Friday, April 25, 2008

Barack Obama's NEWEST Controversial Relationship... Sick kids, national epidemics? Obama DOESN'T CARE!!!!

A Letter to Readers of Prepare Yourselves for a Settlement


Dear Readers,

I'm changing my thinking about Obama. I think it's high time for Barack Obama to denounce, renounce, reject, end and completely decimate at least one of his incredibly destructive long-term relationships.

Although I've been an Obama supporter, I feel my allegiance slipping with each and every day the Senator from Illinois refuses to repudiate some of the unsavory characters with whom he is close and the evils these acquaintances visit upon the United States of America.

It seems like a new scandal by association emerges every single day. I've kept my reservations to myself as Obama fumbled through discussions regarding Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Louis Farakhan and William Ayres. Now, however, a new questionable relationship has emerged and I am unwilling to say anything nice or decent about Senator Barack Obama until he comes clean and completely distances himself from a true villain--a monster hellbent on destroying the health and happiness of American children.

Obama has been avoiding scrutiny on this simply because of his party and background. How would the public and press deal with something like this if the candidate was someone other than media darling Barack Obama:

*Candidate publicly admits to appreciating and enjoying Mr. X.
*Mr. X is directly involved with marketing products to children.
*The products with which Mr. X is involved are known to be harmful to children.
*The ills created by the products are considered a growing national emergency.
*Candidate continues his support of Mr. X and fails to renounce the villain.

That bizarre scenario isn't some sort of far-fetched fantasy. It's happening today.

Barack Obama is the Candidate and Mr. X...

You may know him as SpongeBob SquarePants. Obama publicly admitted his love of Mr. SquarePants in a very public interview. Mr. Obama must be acutely aware that Mr. SquarePants image is used to sell sugary sweet cereal, Pop Tarts and other high-calorie/high-carb processed food products to children. Children! Child obesity is a national epidemic and a true NATIONAL EMERGENCY. Yet Barack Obama won't speak out.

Senator Obama remains silent as children suffer and die--all the while speaking positively about one of the merchants of death responsible for these horrors.


If this is a new kind of politics, I want nothing to do with it.


John Brown
Concerned American Citizen

Note: I originally wrote this after reading a rather bizarre post from Evan Gahr. Moments after posting this, I was pointed toward another, equally enlightening post at No Quarter. My joke is the most reasonable of the three. And that is sad.


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:

Thursday, April 24, 2008

If reality was fantasy, Hillary would be a lock to win! More from the Marsh...

Yeah, I know. It's too easy. It's not all that productive. It's sooooo obvious. Others do it better. It's juvenile. Fine. Fine. Fine. I still can't resist making fun of famed best-selling author, warner of lawsuits and sex industry super-sleuth Taylor Marsh.

Clinton Leads in Popular Vote... if you count Michigan and Florida.

This gem, from astute political observer and famed talk radio personality (cue laugh track) Taylor Marsh is one of my favorites this morning.

If you count the elections that everyone knew didn't count, Hillary leads the popular vote! If you count the election in which Obama's name wasn't on the fucking ballot, Hillary's ahead.

If April was December, Christmas would be right around the corner! If John Bale and Brett Tomko were legit Cy Young hopefuls, the Royals would be contenders this year! If Monster wasn't trailing, she'd be ahead!

If inches were feet, I'd have a 6' schlong!

Remember, the genius behind "if you count Florida and Michigan" is begging her devoted following of wine-drunk fellow Monster fans to lobby Air America so she can get real mic time. You know what to do.

Hotel Space Available for Inauguration--CHEAP!!!

"Kelly", a Taylor Marsh super-fan and a worshipper at the Altar of Monster, is getting ready to book space in DC for the inauguration. This delusional decision to spend cash in hopes of seeing Monster put her claws on the good book means one thing and one thing only to those who aren't drunk on cheap boxed wine--Kelly's gonna be selling later.

Need a room while in Washington to watch Obama or McCain take the oath? Get in touch with Kelly. She'll have hotel space at a discount! You can reach her via the comment section at The Silliest Blog in America.

From the swamp of Marsh comments:

And only mildly OT ... where's the best place to stay in DC for the inauguration? My partner gave me the go-ahead last night to make reservations!


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Congratulations, Monster! You can hate Hillary, but give credit where credit is due...

It's easy to blame losers instead of crediting winners. You see it all the time. Kansas didn't win the basketball national championship, Memphis screwed up and lost it. The Giants only won the Super Bowl because the Patriots stunk. It's always the loser's mistakes and never the victor's skills, it seems.

This line of thinking is common in politics, too. Why can't Barack close the deal? What did Hillary do wrong in Iowa? Etc. When it comes to Monday morning quarterbacking and political punditry, it's all about the loser's shortcomings these days. People like to analyze why one person lost instead of focusing on why the other won.

I think that's crap. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. That puts me in a difficult position this morning. If you've ever read a post here before, you know that I think Barack Obama is our best remaining choice for President and that I believe Hillary Clinton causes cancer of the political soul.

Nonetheless, I'm not going to spend this morning blaming Obama's failures for Pennsylvania. Nor am I going to take the easiest out possible--arguing (perhaps accurately) that Hillary's support came, in large measure, from a bunch of idiots. Nope. I'm going to simply congratulate Hillary on winning.

Hey, Monster...


Clinton won Pennsylvania by 1o points and now Monster can continue its march of shame right into Indiana and beyond. Hell, for all I know Hillary will be able to spread the disease so successfully that she'll end up as our next President. That's still VERY unlikely, but anything can happen.

She did a smash-up job winning Pennsylvania. She withstood a massive spending imbalance. She quickly and forcefully jumped on top of every little Obama act that could be twisted into a negative. She got her picture taken while guzzling brews, talked about her family's involvement with the gun culture and painted her opponent as a snobby elitist in an area where snobby elitists aren't all that popular. She did the better job in the debate of appearing Presidential to the remaining undecided voters and soft Obama supporters. She made all the requisite TV appearances and even snuck in a day-before interview with KO at MSNBC, proving that she didn't mind walking into the lion's den in exchange for face time.

Good work, Monster. You won. You worked your positives, amplified your opponent's real negatives, created some new temporary negatives for him, created more memorable TV ads and convinced Pennsylvanians that you're the "tough" one.

Obviously, Barack Obama didn't do everything right. That's a whole different story for a different day. The fact of the matter is that Clinton did better. The proof is in the pudding. Scoreboard. 10 point lead.

If we wanted to select Presidents based on their ability to run tenacious long-shot campaigns... If we wanted to choose leaders based on their ability to execute old school politics like true professionals... If we wanted to honor those who are really good at playing the game... Well, it that's what we wanted I think Hillary Clinton has made a very strong case for herself since Super Tuesday.

Personally, I have higher aspirations. That's why I won't pull a lever labeled Monster. Obviously, others don't feel that way. I truly believe I'm right and they're wrong, but what the hell... Today, let the fans of Hillary rejoice.


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

I'll have the waffles and a side order of stupid, please... Barack Obama eats breakfast--madness ensues...

Short recap of the oft-repeated tale:

Barack Obama went to a diner. He kissed babies, shook hands and ordered breakfast. He started eating. A reporter asked him a question. He said "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

This is not news. It is not interesting. It is a politician eating breakfast. One can't peer deep into his soul based on his response. One can't reasonably extrapolate anything about his overall willingness to engage the press based on his desire to eat his fucking waffle at that given moment. One can't maintain, with a straight face, that the question was so challenging that Obama had no choice but to hide behind his waffle.

It is not evidence of a trend. It is not proof of a character flaw. Not all breakfasts are moments of great significance.

The dude was eating and didn't really want to answer a question. The end.

You would think that in a relatively educated and literate nation such as our own, that a guy eating a waffle on a campaign stop wouldn't engender a great deal of interest.

You would think that we'd be smart enough to realize that any one of a million different things is probably more important than a dude eating a motherfucking waffle.

We are not.

We, or at least some of us, really do appear to be that stupid. Folks are analyzing Barack Obama's waffle incident. They are talking about the ramifications of Wafflegate. Some are interpreting it as evidence of bigger things. They are casting it as a piece in a puzzle they've already solved.

Rooty tooty, fresh and fruity. Barack Obama's desire to eat a little waffle is news.

One of the most common strategies for issue-fying the waffle is to point out that Obama is ducking questions not only at breakfast, but all the time. After all, he hasn't made himself available to press for 10 whole days. Wafflegate is proof that he's hiding, people argue.

Of course, he's also spent the last 10 days working his ass of all over Pennsylvania, which cuts into available chit-chat time.

Oh, and there's also the oft-forgotten fact that he HAS made himself available to the media. In fact, he's given DOZENS of interviews in the past ten days. He's been sitting down with local PA papers and media outlets instead of jabbering with the national press. Why? My guess is that the Obama campaign thinks they'll get better Pennsylvania mileage out of Pennsylvania media than by screwing around with the nationals. They might be wrong about that, but it's a mighty stretch to claim he's completely inaccessible.

Let's look at this way. Angelina Jolie's breasts are inaccessible to me. So are her buttocks. She won't give me access. If I ran into her at IHOP and asked her to allow me to caress her breasts and buttocks, she might politely rebuke me, asking why she can't just eat her waffle. On the other hand, if I were Brad Pitt and the two of us were home alone, I'd stand a good chance of spending the night going to town on Angelina. My point: access is all about who you are and where you are.

Anyone who is currently pretending the waffle incident matters should immediately screw his or her fucking head on straight, apologize to every single person they've insulted by pretending this story is meaningful and then place their hand in a hot waffle iron for 30 seconds.

That includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Jeralyn at TalkLeft calls it a "waffle controversy" and claims that the breakfast tale is a big deal because Obama doesn't give reporters a lot of access. That might be because they're a bunch of assholes who won't let a guy eat a waffle, huh?

Delilah Boyd wonders what kind of candidate would "pitch a hissy fit" over a question right before a primary? I wonder what kind of blogger would pitch a hissy fit over the guy wanting to eat his waffle and who'd give him a "waffler of the year award".

Don Singleton hints that Obama might have wanted to eat his breakfast because the question was just too tough. Maybe it wasn't hunger, but an inability to answer. Considering the question was about Jimmy Carter's sit-down with Hamas and the fact that Obama has remarked on the matter and is fully aware of it, that seems unlikely. Nice try, Don. Go eat your waffle.

Liberal Rapture calls Obama a man-child and argues that one must make a choice between waffles and running for office. Here's an idea... Maybe a guy could eat a waffle, wipe the syrup from the corner of his mouth and then go back to campaigning. Just an idea, "numb nuts".

The Confluence asks, "Did the “bitter” gun-toting Archie Bunkers hear him whining like that?" No, they didn't. They were too busy eating their waffles, a courtesy usually extended to all at a diner.


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:

Monday, April 21, 2008

By request... Examining the wit and genius of Taylor Marsh... There isn't much of either...

This one's by request.

I wrote a miniature biography of "talk radio host" (cue uproarious laughter) Taylor Marsh. Later, I resonded to her bullshit implications that I'm a "hate diarist" and a "gnat" who's "plumbing" her past as part of anti-Hillary McCarthyism. I suffered through Taylor Marsh's self-published vanity project of a "book" and offered a review. I became an illustrator after receiving veiled threats of future litigation because I appropriated her Glamour Shot-like photos.

I advised people to counteract her attempt to break out of the vanity radio box when she begged her zombie nation of commenters to contact Air America and XM Radio on her behalf. I've mentioned the fact that her blog and her childlike analysis are symptomatic of the worst kind of disease riddling our body politic.

Every time I discuss former Queen of the Personal Ads, at least a handful of her readers complain that I'm just hatin'. They say that my criticisms of the beauty-queen-turned-podcaster are nothing more than ad hominen attacks. Well, they don't really say that because the closest they get to Latin is when one of them identifies the local GED testing center as an alma mater. In any case, they claim I'm all insult and no substance.

Guess what? They're almost right. I haven't spent a lot of time pinpointing justifications for my position that Taylor Marsh is a substandard punditry. I sort of assumed it was obvious, I guess. Apparently, though, it isn't clear to everyone just how hackerific her ramblings really are. So, I'm going to take one recent post from Marsh and comment on it.

I doubt any of the Marshzombies will suddenly change their minds about Taylor after reading this. And I do understand the whole "why waste your time?" thing. Marsh backers sometimes seem more like followers of Marshall Applewhite than the former Michelle Marshall. I'm no Seneca, but "optimum est pati quod emendare non possis" is reasonably persuasive. Nonetheless, they did ask for it. It's the least I can do. Who knows, it might be fun, too. Oh, and I did the Latin thing just to be obnoxious.

I didn't feel a need to cherry pick the most idiotic possible post to review. I wanted to keep it fair. I picked a number between 1 and 10 and then cruised on over to Taylor Marsh's site. I designated the top post as "1" and counted along until I hit my magic number, "3". Red meat, kids. Red meat.

Headline: Obama Blows Democratic Party's McSame Strategy

This is rich. In case you haven't read this Marshit, I'll give you a handy dandy summary before working through it in greater detail:

Democrats should be pissed off at Barry Obama because he said that each of the three remaining candidates would be a better option than George W. Bush. Taylor believes that the big Democratic strategy for November hinges upon painting McCain as a Bush clone. Thus, mentioning that McCain may be a little less fucked in the head than George W. is a strategic error of the highest order.

No, seriously. That's the argument. Wow! I knew this would be easy, but this is almost TOO easy, don't you think? Let's take a closer look at the wit and wisdom of the blogosphere's favorite vanity author and purchaser of AM radio time, shall we?

Originally, I thought about doing a line-by-line dissection. I realized that was going to be a little too time-consuming. Plus, I'd hate to have Marsh get all worked up about having the full text of her goofery republished elsewhere. So, I invite you to read her whole crazy post on your own. Here are a few of the many reasons her post is weaker than 3.2 beer at the ballpark:


Marsh's argument relies on the presupposition that the "McSame" strategy is a good one. If you don't first accept the premise that comparing Bush to McCain is a winning plan, there's absolutely no reason to get hacked at Barry for saying that McCain might not be quite as bad as W.

As it turns out, there is reason to doubt that linking McCain to Bush might not be the most ingenious vote-gathering ploy in history.

First, it's going to be a tougher sell than people might think. Although the video from the DNC does a cute job of painting John and George as lovers, there are substantive disagreements between the two guys. McCain has made a point of reminding people of this differences, too. Now, you could argue that McCain's distancing efforts aren't compelling, but it isn't too hard to imagine him avoiding the Bush albatross around his neck--especially when Bushies are constantly criticizing him as being out of lockstep with the conservative march.

Second, it's not clear that linking Bush and McCain will actually result in a win. No matter how much we all might believe that W. is a complete failure of a President, the guy has demonstrated an ability to hang in there. He wasn't all that hip when he personally beat Kerry. It's not a certainty that Bush would be an anchor if tied to McCain. It might even help him get a little bit of that currently up-in-the-air conservative support.

Third, it's not really all that honest. McCain and Bush do hold similar perspectives on some very important issues. They are not long last fraternal twin brothers, though. Yes, McCain has flipped a little toward the Bush side on a handful of popular conservative issues. However, I don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that a McCain White House would be a twin of a Bush White House.

Fourth, even if it is a winning plan, it isn't the only winning plan. There's no reason to assume that undermining the McSame strategy spells inevitable Democratic doom.

That's the first error in Marsh's post. She assumes the "paint 'em with the same brush" is a sure thing winner. It isn't. Even IF you believe it is, however, her argument is still faulty.


If you DO think that pairing McCain and Bush is a fine plan, there's no reason to go nutty over the fact that Obama said McCain would do a better job as POTUS than GWB. Saying someone would do a better job than George Bush sets the bar very low. My dead uncle would probably do a better job than George BUsh, even though he's been buried for ten years. Your dog has a 50/50 chance of fucking up things less than George Bush. We could elect a former porn site editor with delusions of grandeur into the White House and she'd poll with higher approval numbers than GWB.

Saying that McCain is better than bush is like saying it might be marginally better to have someone kick the shit out of you for an hour than it would be to have them stab you seven times in the midsection with a rusty chef's knife. It isn't a compliment of great significance. "Hey, John McCain, I think you'd be a better President than randomly selected drunken hobo with a schizophrenic disorder." Wow, I'm sure he'll take that compliment with a smile, right?

It's not necessary to completely demonize John McCain to criticize him effectively. There are plenty of things not to like about John McCain. If you believe that Bush and McCain are political twins, you can still make that argument without refusing to recognize that Johnny Mac might be a little better than George W.

Those, like Marsh, who get indignant and offended by a willingness on Obama's part to admit that McCain is not the bastard son of Hitler and Ilse Koch, bother me. It's as if they fear any insertion of reason and perspective into politics will somehow render their candidates and messages impotent. I don't think that's the case and I tend to believe that the instinctive desire to portray political rivals as the embodiment of pure evil is one reason why voter apathy is so high. Instead of turning down the bullshit heat as a way of inviting people back to the political table, the kneejerks believe that cranking the burner up to "high" will somehow attract a crowd.


According to Taylor Marsh, we need Obama mentioning that anyone would do better than George Bush as much as we do a "whole [sic] in the head". Apparently, we should avoid the truth if it might hurt a little bit. Anything to win, right Monster fans?

Look, McCain would be a better President than George Bush. A LOLCat would be a better President than George Bush. It's okay to know that. It's okay to say that.

There is a reason why McCain draws a relatively high level of Independent support compared to most Republicans. There is a reason McCain is often considered a moderate Republican. It's because he's not as fucked up as Gorgeous George. No, I'm not campaigning for Johnny Mac here. I'm just willing to admit that he is less of a buffoon that Bush. Why am I comfortable saying that? Uh, because it's true.

And even if you don't think there's a beam of daylight between Dubya and John, it seems very unlikely that McCain could duplicate the fuckuppery of the Bush Administration even if he tried. Assembling a cast of dimwits (Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.) requires a perfect storm of bad luck and weak decision making. It's a one-of-a-kind freakshow of idiocy.

Marsh is basically arguing that it's more important to keep a questionable strategy intact for November than it is to let a little honesty slip into our political discourse. That's a reprehensible position to take. Even those who do see two peas in a pod when they look at Bush and McCain know, deep in their hearts, that Johnny is a slightly better guy than John.

Don't believe me? Ask Taylor's fan club. Her commenters are always jabbering about how they'll vote McCain if things don't break their way. Unless these "Democrats" are willing to sign up for a so-called Bush third term, they recognize that McCain isn't THAT bad. Either that, or they are just so anti-Obama that they've lost all control over their faculties. I suppose it's probably the second option, so I'll just leave it at that.

I simply can't understand why someone would argue that it's better to tell a lie or to commit a lie of omission than it is to be honest. I can't understand why anyone would value ends over means in that way when our current messes can so often be traced back to an unwillingness to confront issues, people and ideas in a way that keeps our intellectual credibility intact. That's the Marsh argument, though. Demonize McCain like crazy, even if you have to sidestep the truth, because it's a "winning strategy". Who else feels nauseated by this Monster-like thinking?


There's another reason Marsh's goofball missive is startling. It is wildly hypocritical. Follow along with me here, kids...

Marsh is willing to roast Barry O. because he won't play along with what she perceives as being the DNC's plan. You gotta be on the same page with the party to keep McCain out of the White House. Yet Marsh has no problem whatsoever with Clinton's past intimations that McCain would be a better President (or at least a more qualified President) than Barack Obama. In Taylor's world, it's okey dokey to slice the neck of one of your own party's most significant figures but it's not okay to deviate from the DNC anti-Republican plan.

You can fuck each other over with hot pokers, Barry and Hillary. That's consistent with party loyalty standards. Just don't admit that McCain might not be as bad as Bush. THAT is unacceptable. That seems to be the wildly hypocritical loyalty argument she's making.


Coming down on Obama for saying that McCain isn't as putrid as Bush completely ignores past statements made by Hillary Clinton, who comes out smelling like a rose in the Marsh post. Taylor arguest that Clinton's past comments about McCain only say that he'd be a formidable opponent--not that he'd be better than George Bush. That's enough of a difference for her to attack Barack and to lovingly caress the snakes that make up Monster's hair. It's also bullshit.

Clinton has told the world that McCain has crossed the Commander in Chief threshhold. She's consistently tried to portray herself and John McCain as the two legitimate contenders while Barack is, in her view, a guy who once gave a speech. The combined weight of Hillary's comments about John McCain indicate that she knows he's not a complete fuck up ala George W. Bush.

To pretend as though her past remarks and Bill's infamous "two people who love this country" crap, and assorted other examples of her campaign indicating that John McCain is not a slobbering piece of shit are somehow less at odds with the McSame strategy is the worst kind of bullshit cherry picking.

Hillary Clinton has had some halfway decent things to say about McCain while, sometimes in the same speeches, lambasting Bush. There's a reason why that happens. McCain isn't as bad as Bush. He might be bad, but he's not as bad. Everyone with a brain knows that. Too pretend as though it must be kept a secret is silliness. Pretending as if Hillary has somehow worked diligently to protect the party strategy by not clearly stating "McCain may be slightly less damaging than our current putz" is ignorant in the truest sense of the word.


The McSame post is all about the way Obama is hosing the Dems by not hating on McCain strongly enough. Although Marsh lays out this childlike argument with her usual level of acumen (not a compliment), she glosses over Obama's actual remarks. Oh, she provides them, but she only plays with the part she likes. Here's what Barry said:

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

She's obsessed with those last eleven words. Oh, by the way, those eleven words were just about the only part of Obama's presentation that had anything to do with drawing a comparison between McCain and Bush. He didn't expound upon this notion that McCain was better than Dubya for hours and hours. We're talking about eleven words. Oh, and those eleven words came right after eight words that actually DO put the comment into perspective.

"Either Democrat would be better than John McCain."

Yeah, it really sounds like Barry wants a job on the Straight Talk Express, doesn't it? He didn't give a pro-McCain speech. He gave a pro-Obama speech, which is what you'd expect from a guy who's campaigning. He was nice enough, however, to give Hillary a little thumbs up, though. I think that's sort of nice to him considering that Hillary's fucked up rant about the dreaded eleven words were nothing more than a double-barrelled attack on Barack and John McCain.

Obama: "Either Democrat would be better than John McCain."

Monster (after criticizing McCain): "We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."

Who's "on the same page" with the Democratic party again, Taylor?

And who really thinks it's a good idea to get so worked up over a single sentence in a longer speech that isn't inaccurate or dishonest? Is that really the kind of politics we want?

It is in Taylor's marsh, I guess.

Me? I'm looking for something a little better. And something that makes a little more sense.


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:

Friday, April 18, 2008

Hillary Clinton, meet karma... It's a bitch (too)...

Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna knock you right on the head,
You better get yourself together,
Pretty soon you're gonna be --

Whoops, Monster, it's already here.

Bad idea: Running around attacking your opponent for a whiny attitude and elitism right before you get busted making excuses for losses and claiming that a core part of your party's support comes from crazed activists who don't represent your old-school approach.

Worse idea: Coming right out and saying that a huge bloc of your party consists of crazy thugs who overrun caucuses and intimidate people.

Even worse idea: Fibbing about that bloc's positions on major issues and contradicting your earlier statements to said organization when it happens to have a rocket-fast response rate and the ability to contact membership via emails, etc. within seconds. The part about betraying your own "back in the day" stuff isn't too bright, either.

Worst idea: When that organization you're bitching about started as a means of saving your husband's political viability (and, thus, by extension your own).

Hillary, you can't beat the crap out of because you're losing. It isn't going to play worth a shit and it makes you look like a hopelessly outmoded old-timer who longs for the days when the fat cigar chompers made the call (curiously, they wouldn't have had room for you at the bargaining table in those smoky rooms, woman).

Please note: I'm not a kind of guy, personally. Sometimes, I think they are right on... Other times, they're way too silly. I just wanted to let you know that I'm here fighting Monster, not hacking for MO.

What in the world you thinking of,
Laughing in the face of love,
What on earth you tryin' to do,
It's up to you, yeah you.

Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna look you right in the face,
Better get yourself together darlin',
Join the human race.


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:

Barack Obama flips the monster off, they say... The bird is the word... An illustrated lesson in flipping people off...

This is what it looks like when a kid flips you off.

This is what it might look like if Jesus flipped you the bird.

This is what it looked like when Johnny Cash gave the finger.

Girls know how to flip you off.

This crazy fucker dressed up like Burger King and showed the world at least 50 different ways to give the finger.

This is what a flip off looks like.

This is what George Bush looks like when flipping someone off.

Sexy finger.

Evangeline Lily finger.

Flaming finger.

An artist's interpretation of Taylor Marsh giving someone the bird.

Again, it's so easy a baby can do it.

Jerry Lee Lewis flipping the bird... In stereo!

A drawing.

This is what flipping someone off looks like, just in case you still don't get it.

This is NOT someone flipping the bird.

No, no, no. I don't care if you're so batshit crazyblind that you still think that was Barack Obama flipping Hillary Clinton off, it didn't really happen. Look again. Not a flip off.

Two fingers. Unless you're doing a two-hander, the flip off has one finger extended.

Having an itch is not the same as calling out Monster for being a bitch. Yes, that rhymes. Again, just in case you're half as delusional as the Taylor Marsh fan club who has been pissing their Depends over this, it is not the bird. Let's compare to a real flip off one more time so you can see the difference.

Here are a list of people who are so far gone that they still don't get it. These are the freaky goofs who think Barack Obama flipped off Hillary Clinton. Sweet Baby Jesus flipping off the wise man who brought him myrrh, these people are beyond help. Know the stupid so that you don't accidentally take them seriously at some point in the future.

Garlin Guage wonders if Obama "overplayed his hand". I wonder if Garlin knows he's a dipshit?

The Tribunal Blog says it was "intentional" and draws a parallel with Obama's perspective on small town hicks. I say The Tribunal Blog is not rad, hip, cool or awsome [sic].

Strategic Geography thinks Barry was giving the bird because "it is such an amorphous, non-committal, unmanly flip off, just like everything else in his campaign". StratGeo not only opines about that which is manly, he also writes a lot about Andrew Sullivan. Just sayin'...

Radical Left is disturbed by Obama's fingers(s), citing it as "another example of his demeaning attitude toward Clinton and women in general". Me? I'm disturbed at the idea that blind Max Blunt might have a driver's license.

NoQuarter jumped to attack Obama, saying that flip off "is undeniable — I have asked several people to confirm — that he indeed did give Hillary the finger, and it’s clear from the audience reaction that he did so." That's what happens when you seek confirmation from the mentally ill, though.

Theodore's World studied Obama's hand movements and concluded that "he uses his index finger constantly not his middle finger , so this made it even more obvious when he did this". Bonus points for Teddy Whiz Kid, who also busted out the tried and true "B. Hussein Obama" in his asshattish little blogospheric contribution.

There are many others, but I want to mention just one more... The inimitable Ms. Taylor Marsh. She says it was "unmistakable". Unmistakable. God have mercy on her fucked up soul.

This is for all of them...


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags: