I don’t really know how the pool report is supposed to work. But when the First Lady came to town, I asked if I could go. But they weren’t letting reporters, or whatever I am, in. But they were gracious enough to let me have a copy of the pool report. For the most part, it was a fine recap, but it starts out oddly snarky.
She delivered a very similar speech to the one she gave in August at the Democratic National Convention. In fact, there was nothing new.
She started by sharing a “little secret” that she has shared many times before: that she fell in love with her husband because of his character.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see that sort of thing in the papers. But does complaining that it’s the same as the speech at the DNC or saying that a “little secret” has been shared before really help other reporters, and whatever I am, know what happened at the event?
Where’s the odd snarkiness?
Wasn’t the DNC in September and not August? Really, how much has changed since then (other than a pretty full acknowledgement that, yes, Obama’s State Department put Americans at full risk on 9/11 in the middle of Jihadistan, then were surprised that Al Queda attacked us)?
It looks like a boring report from someone required to put something onto paper about a nonevent.
I read boredom, not odd snark. Yawn.
Hey Carl, when are you going to figure out you are nothing more than a useful idiot for the biggest douchebags to ever occupy the White House?
Obama even got bitchslapped by AARP for using them in his lying scams.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....ng-debate/
Jerry @ 2,
“Hey Carl, when are you going to figure out you are nothing more than a useful idiot for the biggest douchebags to ever occupy the White House?”
(*snicker*)…Says the stooge who cites a FAUX News report that shamelessly misrepresents an AARP statement!
Dude…you just made yourself the poster child for the term “useful idiot”!
From the AARP Statement–
Obama used AARP in his speech and got bitchslapped for it.
I opened my mail last night to find an AARP card.
Goddammit.
the biggest douchebags to ever occupy the White House
Here‘s a list of Presidents who owned slaves. One of them later joined the government of a treasonous conspiracy against the United States. Several committed atrocities against the native people. Most presidents are douche bags on some things, but you really can’t compare the Obamas to that personally or on policy. If you’re going to insult me, I wish you’d at least try to be aware of the existence of history.
Jerry @ 4,
“Obama used AARP in his speech and got bitchslapped for it.”
No…actually he did not. You completely misunderstand the AARP statement, because of the misleading headline in the FAUX News article, “AARP objects to Obama invoking group’s support during debate”
AARP did not object to Obama invoking support for the group. If you read the ENTIRE memo, they were clearly trying to point out that they are non-partisan. Pointing out that they “never consented to the use of its name” is not an objection. It is a clarification that no candidate or campaign speaks for them. Period.
You’ve been snookered by FAUX News. Lay off the wingding media, dude. It make you fucking stooopid!
6. Carl spews:
the biggest douchebags to ever occupy the White House
Obama has created slaves out of millions in the form of government dependency. If you don’t think not having a job and fixating on handouts isn’t slavery, you are out to lunch!
Darryl says
Huh? Why in the world would AARP issue this memo with the clear language
Of course that’s an objection. If AARP didn’t object, they would have ignored Obama’s comments. They didn’t. AARP bitchslapped Obama..pure and simple.
Jerry,
“Huh? Why in the world would AARP issue this memo with the clear language”
As I tried explaining to you once already, if you read the entire memo, it is pretty clear. The AARP released the memo to make it crystal clear that, despite one of their past positions (support for the PPACA), they are strictly non-partisan when it comes to campaigns or politicians.
One reason for the clarification is that one of their arms would lose its non profit status if they were to engage in support for or against a candidate.
Nowhere does the statement actually condemn either candidate. Literally, the sentence you’ve copied points out that the campaigns have a right to use their name in non-libelous discussion (same as you and I have in this discussion), they just wanted to distance themselves from any perception of partisan participation.
You were simply hoodwinked into believing there was condemnation because, like a fucking idiot, you actually trusted FAUX News.
Try to avoid being an idiot in the future.
Jerry,
“Obama has created slaves out of millions in the form of government dependency.”
Um…this goes beyond retarded. The social safety net that is part of what makes this a great nation, in fact, prevents ACTUAL slavery, abject poverty, hunger, misery.
Oh…and Obama most certainly did not create that unemployment. We have the GW Bush administration to thank for the economic cluster fuck that began in 2007.
“If you don’t think not having a job and fixating on handouts isn’t slavery, you are out to lunch!”
Brainwashed much? While your angry white male Teabagger talking point may be good for convincing other angry white male teabaggers to get out the pitchforks and torches, your characterization of the unemployed is made-up bullshit.
Try, just try, to THINK without your right-wing-ding talk radio/TV talking points.
Seriously…it’ll make you a better person.