May 24, 2008

Barack Visits 57 US States

He's visited 57 states so far, and still has 1 left to go..and he still hasn't visited Hawaii and Alaska because his staff would not allow it?

Wow..now, maybe all the Bush haters can stop bashing him for saying "nucular" instead of "nuclear."

Eloquent speech isn't everything..it helps to know what you're talking about, too...and being able to count is a plus.

12 comments:

GUYK said...

I think he let the cat out of the bag..he is planning on busting up exas and Florida into some more states..and you can bet they will be
gerrymandered so that they will be mostly dim-a-crits..BAWAHAHAHA or else he is just a dumb sumbitch

The Frank Family said...

Maybe he thought he already gave the US to Chavez and was counting South America as well. Perhaps if he had just a little respect and love for our American flag he would know how many states there are from the stars. Leftard!!!

Americaneocon said...

Obama's getting a pass, Jan. Good thing we've got bloggers like you setting things straight!!

Jan said...

guyk..it's hard to know what that man is thinking!

Jan said...

Frank Family..a little respect, real, not feigned, would be another plus, wouldn't it?

Jan said...

Donald..he's getting a pass, for sure!

Your kind words are appreciated! :)

Carrick said...

Bush has been mocked for his speaking slip-ups because they are so frequent and often expose how misinformed and/or how scripted and insincere his remarks are..

57 instead of 47... woops

The media didn't report this because they know that if they did, the story would be about how petty and non-substantive American journalism has become.

Moreover, the campaign-coverage journalists hear these same speeches maybe 10 times per day.. its not like he said something new and questionable like "We would obliterate Iran" or confusing Al Qaeda w/ local Iraqi guerrilla fighters [terrorists even if you like] (like Clinton & McCain did, and which they got passes on - huge substantive mistakes that expose their judgment and intentions)

Obama did get a pass early on, but mostly b/c he hasn't run a dirty campaign (he hasn't slung back at Clinton once yet, and every week she is inflating nonsense - often intentionally stoking racism). I think the media sees this and and has tried not to let Hillary make them a tool. Overall though, the real media bias in this country is the bias in favor of piss poor substance-lacking sound-byte money-motivated journalism. Fox is practically pure propaganda, and the other networks are equally pathetic but right wing.

Carrick said...

but NOT right wing, sorry.

Jan said...

Carrick..well, we can at least agree that journalism is a far cry from what it should be, and propaganda does abound, unfortunately.

I do think that Obama is getting a pass, though, in so many ways.

Obama doesn't have to say derogatory things about Clinton...all of those 'men of the cloth' keep doing it for him.

It's a sad state of affairs, altogether.

Carrick said...

They're all getting a pass, but its because journalists understand the campaign process - they know the real debate is coming, and their pass on Barack has more to do wit this exhaustion w/ the manipulative Clinton campaign machine (an exhaustion solidified by Bush) than their faith in or devotion to Obama.

If they were to pick apart Barack or Hillay's platform and past before one is the chosen candidates, they'd be unfairly tipping the election to McCain (by showing him his opponents cards, and giving him time to plan a strategy against them.) Besides Kerry being

The two dem candidates have shown as much as they're willing to until one is selected (they have an unspoken understanding about this - although Hillary does try to insinuate and inflate non-policy stuff.) I think that part of the room the media has given Barack is out of respect for his clean campaign style, which comes from total exhaustion with the tooth-&-nail disingenuous campaign battles we've seen in the past.

I guarantee you that when/if he gets the nomination and goes head to head w/ McCain, they will stoke a real debate between the two of them, and make him deliver some non-rhetorical evidence of his abilities in answer to concerns about his lack of experience. Although McCain does have a bit of a nasty side, there is a bit of a voice of conscience and at least a certain sentimentality for a fair honest political fight. There might be a real debate this time. (If Nader & an independent Ron Paul can join in, we might see some substantive stuff - which I'm personally not sure if Obama can contend with, but eager to see.)

I don't think the media loves Obama, they're just tired of being a tool/megaphone for politicians instead of real investigators. They're trying to make some room for a peaceful purposeful debate, and probably wanting to take a breath before jumping into the real contest.

I REALLY don't think the comments made by that white pastor from Obama's church were solicited or appreciated by Obama's campaign - if they had been, I bet they would have sounded more logical and less childish. Its more likely that the church has felt attacked and unfairly characterized, and frustrated with Hillary's consistent attacks against their man. Pastors always tend to give voice to the feelings of their congregations. The fact that they sound so ridiculous says something why those people are standing behind the neighborhood pulpit and not at the national pulpit.

The media chooses to amplify and replay this stuff. If they were more concerned with facilitating a truthful constructive debate than they are with attracting 30-seconds of viewership to sell advertising time, we wouldn't see this useless nonsense. Like I said earlier, they're trying but they're not their yet. Its channels like Fox News that have no ethical standards, are intellectually dishonest and hypocritically cry "bias", that journalism really sucks. Were the other networks to ignore this stuff while Fox rams it down our throats, they'd keep losings money and seemingly reinforce the lie about bias that Fox dishonestly perpetrates.

(I'm not saying CNN, etc don't give the liberal perspective with a little more passion occasionally, but there is no conspiracy like there is at Fox and on talk radio.)

Carrick said...

I meant to say that during 2004, the democrats really lost b/c they let the republicans frame the debate and characterize Kerry (flip-flop, swift boat, etc) before he could himself. In that way, he was always on the defensive and lost - besides not being the clear outspoken statesman he dreamed he could/should be.

Jan said...

" Although McCain does have a bit of a nasty side, there is a bit of a voice of conscience and at least a certain sentimentality for a fair honest political fight. There might be a real debate this time. (If Nader & an independent Ron Paul can join in, we might see some substantive stuff - which I'm personally not sure if Obama can contend with, but eager to see.)"

Carrick..that's a debate I'd like to see, too.

As for the shenanigans going on behind the pulpit at that church, it is outrageous, but just as disgusting as that is, it is just as disgusting watching what is going on all around them as they speak!

Although I respect your opinions, I must disagree with some of them, especially as pertaining to the different networks. I do think that they, mostly, have been biased in Obama's favor, although it seems that CNN has begun to back away from it, a little. And MSNBC? I think they disgust me as much as Fox does you. :)