The McGovernization of Obama ! ! ! ! ! !

[UALRBSofL]

"they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

3. “They cling to guns or religion”. This is revealing for two reasons: one, Obama has been trying to finesse his position on guns to appeal precisely to gun owners and thus we start to see that his repositioning is cynical to the core; two, “cling to religion?” No rural Pennsylvanian clings to religion more than Obama himself, who for 20 years sat silent in the pews, while a hate-spewing minister damned his country and most everyone else. The question is not why Pennsylvanians “cling to their religion”, but why do the Obamas still cling to the Trinity Church that seems far more extreme than anything I’ve seen in rural America.

4. “antipathy to people who aren't like them”—as in the case of Rev. Wright’s views of Jews, whites, Italians, or Americans in general? In short, Obama accuses rural Pennsylvanians of a racism that they haven’t expressed while contextualizing the racism that his own Rev. Wright has.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Y3MmU4OTViZjQ5YTA5ZGUzZjhiOWJhYTIzMGM2ZTE=

[GarbagemanLB]

1. National review? Are you a freeper?

[DJ13]

2. Clintonite, Freeper, not much difference

:shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

5. THAT's fergoddam sure.

Ya got Hillary & McCain both reading from the same faxed RNC talking points these days.

[papau]

7. As usual - DU does not respond to the substance of an Obama negative review

[GarbagemanLB]

9. I can post a fucking Hannity piece and say the same thing. The source matters, sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Don't be silly.

Shall we grab whatever drivel is at NRO about Hillary and require you offer a sensible rebuttal? Certain items should be dismissed on their face. This is one instance.

[gmudem]

16. Because it's from the National Review

Nuff said.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. National FUCKING Review?

:puke:

You should learn to use Source Watch before you post conservative bullshit....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Review

[Jackpine Radical]

4. This might worry me if I thought anyone of any significance

cared what the National Review thinks.

Instead, I think reactions like this are the gift that keeps on giving to Obama. These idiots keep giving him openings to deliver what H2O Man refers to as his counterpunch. His devastating counterpunch.

[uponit7771]

6. No one believes Obama is more elitist than Mrs 109 million-Walmart-NAFTA supporter

[Starbucks Anarchist]

8. National Review? Really?

:puke:

[Cali_Democrat]

11. ah shit

actually I shouldn't have kicked this crap. WTF was I thinking.

:-(

[A-Schwarzenegger]

12. NR?! How low into the scum can you slither?

Coming up: Mein Kampf!

[Zodiak]

13. Another fucking RW rag posted on DU by a Hillary supporter

...go fuck yourself.

[Unsane]

14. this place has gone insane

[EFerrari]

15. Nah. The eleven people who still support Hillary via posts like these

are just still :crazy:

[Zodiak]

17. I normally do not curse at other DUers

but this shit has got to stop....it amazes me that it is even tolerated.

If it is only eleven people, I support a granite cookie for the lot. This RW crap has no place on this site, and to the eyes of a long-time DUer like me, its presence is anathema to the purpose of this site.

It is ten thousands times worse than advocating for Nader on this board. At least Nader is an ostensible leftie.

[EFerrari]

18. There are a lot of Clinton supporters who don't pull this cr@p.

The few loud ones who do most of the damage aren't hard to spot and deal with through DU features.

It is sort of horrible to see all this RW propaganda posted here. :(

[Zodiak]

19. Nice understatement

"It is sort of horrible..."

It's a down-right fucking tragedy, and it undermines our community.

We need to take the trash out.

(on edit: Look at my post history...getting pissed and cursing is not what I normally do, but I have HAD IT with this crowd)