« South Carolina Open Thread | Main | The Enemy of Their Enemy »

January 26, 2008

Comments

And by the way, I don't know whether Charles Bird still frequents this site, sucking and ruining or not, but if he does, tell him I said that Kerry never opposed funding the troops and I guarantee you he will confirm I am the same Trickster referenced in the above link. I think jesurgislac, praktike, Sebastian Holdsclaw, and perhaps a few more might remember me as well.

Let's don't start the race-baiting argument now, Sebastian. It will be a long argument, with a lot of evidence on the table.

Let's just say I suspect I have a different position than you of which campaign is at fault there.

I really really tend to doubt the usefulness of repeating words, but I just don't know what to say beyond this: I don't know why people use non-specifically identifiable names. I just don't.

I'm sure it's not intentionally dishonest, but I don't understand how it isn't stupid to not use an identifier that isn't unique.

Only a moron wouldn't think they were the only "jeff" or "ken" or "trickster" or any other simple noun or common name or non-unique identifier in the world.

I don't get why anyone indulges in this practice, and doesn't expect trouble. If it's not sheer arrogance (I was the first on the Well/AOL/sff.net/compuserve/usenet/whatever), then what?

"I've been using Trickster and Trickster alone for political postings ever since I was a regular at MediaWhoresOnline.com back in the day. I used to be a front-pager at Tacitus under this name,"

To be specific: so what? Do you think this gives you some sort of online originality, or an early usage of the name?

Do you think no one before you used the name "trickster" on the internet, say, back in the nineties, or eighties, or seventies? Are you claiming original usage?

If not, what's your point?

Oops, sorry for repetition, and apologies to trickster for hitting twice.

I was among the many who jumped on the original comment from Obama, because it read very badly to me. But here's the thing: he clarified. He's said more things, and they add up to a picture I find far less objectionable. And it seems to me very strange to keep on with a close reading of the one statement in isolation from either the history that Hilzoy's documenting or the widely reported additional comments. Everybody says unfortunate things occasionally, and one of the tests of a good candidate is how they handle them. We're seeing that here, if we wish to look.

Gary, I really don't understand what kind of trouble you're thinking I might run into. Trouble of someone else pretending to be me? They could pretend to be you, as well.

I'm more interested in the trouble of getting murdered for speaking out against God's Own Party. Staying away from my own name gives me some comfort in that regard, and "Trickster" is a word that I can remember (as opposed to calling myself x783MN% or something of that ilk).

You seem kind of insistent about this, but I'm sorry. I feel I've explained this sufficiently now.

Is this important? Substantively, maybe, maybe not. Politically, yes, very. Either way, I just have to chip in, even though it's a bit off the threat subject, because Obama got caught red-handed lying about "The Snub" today.

On Obama’s campaign plane, he answered questions about the “snub” moment from the State of the Union and Florida’s relevance, or lack there of, in this nominating process.

He said he was “surprised” about the photo and how his apparent turning away from Clinton was being characterized.

“I was turning away because Claire [McCaskill] asked me a question, as Senator Kennedy was reaching for her [Clinton],”

Unfortunately for that story, this photo was taken after Obama turned away but clearly before McCaskill reached out to him. In the photo, Obama's back is to Clinton but McCaskill isn't even looking at him, she's looking at Teddy & Hillary.

Does that really look like somebody who had just tapped Obama on the shoulder and has something to say to him? I know! It's one of those "joke taps," where you stand behind the person to the left, tap them on the right shoulder, then scuttle away to the side when they turn around for a big haha! (And couldn't McCaskill, who sat next to Obama and was at his side all night, find a better moment to interrupt him than the exact moment his chief rival was coming up to greet him and the other top newsmaker of the day?)

If that's not enough to convince you it was a lie--and I don't know why it isn't--then how about the fact that Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod gave a completely different and contradictory explanation on MSNBC this morning:

He knew that Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton were friends. This was obviously an awkward day from that standpoint, and I don't think he wanted to stand there while Senator Kennedy was greeting Senator Clinton. And I think that was an appropriate sentiment

This is the same guy that interrupted Hillary Clinton at the South Carolina debate to deny that he had ever been a proponent of single-payer health care and interrupted her at the New Hampshire debate to deny that his New Hampshire campaign chairman was a registered lobbyist, making her look like a liar who would say anything to get elected both times. Trouble is, it was actually Obama who was lying--both times.

Kern harder, Trickster (and never mind McCaskill's version of THE SNUB!!!!!)

Actually, Justin, I had already read that, and it left me wondering how McCaskill knew what Obama's intent was in turning away from Clinton. I mean, since Obama said he was surprised to learn about this from seeing news reports this morning, I wonder when they communicated about what his intent was.

Also, please note that she does not confirm Obama's account of the shoulder-tap, an account which seems to me to be fairly debunked by the photo I linked to. (Alternatively, look at this sequence of four photos, in none of which a hand is visible on Obama's shoulder.

It's Obama's account of "The Snub," not "The Snub," which I would call petulant and revealing but in a relatively unimportant way, that is the subject of my post. The account is revealing in more important ways, IMO.

That rat Obama! Lying so as not to let the press make the story of the Dem primary some sort of grudge match between him and HRC. Doesn't he know he can only tell the truth to the media! It's evil spin! But wait, I thought you were defending spin when HRC did it? This is all so confusing, wake me up after the primaries, please.

That's a fairly generous interpretation, liberal, I would say, since Obama is in a bit of political trouble over this business (as silly as that is, it's almost undoubtedly true).

My take is that it is a piece with when Clinton called him at the NH debate on having a registered lobbyist as a campaign chair and he interrupted her to say that wasn't true, or when she claimed in the SC debate that he had previously supported single payer and he interrupted her to say that wasn't true. I think there's an interpretation out there to be made that Obama reacts to being on the spot unexpectedly by lying unconvincingly--and it's the "unconvincingly" part that's really damaging. I mean, this "she tapped me on the shoulder" bit is thin. Lots of people were watching.

Are people using names like Donald Johnson and John Miller that are also unlikely to be unique in the blogosphere also morons?

Duh, I don't know, maybe, duh, I'll getback to you on that.

Trickster, you're definitely on to something now. This is nearly as exciting as the analysis of the photo of John Kerry supposedly being ostracized by the troops at the dining hall in Iraq.

Okay, I'm back.

A have stayed away from this since early on and have enjoyed Trickster's convoluted and IMO specious reasoning to make a case that doesn't exist.

S/he also seems to have a difficult time understanding the difference between infer and imply.

The fact that Trickster infers that Obama was praising Reagan and Republican ideas is not the same as Obama implying that.

I do appreciate the attempts. It differentiates you from ken. And I do see a much greater sense of sincerity.

One problem that I see the Clinton defenders having here is that they seem to think the Obama supporters feel that Obama can walk on water. Not true.

BTW, I want to take back something I said further up the threa (I think it was this thread). I will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. However I know 3 members of my family that will definitely vote for Obama, but not only won't vote for Clinton, but will vote for McCain if he is the nominee. Anecdotal, I know.

Only a moron wouldn't think they were the only "jeff" or "ken" or "trickster" or any other simple noun or common name or non-unique identifier in the world.

So what the heck is up with people showing up using the same name as longtime contributors and internet users, absent any research, or interest in whether they're using a unique identifier?

In my case, indifference. If there's another Jeff whose posts might be mistaken for mine, I might change my sign-in. Otherwise, I don't see the point.

Maybe Trickster and Bob Owen can team up and take this show on the road. Sort of like "Crossfire," only with photo analysis and font kerning.

I would suggest that, the general despicability of their worldview aside, the Republicans are not really well-known for murdering bloggers, anonymous or not, but for all I know you're posting from Karl Rove's bathroom with a laptop and genuinely fear for your life.

I'd be more interested in this lying thing if we were talking about lies that mattered. I accused Obama of lying in another thread, but it was about something that mattered a bit more--whether one could excuse Israel's actions in Lebanon in 2006 by claiming that Hezbollah used human shields. This matters. (Though I suspect that any lie Obama might tell on this subject would be topped by Clinton.)

Whether Obama snubbed Clinton and lied about it doesn't seem very important to me.

On the name thing, I use "Donald Johnson" because it's the name I was given at birth, and while I could add my middle name and my social security number to further decrease any chance of confusion, there are downsides to that.

Whether Obama snubbed Clinton and lied about it doesn't seem very important to me.

It's not an important lie. What's revealing about it, though, is what a clumsy and amateurish lie it was. Like I said, the whole world was watching and he claims that a physical event occurred that did not occur.

And it's especially disturbing that he also lied--clumsily, in a way that could be easily found out--when he got put on the spot with something uncomfortable at the NH & SC debates. Believe you me, the Republicans will make him uncomfortable a lot in the fall.

Believe you me, the Republicans will make him uncomfortable a lot in the fall.

Well, I hear that we’re much better liars… so we will certainly do our best to make him uncomfortable if he is still lying so clumsily. Amateur.

Hey, let me say right here that I have been laboring under the impression that I must've gotten from some blog post somewhere that Obama said McCaskill tapped him on the shoulder before he turned. I just realized that he didn't say that, and that takes some of the air out of what I have been saying.

What he said was that she asked him a question and he turned. That, still, is pretty clearly not true, but it's not nearly as clumsy and amateurish as what I had been thinking and implying.

So, a partial mea culpa, and a partial backdown. Not a complete one, though.

So, a partial mea culpa, and a partial backdown. Not a complete one, though.

Well, you are pretty far out on that limb, so there's lots of space to back down...;^)

That MyDD post is some seriously paranoid Oliver Stone grassy-knoll bulls#!t. They can tell all that from a couple of photos, can they? Do they also have one of those gadgets from Blade Runner that can reconstruct an entire scene from the reflection in Sen. Clinton's pearls?

hey can tell all that from a couple of photos, can they? Do they also have one of those gadgets from Blade Runner that can reconstruct an entire scene from the reflection in Sen. Clinton's pearls?

Sure they do! Haven't you seen it used on CSI and Law & Order: SVU?

Seriously, if everyone is really so hot and bothered about this high school lunchroom garbage, has anyone even asked Sen. Clinton whether she thought she was snubbed?

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton just showed up at a rained-out game to try to claim victory by default. No shame whatsoever.

"if everyone is really so hot and bothered about this high school lunchroom garbage"

Not an assumption worth adopting.

I've become rather fond of the theory that everyone should killfile every claim from cable tv.

As you probably realize, I'm using the word "everyone" strictly for dramatic effect, Gary. :)

Yes, I made an assertion. No, I don't think there's proof of it.

OK thanks, no need to follow that chain of posts any further. That saved me a lot of time.

Re: Clinton --

I have no idea what Clinton's intent was in alluding to Jackson. Don't know if it was some kind of dog-whistle politics, or if he was just making a plainly factual observation.

It's also not suprising that black voters in SC would, all other things being equal, favor Obama. Many women favor Clinton because she's a woman. No doubt Romney owns the Mormon vote wherever and whenever he runs.

Someday, maybe, we'll get to the point where none of the above matters at all. We're not there yet.

Here is why Bill Clinton's remarks were inappropriate and obnoxious. I can sum it up in two words:

Sour grapes.

Clinton lost. The Clintons are not gracious losers.

Thanks -

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad