« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
29 Words: The Reason Obama Won the Primary and Will Win the General
"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it"
-DL Moody
He just played it straight. They didn't know how to fight it. They still don't. They won't in November.
Advertisement
Comments (153)
What a stupid post.
June 1, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
should be right up your alley then.
June 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice one.
June 1, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect example of the "crooked stick" approach of a bitter surrogate...
Have to say, these surrogates here were some of the crookedest on the blogs, especially when it came time to justify the kitchen sink and it's inevitable divisive aftermath...
June 2, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like usual, these things go over the Clinton supporters heads.
June 2, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a fine demonstration of the crooked stick next to the straight stick of this post.
June 1, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
June 2, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F:
Have you forgotten? You are not permitted to vote for Obama in the fall. So no worries for you!
June 2, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, you are a crooked stick.
June 2, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely and succinctly said, MassDem.
Recommended!
June 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad thing about this post is I think you actually believe it.
June 1, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat:
You are hereby served notice that you will not be permitted to vote for Obama in the General Election.
You may instead:
a) Vote for McCain
b) Write in Hillary's name
c) Vote for a 3rd party candidate
d) Write in anyone else's name, or
e) Sit out the election
Under no circumstances, however, are you permitted to vote for Obama. You will be monitored for compliance.
Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.
June 2, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know ct, there's this gathering I go to that has occurred for about the last 30 years over the fourth of July. Just a bunch of hippies, sometimes 20 or 30 thousand of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Gathering
There are high spiritual beings that show up and down and out alcoholics and drug addicts and everything in between. Kinda like the internet, people who show up often chose a new name, a rainbow name. So you'll have Giggles or Nightshade, Sunshine and Hugger. You'll also have people who call them self Buddha or Eagleman Shaman. While often NA elders or people of high consciousness in various religious traditions often are there unless you sit down with them and really pay attention its hard to know who these people are. They tend to keep a low profile. But I've learned over the years that when a person feels the need to call themselves Buddha, Eagleman, or, well, clearthinker, its pretty much a given that they are not.
June 2, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is somehow supposed to bolster your argument that this post is stupid?
If anything, it makes your comment more ironic, since you clearly believe that subtlety is more effective than being in someone's face.
Why can't you take your own advice?
June 2, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! Oh!
What does my name say about me?
June 2, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That you're not batshit crazy?
June 2, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, I am surprised and a little confused. From what I read of The Gathering I would think you would support Obama. I am totally confused now because it seems that Hillary's stances are completely anthemic to what the group you cited stands for.
From the page you cited:
Now I am not a Christian (at least not anymore), but his speech on the role of religion and politics espouses how we can bridge our differences, promote community and bring about a more unified country.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/index.php
Also on from the Gathering page you cited it shows the importance of community and activism, of which Obama has been a vocal advocate. The most recent at Wesleyan.
http://www.wfsb.com/news/16389467/detail.html
I am wondering why, as a Gathering attendee and advocate, you are so criticizing of a candidate that seems to reflect many of The Gathering's stances?
June 2, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
rotflmao
June 2, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
oceankat,
It's such a shame you went to all those gatherings (I've been to one myself, and spent time with Rainbow family on many more occassions - beautiful times... magic times...) ...
...yeah, it's a shame you went to all those gatherings and didn't even bother to drink the kool-aid.
Where was your mind at at dawn?
Rainboooooooow! Rainbow Jah!
You clearly must have left your bongos at home.
Bummer.
June 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice image that tells the tale. I can see it as a political cartoon. Do you draw? in which a picture is worth
June 1, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't but I guess it would be easy - stick figures?
June 1, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've made the other crooked sticks angry. Excellent!
June 1, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do seem to have touched a nerve, haven't I?
June 1, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buckminster Fuller proved there are no straight lines. Your perception of "straight" is only an issue of your tolerance for "crooked". However the definition of "straight" is relative to the environment. On a spherical surface, the "straightest path" between two points follows a great arc, not a latitude line, which is why planes fly over Iceland to get to Europe. Of course we're not talking so much about facts here as the consensus of village elders, kind of like you see in Papua New Guinea beating the ground with sticks and grunting a lot and occasionally shoving each other until the definition of "truth" reveals itself. (Tossing a witch into a pond is quicker, but not as fun).
June 2, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Digress. Distort. Rinse. Repeat.
June 2, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly how does taking 59 delegates from the Michigan primary, in which no one voted for Saint Obama, represent playing it straight? And of course this includes taking away a proportional four delegates from Senator Clinton based upon Michiganders who actually voted for her.
Yup, "straight-shooting" Saint Obama and his sycophants strike again.
June 1, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeating the HRC "crooked-speak" is no way to win an argument.
June 1, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I trust you realize, pmSF, that the 69-59 ratio was proposed by the Michigan state party, and enthusiastically defended by Carl Levin -- up till now, Hillary Clinton's chief backer in the state?
Is Levin now one of Obama's sycophants?
June 1, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only was it the Michigan Party and Levin behind it, but the RBC vote was 19-8. For the curious among you, that means that 5 HRC idolators nevertheless voted for the compromise, which was more than she deserved in any case.
June 2, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How terrible of Sen. Obama to allow Michigan and the DNC to resolve their problems! I mean, you'd think that this was a proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party as an equitable way to resolve it-- Oh wait, it was.
I mean, it's not like Sen. Obama could have said "Hey, the law that moved this was unconstitutional. Hillary said she wouldn't participate. She said it was a meaningless contest. Screw it, split it 50/50, we'll call it done."-- Oh wait, he could have, and it would have passed. But his campaign felt that was too draconian.
Finally, if you like the guy who runs fivethirtyeight.com, check out his analysis based on what *should* have happened for Michigan's primary. After going through it district by district, he came up with... 69 to 59, in Sen. Clinton's favor.
June 1, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
pmSanFran, you still don't get it, do you? Obama pulled his name from the ballot, which means he was above the system. So being above the system, when they reapportioned, he gets a portion of the votes from within the system. It's called tithing, something for the Lord, something for the higher power, one for the Buddha, etc. 4 delegates is only 6 or 7% or so, which is less than the common 10% that he would normally get, so actually he's being generous - he should have gotten 6. Because we know that Obama would have done much better with campaigning - look at how he did with the white vote in neighboring Ohio Indiana Pennsylvania Illinois.
June 2, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This year was not the first time MI pulled this BS. In the two prior years that they did this ALL major candidates removed their names from the ballot. Clinton is the first one to fail to do so. You can see tose prior year results here http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichPresPrimRefGuide_20863_7.pdf
June 2, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Horrors of horrors, you mean Michigan has been fighting this screwed up system so many years? Try this article:
---
My smart friend Ron Brownstein, political director of Atlantic Media and a former political columnist for the Los Angeles Times, explained it to me this way:
We don't nominate presidents anymore by getting to the point where somebody has a majority of the delegates. We nominate someone when we get to the point that there is a communal sense that one of the candidates has effectively won the nomination and the race is over.
---
So Michigan and Florida know that the delegates themselves that in general don't matter, that it's who gets pandered after that matters, the ability to influence the election just be having the vote. And the DNC has proved this concept right yet again, by demanding for the last few months that Hillary just give up, and for allocating delegates that weren't earned. All your bases are belong to us, resistance is futile.
June 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, "just by having the vote early".
June 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just crap Des. The DNC had the country at its heart. We all know how the momentum thing goes. The only way to even that out is to have a good cross section of states who go first. One from the hearland (Iowa), one from the northeast (NH), one from the west (NV) and one from the south (SC). This gives a good platform from which to launch the rest of the primaries.
Levin's biggest bitch was he felt the industrial states were not adequately represented. Well if you want to slice and dice, there are a lot of subsets that are not represented. The fact is the DNC picked representative states by demographic makeup, hence the 4 in the preprimary window. I think it is shitty that these outside states hijack the primary process as a platform to scream. Why not do their screaming BEFORE the primary season begins. For that matter, where the hell was Hillary screaming about how unfair caucuses were before this primary season? She was loud enough after the 2000 election. Once in the sentate what did she do? I'll tell you NOTHING.
June 2, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and in all those years only one candidate has tried to game the system, Hillary. In the end she cheated and lost anyway. It must hurt to compromise yourself ethicaly for no gain.
June 2, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or Wisconsin
June 2, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are also disingenuous, Desidero. It was Sen. Clinton's apparatchiks in the state of Michigan who pushed hardest to move the primary up, believing that the earlier the primary, the bigger her boost would be from name recognition.
If you want to talk about political pussyfooting around and double dealing, let's start with where the problems with this ill-starred primary started.
June 2, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My my my, how did the lovely Senator from New York get apparatchiks in Michigan - it seems so...so... Politburo-ish.
June 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"[H]ow did the lovely Senator from New York get apparatchiks in Michigan[?]"
Simple-- all it takes to be an HRC apparatchik (or more likely, apparatchitsa) is an abiding belief that she deserves to be president even though she is a pathological liar, even though what little she has achieved, she achieved not owing to her talents and especially not to her personality, but to the exposure that comes from having married Bill Clinton, and maybe also as payback for having that shit-eating dog of a husband diss her so cruelly.
Presidential candidacy is not intended as therapy for a character disorder or wounded self-esteem.
June 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor are blog comments.
June 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will you then subside?
June 2, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could have taken a 50/50 split. He had the votes. He opted for the 59-69 compromise as an olive brand a show of party unity. Clinton supported shat all over it.
June 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
pm sanfran, you know the anser to this question so don't be disingenuous. How does staking a claim on an illegitimate primary, with front-running candidates names not even on the ballot represent anything other than cheap banana republic politics? Get a grip.
June 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Disengenuous" twice in one thread. I'm afraid I'm going to have to call the language police on you. Sentenced to one evening with Roget's Thesaurus and a bottle of claret. We'll see who wins.
June 2, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My money is on the claret.
June 2, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you touched a nerve, like Donna Brazile and Everette Ward touched nerves. The truth may set you free, but evidently, it also hurts.
June 1, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being straight is certainly what got me behind Barack Obama.
He ran a fabulous campaign. Almost perfect. Played by the rules. Stayed focused. Maintained his dignity. Kept his cool. Talked to us like adults. Amazing.
And when he is put side-by-side with John McCain the contrast between the two will be overwhelming. Add to that his team's awesome technical skills in running a campaign, and I think John McCain is going to wish he had Bob Dole's numbers in November.
And, best of all, Clinton's supporters are going to have a Democratic White House in January!
June 1, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Anyone trying to say anything about November is short on imagination about what it's going to be like in the debates.
After the debates only the 27% who still think Mr. Bush is great stuff will think Mr. McCain is the correct choice.
June 1, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never seen that quote before. Nice and pithy like your post. Not surprising the quote came from a preacher man.
June 1, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we all know that preacher men are kooks right? I mean look and MLK....oh wait....
June 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're getting ahead of yourself. I was in no way demeaning DL Moody or preachers. I was just expressing that I'm not surprised that such a pithy and righteous (on the positive sense of the word) aphorisms came from the mouth of a preacher. I'm sorry you read something into the comment that isn't there.
June 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great response! Nothing like blaming the reader of your words rather than your nice and pithy phrasing...
June 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd still like to point out Frank Rich's first strong Obama article which give great points about why the senator from Illinois will win:
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 2, 2007
"JUST 24 hours after Hillary Clinton mowed down a skeptical Katie Couric with her certitude that she would win the Democratic nomination — “It will be me!” — her husband showed exactly how she could lose it..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html
I've gone back to this article several times over the course of the nomination battle and it's aged well like fine wine, and is stronger with time.
June 2, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's rich - a major columnist who couldn't manage to write an anti-war column working for a magazine that aided the administration by publishing false details and go-along-with-it op-eds for a year criticizes a freshman minority Senator for not leading an insurrection to topple a President with 90% popularity and over 70% approval for war.
Which part of "gonzo wacko deranged" do you identify with better? Obama spoke out "loudly"? Nobody even knew he spoke. Jesse Jackson Sr. was the headliner, and they didn't even film Obama speaking it was such a non-event. It was only through shameless self-promotion - the only kind Obama knows - that we even know this speech exists. (It's one of the few records of him we have from that archaic time back before we discovered stone, papyrus and paper trails). And now that we have Rev. Wrights "goddamn America", I think we can easily dismiss the part of the story that says this was a courageous speech.
June 2, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I promised not to comment on idiotic posts anymore, but I just have to call this out as more troll idiocy from someone who has proved again and again that they are are not worthy of respect or even attention. We all need to not let this deranged McCain troll (or any of them) drive anymore conversations around here.
June 2, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may wish to disagree with Desidero, but this "troll thing" is rather silly and reflects poorly on any intellect you might want the reader to imagine you have. And that takes quite the imagination when reading comments such as this.
The need for many of you to treat threads as personal chat rooms in which one topic is "discussed," while discouraging others from commenting is lowly. It does the site no service, other than support the notion that its posters are more interested in some political version of MySpace. Shameful in my opinion. Even a bit troll-like, to use a word you favor.
June 2, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the person in question is clearly not willing to discuss anything in a rational and reasonable manner, that person is trolling or being a troll. I didn't just make that up and using the definition is hardly a reflection on my intelligence or lack thereof. It is a distinct type of poster with a distinct style that does nothing to contribute to the community or the conversation.
June 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find Desidero's comments above full of specific arguments and links. Not sure what you're talking about. This certainly seems to me some reflection of your willingness to express intellect thereof or elsewhere. There is plenty of good fun at TPM for satire, personal invective also, within pieces meant for that purpose. If you want to take on Desidero at issues of style, content, and personality, why don't you start a piece on that subject? I'm sure that such a piece would be interesting in many ways. And fun too.
But comments from you in this thread, a supposed thoughtful political discussion, make my point.
" I am glad that our troll brigade seems to consist of only a half dozen halfwits or so. Most of them showed up for this thread, making it easier to counter them all at once."
I repeat. This kind of playground mobbing does the TPM site no service, other than support the notion that its posters are more interested in some political version of MySpace and infotainment.
It's an issue of balance, thereof.
June 2, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are saying we should continue correcting the same spin over and over and over again from the same people? Or just stay silent and let the not-so-subtle whisper campaign continue without a response?
There are no facts and no links in D's comments above. There never are. They are uniformly nasty about Obama, his supporters and any points we may care to make about any subject at any time. He is unfailingly snide and presents fanciful opinions as if they were fact.
Perhaps you missed this gem:
If you are going to quote me out of context, perhaps I will share the piece that made me make that comment in the first place:
The general election campaign should be an interesting sociological experiment, especially since Rove will have no qualms about race-baiting, and no legacy (that can be traced back to him, anyway) to protect.
Yeah, these guys aren't exhibiting "trollish" behavior at all. They present reasonable and rational arguments that intelligent people can discuss in intelligent ways.
To quote their favorite president ever: "Give me a break."
I am sorry if you feel it necessary to correct something that had nothing to do with you, but I can and will call anyone I want out for continuing to pollute the political discourse around here. If enough of us stood up to this bullshit before now, perhaps we wouldn't be two-steps away from George Orwell's worst nightmare.
June 2, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I use a slightly different definition of Troll. I consider a Troll someone who never writes their own posts, but only posts snide, ignorant simplistic comments in other threads. I give Desidero credit, he posts snide, ignorant and simplistic comments AND writes his own posts.
Otto F is the prime example of a troll, he never tells you what he thinks, only that he doesn't like what you think. His approach is the height of cowardice and about as respectful as someone who throws rocks off of an overpass.
I wish I could ignore, but in absence of refutation, repetition begins to sound like truth.
June 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that D is a special kind of troll, with a style that is different from Otto. Otto is obviously a troll, whereas D is much more subtle.
I am not even sure he is a republican in disguise yet or simply a smart ass who likes to tweak people's noses on-line. An ignore feature would be the best, then I wouldn't even be tempted to respond to bullshit and eventually most people would tune them out.
June 2, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Separate from the issues of who has the right to "call people out" and whether I should have the right to "correct something that has nothing to do with.. (me) , I'd like to add some interpretation for Desidero's first comment. He's a fellow I almost never agree with politically, but if anyone at TPM deserves to be here by measure of a high level of intellectual sophistication matched with post-modern artfulness in its expression, I'd say it is he, thereof.
The original poster based his piece on this quote:
"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it"
Desidero in his first comment hinted at the possibility that thinking in a so-called "straight line" might be falling for the obvious. He did so by referencing Buckminster Fuller. I'm at a loss to see why this is not sophisticated and nuanced. He then says that " the definition of 'straight' is relative to the environment. Yet again a nuanced argument. He then invokes a more universal view of what constitutes informed thinking with
references to a global culture, and finally to a bit of anthropology. I don't agree with it at the surface level, but I get what he's saying, and I don't take it as his literal belief since his is a global mindset (read about his musical taste, for example). The final witch reference puts us into another historical world as well.
I see a link in another comment from him. I see a quote from the LA Times. There's more. That he couches his sophistication in provocative faux anger, or often real anger, and that his references might require a look-up here and there about an author, philosopher, a culture, and history --well I don't think that constitutes your definition of a "troll."
You just don't like his political position. That's not enough to try and keep him--or others --from entering a discussion.
One could make the point that this kind of marginalizing, because you don't want to hear a position, that you don't like or understand his style, well, that kind of repression is really George Orwell's worst nightmare.
June 2, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to remain fooled by D's rather obvious tactics, then by all means please go ahead. I have sparred with D many times and won't go out of my way to antagonize, but certainly won't allow obvious spin to go without comment.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing. D takes the contrarian line, every time, to incite anger and division. To say that there is no such thing as a straight line and all is subjective is exactly the type of Doublespeak I would expect from that wing of the "democratic" party. That is DLC corporate-friendly revisionism all the way. Either that or he is a neocon here to make things worse between Clinton and Obama supporters. D's methods are transparent and obvious.
Not sure who made you the moderator, anyway. Since you don't use your own name, you could very well be Desidero commenting to me as some sort of alter-ego to continue the misinformation campaign he is bent on waging here. I wouldn't put it past him given the nature of his commentary here over the multiple weeks of my own personal observation.
June 2, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you're acting like a troll again.
June 2, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Mrs. No Pic Now a Pic, yes it is hard to imagine me considered a troll in the simplistic meaning of the (internet) word. Little baby Allsburg had a trolling contest into which we invested all our smug and variant talents into trolling contrariwise, period pieces, and other styles that required limber and may I say downright Simian proclivities to find the right level of contortion. But after a few days, the game wears off and I'd rather return to matters that actually interest me, whether posed as a riddle or a poem.
I'm afraid Jason is just not up to engaging in anything close to intellectual exploration, whether it involves confronting profanity, humor or just hold card facts. He'd rather dismiss contrary views and chalk it all up to conspiracy - if you notice, he's been getting a might bit paranoid of late and is starting to lash out at those he considers on his side as well. I'm afraid once you start seeing shadows, the whole world takes on quite a fright. Well, let's not tarry too much on this, the night is young and we've bigger fish to fry. You bring a line, I'll bring a pole, honey, honey, you bring a line, I'll bring a pole, babe....
June 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now that we've had our little moment of cross-cultural/species understanding, could I ask a small favor? Could all 400 of you or however many of you there are lurking here head over to Projecting Billy Glad and click Recommend? A killer post on Project Management, and it's dying a certain death, cut down in the prime of its life under the mawkish banterings by Liam on narcissism. Breaks my heart, not for me, but for the kid. And narcissus is turned to a flower...
June 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking an allegorical comment out of context and then working with the a literal interpretation of it is disingenuous in its own right. This doesn't take a great mind, only a devious mind, throwing up chaff.
June 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this haiku? Rave on - I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn, looking for an angry fix....
Ya holdin', lady? Natch.
June 2, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rich - a major columnist who couldn't manage to write an anti-war column working for a magazine that aided the administration
That's rich - a supporter of the candidate who aided the administration in killing a million Iraqis criticizes a columnist for the same reason.
June 2, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't manage to read the candidate's whole speech and absorb it, there's not much I can do for you. You can't just go from one doggie treat to another - occasionally you need some nourishment you can dig your teeth into. But that means giving up the facile witticisms of Frank Rich and heading off for more intellectual fare. Up to it?
June 2, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't manage to read a comment and absorb it, there's not much point in your posting a response. Once again, slowly: it's rich that a Clinton supporter such as yourself would criticize Rich for his failure to criticize the war in Iraq, when Clinton enabled the entire enterprise in the first place (and only changed her position to the extent she perceived politically necessary). Got it?
June 2, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a Scooby snack. Roinx?
June 2, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
People with lame avatars shouldn't throw bones.
June 2, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also spräch Alte Mutter Hubbard. And so her poor dog got none.
June 3, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ:
Obama on the war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP9pFKNVIds
June 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets contrast shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3jppzkF0QM&feature=related
June 2, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I still say Hillary comes out better on the exchange ("Hussein was absolutely no threat to his neighbors"? From where did Obama get that news in Oct. 2002?), but will confess I though there was no video of Obama's speech. Point Mageduley.
June 2, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase:
"The best way to show that a schtick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a definitive Youtube clip alongside it."
So much for the "Obama only said these things at a rally nobody attended" meme.
June 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
amber, thanks for re-introducing this Frank Rich piece from pre-primary time, December of '07. It was wonderful to re-read it and to realize that Rich had his finger on a wide perspective ahead of others. His article does 'age like fine wine' and get 'stronger with time'.
June 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and if certain nut cases here think that failure to oppose Bush's Excellent Iraq Adventure disqualifies a mere columnist from being quoted, how can they back a US Senator who, having actual power to do so, failed to oppose the Iraq debacle?
June 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go read her speech. The transcript's easy to find. If you need any help translating from English to English, just ask.
June 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's her vote that counted, not her ass-covering speech.
June 2, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
June 2, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then, after you read her speech, which she now paints as giving inspectors more time versus invasion, check out her meeting just a few weeks before the invasion:
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put in harms way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying (some?) missles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks, and I just respectifully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE
So much for her vote to give the inspectors more time huh?
I wish all women would listen, really listen to the questions these women are asking of Hillary. Her answers are decidedly neocon it is breadth and scope.
June 2, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has had several opportunities to vote to end the war by cutting off funding. He doesn't.
Neither does Clinton, but that's because there is nearly no difference between them on the issue of the Iraq War.
June 2, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 2, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst..your not supposed to let on. You're suppose to be positive but not certain. And then only at the last minute go: Bwa ha ha ha Obama's gonna win!
June 2, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's that directed to army man?
June 2, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's only the best way when it works.
When it doesn't, it's the Kerry campaign.
June 2, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn!! I was all ready to say "right on!" until I saw S1m0n's post. And I guess he's right -- but, as much as I genuinely respect Kerry, from back in the 60s, and wish he'd become our president -- I think Obama is more skillful and will be able to make the mass of voters realize what is straight and what is crooked. ................. The irony, of course, is that compared to Bush, McCain far superior.
But a wonderful quote, MassDem -- it **certainly** explains the win in the primary!!
June 2, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The big difference between Obama and Clinton in terms of strategy is that all along, he has been fighting over tomorrow, and she's been fighting over today.
He has, in other words, been one jump ahead of her at every turn. Often, by the time she had made an at