So ‘n Zo

Hey Swopa!

wow

Amazingly, as a diarist at The Great Orange Satan has correctly noted, Obama is taking lemons and making lemonade by pointing out how eff’d up the debate was and how it just proves that the corporate media are not going to be closer to fair, much less anything like balanced.

Hello, Faux Nooz…

“The choice Obama needs to put before the electorate is that they can keep deciding elections on who they’d rather have a beer with”

I agree to an extent, but I think it’s also fair to say that this election won’t be between guys with whom one would like to have a beer. McCain’s not shrub. Clinton certainly isn’t shrub. In some respects, Obama may actually be the friendliest and most down to earth of the three… the one of the three one would most want to have a beer with… I think the issue here is, who is most like shrub, not in personality, but in policy and outlook. And that’s clearly McSame.

Obama is as guilty as anyone at these kinds of politics, and that makes him disingenuous and passive-aggressive. He takes swipes at Clinton regularly. There is a self-righteousness there that is bothersome. I’ll vote for him to keep McCain out, but the fawning over Obama as though he’s Pollyanna while Hillary and McCain and everyone else is so dirty is troubling because it’s false.

… or they can decide based on who’s going to help them in the real issues that affect their lives

that might make a bit more sense to me if, you know, senators obama and clinton had been doing anything about the real issues that are here – right now – and that senators are hired to address.

mccain is a dangerous, ignorant, idiot – which a very good reason to vote against him. but neither obama nor clinton have actually done the kind of work that would inspire me to support either one of them.

… we have a bit of a problem creating narratives for our candidates when they refuse to live up to them.

i am sooo tired of the lamestream media!! the country’s in a downward spiral but what do we get? endless chatter about flag pins – old weathermen who sits on a board with obama, rev wright and on and on….. according to media ahem the people are not concerned about anything else…………..

fawning?Pollyanna? How has this turned into him attacking Hillary? Did I miss someting in Sopa’s post? Isn’t this about the right wing attack machine and how he sees how he will have to reframe the right wing attack?

The choice Obama needs to put before the electorate is that they can keep deciding elections on who they’d rather have a beer with, who sighs less often, or who wears a flag lapel pin…

And he needs to ask voters is: “How do you feel way of selecting presidents has worked out?”

You are right about McCain. We also need to be really loud about the mean and “silly season” that is permeating the press. If Gibson thought that was a fascinating debate, he is in a different world. He also controls the microphone. And Hannity has been on that Ayres story for more that a week, talking about knowing terrorist, the McCarthy era, etc etc etc. All ugly and pretty pointless, except to slander and pitch red herrings. This is the sludge that should be called out all the time. I do not dare listen to Rush anymore. Is he irrelevant? I do not know; I cannot stand the stink. Where is the pushback? Then we have a loudmount R. Rhodes calling HRC a “whore.” This level of dialogue is not part of helping anyone. We need a voice and forum that examines and brings sunshine to the slime who use the microphones. That 30 minutes last night was on the American flag (no, I don’t wear one) and the bitter comment (yes, it had a kernel of truth) suggests all the sets should be turned off. Get the net or the gong. Looks like the comments for ABC have been quite effective. Maybe enough to make someone take notice? There’s that hope again.

agreed. I would love to have seen both of them ignore these silly questions and instead pivot and say, now…about the economy, about the war on Iraq, etc.

oops, sorry Swopa, I spelled your name incorrectly.

It won’t matter whether people want to have a beer with Obama or not. The economy and the dollar are going to be so far down on election day and the occupation is going to be as fruitless as ever that even Kucinich could win this year. McCain’s brand sucks and after this year nobody is going to believe them when they say that Republicans are better at running the economy and can make intelligent decisions about our defense.

I agree with Swopa that Obama is learning on the job. We have been so conditioned by the mindless stupidity of George Bush that it is a shock to see some one who can learn from their situations and improve as time goes along. Obama is the Anti-Bush when it comes to evaluating situations and learning from his past mistakes.

the problem, i see, is that neither of them have done much, let alone led, on the issue of the war or the economy.

imo, if our media did their job and asked good (and hard) questions – like amy goodman did when she interviewed bill clinton before the 2000 election – both obama and clinton would look pretty lame.

Without offering any kind of proof, Stephie and Charlie said they based their questions on what (real) people are saying/asking. Prove it, Boys. I think you are just making s–t up so that you can justify your tabloid style debate.

Maybe they were all in on it….Steph/Clintons/Obama…..dream team. I wouldn’t put it past any of them.

It is true that getting this out there now is a good thing, because the Puke’s trying to pull it out late in the year will get….”yawns”….

I just haven’t slept at night since that bitter thing…/s

I don’t know that I agree with that. given that we haven’t had a media since the 1990’s, i factor them completely out of the equation.

Now while neither is as liberal as I would like, I have to let that go and concentrate on what we do have as a possible nomination. But the longer that the swarmy silliness takes front page, that is what they keep responding to instead of our complaints about an energy policy not going far enough, or a ecnomic strategy that is not radical enough etc.

Swopa:

Greg Sargent at the TPM blog-hydra noted something important in writing about another portion of the same Obama response to last night’s debacle on ABC:

One thing Obama has been very adept at doing: When he takes a political hit, he neutralizes it by decrying it as the very sort of negative politicking he’s trying to rise above.

In this case, he did this by describing the debate as “precisely why I’m running for president — to change that kind of politics.“

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

david gregory has been a disappointment in the slot given him by misnbc…..imo of course – its been said he’s auditioning for tweety’s slot

damn Bill, this is about the media, not hillary

It’s ALL about the Clintons. They’ll do whatever it takes to prevail.

I don’t know that I agree with that. given that we haven’t had a media since the 1990’s, i factor them completely out of the equation.

yeah, but let’s remember why we have stupid debates. it’s because the parties decided that was the way they wanted to do it.

remember this from the League of Women Voters (1988)?

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

my bold.

yes, i’ve been listening to last night’s debate this afternoon. hasn’t done wonders for my frustration level.

I have newfound respect for Rachel … sitting for an hour with these 4 idjits … Joe Scar can’t believe that anyone would say that Obama was less than terrible last night … note to Joe Scar … you suck every day …

Hi everybody !

I really think this is all Kabuki….Bill is making the case that Dems are fighters..only he’s on HRC’s turf…and, well Obama is doing the same thing with Michelle backing him up…

Either one of them is gonna eat McCain up…

Unless someone is having an affair…they have nothing substantial to attack the Dems with. The Dems have e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g. that has gone wrong in the last 8 years to sling at the Pukes…It all happened on Bush’s watch…and McSame is the same….

This is just target practice…smoke and mirrors….

remember this from the League of Women Voters (1988)?

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public

Actually no, I hadn’t hit double digits in age yet :) But I totally get what you are saying but I can’t help to think that the sinking happened both in party and in media

It doesn’t matter if Hillary or McCain win. Either way the NeoCons stay in charge. That Weather Underground stupid statement that Hillary milked was another Bosnia lie.

My Mom had David Duke supporters on her block. According to Hillary that makes her guilty by proximity. That will be Hillary’s line of reasoning in her decision-making. She also lied, again. The only people the WU killed were three of their own when their bomb-making went awry. I guess she will hold eight year olds responsible for something of which they know nothing. Is the same person who puts children first? Again, Hillary self-revealed.

Obama, over and over, has taken the high road. He keeps his dignity. Bet he never called his wife a trollop and addresses her as “You c..t” as does McCain.

100 – 29 = 71

71% don’t want the Pukes.

Selise,

I’m surprised you have this point of view. Yes, Ned Lamont opposed the war – but so has Obama. And certainly Obama has a lot more experience – as a community organizer, State Senator and US Senator.

I can see a lot of the same qualities in Obama as I saw in Lamont. I’m surprised you and RevDeb, who worked so hard for Lamont, feel so differently.

Bring back the League of Women Voters!

The Dems are using up the Puke’s ammo, but keeping their’s dry.

ABC doing CYA on its debate last night. Some reporter talking about “a grueling round of questions about Obama’s associations”, i.e. the nearly hour long smear that went on. They show Obama’s staements today about “45 minutes” before any real question was asked. They mention thousands of emails but don’t say how many thousands. They show a few negative of the debate but then of course a couple positive ones. This is deceptive since virtually all the emails they got were negative and in fact extremely negative. They then go on to Bill Clinton’s old comment that if you don’t want to play rough you shouldn’t run, etc. (The underlying message being that Obama should, and voters, should stop whining.) Gibson made no statement about or apology for his own role in the debates. No mention either of the crowd booing him and Stephanopoulos. The segment ended with him saying that all responses are appreciated and that the conversation goes on at their web site, you know the same thing he would say after a story on hemorrhoids. Essentially ABC News and Charlie Gibson are basically saying to us to F*ck off.

either candidate could insist on a decent debate – for example to go back to having them organized by the LWV (who would pick better moderators), instead of the campaigns. that they do not do so, makes, imo, last night at least partially their own damn fault.

seconded

Yeah, well we’re all telling ABC and Gibson to F-off too…*g*

did i miss where obama has led on ending the war?

i supported lamont because he promised to do what obama has not done if he were elected to the senate.

apples and oranges – lamont was running for the senate. obama (and clinton) are already there.

Don’t see why the media was ever involved in the first place given that there is always some sort of bias but lesson learned (I hope)

That is my point. It was on purpose. They are “acting” out the charges that the Pukes are planning to throw at them. They are diffusing the bombs before they can fire ‘em.

I’m getting popcorn.

This is just target practice…smoke and mirrors….

Maybe. But they’re pretty good shots.

I’d love to know what they’re thinking today. Probably too arrogant to get it and are doing a Cheney “So?”

Do we know this hasn’t happened? I don’t.

Other than Murtha, I think he was the next one to call for an end to the war a couple of years ago..and he has never waivered about his stance on the war.

p.s. if lamont had been elected, i would have celebrated to have lieberman out – but if he had proceeded to do as little as obama has to end the war, i would have felt my trust in his campaign promises had been betrayed.

that said, when it comes to accountability and the war, do not get me started on clinton.

Next time Scarborough starts on that crap, Rachel needs to say (sweetly) “well Joe, I know that you’d have been sensitive to a question from a debate moderator about that dead girl in your office…”

If that didn’t shut his stupid ass up, then his tool status would be not only confirmed, but confirmed into generations of Scarboroughs yet unborn.

((( selise )))

…you know the same thing he would say after a story on hemorrhoids.

You mean he’s doing an autobiographical piece today?

Yeah, but it’s a different set of targets this time. People are wise to the Pukes. Their shots won’t work, because their policies have failed right and left…everybody knows that..even the 29%rs that won’t admit it…know it. They all drive cars and have kids and have lost their houses and are struggling with credit card payments with kids that want a new this and a new that every two seconds…

America knows…we can’t “afford” more Pukes, period.

I don’t have any data but I would bet that everytime Bill opens his piehole the Republicans get thousands, if not tens of thousands, of online donations

*sigh* I can’t wait until this primary is over. Each day that this thing drags on, McCain goes out there and pitches his bullshit with no one to call him on it. (He must make some kick ass ribs) While Mccain is recapturing the pissed repugs and wooing the independents, the dems are going after each other…just great

remember this from the League of Women Voters (1988)?

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

my bold.

Thanks for digging this up. Do you know if anyone has asked them about hosting the debates again? I hope so. Theirs were always so much better.

Bob in HI

never waivered?

did i dream all those blank checks? the ones that weren’t fought?

The whole post is about Obama getting it and portraying him as taking the high road and opposing it. I’m just pointing out that it’s a bit disingenuous of him and blindly fawning of his supporters since it isn’t true. I’m not even criticizing Obama for his slams against Clinton; that is what happens in campaigns, but Im tired of him acting holier than thou and as though he doesn’t do it. He does.

Hiya Jofish !

I think Rachel bides her time with these jokers ’til she can go on KO …

Most telling is that Joe Scar wears more makeup than the other 4 combined … and while I’m at it …
(Marguerita anyone? *g*) what the heck is with Ford’s lips ?!!

Essentially ABC News and Charlie Gibson are basically saying to us to F*ck off.

they can go fuck themselves.

to quote jon stewart: “they are hurting america”

… we have a bit of a problem creating narratives for our candidates when they refuse to live up to them.

This has been the crux of the problem from the beginning.

The end of the Fairness Doctrine :

Formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, the doctrine can be traced back to the early days of broadcast regulation.

I think sniping and griping about either Democratic candidate is out of place now. Whoever is nominated will get a more brutal treatment in the general. I think hoping that the candidates can pivot and frame and discredit the bad debate production and management in real time while also waging their campaigns is unrealistic.

I think there needs to be an organized public response to the farce the debates have become. The media organizations, and specific individuals should be presented with an indictment and a bill of particulars and a demand for a response. There should be a public demand for accountability.

There should be an organized effort to scrap the current debate system and replace them with a more responsible, publicly run system. Before the general.

Below are my suggestions from previous post today.
Even if the media and particular incompetent and unprofessional individuals cannot be stripped of ability to subvert elections, there is a duty to raise public awareness before the upcoming general election.
——-

A public conference is needed with publicity.
In addition to bloggers and other public interest organizations, need independent experts in journalism and specific topic areas evaluating the problems.
A report, with executive summary, specific questions to speific organizations and individuals, with a request for a public response.
A proposal for change, centerpiece would be scrapping current system.
Petitions.
Relevent products (signature lists, proposals, charges and requests for repsonses) presented to
-all major responsible media organizations,
-relevant professional organizations
-Congress

Also, the public reaction to debate, for example, the two moderators being booed, and the overwhelming negative response to ABC, which has been documented on the internet should be a newsworthy items. If other broadcast and cable media, newspapers and magazines do not cover, they should also be contacted and asked why they do not consider the public reaction newsworthy.

Do we know this hasn’t happened? I don’t.

i haven’t heard of either campaign asking for the LWV to organize a debate…. have you?

Joe’s all defensive….attacking Rachel…*sshole…”I don’t mean to be condescending but”…Yes you do….

STFU

Thanks for the reminder about what happened with the League of Women Voters, I was also too young to be aware of the issues. I think I knew once upon a time that they withdrew, but had forgotten.

david gregory has been a disappointment in the slot given him by misnbc…..imo of course – its been said he’s auditioning for tweety’s slot

I got to agree. I’ve lost some respect for him since he started this show. I’ve been watching it now, and I can’t figure out if the press is just way too shallow (except for Rachel, who I consider perceptive) or we’re just way too deep for them. Really, I just don’t get how they think a rehash of those stale questions was worthwhile, or why anyone wouldn’t just be sick about the stupidity at a further discussion of jewelry. Makes you want to say, “Enough!”

You didn’t answer the question. What did this post have to do t=with Obama supposedly attacking Hillary? This was a bout the repugs attack machine in the GE. Can we just talk about strategy and what he will have to do etc.?

I could only stomach 5 minutes of that show … Harold spoke for 3 minutes on one breath … some call him long winded … *g*

I think sniping and griping about either Democratic candidate is out of place now.

if my complaints about either candidate are untrue or unfair, i hope you will call me out and correct me.

but no way am i pulling my punches because they have a “D” after their name.

There needs to be public protest over the debates, This one and some previous ones. And individuals should be pointed out, critiqued, and a response should be demanded.

Public should be reminded of legal dictum that absence of any reply is an implicity admission of guilt.

He did not give blank checks. He supported funding for the troops, because they are over there….but he has always been clear and he tried to put through legislation to get them out. He has known all along that he couldn’t singlehandedly get them out. HRC gave blank checks — AUMF and Kyl/Lieberman.

Juslin, Gregory may be auditioning and maybe Scarborough is too. Joe is on three or four days a week, spouting his right wing venom.

Don’t forget that Gregory was quite happy as a “back-up dancer to MC Rove.”

Not much respect for me to lose for him after that little escapade.

Yeah I’m hip. That also signaled the end of real investigative reporting and news gathering to be replaced with entertainews..all fluff no substance

FDL 101, Rule 7: Please don’t feed … *g*

1,816 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Swopa and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

“My particular focus in writing about a Democratic political narrative for the past couple of years has been how to make solving political problems into proof of a candidates moral character.”

This statement is one of the best articulations I have ever heard of the essence of politics and the genius in the idea of American democracy as understood by the founding fathers. And that is why this particular post of yours is so compelling at this moment. The real core of this post lies in the entire statement by Obama as presented in the video clip…watch and listen as he articulates his strategy of takin’ on the attacks and then pivoting and turnin’ those attacks on themselves and into a clear argument for matters of substance. He actually describes the process and then applies it in the context of his candidacy and last night’s “debate”.

This guy is gunna be the last person standin’ in front of the American people when the polls close in November…and that’s what is drivin’ the fascist oligarchy absolutely nuts.

Thanx again Swopa for your work and your intellectual integrity in your offerings to us…you get a Norske Citizenship Award, keep on keepin’ on.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND REMEMEBR WE’RE GUNNA BE CALLED ON TO STAND UP AND WE BETTER BE READY!!

My position is that there are more many very much more important issues that which Democratic candidates run in the general. If you disagree with that, well I guess we disagree then. That is OK. We can both make our cases.

The Dead Woman worked for Joe. The ME was a friend of JEB’s. There were problems with the ME and his report. Bill Ayers never worked for Obama. Who is more closely linked with bad shit? Obama or Scarborough Fair?

You shouldn’t. They have to remain accountable to us for their policies, positions, etc.

NPR improved its coverage of the debate since his morning. Then it ignored the negative reaction to the debate entirely. This afternoon it did mention some of the negative response. I think this was largely in response to Obama’s speech about the debate. NPR still didn’t do much investigation of just what a hatchet job the moderators tried to do. Professional journalism seems professional mostly in how its members cover for each other.

Tweety said it best on Bill Maher one night … “We’re playing checkers and they’re laying Chess.” He should have realized that “we” refers to the MSM and “they” refers to the general public.

oh, i agree that clinton has more responsibility wrt to iraq. but that doesn’t absolve obama.

and we’ll just have to disagree about funding the troops by funding the war.

((petrocelli))
bom dia!! How the heck have you been?

Thanx again Swopa for your work and your intellectual integrity in your offerings to us…you get a Norske Citizenship Award, keep on keepin’ on.

Yep.

In my opinion, wesgpc, C-Span and League of Women Voters should be in charge of the debates. LWV used to do them and one year, they tried to insist on a reasonable time frame and number of contests and, I think maybe it was Reagan who balked, and they’ve been “organized” by the networks ever since.

((((( WB )))))

It’s spring in Toronto (finally) … I got to enjoy a fine day before the old Ball and Chain
made me start the yard work … *g*

O/T Senate Votes For Don Young Earmark Probe

the request in the house has been sitting there getting moldy for over a year.

Come on newt … at least toss in a free upgrade … *g*

Is the snow gone yet?

The biggest statement they could make is to hold the debate, post the RULES, and when no one shows, do it again.

Good on your better half *g*

I need to get out there and do some planting but we have some painters coming and I didn’t want them trampling all over my wee garden.

I got to agree. I’ve lost some respect for him since he started this show.

Can’t say I have had any for Gregory for a long time. As I was saying earlier today, all of these guys are millionaires or multi-millionaires. They are not reporters. They are spokespeople for the rich, i.e. themselves.

Can you think of one? *G*

I don’t disagree with you, really. We do have to hold their feet to the fire. I just remember when he tried to put through something to stop the war, and it immediately got shot down in the congressional climate. Congress has been so horrendous in general…I guess my point is that if you can’t stop it, at least you have to make sure that the troops have what they need…and I personally am not one for just yanking them out overnight. I don’t think that is rational at this point. I think they need to bring the troops out carefully and as quickly and safely as possible. I also, personally, believe that the chaos amongst the Iraqis is going to make it difficult and really dangerous…but it needs to stop.

Yes, thank heavens … it got as high as 5 feet … forgot what color the grass was … *g*

thanks Petrocelli.

listening to last night’s debate has just made me crazy.

Good AP story on Obama’s reaction in NC today about the debate. On ABC’s own debate blog, the comments are 8:1 against ABC for the debate debacle last night. Bill Clinton should realize. It’s not only Obama who is criticizing the debate, it is the vast majority of the people who watched it hoping in vain for the two moderators to do their jobs properly.

Yeah, upgrade Bush43 to Obama ! *g*

Mc Giggolo has serious money

Since James Hensley’s death eight years ago, the distributorship has nearly doubled, holding a significant portion of the Phoenix-area market share. It has 700 employees and annual revenue of about $300 million. Mrs. McCain has approved the buyout of another distributorship, helping bring sales last year to 23 million cases of beer.

Mrs. McCain (who can tell a beer’s freshness by tasting it, according to her daughter Meghan) declines to say what percentage of the company she owns or its value. Industry experts estimate her stake at about $100 million.

alls i’m saying is this – we get right and “center right” voices on these chatfests…. i’d like to see some left and center left voices on the tee vee on a daily basis…. i keep looking to see if it’ll happen – so far uhh uhh….. one bright spot ? KO!!!

:-)
how you doin?

yup the McStains are BILLIONAIRES…300 mill a year

That would be a step in the right direction.

They are not reporters. They are spokespeople for the rich, i.e. themselves.

yes.

and that the candidates know they have to pander to them before all others breaks my heart and makes me furious all at the same time.

I watched it … the pattern was obvious from the get go … it will play out in Obama’s favor in the long run … George/Charles should be tarred and feathered but their ‘peeps’ will toast the high viewership and give them
a raise …

It is totally about how the debate was run. It was salacious and failed to give either one the platform by which they could talk to voters about their policies. Having said that, they have had what 21 debates? Debates are so extra credit, can we just have the nominee now and go after crazy train?

Pretty good, considering the Leafs are on the trees but not in the playoffs … *g*

Obama made the connection. Energy costs and the welfare of the nation. America’s energy policies of the past 50 years have always favored the corporations. The standard of living we all want and work for is undercut by energy costs. American’s spent $11.5 billion on just gasoline today. A energy/economic policy designed to drive the per capita cost of energy down is the only program that will save America…………….

Kings, Dukes and corporate cohort in colonial crime!!! Jefferson warned us all of the “corporate aristocracy” hell bent on constitutional usurpation in the lust for endless profit. This is the “domestic enemy” from within which threaten the republic and its constitution. Bush’s/Cheney’s actions and words show nothing but contempt for the governed and disregard for the rule of law, the constitution!! Their actions are louder than any word’s spoken. Obama gets it!!!! NO SILENT GERMAN HERE!!!

Really ? … and John can’t buy better suits ?

Without offering any kind of proof, Stephie and Charlie said they based their questions on what (real) people are saying/asking. Prove it, Boys. I think you are just making s–t up so that you can justify your tabloid style debate.

If over half the country were out there wearing flag pins and berating people not doing so as “unpatriotic” then I’d suspect it would an issue “people were talking about”. They’d be talking about “How has our country become a lttle Neo-Nazi land”.

And how many people even knew about William Ayers…it was hardly “hotly discussed” by the American people before the debate. It was a “bomb” thrown in the debate…and was slander by association…simply because they both sit on the Board of a Charity. Today the Pope condemned the United States for it’s treatment, current and historical, of Native American and Blacks. I wonder how many people will be demanding that those who plan on seeing the Pope ostracise HIM, and abandon their Catholicism?

But people don’t have to wear flag-pins…and we know that it isn’t a mandatory measure of patriotism. I would think that rather than “wear the flag” the higher measure of patriotism would be following ones oath of office to protect the Constitution. But all those fragments of the Constitution that were used to give the proceedings last night an air of gravitas were simply a facade…window-dressing while the ABC proceeded to decide the Presidency on issues that would be on the front page of the National Enquirer.

These idiots would have thought they were great journalists in a Burr-Jefferson debate asking Thomas Jefferson about whether he enjoyed having sex with black slaves and had an affair with Marie Antionette while he was in Paris. They would have ignored the issues of the Constitution, Shays and Whisky rebellions, the risk of involvement in the War b/w France and Britain, piracy, how to help Revolutionary War Veterans, whether the Post Office should be allowed to open letters and spy, problems with the Bank of New York, etc.

[BTW Isn’t it a central tenet of Christianity~ as exemplified by Jesus himself~ that one DOES NOT ostracise the adulteress, the thief, the tax-collector from the imperialist occupier, the centurion, former revolutionaries…that one tries to get them to “do good”. Apparently some out there would continue to punish and isolate people even after they are punished for their acts…and punish those that interact with them. Guess that’s what happened to Jesus?]

You’d think that the only thing that has happened in the World since the last debate was Hillary’s Tuzsla gaff, or Obama’s “bitter” statement. Or that tax rates on the wealthiest 1% of the people is of concern to most of America…people who are losing THEIR HOMES, face avalanches of debt with escalating interest rates, stagnating wages, double-digit inflation affecting everything from GAS (boo-hoo…my to fill up my BMW whined Georgie Stephanopolus), to food, and health insurance, and rents, and school tuitions, and prescriptions, and utilities, and….

But George and Charlie think that couples with half-million incomes still are “middle class”? Gimme a break!

“John Brabender is using the comments in a mailer for Matt Shaner a candidate in the state’s 5th District. “He called us a bitter people,” the text says next to a picture of Obama. “He criticized us for ‘clinging’ to religion. He criticized us for ‘clinging’ to guns. Now it’s time to send a message to Barack Obama.” The mailer continues with a quote from Shaner: “I’m a God fearing, church going, NRA member. And I’m proud of it.” Brabender tells the Tribune-Review that Obama’s “bitter” statement “is the gift that you can use all year long.”

Yeah, I’ll bet you are….and believe it, it makes you look like a stupid moron.

Heh, heh, heh…they just come crawin’ outta the woodwork…

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2…..4657.shtml

“but Im tired of him acting holier than thou and as though he doesn’t do it. He does.”

I agree with both you and selise. Rhetorical questions by Obama insinuating that he doesn’t like this sort of politics while he’s doing it is not a reason to vote for him, nor is I’m doing this because I don’t like doing this. And it certainly is not a platform worthy of support by anyone.

The only reason I can find to vote for him if he’s the nominee is because he’s not McCain. And that’s just like the electoral system of the pseudo-democracies: you may vote yes or no. It matters only if you prefer something like being strangled slowly to being shot to death, that is, either way something bad is going to happen to you.

Payback Karma for Domi.

OT Norske what part of the north are you from? Northern Minnesota?

Prime example of why we need to thin the herd

That was cold. Sorry.

Obama and HRC both know what their skeletons are…this is pre-emptive stuff…they are on the same page…this is Kabuki…

Really ? … and John can’t buy better suits ?

Even if he did buy the best Italian designs he would look like hell. I would send him to Burlington’s sales rack. Now Obama, well, he would make any suit look good.

Did you ever wathc McCain walk off a podium? Slump, slump. slump! I get tired just looking at him.

i guess the point i’m coming to, is that if we really want a different kind of debate – then maybe we need to be insisting on it from our candidates.

i’m all for attempting to hold ABC et al accountable for what they are doing… it’s just that i see our real leverage is with the candidates more than with ABC.

and besides, i don’t think they (our candidates) ought to get a free pass for choosing to participate in this kind of debate instead of one organized by, for example, the LWV.

George and Charlie, like the Silent Germans. The opportunity to ask pertinent questions is blown by enablers……

I found it funny, newt … :-)

Mod. I was wondering if someone could check for sock-puppetry? It’s possible that someone has come from out under the bridge and is using an echo to support themselves.

I certainly agree that no one should vote for Obama because he’s a saint — and I’ve made the same point in previous FDL posts as selise about Obama’s lack of action in ending the war.

What I’m pleased about is Obama making a broad argument that I’ve been recommending Democrats should make for a couple of years now. That’s the only point of my post.

Let us be careful that we argue ideas and not castigate or bait each other.
Thanks.

I DID answer the question.

This article is about Obama supposedly “getting it” and once again praising him for his amazing judgment and do-gooder nature, his being above dirty and negative politics.

But he’s NOT. His bringing up the cookie baking thing was a negative hit on Clinton to try to remind people of that negative episode in her past. He says it was basically a swamp, and then says Clinton was in her element. THAT is negative and nasty and an obvious swipe at Clinton.

Fine. Go for it, Obama, but spare us the self-righteous presentation of being above it while attacking everyone else for doing it.

That comes down to my latest “armchair” cheeto munchin’ conclusion that they were in on this somehow. Mmmmm….crunchy cheetos

I find it funny that he’s trying to garble the English language like Dubya …

the other benefit of putting pressure on our candidates to go with the LWV is that we won’t have to listen to george and charlie. shut them out instead of trying to change their behavior.

The NewsHour: Obama was on the defensive, blah, blah, blah. Playing excerpts of Obama on bitter and Clinton piling on. More blow by blow. “…Eventually the debate turned to issues of substance.” That was the set up piece. Garbage.

Now analysis. Democrats unhappy but not criticism of the moderators. More did Obama have a bad night? Still no mention of the moderators. Was Obama surprised by the grilling he got in the first 45 minutes? Still no mention of the vacuousness of the moderators. Finally indirect mention: Can never question the fairness of the moderators. On to flag pins. Obama spin: This was old politics. Still no direct mention of the moderators. On to Clinton. Talking about the Ayers connection. She went to far saying people died. Her negativity. Still no mention of the moderators. Back to Obama. Personal issues important? Mention that no discernable effect on campaign. But concerns blah, blah, blah. What do they have to do to win? Apparently they both need to win to win. No mention of the moderators.

Assessment: Garbage.

care to expand???

I think that is a great idea.

thank you for listening so we don’t have to.

That’s right. By raising the level of debate, he’d be setting himself up for a bollocking in the General.
Keep it low-brow (ChimpyLand) and he’s in safe territory.

If my post had been longer, I would have mentioned that I thought mentioning Hillary was counterproductive — and I got the feeling Obama’s audience was uncomfortable with it as well.

I don’t consider Obama a “do-gooder” at all; as I noted in the comment just above, I’m only praising him for what I think is an effective political argument.

The cookie baking thing was negative? he defended what she said and that is negative? Today is opposite day?

No, you haven’t really adressed my question, you keep arguing a point about Hillary when this article had nothing to do with her.

Oh…God…what is that horrible sound….Ow…oh, it was Cheenee.

Shorter Charles Bibson to Barack Obama:

“You call that foam?”

This article is about Obama supposedly “getting it” and once again praising him for his amazing judgment and do-gooder nature, his being above dirty and negative politics.

But he’s NOT. His bringing up the cookie baking thing was a negative hit on Clinton to try to remind people of that negative episode in her past. He says it was basically a swamp, and then says Clinton was in her element. THAT is negative and nasty and an obvious swipe at Clinton.

I recall that last night you were arguing that Clinton was a better candidate because she would get down and dirty…and Obama would not…against McCain. Now you are saying just the opposite?

… if only … Obama V McCain is gonna be like Ali V Pee Wee Herman …

Edit.Must.Be.Restored.

Taking the high road isn’t goodie. It just means you make a decision not to wallow in the slim.

I did not say that.

That should be the strategy but we’re a stubborn bunch, slow to learn at times.

I like his new name … a petulant child comes to mind … apropos …

I can hear the debate now…
McCain: I know you are but what am I?

it got as high as 5 feet … forgot what color the grass was …

Ya mean it’s not white? ;-)

((( CT )))

Glad that winter is over, although the kids loved all the snow …

No! I just want the Lurking Mod to check…something seemed odd to my ears.

Ah, see?

Obama is very passive-aggressive. He knew exactly what he was doing when he brought up the cookie thing. It’s a good cop/bad cop thing: bring up an ugly to ascribe to his opponent, that gets the memories of a negative thing going, then play the good cop and say something magnanimous. It’s very cunning. He did the exact same thing with the Ferraro comment: he brought up the controversy to remind people of the offense (ie: to NOT let if be forgotten) but then HE (who said nothing at the time, btw) takes on the role of the magnanimous forgiver.

I’ve seen him do this a number of times. It’s totally manipulative and disingenuous. You can’t see it??? Look, it’s a campaign and he has every right to use whatever tools he’s got in his arsenal, but be honest and see it for what it is. And that you can’t only does to show how well it works.

I prefer direct attacks. They’re more honest.

We are good cinnamonape.

My point is about Obama!

This is exactly what I mean by the cult-like think of the Obama camp. It is amazing how people see only what they want to see. My point wasn’t about HIllary. She just happens to be his opponent right now. My point is about the crux of this article, that Obama “gets it” that he’s above negative politics, and he isn’t.

I’ve said this three times now and you keep insisting I’m saying something about Hillary. I’m not.

He only takes swipes AFTER Hillary or one of her neocons takes a swipe at him.

Obama supporters are cultists? Wow. This is what pisses us Obama supporters off: YOU HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS CONTINUE TO SPEW THE REICH WING BULLSHIT AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW THANKFUL THEY ARE THAT YOU ARE!

You hate the Democratic party and hope it doesn’t survive (which is what the neocons want). Admit it.

Good grief…now Ferraro.
Manipulative and disingenuous? Nope, I don’t see it and your characterization of the Ferraro situation rings disingenuous to me.

So by your argument, those of us that fail to see the world as you have painted it demonstrates how well he has employed these ‘tools’. Interesting.

I have no personal beef with hillary (she is a tough fighter) but I don’t agree with her war vote, her *new* umbrella policy when it comes to the mideast, etc. does she have character flaws? Yes. Has he campaign employes tactics that were disagreeable? You betcha but in the end, it is all about the policies

So, you’ve come here to tell us the error of our ways?
We’ve had some experience here with folks who wanted to convince commenters (repeatedly and at enormous length) that we shouldn’t argue the issues, and we were out of bounds to support OUR candidate of choice. We will take any approach we see fit, and your “cult-like” intonations are singularly unimpressive.
No.Thank.You.

So what? And that isnt’ true at all anyway.

Are you saying he’ll bring about that change and end division only if the others do first????

That makes no sense.

“They made me do it” won’t cut it. I expect Clinton to use whatever she can. I expect Obama too, for that matter. But she’s not claiming to be something otherwise. He is. And she is direct in her attacks. He’s very passive-aggressive and sly. That’s worse.

No, not at all.

I’m giving my perspective, if that is okay, and in this case I am pointing out a falsehood I see in the article this thread is about.

What I think you actually mean to say is that criticism of Barack Obama will not be tolerated.

My point exactly.

Right, you don’t see it.

Exactly.

I see it clearly. I also see it when Clinton swipes at Obama.

Therein lies the difference between us.

Well, I see it, and it’s clear and obvious.

Lol.

Ridiculous.

It is amazing how people see only what they want to see.

Never been in a cult in my entire life and you repeating that same tired meme over and over doesn’t make it true. I, as well as many others, are perfectly capable of making sound decisions even if you don’t agree with them.

My point wasn’t about HIllary. She just happens to be his opponent right now. My point is about the crux of this article, that Obama “gets it” that he’s above negative politics, and he isn’t.

but you used her to make your argument so it is understandable that the discussion twisted that way, right?

Kay speaks for me !

Your the only one tht sees things clearly?

Anyone that would see it differently is wrong? doesn’t get it? etc.

That isn’t a very tolerant viewpoint. Isn’t the party suppose to be big tent and allow for differeing opinions?

i’d like to suggest the following possibilities:

1) obama supporters are not cultists
2) obama supporters are not sexists
3) clinton supporters do not hate the democratic party
4) clinton supporters are not racists

I thought you might

Maybe I misinterpreted you when you said

“No way. Obama will have his clock cleaned by the Repubs.

Clinton knows what she’s doing. Dems are too idealistic or stubborn to see it…
But we have got to move the center and some on the right over to ensure a defeat of McCain. Clinton is doing that, and it’s her necessary tactics to do so that people are complaining about, but she’s right to be doing it.”

So I guess I was wrong to think you were saying that Obama was too nice last night, and Clinton had the balls to play dirty.

and…”Dems pissed at Gore and Kerry for not fighting Repubs hard enough. Now pissed at Clinton for having the balls to do so.”

[Comments about she’s attacking Obama and not McCain]…

“Oh, she will if she’s the noiminee. Obama apparently can’t because you all think it’s mean to hit your opponent and want to hit harsh politics.”

I wonder if we are conflating content and process. People can say whatever they want about candidates.

What is less helpful, and certainly less welcome, is repeating the same idea, even the same phrases, again and again with little attempt to engage others in a conversation above “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

It’s like shouting louder and louder because you think the other person can’t “hear” you. We can hear everybody just fine.

Chill out. This is exactly what I mean. Criticism of Obama is always met with reflexive attacks on the individual.

Barack Obama is a very smart man. He knows exactly what he’s doing. There is no way he’s using iconic examples of things people have said that reflected very poorly on them for no reason, Wobbly. I guarantee you his campaign planned that before the debate, told him to look for an opening to bring up the cookie thing. It was a hit wrapped up in phony magnanimity. It’s a good tactic because it works, which you and the others here prove. But it IS a tactic. Don’t kid yourself. This is the big leagues, Wobbly. He didn’t get here by not knowing how to maneuver. He does. He’s very good at it.

After PA, Hillery should be out of money, game over??

as stated before, the day can’t come soon enough when we have a nominee and can concentrate on McCain

Um, this’d be like me saying, “I figure YOU’D prefer manipulative, passive-aggressive BS.”

aS though I know you and know you to be something negative.

Why do Obama’s supporters insist on engaging in this type of personal politics? Criticism of Obama ALWAYS brings it out. I have not attacked anyone here for criticizing Clinton or supporting Obama.

Fine, you prefer subtle, subliminal attacks. Your choice. I prefer them out in the open so I can recognize them and reject them for what they are and not be duped by a candidate.

It doesn’t mean I LIKE either.

Cripes.

Wait, fall back. I never attacked you personally and I take offense to that.

I have no doubt that you feel very strongly about your support for Hillary and no one should beat you over the head for that but you have to equally allow for others to feel just as strongly about Obama (myself not included).

I’m not delusional, kidding myself, blind, etc. I have placed my support behind a candidate (my third choice) who most closely speaks to the issues that are near to my heart, namely the war. My choice is and has never been anti-hillary rather anti-war.

right, you are wrong in your interpretation of what I was saying.

Sort of like how critics of Obama’s bitter remarks are wrong but can also easily make it seem like what he was saying is what they’re claiming he said.

I don’t feel strongly about my support for Hillary. She’s just the candidate I prefer at this point. That’s all. But that is my point. I think Obama’s supporters feel TOO strongly about him, to the point where they are really too vicious about her and too defensive of him and unable to see anything faulty with him. I don’t think it’s healthy.

So you were saying that Obama is doing the same thing that Hillary is…but “Clinton knows what she’s doing”…but “Obama will get his clock cleaned” for doing the same thing…but Obama won’t because he’s trapped into being above dirty politics?

Frankly I don’t know what you are arguing, simply because you change your arguments to suit your purposes of defending Clinton, and attacking Obama whatever Post is presented.

Last night you were saying that the topic of the post above was a “losing strategy” against McCain…and that Obama would have his clock cleaned. Tonight you are saying what seems to me just the opposite, that Obama and his followers are just as dirty as Clinton.

Personally I really wonder WHAT your motivation is being on this site. It’s certainly not gaining support for Clinton.

Time to ignore.

Given your responses and the passion by which you argue, I would think you a very apssionate supporter but the point really is tolerance. While you may think (very overgeneralized at that) that people are cult like or whatever, people may see the same in you.

Rachel up on KO.

I don’t feel strongly about my support for Hillary. She’s just the candidate I prefer at this point. That’s all.

You mean she’s your “Candidate of choice” for this minute? Or this blogsite? That you may later vote for McCain? Or Nader?

You mean that you’re just here to generate arguments? Hmmm! Wonder what that is called?

I need to keep reminding myself:
Do not feed…
For my part, I’m sorry I fell into the trap.

No. Wrong on all counts.

Interesting that you don’t include Obama in my list of voting choices if he’s the nominee.

Have you seen me say I will not vote for him?

Oh wait, no! In fact up above I say I WILL vote for him.

Well lookie there!

Don’t read so much hostility and negativity into what I’m saying. This is what I mean: if you don’t support Obama, you are some kind of enemy.

C’mon.

“Personally I really wonder WHAT your motivation is being on this site. It’s certainly not gaining support for Clinton.”

Are we supposed to be carrying partisan water here?

I see.

So on this site too everyone must be for Obama, must all be in agreement, and must not post any differing viewpoints, particularly criticism of Obama, otherwise, you are feeding an animal if you respond???

It’s nothing more than opinion meant to provoke so don’t reply???

I’m really not getting how Obama is going to create all this change and hope when in fact he seems to have created a lot of hostility and nastiness.

The poster does seem to be saying that only Obama supporters need bother being here and that anyone else is some kind of unwanted alien.

Another insists that since I am not supporting Obama and/or am supporting Clinton, I therefore hate the Democratic party.

But don’t say there is a cult-like mentality over there!

Except for one problem. I defend Obama on the merits where I see fit and criticize Clinton where I see fit.

Hardly evidence of a cult mentality.

I guess I was attacking Obama when I said his “bitter” comment was not only true but that it was being deliberately twisted into something it wasn’t.

Wow. Brutal of me.

Does one need a purpose to be in a site? I’m expressing opinion. I don’t expect to dissuade anyone away from Obama and to Clinton.

And it isn’t me asking Obama supporters what the heck they’re doing on a left-wing site nad if they hate the Democratic party because they dare support a Democratic nominee and what are they doing here and on and on.

I see very few posts about Clinton by Obama supporters that are not critical of her. Can I assume it’s different when Clinton is attacked or criticized?

Why?

Juno, Although I prefer Obama over Clinton, I enjoy your comments. You are a breath of fresh air here.

Thanks! I appreciate that. But it seems most think I’m a breath of smog.

Sigh.

When you challenge or criticize Obamathink, you’d better have your armor on. But feel free to say whatever you want about Clinton, including calling her a bitch. Fine and dandy.

You know why Gibson and Snuffy are getting the business today (deserved)? Because finally Obama was given a hard time, and the left-wing blogosphere, which is predominantly Obama supporting, has gone ballistic. I approve! Dont’ get me wrong. It’s about time the press is confronted head on for its deplorable behavior the last 15 years.

But Clinton’s been putting up with this trivial garbage for months, the press pounding her on her weepy moments, her pantsuits,her husband, all kinds of trivial stuff, and there was no outcry like we’re seeing now. I happen to agree with Obama about the gotcha nature of the press and that it’s a bad thing (where I stray from him is when he actually engages in it himself while seeming to deny wanting to do so), but it was bad when they were doing it to Clinton too, and Gore and Kerry, etc.

Exactly. Needlenose had something to say, you repeat yourself every
evening, blah blah blah… same line over and over and over, sounds like
HRC ” I’m just sayin’ I’m better and have all this experience being
Bill Clintons cuckold ” over and over and over. Funny and sad as well.
Read, review, repeat, doloop.

I am getting a sense that something isn’t right here given your treatment here for making and defending your observations reasonably, the treatment handed out to me and another by the managing editor and others in the “Why We Boo” thread and cinnamonape’s inference that one’s presence here is to gain support for a candidate.

I didn’t come here to cheerlead for the opinions of select others or grind an axe, but to discuss issues. I can get dogma and lockstep cheerleading at any right-wing site.

Send me your tired… and they did.

I apologize for being a drone and boring you.

If it’s okay, I will express my opinion on points I think are germane to the campaign going on right now.

A few seem to be pretty clearly stating that that is what this site is for: to support Obama and/or criticize Clinton.

They even seem perplexed that a Clinton supporter should even be here, must has some ulterior motive or something.

I don’t get that.

Well, to be faqir and honest there are other posts bringing up other issues. :-)

err… fair

It is perplexing. Many pro-Omama commentors, who I know to be intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonable, when it comes to Obama/Clinton conduct themselves in a manner that is less than one would hope for.

Umm i didn’t call you a cultist. I said the passion by which you argue could be percieved in that manner much as you characterize obama supporters.

You missed my point but all it really was was a plea for tolerance. As you expect to be shown some, you have to extend that to others.

that would apply to clinton supporters as well (to be fair) right?

Not so much here, but on other sites it is true.

I don’t think I’ve shown any intolerance at all. Are you being made to feel like you do not belong posting on this site? Am I telling others to ignore your posts?

No, because it isn’t Clinton running a campaign BASED on changing the tone and ending divisive politics.

no, but to call supporters of another candidate cultists and characterize their disagreement of your characterizations as some failure on their part is not tolerant.
BTW it was never about how I feel because I could care less what others think of me (it’s just the internet) it was more of trying to point out the imbalance of expecting people to respect ypur view points and not attack you over them and vice versa.

With that, I bid you a good evening

Hey Juno, you are not the only one here who sees that the “emperor” has no clothes. Enjoyed your feisty take. That passive-aggressive knock is very true. Note how he brought in the “Clinton” years along with the Bush years in his “bitter” speech in San Fran. The only successful democratic presidency in nearly a generation, and he disses it as though it were equivalent to the current disastrous presidency. And this wasn’t the first time he selectively downplayed the first two-term democratic presidency since FDR. In Nevada he insinuated in Orwellian terms that the Reagan years was more successful than the Clinton years!

“I can get dogma and lockstep cheerleading at any right-wing site.”

And on many left-wing sites like DKos (and, to be fair, pro-Hill sites like no quarter and taylor marsh) :-)

FDL (like Digby) has been quite fair in this regard and many thanks to Jane and Christie and others for keeping it open to diverse opinions.