votes.

9. White men and white women are trending towards Obama.

10. When HRC makes a desperate play for the Michigan and Florida delegates or comes on television before the polls close (like last night) or something similar, the Democratic belief in fair play will be aroused against her.

11. People will realize that Barack Obama has been able to fight off both Clintons. One republicant will be quite easy for him.

Anonymous said...

No one has said anything to convince me that Obama is anything but a pretty face. I don't care if he provides specifics. I just wish he'd say something with meaning. Hope. Movement. Change. Sounds like a song. Not a program. With the same old, same old political connections.

My vote stays with Hillary Clinton.

The only senator for Illinois who will ever get my vote is Dick Durbin. He's great. I wish he were running.

Anonymous said...

A vote for HRC today is a vote for McCain in November.

Anonymous said...

That's precisely the kind of comment that means I will vote for Hillary Clinton and NEVER support Obama. It's a kind of bullying that I don't expect from people who consider themselves democrats. Consider yourself to have given McCain a vote.

Debrah said...

When I heard that David Geffen was supporting Obama, I knew that his candidacy was a serious one.

Geffen is a titan in the music and entertainment industry.

Just about any significant song written and performed in the last thirty years, his hand has been on it.

In the Wiki link, be sure to read the paragraph on "politics" and what he has to say about the Clintons.


Sir, I believe that you’ll
end-up finding-out that – even if it’s brown, black, tan or white, wearing pants or a dress or naked, a rat is a rat is rat is a rat.

Stay on groovin' safari,

Anonymous said...

"When I heard that David Geffen was supporting Obama, I knew that his candidacy was a serious one."

When I heard that David Geffen was supporting Obama, I decided to vote for someone else.

Anonymous said...

"The only senator for Illinois who will ever get my vote is Dick Durbin. He's great."

I am not a dyed-in-the-wool democrat. However, I have to agree with you about Senator Durbin. As one of his constituents, while I haven't always agreed with the way he has voted, I nonetheless have been impressed by the fact that he actually shows up to vote. In his eleven years in the senate, he has missed only 41 (out of 3719) votes. Put another way, he actually does show up for work and does what he is getting paid to do. Among Illinois politicians, he stands out in this regard.

Anonymous said...

"Indeed, Shelby Steele is excellent."

I wish Steele were a contender for nomination in one or another party. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

Ms. M&P said...

LOTS of comments! I wasn't able to read through them all, but I wanted to say that I just recently discovered your blog and love it. I was pointed here by Piggy Bank Blues, one of my favorite bloggers.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtfulness about the candidates. This is the way I wish everyone would choose their vote. I've gotten a little irritated at voters who cannot articulate their love or hatred of a candidate, so it's good to hear that your decision is based on policy decisions (or potential decisions). Great post!

Anonymous said...

"That's precisely the kind of comment that means I will vote for Hillary Clinton and NEVER support Obama. It's a kind of bullying that I don't expect from people who consider themselves democrats. Consider yourself to have given McCain a vote."

Do you recognize the hypocrisy in your post?

Obama is still leading McCain in national polls. HRC is still losing to McCain. McCain has the highest approval rating among all the candidates when asking Democrats, Republicans and Independents. HRC is not even in the picture. Obama is.

David Broder, Washington Post, 2/7/08. Also, RealPolitics polling data.

Anonymous said...


No, I don't see any hypocrisy. I did see disagreement. Please explain.

Again, the more people tell me I shouldn't support HC because she can't win and only BO can win, the less I am likely to support him. I don't tell other people how to vote. Why should I vote him? Because someone tells me to?

I like Hillary Clinton. I like her positions. She does her homework. She gets my vote.

Debrah said...

If anyone is too blind to see hypocrisy, David Brooks can show you one of the biggest pieces of bovine excrement to ever come down the political pike.

When she revealed her nasty self to Obama, he made her look like the power-greedy fool that she is.

Debrah said...

A simply delicious must-read.

The Diva predicted an Obama-McCain (or Rudy) match-up long ago. Poor Rudy didn't have the fire in the belly and fizzled.

This is going to be exciting!.......if only someone can stop Hillary from plowing onto the stage and wasting everyone's time.

Anonymous said...

The more Debrah attacks Hillary Clinton, the better I like her. If David Brooks goes after her, makes me really like her.

Obama's an old boy. Does she golf and play poker with the New York equivalent of the state representatives in Springfield?

Anonymous said...

It is pretty funny to see TR and the Divah on the same team. It's like an Allende-Pinochet lovematch :)


Anonymous said...

This is George Will:

"The surest way to unify the Republican Party, however, is for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama, the foundation of whose candidacy is his early opposition to the war in Iraq, would be a more interesting contrast to the candidate who is trying to become the oldest person ever elected to a first presidential term and who almost promises a war with Iran ('There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran' [sic])."

Neither Nader or HRC are the answer. In fact, if I had to rank possible scenarios ensuring McCain's presidency (and our ultimate war with Iran), it would be as follows:

1. Nader as a third party candidate, HRC as Democratic nominee. In this scenario, McCain becomes next POTUS.

2a. Nader not running, HRC as the Democratic nominee. In this scenario, I also see McCain as the next POTUS. He will surely enlist Crist as V-P, and gobble up Florida.

2b. Nader as third party candidate with Obama as Democratic nominee. McCain/Crist win over the divided progressive vote.

3. Obama v. McCain. Obama wins this because he has fewer negatives, and he steals all of the McCain independents. Of course, Obama would need a wise V-P choice from Ohio or Florida, or that cool Governor from Kansas (which is my choice for V-P).

I would argue that the country is ready to vote a woman for POTUS. The country has shown a great deal of interest in doing so given the high negatives associated with HRC (mostly, her husband).

Anonymous said...

Please check "Goodbye To All That" (#2) by Robin Morgan February 2, 2008

at the Women's Media Center on line.

Nice that George Will is stepping in to tell everyone that HRC can't win. Is this a surprise? Why give him the time of day? He won't vote Democratic anyway.

Anonymous said...

Don't you see, George Will, Rush Lovehandle and Scam Hannity WANT HRC to be the nominee. They get great ratings, and the republicant wins. win/win for them.

Anonymous said...

I hope that you will not mind this comment which is only slightly on topic to this post. I am asking you and your readers to let cafepress know that Obama minstrelsy shirts are unacceptable. If any of you teach on that particular period in history you may want to use these shirts as an example of residual thinking. Here is the link:

you can contact cafepress by clicking the customer service link at the bottom of the webpage and choosing whether you want to write an email or call them to discuss concern.

Anonymous said...

ps. I should add that I am passing this on from an email this a.m. but in looking over the catalog I discovered: that that vein of "humor" is normal there and also applied to Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so I shouldn't vote for my candidate, HRC, because some of you and a number of Republicans say she can't win?!!!

The vitriol--and really nasty, nasty stereotypes--to which she's been subjected make me sick to my stomach. And so do all of the people who aren't speaking up against this behavior.

Debrah said...

"The vitriol--and really nasty, nasty stereotypes--to which she's been subjected make me sick to my stomach. And so do all of the people who aren't speaking up against this behavior."

Such infantile logorrhea.

Who cares who someone pencils in a box for on voting day?

Ultimately, it's just you and that little temporary cubby hole snuggled into a civic dream.

But let the Diva never sit back and allow Hillary Clinton to be promoted as some pie-in-the sky "caring public servant".

This woman is the scum of the earth.


Perhaps some people aren't offended by the unadulterated tackiness of the Clintons, the ever-changing, moving target "value system" they project, the parasitic "cheapness" of their existence, and the complete willingness to forfeit any semblance of decency for political expediency.

It will take an endless amount of space to detail the endless number of assaults these Arkansas hicks inflicted upon this country their first time around.

However, if big Hill and Bill continue to be held up as "respectable", I shall have to provide the whole sordid litany.

Debrah said...

A most valuable December offering from The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan on Obama.

Anonymous said...

"Obama is still leading McCain in national polls. HRC is still losing to McCain."

Yes, and we all know how accurate the polls have been this season...

Anonymous said...

I think Debrah is HRC's secret weapon. Do you really support the same candidate that she does?!!!

Debrah said...

A comprehensive look at Obama in Vanity Fair.

The more I read about him, the more I like him.

Anonymous said...

That is CNN documenting that Obama beats McCain, HRC loses.

Nothing is inevitable, but HRC has 46% negatives; Obama has 31. McCain is in the middle.

If you want war in Iran, no health care reform whatsoever, and social issues thrown out the window, vote for HRC.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Debrah said...

The sizzling hot-to-the-max KC Johnson has a great post on Obama's performance in his home state of Maine.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Debrah said...

Why Hillary will lose

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Have a question about about men's? This site/article is all about providing you all the information you've been hunting for.