Michael Moore has a suggestion for a running mate for Barack Obama.
The often controversial and always opinionated filmmaker names this person in an open letter to Caroline Kennedy on his website.
Here’s an exceprt:
What Obama needs is a vice presidential candidate who is NOT a professional politician, but someone who is well-known and beloved by people across the political spectrum; someone who, like Obama, spoke out against the war; someone who has a good and generous heart, who will be cheered by the rest of the world; someone whom we’ve known and loved and admired all our lives and who has dedicated her life to public service and to the greater good for all.
That person, Caroline, is you.
I cannot think of a more winning ticket than one that reads: “OBAMA-KENNEDY.”
No word from Obama’s camp….yet. (Though rumour has it he’ll reveal his choice on Friday!)
42 Comments
Three people who I’d rather not hear from again.
He should pick an old white guy to satisfy everyone.
Who cares what that fathead thinks
Awesome idea! I’m in.
I think Joe Biden would be a good pick. He has tons of experience and is well like and will ad some depth to the winning ticket.
I like the idea! Caroline Kennedy has done so many wonderful things for this country and she has no personel agendas to satisfy. I would vote for that team.
When election times come around, that is when I find out whom I like and whom I dont care for.
And Im not talking about the donkey that wants to be President, I am talking about the celebs, and stuff.
This year, I am liking less and less of these people.
Goes to show you, that I am growing up.
not a bad idea. she’s likeable and he definitely needs to pick a woman in this age of racial quotas. or he could pick his mentor, frank marshall davis. so strange how both robert and john kennedy would both be conservatives by today’s standards!
btw, did you all see that denver is giving their homeless FREE haircuts for the convention?!?!
kinda reminds me of the way china behaved the past few weeks.
also, i sincerely hope the investigators have rounded up everyone that was involved with that dead somalian man with the cyanide in a denver hotel last week that none of you heard about..
…I heard about it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022204.php
This damn Russia thing is getting a bit scary for this chick !
I laugh and cry at the same time, thinking “What Would Obama Do”
Lord, this isnt good people!
But, I guess I am the only one here that has a permit to carry a concelled weapon … and when you haters of guns, free speach, and so on - - if you need protection DONT RUN TO ME you pussy!
Its YOUR fault that BAMBI BOY is in office.
Dear Lord…I pray that I am wrong in this!
Why nothing on Obama’s brother that one that lives in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi?
harley you are funny.
do you read americanthinker.com and atlasshrugs.com?
atlas has a TON of info on russia giving the finger to the free world and our media is complicit, as usual. also, code pink and the peaceniks are no where to be found. shocking. maybe we should invade mexico’s oil pipeline territories since no one’s looking.
and, i guess maybe i was wrong…maybe europe DOES need OUR troops still to protect them from an eastern invasion so they can spend money on socialist ‘free’ handouts. there’s a great cartoon showing georgia’s prez laying on his back with a HUGE russian boot about to stomp him and he’s looking up at it, saying, ‘i’ve seen putin’s SOLE.’
such strange times when the left is so far left that they agree with extreme right, paleocons, like patrick buchanon on so many issues.
AT, I do at times.
Europe will always need us, people talk shit about America and they live here for one. And those people I would love to have just 5 minutes alone time with. But they are chicken shit.
And yeah, Im with you on the Mexicos oil pipeline, in fact I still think that America just need to “invade” that country and take it over. Hell more than half of them are here!
…Im having a bad day….Im not joking people. This Russia, Poland thing has got me completly ripped man.
(giggles)
The CBS affiliate in Denver discovered a hidden website that sold tickets to the Invesco Field acceptance speech by Barack Obama on August 29th, while Team Obama continued to deny that tickets were anything but free. Democratic activists complained to the reporters about Obama’s sell-out:
Oddly enough, when CBS started asking questions, the site suddenly stopped offering tickets. What a coincidence!
If anyone wonders why Obama has gone into free fall this summer, this provides an easy explanation. Obama had no executive or military experience and no legislative track record in his three brief years in the US Senate. He sold Democrats on the notion that his New Politics would transform Washington. Since welching on his promise to remain in the public financing system, Obama has repeatedly proven that he’s nothing more than a Chicago machine pol with no particular qualifications to run a state, let alone a nation.
Can you even imagine that ticket??
John McCain does not exactly have a good record when it comes to making statements and policy choices that offend women. There are reports (not denied by McCain, as far as I know) that he told a “joke†about a gorilla raping a woman, who liked it. His statement that Roe v. Wade should be overturned is actually overshadowed by his votes against insurance coverage for contraception and his disgraceful vote against funding for family planning for low-income Americans. (How can you oppose abortion and also oppose access to contraception? Only if you want to force women to have unplanned pregnancies).
But McCain may have outdone (or undone?) himself today. He Idiotically bragged about encouraging his wife to participate in the Miss Buffalo Chip “beauty pageantâ€, which features nudity and a “pickle-licking contest.â€
.
If McCain is willing to embarrass his own wife like this, what will he (or won’t he) do to American women he’s never even met?
.
The truth is, these bumbling, insulting statements are in line with McCain’s policies, which show a disregard for the day to day realities women deal with. A McCain presidency would be a disaster for women and, in fact, for all of us.
Give credit where credit is due when cut and pasting, okay post number 19.
First off, that is like OLD NEWS - - (happened at Sturgis, I WAS THERE!)
What about your savior then, and his background?
Why is he so nervous and scared to share with us?
At least McCain was and is very truthful about his past, and he even stated that he didn’t know exactly what a buffalo chip contest is… (and if showing tits is nudity to you, then I’m flashing my big ass tits to you)…..and from her own mouth, she didn’t take offense to it. So from that why should I, being a woman and all?
At least McCain isn’t for killing a partial born baby, like your savior is. McCain is PRO LIFE, unlike Bambi.
And as far as day to day realities that woman deal with, wtf is that?
I work in a male dominated business, and guess what? I have more balls then these “bitches” that I work with.
The PICKLE contest is the BOMB! by the way
To bad your not a biker, though you couldn’t fucking hang with us big boys
That’s why you want to talk shit about something YOU HAVE NO CLUE about.
Jump off your Vespa, and join the “dark side”
ROFLMFAO!
AND– research please!
That joke was told back in from his 1986 race for US Senate, as quoted in the Tucson Citizen.
=
Try again.
MY BODY, MY CHOICE!! who the hell is some old fuck of a man to tell me if i can and cannot have an abortion? and harley, you stupid shit, you’ll be the first to bitch when these “pro life” babies end up on welfare on your dime!! mccain does NOT want women to have access to birth control, either. THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION, IT”S A STORYBOOK OF FAIRY TALES!!!
.
you are a vile person, harley, and i truly hope you don’t wear a helmet. FUCK OFF AND DIE!!
srah: your mother should have aborted!!
Hell I already pay for welfare babies, just like you and everyone else.
And you are so much A dem with that potty mouth of yours, hoping that I die..KARMA is a bitch and God is on my side….. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
If people wouldn’t whore them selves out, we wouldn’t have an explosion of bastard kids.
But you and others here, look down on people for not whoring around, like the Jonas brothers for one.
You go ahead and be a whore that you are, and kill that baby.
Because, I will NOT see you hell
But then ducati, your daddy would have gotten off on paying child support!
And I could care less what you feeble minded children have got to say.
I am learning that everyone on here except a tiny few, are actually over the age of 21.
wow anonymous. you must really like your abortions. question…if you wanted to keep the baby, and some old fcuk of a man wanted you to abort, would you hold him to paying child support? yea, you would. and for good reason. look, i’m prochoice…but i admit that the glob of cells you think is a parasite or , ‘part of YOUR body’ is human life…you apparently agree considering our vile outburst. methinks you doth protest a bit too much. and do you really prefer obama’s solution of getting a 100% rating from naral and even going beyond naral by voting down BIAPA? research jill stanek.
anyways, it’s a terrible topic…it’s way deeper than your post suggests. 40million dead. they all wouldn’t be poor homeless crack babies now, ok?!!! roe v wade exists because they linked it to the privacy clause in the constitution and if it were to go away, it would go back to the states, where it belongs.
and BTW…the constitution would have never existed without the bible. the values in it are clearly judeo-christian.
Good point Adam….very good points I see.
And also, the chick on Roe-vs-Wade wishes that she never pushed that bill. She feels so ill about it.
RESEARCH IT……………She states that SHE WAS SO VERY WRONG in that.
It’s time to throw my hat in the ring as regards predicting the election results. So here it is: Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I’ve yet seen. Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake.
I’m using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a “fool with energy”, as the Russian proverb puts it. (”A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare”.)
Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it. The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can’t grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck.
The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It’s as if he’s the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up — if not through the 8th dimension. And although there’s plenty of rationalization, there’s never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.
Obama’s rise has been widely portrayed as a kind of millennial Horatio Alger story — young lad from a new state on the outskirts of the American polity, a member of once-despised minority, works his way by slow degrees to within arm’s length of the presidency itself. That’s all well and good — we need national myths of exactly that type.
But what has been overlooked is the string of faux pas marking each step of Obama’s journey, a series of strange, inexplicable actions, actions bizarre enough to require some effort at explanation, through such efforts have rarely been offered. It’s as if the new Horatio made it to the top by stepping into every last manhole and open trapdoor in his path. And we, the onlookers, the voters who are being asked to put this man in the White House, are supposed to take this as the normal career path for a successful chief executive.
What are these incidents? I’m sure many of you are way ahead of me, but let’s go to the videotape.
Here’s a young man who graduated from Columbia with high marks, with a choice of positions anywhere in the country. He comes from a state generally held to be a close match to Paradise. One, furthermore, that can be characterized as the most successful multiracial society in the world, with harmonious relations not only between whites and blacks, but also Japanese-Americans and native Hawaiians as well. To top it off, a state controlled in large part by a smoothly-functioning Democratic machine. So where does he choose to go?
To Chicago. One of the windiest, coldest, most brutal cities in the country. One that is also infinitely corrupt in a sense that Hawaii is not. One that remains one of the most racist large cities in the U.S. (Cicero, Al Capone’s old stomping grounds, a suburb that is effectively part of the city, is completely segregated to this day.) It would be nice to learn which of these aspects most attracted young Obama to the city. But if you’d asked at the beginning of the campaign, you’d still be waiting.
And what does he do when he reaches the city? Why, he joins a cult. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church has been turned inside out since the videotaped sermons appeared early this year, without anyone ever quite explaining exactly what Obama was thinking of when he joined up in the first place. Street cred, so it’s claimed. But there are a plethora of black churches that would have provided him that without the taint of demented racism that Wright’s church offered.
Obama apparently had to swear an oath of belief in “black liberation theology” when he joined the church. (It is the little touches of that sort that make it a “cult”, and not simply a “church”.) Did the thought of his career ever cross his mind? Didn’t he realize that church would inevitably cause him trouble somewhere down the line? That he’d be required to repudiate it and its ideas eventually? We can ask — but we won’t get an answer.
Back at school, Obama got himself named editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is a signal achievement, no question about it. The kind of thing that would be mentioned about a person for the rest of his life, as has been the case with Obama. But then… he writes nothing for the journal.
Now, let’s get this straight: here we have one of the leading university law journals in the country, one widely cited and read. Entire careers in legal analysis and scholarship have been founded on appearances in the Review, including some that have led to the highest courts in the country. Yet here’s an individual who, as editor, could easily place his own work in the journal — standard practice, nothing at all wrong with it. But he fails to do so. And the explanation? There’s none that I’ve heard. We can go even farther than that, to say that there is no explanation that makes the least rational sense.
We follow Obama down to Springfield, where as a state legislator, he voted “present” over 120 times. What this means, as far as I’ve been able to discover, is that he voted “present” nearly as much as he voted “yes” or “no”.
Now, statehouses work very simply: a member approaches his colleagues and asks them them to vote for his bill. Some comply, some do not. Some ask, “Is it a good bill?” and some don’t. Either way, they customarily, except in unusual circumstances, vote “yes’ or “no”. All except for Barack Obama. And how did get away with it? How did mollify his colleagues? How did he square himself with the party bosses? Echo answereth not.
(A good slogan could be made of this: “You can’t vote present in the Oval Office.” I hereby commend it to the McCain campaign.)
We turn eagerly to learn what his term in the U.S. Senate will reveal, only to be disappointed. But it’s not surprising, really. After all, he was only there for 143 days.
And there lies one of the keys to Obama’s rise. David Brooks pointed out in a recent New York Times column that Obama spent too little time in any of his positions to make an impact one way or another. This is what saved him from the normal fate of the flake: he was never around long enough for his errors and strange behavior to catch up with him.
But a presidential campaign is a different matter. A man running for president is under the microscope, and can’t duck anything, as many a candidate has had reason to learn. If Obama is a flake in the classic mode, now is when it would come out. And has it?
The case could be made. Here we have a campaign with everything going for it — the opposition party in a shambles, a seriously undervalued president, the media in the candidate’s pocket, the candidate himself being worshiped as nothing less than the new messiah. And yet the results have comprised little more than one fumble after another.
First came the Wright affair. Obama apparently thought he was above it all — a not-uncommon phenomenon with flakes — and allowed the revelations to take on a life of their own before bothering to respond. Even then, his thoughtful and convincing explanation (that he hadn’t been listening for twenty years) did little to settle the crisis, which instead guttered out on its own after nearly crippling his campaign. Even months afterward it threatens to pop back up at any time. The latest word is that Wright — now a deadly enemy of his onetime protégé — has written a book. I can’t wait.
Obama learned his lesson, and confronted the next threat immediately, tackling The New Yorker cover with the avidity of a man having discovered zombies in the basement. A development that could have been defused with a chuckle and a quip (the customary method is for the politician to ask the cartoonist for the original) was allowed to explode into a major issue. The campaign’s relentless attacks on one of the oldest liberal magazines extant merely perplexed the country at large. After all, any Republican has had to endure far worse.
Almost simultaneously, the birth certificate saga was unfolding. On no reasonable grounds, the campaign blew off requests for a copy of the document, at last releasing it through one of the least reputable sites on the Internet, and so badly copied that literally anything could be read into it — and was. I’m not one of those who believes that Obama was actually born in Indonesia/Kenya/Moscow/the moon, but I still have plenty in the way of questions, almost all of them arising from how the matter was handled. Well played.
The latest pothole (or one of them, anyway) involves Jerome Corsi’s The Obama Nation. Corsi has been given the full New Yorker treatment, with the campaign hoping to avoid John Kerry’s “error” in not challenging Corsi’s 2004 book, Unfit for Command. What Obama missed was the fact that Kerry’s major problem was not with Corsi but with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were disgusted with Kerry’s hypocrisy in running as an experienced military veteran, and set out to take him down. Corsi’s effort dovetailed with the veteran’s campaign and to a large extent was swept up with it. No such campaign is in operation against Obama. The smart method of answering Corsi would have been to allow the media to handle it, instead of drawing attention to the book and raising it to level of an issue. This appears to be a real talent for the Obama campaign.
We could go on. The victory tour of Europe, and the speech in which Obama declared himself “citizen of the world”, a trope guaranteed to focus the attention of Middle America. His inept handling of Hillary, in which he wound up appearing frightened of the opponent he’d just beaten. Allowing Hillary (and her husband there, what’s-his-name) a starring role in the Democratic convention is not a solution any sane individual would be comfortable with — much less a roll-call vote. This threatens the near-certainty of turning the entire affair into BillandHillarycon, with the nominee winding up as a footnote. But it’s all of a piece with the campaign Obama has waged up until now.
We’ve never had a flake as president. We’ve had drunks, neurotics, cripples, louts, and fools, but never a career screwup. (I except Jimmy Carter, whose errors arose from sincere, misguided goodwill.) And I don’t think we’re going to get one now. Another three months of flailing, incompetence, and a collapsing image will do little to assure voters concerned with terrorism, the oil crunch, a gyrating economy, and a bellicose Russia. (Anyone doubting that Obama will go exactly this route can consider the Saddleback church fiasco, which unfolded as this piece was being wrapped up. Evidently, the campaign goaded NBC news personality Andrea Mitchell into all but accusing John McCain of “cheating” by failing to take his place within the “cone of silence” during Obama’s part of the program. The grotesque element here is that Obama’s people and much of the liberal commentariat — including Mitchell — apparently believe that the “cone of silence”, a gag prop for the old Get Smart! comedy series, actually exists and was in use at Saddleback.)
Many of us have dealt with flakes at one time or another, often in settings involving jobs and careers, and not uncommonly in positions of some authority. We all know of the nephew, the fiancé, the boyfriend, whose whims must be catered to, whose reputation must be protected, who must be constantly worked around if anything at all is to be accomplished, always at the cost of time, money, efficiency, and personal stress.
In the fullness of time, we will inevitably see such a figure in the White House. But not this year, and not this candidate. Such acts of national flakery occur only when there’s no real alternative. In this election, an alternative exists. Whatever his shortcomings, nobody ever called John McCain a flake.
Democrats are always claiming to have the Kennedy magic, but, once again, another Kennedy-wannabe falls short. To be a real Kennedy, you have to kill her.
We do know Obama man is a slick huckster. He must count on his “aura and cult of personality” to carry him as he is obviously concealing his hard left beliefs.
Obama must beat around the intellectual bush every time he tries to answer a question in order that the core of his beliefs will not be revealed so as to fool as many as possible.
There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from Obama’s generalized hope and change speeches and the inability to answer the most simple questions clearly. He is presenting himself as something that he is not, to make himself more appealing to the masses. He is hiding behind a mask, desperately trying to keep up the appearance until after the election.
But the proverbial cat is starting to crawl out of the bag, thanks to the internet and radio. Let’s just hope it’s not too late.
Even though I am a life long democrat, rather I should say was a democrat, I would have to be deaf and blind not to see what Obama represents. Anyone who refuses to call a spade a spade only BS themself. I don’t think of guilt by association as far as Obama and his associates go. I look at Obama as being one of the crowd he has chosen to hang with. Obama was not simply a spectater, Obama was–IS– a participant. How could he live through 20 years of anti American bombardment without being a participant? Impossible. No! All the evidence is against Obama, he is a spade no ifs ands or buts. I believe people are what they practice, and Obama practices Marxist tactics, he is a Marxist. I think he is also a Muslim who hides behind a phony christian front. He is also a Chicago thug who hid behind his elected position as a state legislator. Obama is all those things because he practices all those things as a mean to an end. The end being the advancement of his political grab for power to do as he damn well pleases with people in this case an entire nation. Obama is all for Obama a self centered SOB and a dangerous SOB at that. Although he practices all the things I have just mentioned he will discard any one of those things the instant that thing begins to interfere with his goal. The one thing most people may question is the Muslim bit, but his 20 year long preacher mr Wright majored in the Islamic religion as a scholar but he also practices communist/socialist ideals–known in his church as “Black Liberation Theology”. Obama/Wright two peas in a pod or TWO SPADES FROM THE SAME DECK. Needless to say they both deal from the bottom.
anonymous 341.
i read half that (seems you did some cutting and pasting?) on townhall.com today…and in the wash times i think.(i forget, i read a lot of nps).
actually. it was on the americanthinker now that i think of it.
cmon. just put it in quotes then.
Harley— Are you a dyke? You sound like one.
tolerance anon tolerance.
Kennedy’s = Scandal
Obama = Infanticide
Michelle = Evil
ask Jill Stanek
Anonymous Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Why nothing on Obama’s brother that one that lives in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi?
Cause it has nothing to do with the election– is that going to make gas less expensive (dumbass)
Obama will win on Nov 4th, and this anonymous racist idiot(s) can shoot themseleves.
OBAMA 08
Anonymous Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm - NO ONE IS READING ALL THAT BULLSHIT, But if you want another 4 years of bush be my guest (get ready to strap up so McCain can send your useless ass to war)
She Rides A Harley â„¢ Says
McCain has said several times that he does not agree with Roe v Wade being overturned:
Dont believe me- please read below:
In 1999, the “moderate†version of John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.†Here’s McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle:
I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.
link- http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
FUCK MCSAME
Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000, at 2:35 PM ET
The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain’s role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal “will probably be on my tombstone.” What exactly did McCain do?
In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating’s banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
At Keating’s behest, four senators–McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio–met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating’s behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.
Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.
In November 1990, the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the meetings between the senators and the regulators. McCain, Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, and Riegle became known as the Keating Five.
Harley, you’re for McCain?