Brain likes to read the comments. He's a sensitive little guy, so please be civil.
Darn I can't seem to find the press release of my lunch (Mr. Sub) I feel it is as important as what the O had for lunch
Does anyone know the price of arugula?
I don't write for The Associated Press, I am with The Canadian Press, and I did pore over Mr. Jacobson's blog, and actually had a conversation with him. You will notice I included a quote from him in which he says it's not the choice of mustard, it's the image control.
However, you'll also notice on his blog that Mr. Jacobson went to great lengths to find other examples of Obama eating Dijon mustard, and chastising the media for not reporting on it (why would they? it's mustard) so I think he was being a bit disingenuous.
Thanks for your thoughts, however.
Oh, and one other thing ... MSNBC editing out his order to protect him is simply an ALLEGATION made by Hannity and Jacobson. If you see the original tape, the anchor and the reporter are talking at that time and you can't even hear what Obama said. That part was later cut out -- because why would they leave in audio of two people off-camera talking over each other? As someone familiar with TV, that is obviously something you'd edit out so as not to annoy viewers with the voices of two people they cannot see.
Ok Lee-Ann G tell me, why was the great O was going to a burger joint and why was the press there fawning all over him? Can you say "photo-op"? You people make me sick with all your fawning on the great one and never investigating the things of importance to the American public in regards to him. Where was he really born and why is he hiding his birth certificate? Why are a great proportion of his people tax evaders but want the small people to pay more taxes? Why on earth would a media fall all over a community organizer that has no experience in running a whole country but flay and dig into every aspect of a good woman like Sarah Palin? If you had done your job as a "reporter" and looked into obama like you did Palin there is no way that America would have voted for this anti-christ.
Wow. The "anti-Christ?" So you're insane. I hadn't realized that or I wouldn't have left a word on this blog.
But for the record, you know nothing about my politics. What does "you people" mean?
In any event, I wasn't there that day, but if it worked the way it worked when he decided to stop off at the Ottawa bakery, it was an impromptu decision, his people let the media know, gave them time to get there ahead of him, and that was that. He's the president. When you're assigned to cover him, you go wherever he goes, in case something terrible happens. It's done that way with every PM, every president -- this is not a new, Obama thing.
The "anti-Christ?" Wow.
"Why are a great proportion of his people tax evaders but want the small people to pay more taxes?"
"His people"? Who are "his people", pray tell? Hawaiians? Harvard grads? Lawyers??? Who?
Also, presidents do photo-ops all the time. Get over it.
Really, Eliza? Are we going to start talking about birth certificates and other nonsense again. I love how conservatives (not all, but many) like to go on and on about how President Obama's just not American enough. Whether it's his mustard, his birthplace, his middle name, whatever, you just can't stop going back to it. And the thing is, it makes you look ridiculous. Even if you have a valid point about a misstep on his part, you totally kill it with all this moronic, hysterical blabbering about trivial, pointless shit.
And if we really want to talk about where people are born, how they spell their names or how American they are, why aren't you going after your beloved Governator, with his heavy accent, foreign birth and consonant-laden last name?
And the shovels are out again burying anyone that disagrees with the "great O".That is how Lieberals deal with a question, start by denigrating your opponent by name calling then telling them they are insane. By the way I do not live in California.
Oh, and can I also say that you guys are TOTALLY self-projecting on this thing? I mean, you think that MSNBC "edited it out" because they thought that people would have a problem with mustard being elitist. Most people don't care about the damn mustard, and I doubt it even crossed anyone's mind at MSNBC. I mean, it's freaking Grey Poupon, not caviar--even the most working-class people have it in their fridge.
But because you guys *would* make a big deal about the mustard, you automatically assume that MSNBC edits it out.
Please note: NOT EVERYONE THINKS LIKE YOU. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU.
I know that this is hard to imagine, but contemplate it for a while.
Oh, and please note that most people don't give a shit about escarole or whatever it was that you guys were making a big deal over a little while ago.
Did anyone call you a name here? I don't believe they did. I know that Lee-Anne said that you were insane, but that's about as close as you can get. But really, when you trot out "anti-Christ" and birth certificates on the first comment, what is she supposed to think?
And it's not any worse than telling someone that they make you sick, really.
Calling someone the "anti-Christ" because you don't like his politics is, yes, insane.
George W. Bush started a war under false pretenses that has ended up killing tens of thousands of innocent people and U.S. soldiers and I have never heard any of his critics on the left call him the "anti-Christ." There might actually be basis for considering W. and Cheney to have been evil on that front, and yet you never hear it. But you guys call Obama the "anti-Christ" because you don't like his budget, his birth certificate, his middle name, his budget, his spending plans. No innocent people killed, no blood shed.
And then you wonder why people call you insane.
Oh, and one other thing: I believe the term "Lieberals" could be construed as "namecalling." Unless you just happened to mis-spell "liberals." Which I suppose is possible.
Um, I never said you live in California. I used Governor Schwarzenegger as an example because he's a high-profile Republican with many of the same traits you find so terrifying and offensive in President Obama.
And this may come as a surprise, but what kind of mustard the president uses is not actually a newsworthy story. Of course that would be edited out. As would what kind of gum he chews, what he wipes his ass with and where he gets his prescriptions filled. WHO CARES? Any news organization with a shred of journalistic skill knows trivial matters such as condiments are NOT NEWS.
Lee-anne, thank you for stopping by to share your thoughts (and thank you for correcting me on your news affiliation - my mind thought "canadian" but my fingers thought "associated" - whoops!).
Your article is still quite flawed, however, in that you made the focus of the story about how those on the right were supposedly in a tizzy over Obama eating an "un-American" mustard, when that was not the story at all.
The headline of the your article (which you may or may not have written) states "Forget the economy, the right attacks Obama on Dijon." Conservative bloggers are not attacking Obama for his choice of mustard; such a suggestion is amusing at best and downright misleading at worst. Your first paragraph, even, intimates that the right was attacking Obama. You've still got the story wrong - the target of the conservative commentators you identify was not Obama at all. Their crosshairs are painted directly on MSNBC for essentially playing press secretary for Obama (and should we be surprised? The White House has after all said that it "loves MSNBC").
They aren't mad at Obama, they're mad at the media - and that's not what you've written in your article.
- Danté
Fox News, in fact, was on him about his choice of mustard, calling it his fancy burger. So, in fact, I didn't have the story wrong. And I also mentioned in the second or third graf the alleged cover-up. I used the word "alleged" because if you'd seen the original clip, you would understand that there was no cover-up; it was impossible to even hear what he was ordering. It was live. Are we to believe the MSNBC anchor and reporter began talking over him because they SENSED he was going to order Dijon and that wouldn't go over well? Really?
The right was up in arms about a "coverup" that didn't exist. I think that spoke volumes and was worthy of a story.
Commenting by HaloScan
