Hillary or Bust

As the Democratic Convention draws near, considering supporting The Denver Group, an organization that has been pushing for Hillary to get her votes fair and square.

Just when you thought the Obama craze couldn’t get any creepier, some inane advertising agency thought it would be a good idea to come up with an Obama “salute.” As you can see in the image on the right, it consists of putting two hands together to make a big O (or ZERO).

On the one hand, this is laughable, but on the other, it’s pretty damn scary. As many commenters have pointed out on the USA Today article breaking this news, Hitler also had his own salute…and look where that got Germany.

Some astute readers have also pointed out that this very same salute was featured in the Star Trek episode “The Way to Eden.” Ostensibly one of the worst episodes in the original series, “The Way to Eden” featured a group of annoying mindless hippies who were following a cult leader to the mythological planet of Eden, where they would eschew technology and live in peace and happiness forever. They would give each other the very same salute presented here. “Squares” (or rigid, conservative people) were called “Herberts.”

Their mindless dippy singing and prancing truly makes this episode almost unbearable to watch - much like Obama’s mindless supporters make him insufferable. While the episode perhaps stereotyped hippies a bit too much in favor of the rigid conservatism of the Enterprise’s military structure, the point about following a cult leader was pertinent then as it is now. The episode ended tragically, a lesson that being part of a cult is probably not a good idea, no matter how high-minded the rhetoric sounds.

Fortunately, most people seem to be reacting negatively to this new Obama salute (although apparently negative comments were disappearing from USA Today’s website, which was then explained as a “computer glitch.” Hm.) But as long as we’re coming up with salutes, how about an Obama Dance Craze (as some commenters suggested)? Here’s one idea from Tim of Illinois:

The Obama Sway:

First you glide to the center, then you cover your eyes, then you wag your finger (as in no, no, don’t do that), then you smack your lips as if you are saying something, then you tilt your head up slightly, revealing your superiority, then you end with a fist bump.

Of course, such humor is lost on the Obama campaign, who has now started to believe the hype so sincerely that no humor will be allowed whatsoever. Do not make fun of The Obama! It’s sacrilege! Treason!

But…with all Obama’s posturing and seriousness, I’d have to say, he’s the real Herbert here. HERBERT! HERBERT!

“Obama Fatigue” (which I named as a trend at the end of July) is now statistically significant: Check out the stats posted on No Quarter.

Judging from the comments, however, it’s beyond fatigue - it’s actual Obama Revulsion. I have to agree with the commenter who said that even G.W. Bush did not create this reaction - I don’t feel icky when I see Bush on TV. But Obama? He really makes me sick. I can’t stand him. Maybe he is the anti-Christ? Because I’d rather be stuck in a room watching Paris Hilton all day than one hour of Obama.

Here’s an interesting theory as to why we’re so sick of Obama. Obama has possibly gone past his “Campaign Saturation Point”:

I emphatically believe that every campaign in every election generates a campaign saturation point (CSP), beyond which further campaigning — ads on TV and radio, appearances on talk shows, billboards, posters, signs, rallies, debates, GOTV, and door-knocking electioneering — diminish, rather that augment a candidate’s electoral performance. This factor should be measured in campaign density, not duration: You don’t want to stop campaigning two months before the election, but you might want to throttle back on your campaigning to avoid oversaturating the market (inundating voters).

Read the full story here.

I guess Obama was trying to appease Hillary’s supporters when he wrote a letter to the DNC rules committee telling them to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. When I heard about it, I was suspicious and wondering what the heck he was up to. Still, I was a bit shocked to read all the incredibly angry comments against Obama posted over at the ABC blog. Are more people waking up to see Obama for what he really is?

I used to be a member of MoveOn. I unsubscribed when they anointed Obama their man early in the primaries after a quick 24-hour vote that I was not aware of. Now I find them to be beyond irritating. So I am asking quite genuinely here, is the following advertisement from MoveOn an actual real ad or is it someone posing as MoveOn making fun of them? Because this ad is just…ridiculous.

I mean…really…if you were that paralyzed during the Bush years that you have to cry now and say that only NOW we have “hope” - you seriously need to get a life. The Bush years weren’t that horrible for individual Americans. If you’ve got time to whine on an ad like this then you need to be counting your blessings.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are still enthralled with Obama, even after he flip-flopped on FISA. Check out some of these craaazy comments over at the New York Times (Obama’s propaganda newspaper):

Lets be realistic here: Senator McCain could have never made that speech; Senator Clinton could have never made that speech. Senator Obama is the only candidate with sufficient charisma to sway not only voters in the United States, but also world leaders and people of all nations. With Senator Obama as our next President, world leaders and nations will be ready to walk hand in hand with the United States as we move to solve the many global problems–both those created by the Bush Administration, and those problems ignored by the Bush Administration. This is a pivitol moment in history, when we can turn the corner and defeat the forces of racial and religious prejudice, ignorance and extremism at home and abroad.

(Um. Actually, let’s really be realistic here: Just because you give a good speech doesn’t mean you’ll be a good leader. Hitler gave great, inspirational speeches.) Read more »

So the Democratic Party has now turned into NeoCons, apparently, as they plan to move all convention dissenters into “free speech” concentration camps as far away from the actual convention as possible.

No Quarter also reports that in order to get a ticket to go to the convention, you have to prove that you are “committed.” (I’m assuming “committed” means you are a die-hard Obama supporter, not a committed Clinton supporter.)

Folks, remember: Just because the Democrats in power are not Republicans, it does not mean they are any more committed to true democracy than the Bush administration. Have you ever stopped to consider why and how the Bush administration got as far as it did with the Patriot Act? Perhaps it’s time to join the Libertarian Party…

In case you missed it, you must read this hilarious satire from the Times Online (from across the pond), poking fun at Obama’s messianic complex:

He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

Here’s a great excerpt:

As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

Ah yes. And across the world, we will all join hands and sing “Kumbayah” if Obama is elected. Riiiight.

A writer at Time magazine wonders why Obama’s overseas trip hasn’t brought with it a bump in the polls. Perhaps I can throw out a little theory here of my own. I think that Americans are getting Obama fatigue. The same fawning media machine that helped the DNC crown Obama over Hillary could very well be his undoing. Hype, overdone, leads to backlash.

By trying to turn Obama into the next political messiah, before he’d actually done anything, the media has put Obama into the category of “fad.” Fad, as in, pet rocks, 3D magic eye pictures, and the Backstreet Boys. When was the last time you seriously danced the Macarena?

Equating a presidential candidate to an American Idol is a dangerous campaign model. Most American Idol winners did not see the long-term success of the first winner, Kelly Clarkson. While Clarkson may well follow in Celine Dion’s footsteps and have a lasting career, and Clay Aiken might stay around as a niche singer, the rest may end up one-hit wonders.

Let’s not forget, too, that fad teen singers rely on enthusiastic teeny-boppers to keep the emotions riding high. Obama has his college students, but there won’t be any new college students joining the ride at this point. The rest of the country is made up of moderates who won’t be foaming at the mouth about Obama now or ever.

Obama now has to prove himself to older, more mature voters, who are looking for substance and not style. Obama has not shown himself to be strong on substance. He refuses to debate and prefers to jet around and perform publicity stunts. But playing basketball at a foreign military base is not going to get the mature voter to back him. If anything, it associates him too much with youth and hip-hop culture. Doing the “Jay-Z” sign may work well with college students, but it’s not going to get middle America behind him.

This is not an issue of racism. A white man doing Elvis pelvis moves would likewise not be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

As a Hillary supporter, I realize I am biased against Obama, but I’ve gotten so tired of Obama coverage that I don’t even turn on the network news channels anymore. I can’t possibly be the only one. Let’s get back to a real campaign that involves actual debates and substance…ooops, that would require a candidate that had some substance. Never mind.

I’ve heard right wingers complain about liberal media bias for years, and I never took those complaints seriously. After all, they have Rush Limbaugh and a slew of conservative pundits on talk radio, as well as Fox News. I was a bit shocked to find out that maybe those charges weren’t entirely off-base: The New York Times has refused to reprint a rebuttal editorial that John McCain wrote in response to Barack Obama’s editorial.

The reason? From the New York Times op-ed editor David Shipley:

“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”

Um, excuse me, but if McCain is writing a rebuttal, it should absolutely not “mirror” Obama’s piece. “Mirroring” Obama’s piece, from what I can tell here, means that McCain is supposed to buy into Shipley’s personal definition of what is appropriate Iraq policy. (Shipley, by the way, used to work for the Clinton administration.)

Whether or not the New York Times staff agrees with McCain’s positions, I believe the New York Times has an obligation to give equal and fair time to both presidential candidates and publish McCain’s rebuttal. (Heck, give some equal and fair time to third party candidates while you are at it.)

If Shipley wants to publish only one-sided pro-Obama pieces, he should go blog at DailyKos or something. But he should not be working at a major newspaper.