The Hot Blog

Its OK. What's more noteworthy is the large amount of time someone was willing to commit to this vid. And if this were pro-Hillary, methinks some people would find it much less pleasurable.

mystery, never underestimate a nerd in their mom's basement with superior computer skills and no shortage of time on their hands.

The question, mystery, is what a Hillary supporter would use as the basis for a parody.

I mean, finding a Song of the South tape is really hard. The Jeffersons?

Nah. Only Clinton & her "handlers" would do that... and then explain that she only meant that we are all moving up as Americans, even if "some of us" forget what it was like to work for a living.

Maybe Jaws... with her in an Uncle Sam top hat as the girl swimming naked in the moonlight.

Or King Kong! But just that last part.

"The question, mystery, is what a Hillary supporter would use as the basis for a parody."

I don't know. My point was that, in my opinion, the video was NOT creative enough for a Hillary supporter to derive pleasure from. The kudos earned are for the enormous task of compiling and organizing that footage in a competent way. There is no doubt that Obama supporters should get a kick out of it. But the most creative part of the of the video is the concept and title ("The Empire Strikes Barrack"... very clever).

Secondly, there is no acceptable parody. All parodies would be construed as racist, especially your Song of the South and big monkey suggestions. Those Obama press releases would write themselves.

Longish rant - a dissenting view

Seriously, people. This just makes Obama supporters (myself included) look stupid and childish. This makes Obama supporters look less like well-informed voters and more like idiotic children who like Obama because he looks and sounds swell (gosh, he's every bit as nifty as Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star!). Having said that, I wouldn't mind if it were funnier or more clever. Even as humor, it's not creative and basically is the level of parody of Date Movie or Epic Movie ('look - Obama is dressed like Luke Skywalker... that's funny!'). Senator Clinton is a rival Democratic senator who is also running for President. She is not Darth Vader. She's not evil. This is the kind of black and white thinking that got us two terms of Bush Jr (John Kerry is French! George W. Bush is a 'nice guy'). Yes, some of Clinton's campaign tactics have been less than honorable. But that's politics and she should be allowed to attack her opponent to the best of her abilities, especially if she keeps winning primaries.

Having said that, don't mistake my defense of her as approval for her strategy. Her main argument at this point is that she can successfully attack the GOP machine in November and can defend herself from like. Two problems with this - A) She has yet to really prove this, and she would be far more convincing if she had spent the last few months actually battling John McCain as opposed to her Democratic rival (Obama needs to shape up in this area too). B) This again allows the GOP to write the script. Who says that it's the GOP who gets to be on the offensive?

Who says that it's the Democrats who should be afraid of the Republicans? In this election, more so than the last two, it is the Democrats who should create the narrative. After seven years of near complete GOP control and the utter catastrophe that it has brought this nation, the Democrats have no excuse for being on the defensive. It is long past due for Democrats and progressives to reclaim the vocabulary of politics.

We can redefine patriotism as actions that better every citizen rather than empty words of admiration for an abstract. We can redefine morality, so that morality exists also in the boardroom, and the small business, and in the factories, rather than almost exclusively in the bedroom. We can expose the empty 'support the troops' slogan for what it is, as start to really fixing our broken armed forces.

We once again convince Americans that government can and should be a major force for good and for progress. But that's only if we do the job ourselves. And only if we stop seeing the other Democrat across the isle as Darth Vader. Hillary Clinton may not be your preferred Democratic candidate, but she is not your enemy.

Scott Mendelson

Scott, I'm thinking your argument shows more fear than the expression involved in this video. I see this video as a healthy projection of a hopeful story, humorously expressed.
Barrack Obama's candidacy makes me happy.
This video makes me happy.

Anybody else kind of stop for a minute when Hilary denounced "the economists?" Yes, it's a very, very distant comparison, but when the German economy began stabilizing because of the Dawes Plan and the Kellogg-whatever-it-was-called agreement with the French in the mid-twenties and economists were saying that the Republic was on the rise, Hitler very quickly denounced "all the economists." They were one of his favorite targets post-prison.

And a few years later, when the World Depression came along and destroyed the German economy all over again, he came out and said, "See?! I was right about the damn dirty economists!" and won the 1932 election (by admittedly slim margins).

Sorry, Scott. But Clinton and her people have driven more of the negativity around Obama than the right has. She has reduced the discussion to the personal and mostly irrelevant. And she has lied like a rug.

She has embodied everything that Democrats have said they hate about the Bush Administration.

She is an enemy of my ideals and my hope for a better country.

Is she a better fox to have in the hen house than McCain. Probably. I would argue, as I did at the end of the Clinton Administration, that there is a distinct element of Democrats being forced to abandon core beliefs to support The Clintons with the only alternative being Republicanism. It feels like a safe choice, but I would argue that Clinton deballed the political power of feminists, blacks, gays, leading directly to the Bush II era.

Hillary Clinton can never convince Americans that government can and should be a major force for good and for progress because this is not her priority. Being elected by any means neccessary is her motto. Moreover, she does represent the last 20 years of The Empire. And that is why this piece is especially funny to many of us.

Hey, Hillary can be funny, too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080505/tv_nm/usa_politics_letterman_dc_2

You know what I do not get is this.

All of the Obama fans now have a loathing of the Clinton's. They say they are everything horrible under the sun.

But didn't you all vote for them in 90's...twice. All of the things that people are saying about Obama now are exactly the sort of idealistic things that were being said about Clinton then.

The mantra is all the same...change...the RFK, JFK comparisons...the arts and academia endorsements...the notion that he will bring young people and a new tomorrow of hope...all was said about the Clinton's. I remember Liza Minelli on the Oscars singing "And Hillary will lead the waaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!". They were talked about like the new Camelot.

My point. If you were wrong about them then...why should we believe Obama supporters now?

At the very least should we not at least be able to question Obama's supporters judgement?

Nicol, the simple answer is: hyperbole and the heat of the moment. I voted for Obama in the primary where I live, but I would be fine with voting for Hillary Clinton in November. I think she has flaws, but she'd be better than McCain.

The second simplest answer is: things change, and Bill Clinton in 1992 was a different person than he is in 2008.

By the way, in which state are you registered to vote?

Jeff,

Are you inferring that because I reside in Canada I should not be allowed to debate these things or engage in a conversation?

Wow! Let's here it for free speech J-Mac style.

Where were you when Michael Moore came to Canada to sway our last to elections?

You mean you don't like it when Americans barge across the border telling people in other, less powerful countries what to do?

Pinko.

Seriously, though, at least these days you actually are willing to admit that you are in Canada. Next step: admitting you're Canadian.

I couldn't vote in the '90s Nicol. I was 17 when Clinton won his second term. Plus, I only really started to follow politics closely when I was in college, in the late '90s.

I have to say Nicol, it is hard to take your political musings seriously after stating that you learned of a supposed left-wing bias in the American media via unnamed reports and documents. If, however, you can provide me with a single compelling reason to vote for McCain, I will gladly listen.

Little known fact: "infer" and "imply" have the opposite meanings North of the border.

Clinton ain't the devil and Obama ain't your savior. Both are phenomenomally talented politicians either of which I'll be proud to vote for come November. Would love to have them together on the ticket, regardless of whose on top.

David, some of your comments on Clinton are approaching the ridiculous. Song of the South? You should be ashamed of yourself for that one...

To hint, imply, or suggest is one of the definitions of "to infer." The distinction between imply and infer is a usage practice, and not one that derives from the definitions of the words. Infer has been used in both senses since the early sixteenth century. The distinction is a creation of the twentieth.

So what you're implying is, Nicol is a refugee from the 16th century?

Or that people who insist on criticizing people for improperly treating them as synonyms without knowing the history of the words are exactly the kind of clueless elitists who supposedly are Obama's chief supporters. Take your pick.

Occam and his razor disagree with you.

You didn't think I was being serious about that last one, did you?

But if you're bringing up Occam, what does that make you, a refugee from the fourteenth century?

I did think that last post was written a little too breathlessly to be taken for reals.

But yeah, maybe I am from the 14th century...IN THE FUTURE!

By the way, Nicol: I was teasing you earlier, because obviously (I hope) I don't want you to be stifled, and because I'm sure you're more educated about current events than half the American electorate.
That said, I hope you can understand that it's a little galling for a non-American to lecture us about who we should or shouldn't trust or vote for. Especially because, educated or not, there's a certain perspective that you're lacking.
No hard feelings, I hope, or at least no harder than usual.

I VOTED IN 1992 AND 1996.

SINCE THEN I HAVEN'T GIVEN A SHIT.

BUT I'D FUCK-SURE VOTE IF TOMMY LEE, FRED DURST, PARIS HILTON, OR TOM SIZEMORE RAN FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY RULE DICK.

Yeah, the Tom Sizemore and Axel Rose ticket. "You know our wives won't use us on the campaign trail in 8 years!"

"She is an enemy of my ideals and my hope for a better country."

Yes, thank God the Obamatons will bring us hope and unity. OBEY. OBEY...

Nicol D has a point. The Clintons have not changed-- they just swivelled the turret. And the Clintons were deified in the ways Nicol described (but not in exactly the same ways Obama is being deified). New Camelot, Man from Hope, etc, etc.

Yeah, there's a nugget of truth in there, it just happens to be wrapped by a bitter chocolate "Another reason why Liberals are Wrong" coating.

HILLARY INDIANA SON.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: