I don't know what I find funnier--the quite good-natured, self-deprecatingly irreverent "endorsement", or the very serious, and very copy/pasted responses. I wonder what the contrasting tones of those different takes tell us about the emotional states of their respective authors (won't get into what the clear lack of reading comprehension tells us...)

I'd write more, but I spilled some Kool-Aid on my shirt and must retire to the restroom to clean up!

Posted at January 29, 2008 9:13 AM in response to Teddy Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Toni Morrison -- and me!

At its heart the message coming from the Obama campaign and his elite supporters in the media and the blogosphere is this; the Clintons' are using "divisive" racist tactics to appeal to their "racist" downscale white supporters, most especially working class women -- whose votes throughout this campaign have been routinely dismissed as being based in nothing more important than stupidity, sympathy, and now race.

Actually, that's not the argument at all.

The argument I've seen quite clearly different from the one you describe. For one, the tactics are clearly meant to be "divisive", but not racist, as has been clear, but racial or, the term most commonly-used, meant to be "race-baiting". There are distinctions. Clinton isn't calling Obama "lazy" or anything like that.

Rather, it seems pretty obvious that her campaign was trying to provoke a response from the Obama campaign where Obama cried "racism", which would damage his 'transcendental' brand and turn-off white voters who, while not racist, are not interested in voting for someone they view as running solely on his ethnicity or to be President of only his ethnicity.

This seems clearly not only to be the dominant "narrative" but also obviously true. See, for example, how, when Obama's campaign didn't take the bait and cry "racism" fouls, the Clintons went out of their way to charge that he did anyway. Look at their post-SC spin: he's now the "black" candidate. That's been their goal, and it doesn't assume any measure of racism about anyone.

So, the entire premise of your post is bunk.

Posted at January 29, 2008 8:52 AM in response to Teddy Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Toni Morrison -- and me!

I'd point out that, race, gender, and history of accomplishment notwithstanding, Obama's call to civic engagement and activism, and his now semi-proven ability to motivate such action, are substantial points in his favor in and of themselves.

The democratic party and our democracy in general is only strengthened by his emphasis on activism and seeming ability to create activists out of previously apathetic citizens. Coupled with his ambitious plans to create tools for social organizing through government, and I think we can say in the sense that we agree with Justice Breyer's theory of 'Active Liberty', our democracy in general would be well-served by an Obama administration.

Posted at January 9, 2008 8:15 AM in response to If I Vote for Obama, It'll Be Because....

she has no record of change or accomplishments: I recall she keeps mentioning a child-care initiative. Is that the best she can do?

Perhaps somebody more informed can expound on this (or correct me, as the case may be), but my understanding is that the she's being somewhat disingenuous on even that fact. What some of my better-informed friends have noted off-hand is that the initiative to which she refers was actually Ted Kennedy's baby, and that Hillary nearly buckled and abandoned her support of it in the face of GOP resistance, and only Kennedy's hectoring and haranguing her kept her on board, however reluctantly.

If that's true, and like I said, I only heard 3rd hand about this, it's hardly a profile in leadership.

Posted at January 9, 2008 8:08 AM in response to If I Vote for Obama, It'll Be Because....

Sorry, I have to disagree. If you're campaigning as the "inevitable" campaign (and she was, they were pushing that in memos and such behind the scenes all year), you don't skip states b/c you don't think you can win them, unless there's a legit "homecourt" advantage. Maybe if Obama wasn't in the campaign, that would make sense, you could argue that Edwards was a de facto home-stater bc he'd spent so long there, but c'mon...Obama's from a neighboring state? That's really the best you can do? The "inevitable" candidate can't win in Iowa b/c one 1-term senator has been spending a lot of time there lately and another 1st-term senator who's from a neighboring state?

That's absurd. Her campaign couldn't be the inevitable pseudo-incumbent and credibly have an excuse to skip Iowa.

This is just monday morning qbing b/c she lost. Of course the decision looks bad in hindsight. That doesn't mean the counter-factual case would've turned out any better.

Posted at January 6, 2008 3:23 PM in response to Where is Mike Henry?

Disclosure: I've given money to Barack Obama.

Let's see.

Agree or disagree:

1-diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq weakened the U.S. effort against al Qaeda and boosted al Qaeda recruiting?

2-The very quote to which the "joking" headline refers has Axelrod citing specifically al qaeda's resurgence as a main reason for the assassination

3-Thus, an opening sentence that reads "Yep, it’s official. Al Qaeda...killed Benzir Bhutto," actually lends credence to the idea that Bhutto's assassination can be somewhat linked to U.S. policy in Iraq

No?

4-Regardless of your political take on the situation, Larry Johnson's "joke" in the headline and lede are in poor taste.

5-Larry Johnson's behavior here and here are inappropriate of any commenter on this site, let alone a regular columnist. Regardless of political persuasion, one should not be calling others "moron[s]" or twisting their usernames into insults. At first I rated them each "1"s because I felt almost awkward rating a regular columnist a troll, but then realized that, [a]were he not a regular columnist, I certainly would have rated those "0" each, and [b]columnists ought to be held to higher, not lower, standards. As such, both were rated troll-worthy, and I will be submitting a formal complaint to the site managers.

That behavior is simply unacceptable.

Posted at December 31, 2007 5:57 AM in response to Al Qaeda Did It?

It seems to me that it'd be good to get a handle on the problems facing the U.S. before visiting our stable allies to work on the problems, no? In that sense, Obama's priorities seem straight

Posted at December 20, 2007 3:55 PM in response to Where in the World Have Clinton, Obama, Biden, Romney and Others Traveled To? More on the Experience vs. Identity Debate

Oh please. You're making multiple assumptions.

1-How do you know Novack's column isn't factually correct?

and

2-How do you know Obama's team didn't already know in the first place that it was factually correct? If the story is true, I find it hard to believe that rumors could be circulating on the DC cocktail circuit and the Obama team somehow wouldn't be aware of it.

So...who's being naive here? You really think such a whisper campaign is somehow below the Clintons? Even the ultra liberal Bob Herbert has noted how willing they are to get knee deep in mud and dirty politics and throw it around.

Also, it seems like you got your events reversed. In your original post, you seemed to at least imply that Howard Wolfson denied the contents of the column outright, but he didn't...at least, not until after Obama's team challenged him to.

I usually respect what you have to say, especially about foreign affairs, but it looks like you just copy/pasted Howard Wolfson's talking points from his press releases on this affair. Not only have other bloggers in the DC Circuit hinted that they're fully aware of the rumor-mongering going on, I've even seen some discuss what the contents of the supposed "dirt" actually is (in one case, it related to Rezko; in another, it related to supposed infidelity).

Posted at November 20, 2007 12:30 PM in response to Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?

I've read conservative and moderate accounts of how they did just this when listening to Bush on the campaign trail, and now greatly regret it.

I'd say the opposite is true: the onus is on the voter to assume everything the campaign says it will fight for and it will do is truthful (contradictions, obviously, notwithstanding), and do as little "projecting" as possible.

Indeed, while I appreciate the need for politicians to lie at times, it seems ill-considered to me flat out assume politicians are always/often lying and that their real position is X/Y/Z.

At least, if you're going to assume the position espoused is false, I'd say one should at least make the effort to check the rhetoric against past rhetoric, legislative action, the position of campaign advisors, and their votes (if they held office in the legislature).

And if one is a commentator, to anything short of the above seems flatly irresponsible (sorry MJ, cause I usually really like your stuff). Using one's position as an editorialist with a wide audience to say, for example, "ignore Obama's position on civil unions, I'm sure that he'd support gay marriage once in office" is rather dangerous. The whole notion that we ought to make our electoral decisions on anything but publicly available information is subversive to the Democratic process, IMO. Find statements, votes, something to that effect, or assume what the candidate says is exactly how the candidate will govern.

Posted at September 15, 2007 9:52 AM in response to Clinton vs. Clinton on Israel

Er...I didn't get that impression at all, as the heading clearly identifies what follows as Clinton's position paper. What's more, the JTA article cites the paper itself, as released by the campaign, as it's source...not Birnbaum's website.

Posted at September 15, 2007 9:41 AM in response to Clinton vs. Clinton on Israel