A black man being called a racist? Now I have heard it all. This comic, like all of Tom Tomorrow's, hits the nail on the head. While not covered here, the Clinton team's suggestion that Hillary should get the nomination because she has won more "big" states reflects the "old" politics her staff knows. We have had enough of candidates who are slaves of the tired swing state theory. We have had candidates who carried Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, California and little else while the Republicans mop up in the midwest, mountain west and the south. Obama can win in all 50 state and, if given the time, will RUN in all 50 states. That's his strategy.
Posted on April 4, 2008 8:21 PM
AJ
:
So then why hasn't Obama won California, Ohio, Texas etc? And why is it predicted he will lose in Pennsylvania. And as far as being this great uniter the republicans hate him just as much as Hillary - even more it seems as he's a liberal purist. And as far as race goes all I've ever heard is that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is racist. Which is hogwash and people know it too. Playing the race card is what Obama does best. I don't want to vote for someone who's inexperienced so I must be racist.
Posted on April 4, 2008 8:37 PM
Magic Pony
:
Why can't we all just love one another?
I'm a little worried about that meteor though...I hope it doesn't hit my super delegate's house.
Posted on April 5, 2008 9:12 AM
Aguila Del Norte
:
When has Obama played the race card? Was it when he compared his campaign in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in 1988? No, wait, that was Bill Clinton who said that! Obama has extended the olive branch, he has worked (even before this campaign) to bring people together.
The real issue is that neither candidate is going to do anything substantive about the Iraq war, or corporate domination of U.S. foreign policy (never mind electoral policies) or U.S. healthcare, or the misguided sense of American exceptionalism that somehow gives us the 'right' to attack people in their own countries regardless of their government's desires or the state of our diplomatic relations with them, neither is going to substantively address our progressive slide toward theocracy
The so-called "issues" you're spending your energy arguing about are non-issues inflated to make it appear there's a difference between two candidates (actually all three) when, in reality, they're as alike as peas in a pod.
The plutocracy selected them by marginalizing those who actually stood for a change.
Better wake up and smell the coffee!
Posted on April 6, 2008 7:13 AM
CK Dexter
:
Yes, wake up and smell the coffee indeed! Nothing smells as delicious as fatalistic cynicism! Everything's the same! Bush is no worse than any other president in history! Might as well elect Cheney--no better, no worse!
Everyone to hell in a handbasket while I self-righteously say "Neener!"
Good plan, dude.
Posted on April 6, 2008 10:33 AM
beezley
:
"A black man being called a racist? Now I have heard it all."
Does this mean that you actually think that blacks cannot be racists? If so, I didn't think it possible, but you're more delusional than Tom Tomorrow (though for this particular strip, magic ponies must not have joined him for breakfast... it's pretty non-deulsional)
"... our progressive slide toward theocracy"
What on earth is this about? Are you saying that secular humanism has finally achieved its well-deserved "religion" status and its political leaders will soon be recognized as the popes and grand poobahs that they really are? All hail the State, the one true god!
While you may see yelling "the King has no clothes" as "fatalistic cynicism", I see the tendency of people to project their wishes & hopes onto another person (i.e.: "Obama [or Clinton] will bring the troops home from Iraq") regardless of the stated positions those people have voiced as delusional behavior that inevitably leads either to more profound self-delusion ("Bush is a great President who's protected us from the evil hoards of Islamofascism") or to a profound sense of betrayal (a form of denial since the object - Obama or Clinton - had made their positions perfectly clear, it was the the listener who chose to hear what was not said).
It's an interesting characteristic, usually embraced by the right-wing, to label an honest appraisal of a bad situation as something akin to "fatalistic cynicism".
So, OK Dexter, what's your plan beyond "well, let's see how they do once they're in office"?
Posted on April 9, 2008 5:52 PM
maxter99
:
Whew. This Tom Tomorrow comic is so funny my eyes are watering, and I am choking on my own upchuck (aka vomit).
Really.
Well not really.
Tom Tomorrow. You need a show in Vegas dude.
I mean it.
Hilarious but true.
But I am not sure about CREDO.
Too much hiding of content, passwords, secret codes, etc.
I know its for your protection from the malevolent world of hackers.
But....
Perhaps it was better the old way. If I can only remember what the old way was.
mickster
Posted on April 21, 2008 12:47 AM
jmcgee2
:
Hi Credo (and Tom)!
Another non-republican-voting liberal here who likes what you do... A liberal who tries to be mindful of others -- even those I do not agree with.
Your organization should watch your words (Re: The Clinton Strategy -- a slam-at-Hilary comic by Tom Tomorrow posted on your site). In all this hot debate on discrimination issues, which is potentially dividing the democrats and other liberal-minded voters, I notice very little mention in the media (including you), if any, on AGE discrimination when it comes to describing McCain.
The grandpa comments may be offensive to some, as they should, and I would recommend taking that comic down or at least adding a disclaimer... as long as it's NOT, "Hey, we like old people -- no really! They're just not sharp enough to run for office." Certainly you don't mean it that way, but there is room for implication. Remember, it won't be long and we'll all be McCain's age -- hopefully well-seasoned liberals by that time, right?!
What would you say if some right-winger posted "tongue-in-cheek" comments on their site about the color of Obama's skin or the gender of Hilary? My guess is that you'd be slobbering all over yourself to start raising a fuss!
In addition, I've noticed McCain stepping up and denouncing those in his own party for certain questionable/offensive comments on Obama (most recently the ads in North Carolina). Still the "pappaw slurs" keep coming. Where's the love, people?
Practice what you preach and keep it positive as not to leave open opportunities for nay-sayers to discredit your good efforts and achievements. Agreed?
Discussion
And Obama,s strategy? Race, race, RACE!!!
A black man being called a racist? Now I have heard it all. This comic, like all of Tom Tomorrow's, hits the nail on the head. While not covered here, the Clinton team's suggestion that Hillary should get the nomination because she has won more "big" states reflects the "old" politics her staff knows. We have had enough of candidates who are slaves of the tired swing state theory. We have had candidates who carried Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, California and little else while the Republicans mop up in the midwest, mountain west and the south. Obama can win in all 50 state and, if given the time, will RUN in all 50 states. That's his strategy.
So then why hasn't Obama won California, Ohio, Texas etc? And why is it predicted he will lose in Pennsylvania. And as far as being this great uniter the republicans hate him just as much as Hillary - even more it seems as he's a liberal purist. And as far as race goes all I've ever heard is that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is racist. Which is hogwash and people know it too. Playing the race card is what Obama does best. I don't want to vote for someone who's inexperienced so I must be racist.
Why can't we all just love one another?
I'm a little worried about that meteor though...I hope it doesn't hit my super delegate's house.
When has Obama played the race card? Was it when he compared his campaign in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in 1988? No, wait, that was Bill Clinton who said that! Obama has extended the olive branch, he has worked (even before this campaign) to bring people together.
This article should be required reading:
http://www.alternet.org/election08/81140/
If Obama is bringing people together then why, as democrats anyway, are we fighting more then ever?
You're all arguing over trivia!
The real issue is that neither candidate is going to do anything substantive about the Iraq war, or corporate domination of U.S. foreign policy (never mind electoral policies) or U.S. healthcare, or the misguided sense of American exceptionalism that somehow gives us the 'right' to attack people in their own countries regardless of their government's desires or the state of our diplomatic relations with them, neither is going to substantively address our progressive slide toward theocracy
The so-called "issues" you're spending your energy arguing about are non-issues inflated to make it appear there's a difference between two candidates (actually all three) when, in reality, they're as alike as peas in a pod.
The plutocracy selected them by marginalizing those who actually stood for a change.
Better wake up and smell the coffee!
Yes, wake up and smell the coffee indeed! Nothing smells as delicious as fatalistic cynicism! Everything's the same! Bush is no worse than any other president in history! Might as well elect Cheney--no better, no worse!
Everyone to hell in a handbasket while I self-righteously say "Neener!"
Good plan, dude.
"A black man being called a racist? Now I have heard it all."
Does this mean that you actually think that blacks cannot be racists? If so, I didn't think it possible, but you're more delusional than Tom Tomorrow (though for this particular strip, magic ponies must not have joined him for breakfast... it's pretty non-deulsional)
"... our progressive slide toward theocracy"
What on earth is this about? Are you saying that secular humanism has finally achieved its well-deserved "religion" status and its political leaders will soon be recognized as the popes and grand poobahs that they really are? All hail the State, the one true god!
CK Dexter;
While you may see yelling "the King has no clothes" as "fatalistic cynicism", I see the tendency of people to project their wishes & hopes onto another person (i.e.: "Obama [or Clinton] will bring the troops home from Iraq") regardless of the stated positions those people have voiced as delusional behavior that inevitably leads either to more profound self-delusion ("Bush is a great President who's protected us from the evil hoards of Islamofascism") or to a profound sense of betrayal (a form of denial since the object - Obama or Clinton - had made their positions perfectly clear, it was the the listener who chose to hear what was not said).
It's an interesting characteristic, usually embraced by the right-wing, to label an honest appraisal of a bad situation as something akin to "fatalistic cynicism".
So, OK Dexter, what's your plan beyond "well, let's see how they do once they're in office"?
Whew. This Tom Tomorrow comic is so funny my eyes are watering, and I am choking on my own upchuck (aka vomit).
Really.
Well not really.
Tom Tomorrow. You need a show in Vegas dude.
I mean it.
Hilarious but true.
But I am not sure about CREDO.
Too much hiding of content, passwords, secret codes, etc.
I know its for your protection from the malevolent world of hackers.
But....
Perhaps it was better the old way. If I can only remember what the old way was.
mickster
Hi Credo (and Tom)!
Another non-republican-voting liberal here who likes what you do... A liberal who tries to be mindful of others -- even those I do not agree with.
Your organization should watch your words (Re: The Clinton Strategy -- a slam-at-Hilary comic by Tom Tomorrow posted on your site). In all this hot debate on discrimination issues, which is potentially dividing the democrats and other liberal-minded voters, I notice very little mention in the media (including you), if any, on AGE discrimination when it comes to describing McCain.
The grandpa comments may be offensive to some, as they should, and I would recommend taking that comic down or at least adding a disclaimer... as long as it's NOT, "Hey, we like old people -- no really! They're just not sharp enough to run for office." Certainly you don't mean it that way, but there is room for implication. Remember, it won't be long and we'll all be McCain's age -- hopefully well-seasoned liberals by that time, right?!
What would you say if some right-winger posted "tongue-in-cheek" comments on their site about the color of Obama's skin or the gender of Hilary? My guess is that you'd be slobbering all over yourself to start raising a fuss!
In addition, I've noticed McCain stepping up and denouncing those in his own party for certain questionable/offensive comments on Obama (most recently the ads in North Carolina). Still the "pappaw slurs" keep coming. Where's the love, people?
Practice what you preach and keep it positive as not to leave open opportunities for nay-sayers to discredit your good efforts and achievements. Agreed?
Thanks,
J MM
Join the Discussion