« My Last Word On Electability | Main | Scott Lemieux: Man ...or Machine? »

January 22, 2008

Comments

I think ken must be getting a nickel for every time he types the phrases "republican editorial board/newspaper" and "praise/d republican ideas." He sure does like repeating them. It seems talking points are okay as long as they're HRC talking points. Because she's the savior of liberalism or something. The defender of the flame of progressivism against the Obamamole, minion of the right, alleged tender of goats and attender of semi-nice schools!

I think ken must be getting a nickel for every time he types the phrases "republican editorial board/newspaper" and "praise/d republican ideas." He sure does like repeating them. It seems talking points are okay as long as they're HRC talking points. Because she's the savior of liberalism or something. The defender of the flame of progressivism against the Obamamole, minion of the right, alleged tender of goats and attender of semi-nice schools!

Gary: This shows he's just like OJ inside, which is something Obama supporters don't want you to know!!!!!

Werd.

Official Beltway narrative: Nurse Ratchet vs. the Angry Black Man.

Sweet Jesus, I hate teh MSM.

Actually ken emailed me to say he's having a problem with his keyboard. The control and V keys are stuck down, otherwise he would post about how he really likes Barack's narrative of transformational politics.

You've only scratched the surface. Once this is accomplished, Skynet will be in position to take over almost immediately.

Win.

Cut the Gordian Knot!

ken, I couldn't agree more with your comments here

Perhaps you did not listen to the debate closely enough and did not do any actual research on what Obama actually said.

tell 'em ken!

What is factually true is that...Hillary Clinton did...misrepresent Obama.

it's true. sage words from a wise man.

Clinton attacked Obama...This is true

rather unfairly (!), too, as you noted above.

Obama responded by saying that even Hillary praised Reagan. This is true

Yeah, what a hypocrite she is, right? I' glad you're calling her on it.

Hillary shot back that she was criticizing him on praising republican ideas, not on his admiration for Reagan. Hillary was ...trying to mislead the audience.

That about sums it up.

I was wondering why a Republican editorial board would have endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004, but then I noticed that Ken actually wrote "republican". Apparently they're just big fans of being a republic. So apparently the criticism now is that Obama was approving of republican ideas, not Republican ones. Perhaps Ken is a monarchist.

"Imagine what he'd be like with his finger on the nuclear button!"

He'd be confused and disoriented, and probably hit the button without knowing it:

From today's LA Times:

OBAMA SAYS HE BUNGLED SOME ILLINOIS VOTES

By Peter Wallsten, L.A. Times Staff Writer
5:08 PM PST, January 23, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.

"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."

That misfire was not an isolated case for the young former civil-rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. At least five times during his eight years in state office, Obama cast a vote and then said he had hit the wrong button, according to transcripts of the proceedings.

The rules allow Illinois lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention.

But some lawmakers say the unusual practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."

That's what we need all right: a Prez who doesn't know his left finger from his right.

"He'd be confused and disoriented, and probably hit the button without knowing it"

On the bright side, I'm really looking forward to seeing Obama starring in this.

He's one funny guy. Angry, you know, very very angry -- but funny angry.

But also scary! Very very very scary!

I'm trying to figure out when the anti-Obama campaign wandered into commentary that seems reminiscent of this script.

This exchange particularly sticks with me:

Colonel Tom Edwards: This is the most fantastic story I've ever heard.
Jeff Trent: And every word of it's true, too.
Colonel Tom Edwards: That's the fantastic part of it.
So true.

But I'm also thinking of Criswell's entire introductory speech.

Although it's somewhat over-literate for Ken, to be sure.

I agree with Ken and Jay J.

Obama worked for a slum lord after learning to hide his Muslim identity in a Madrassa while plotting the assassination of Reagan, the very man he loved so deeply. When all is told, this politically divisive character, Barack Obama (scion of the famous Kenyan sheep herding family of the same name), will have destroyed the credibility of the democratic cause by insisting that one vote counts for five... all the while doing something 'in the neighborhood' that might or might not have been related to selling crack.

As a former Democrat who left the party when Bill Clinton moved it decisively rightward (welfare "reform" was the last straw), I keep getting the impression that both Obama's and Clinton's appeals to progressives consist of focusing obsessively on the other candidate and pointing out (correctly IMO) that s/he is a center-right, corporate Democrat who offers little to progressives. And progressive Democrats seem to have taken the bait.

Ultimately conversations about the race among progressives quickly turn into discussions of campaign tactics because there's little to separate Obama and Clinton on the issues. Neither candidate actually offers progressives much of anything more than being less bad than any of the possible Republican candidates (which of course both of them are).

It is slightly embarrassing to see ObWi degrade like this. This is not 'reasonably civil', it's coming closer to 'consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake' and with the loads of childish snark comes close to 'disrupting or destroying meaningful conversation for its own sake'.

What I remember from 2004 is that by the time Kerry was the nominee people had worked so hard to reinforce his flaws that even a hugh majority of democrats couldn't be enthousiastic about him anymore. It's kind of hard to convince others that voting for that person is a good thing, if enough democrats state that they only do it while holding their nose. *If* Hillary becomes the nominee for the Democratic party that seems to happen again. In wich case the democrats vilifying her now are as much to blame when yet again a Republican becomes president.

A few months ago people wrote that they were glad the Democrats had such a strong field with three good candidates. Now, less than a year later, you've all done a lot of the rightwing's work for them in thrashing those candidates.

Ken made a reasonable point imho, where he says that Obama responded with a remark about Reagan when Clinton had only mentioned the ideas, not Reagan. I think in the original interview Obama expressed approval of the fact that the Republican *had* ideas and tried different things, but that he implied that those ideas didn't work out well. My impression was that people thought his reaching out to the Republicans by trying to find common ground was a good thing - and frankly I think he would have done a better job in the debate had he explained his comments instead of trying to get back at Clinton the same way.

The email Gromit received is much more postitive for both Obama and the Democrats imho. But unfortunately so far (as a reasonable impartial observer for whom Hillary would not be first choice if I could vote) I've not seen the same standards of scrutiny for both candidates - let alone a comparison of records, issues and experience.

It is slightly embarrassing to see ObWi degrade like this. This is not 'reasonably civil', it's coming closer to 'consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake' and with the loads of childish snark comes close to 'disrupting or destroying meaningful conversation for its own sake'.

A lot of the commentary being snarked at is worthy of it, e.g. "I'm glad you agree with me" when no one's done any such thing, etc. I don't see this so much as lowering of the level of discourse as just responding in kind. The whole Madrassa thing, e.g., is so ridiculous that I've come to think that mockery is the best response -- I think it does those sorts of arguments too much credit to trete them seriously.

What I remember from 2004 is that by the time Kerry was the nominee people had worked so hard to reinforce his flaws that even a hugh majority of democrats couldn't be enthousiastic about him anymore.

Funny, my feeling from the very beginning was that I had to work like crazy to make myself enthusastic about him. Because he was boring. Really, really boring.

A few months ago people wrote that they were glad the Democrats had such a strong field with three good candidates. Now, less than a year later, you've all done a lot of the rightwing's work for them in thrashing those candidates.

Wait, I thought that the current consensus was that it's better to have gone through the crucible of criticism? I can't keep up with the spin anymore.

Regardless, this is all a matter of perspective -- my impression is that Obama was (and is) schooling Clinton in the campaign and she adopted this strategy intentionally to try and take the luster off of his persona. I don't think it's very fair to say that Obama started any of this -- e.g., his Reagan remarks certainly weren't targeted at Senator Clinton, though I bet they pissed off Bill pretty good.

I hate to get back to the "they started it" issues, but all else notwithstanding, it's pretty clear to me who started all this. Obama was running a very positive campaign, and it was working well -- too well -- so Senator Clinton put him in a lose-lose situation where he had to respond and look aggressive or stay quiet and look weak. (She tried this back in November, too, and it backfired like crazy.)

The fact that Obama's stayed as on-message as he has is actually really impressive to me -- I think he's certainly done a better job than Hillary, and far more than Bill. Obama's clearly gotten under their skin much more than they managed to get under his, and considering the Clintons' political acumen, that's saying something.

Ken made a reasonable point imho, where he says that Obama responded with a remark about Reagan when Clinton had only mentioned the ideas, not Reagan. I think in the original interview Obama expressed approval of the fact that the Republican *had* ideas and tried different things, but that he implied that those ideas didn't work out well. My impression was that people thought his reaching out to the Republicans by trying to find common ground was a good thing - and frankly I think he would have done a better job in the debate had he explained his comments instead of trying to get back at Clinton the same way.

Even if you buy the Reagan/Republicans parsing, it was Bill who made the Reagan comments, and Obama clarified that during the exchange during the debate -- that was the basis of the "I don't know who I'm running against" remark, and I thought it was a fair point in context. She was just playing semantics; the distinction wasn't relevant to her criticism.

At any rate, as far as I could tell he did exactly what you suggested he do in the debates -- he said outright that he thought that Reagan was a disaster for the Democratic Party and that the Republicans in the 1990s had "bad ideas," but that they managed to connect with voters in a way we didn't, and it hurt us. That's a really straightforward argument that a lot of Democrats have been making for two decades now -- including both Clintons, frequently -- and the fact that he even had to clarify it at all was pretty silly in the first place.

Of course I apologize for the snark, juvenile as it was. Did not mean to vilify posters or degrade the conversation, just voice a little exasperation with my reading of this thread, if in an exaggerated manner. I should face up to the fact I'm not very good at teh funny... so apologies to the Ken and Jay, and the community in general. This is pretty much the only blog I take time to read the comments on, so here's to an elevated discourse and less snark from me.

Trips: I thought it was funny...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad