As Barack Obama weathers the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, Hillary Clinton misspeaks. Compare and contrast …
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
As Barack Obama weathers the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, Hillary Clinton misspeaks. Compare and contrast …
1,114 Comments
Clinton’s slight of mouth is worrying. It’s a bit hard to mistake whether you experienced sniper fire or not. As if the security organisations of the US would allow the first lady to land in a warzone.
Damn she likes shooting herself in the foot.
$1127 Diogenes , a few days ago you said Obama lacked judgement in attending
have you changed your mind ?
are you seriously suggesting that a Church you attend with your kids with sermons preaching pedophilia , which you privately disagee with , is still OK to attend & if not why use it as an analogy ?
(the question is not whether by attendance you are a pedophila supporter)
The Big Mo is building. the SDs WILL vote block as a block one way or the other. That is the only fair and intended way. The SDs were created for situation like this.
How to end the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama standoff.
One of those is Edward Espinoza, 35, of Long Beach, a member of the Democratic National Committee. He was blunt in a recent conversation with Times’ reporter Peter Nicholas, saying that if the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lasts through the Democratic National Convention in late August, it would be “devastating’’ for the party.
At that point, if none of the remaining primaries between now and then has established either Clinton or Obama as the obvious frontrunner (which seems unlikely) and neither has dropped out (even more unlikely), the superdelegates need to “put our weight behind someone’’ to determine the nominee, he said. “There will come a time when we need to step in and bring some closure to it,” said Espinoza, a political and public relations strategist who had backed Bill Richardson but now is uncommitted.
He added: “We don’t just have an opportunity to put an end to it; we have an obligation to put an end to it.” …………… But we suspect he is giving voice to a growing restiveness among superdelegates — an attitude being promoted most obviously by Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen. Bredesen, who like Espinoza is uncommitted, appeared on MSNBC today to push his call for a quasi-convention of superdelegates in June (after the Montana and South Dakota votes) to settle “a problem we didn’t expect as a party” — i.e., that the primaries would prove non-conclusive.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/clintonobama-st.html
Money talks. The thin Lady got a smack while the Fat Lady is just about finishing her make-up.
Clinton Donors Warn Pelosi on Superdelegates
A group of major contributors to the Democratic Party sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today calling on her to back away from previous comments and reaffirm that superdelegates should be free to back whichever candidate they believe would be the party’s best nominee. ………. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of the organizers of the letter, said the objective was to “to make sure this thing isn’t over till it’s over” and to “send a message to those who want to cut off debate, that that’s not in the best interests of the Democratic Party.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/clinton_donors_warn_pelosi_on.html
Finns @ 3,
I think Obama is already “established as the obvious frontrunner”, isn’t he?
Sure, it’s close. But he’s clearly ahead, and pretty much certain to stay ahead, on any metric I can think of, except committed SDs where the gap is narrowing dramatically (and in any case he only needs something like 30% of the remaining uncommitteds).
I was previously in the “Obama will probably win but it’s not over” camp, because I wasn’t sure what the SDs would do. Richardson tipped me over the edge. The “heavy” SDs seem to me to be deciding for Obama, or at least deciding that they won’t do something decisive (which means Obama wins because of his lead in delegates).
I don’t see how Clinton can win from here, barring the extraordinary.
From a Dem perspective, let’s just hope the general doesn’t come down to Florida.
Registration in PA, along with the fact that Obama has had no organisation in the State so far, and now has money and 9 unions in the state for him. He’ll doubtless be within 10 of her there:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1725397,00.html
“Although the final numbers are not yet in, so far registration has swelled 84,801 since the 2006 elections — that’s 11% of the 790,000 people who voted in the 2004 Democratic primary. Last week alone 50,347 people became Democratic voters, according to Pennsylvania’s State Department, bringing the state party’s total to over four million for the first time ever. Since the beginning of the year, 86,711 Republicans and Independents have switched affiliations, and in just the last three weeks 34,104 new voters registered as Democrats. Significantly, 64% of those who changed parties were in the 12 largest counties — urban areas that have large African American and educated white populations, demographics that are Obama’s strength. “I think he has a chance to pull off an upset here,” said Ray Owen, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh. “The rates of changes in registration and new registrations indicate that some independents are joining the new voters in registering Democratic.”
A message from Hillary,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lK-0wfHutk
Democratic organisations are beginning to accept Obama as presumptive nominee:
“So today the Blue Majority sites (dKos, Swing State Project, and Open Left) added Barack Obama to our ActBlue fundraising page. All three sites held votes of their readership. Daily Kos passed the super-majority threshold a few weeks ago, SSP and Open Left did it yesterday.
It’s clear our communities have become heavily pro-Obama, especially as Clinton’s only path to victory is via coup by super delegate and civil war, and she doesn’t give a damn.”
http://www.dailykos.com/
About her war comments, What is hard to understand is how Clinton thought that nobody would notice? Plus the war was over in 1996 when she visited, so it didn’t make much sense.
Another month, another set of awful numbers, and Feb’s durable goods number is lousy:
Orders for core capital equipment — that is, nondefense, nonaircraft capital equipment — fell 2.6%. Shipments fell 2.1%.
(Of course the headline figure is only 1.7%, but as all good market watchers know, that ain’t the one that counts).
The US dollar got whacked again, and the message to the market is that the credit crunch is still well and truly with us (another mulit-billion deal fell over because of it).
It’s dawning, one month at a time, a recession is here, when the economy is drowning in debt, inflation is well out of the box and home prices are having their biggest falls in living memory.
Welcome to Greenspan’s legacy, and good luck to whoever inherits it as the next POTUS.
#8 Amigo, you ODs blasted me for quoting the right wingers. You are quoting DailyKos to support your case? gimme a break. you guys are full of the double standard bs.
I think everyone has missed a major point re: Hillary’s ‘Misspeak’… using it to bolster her claim of foregin policy experience!?!?! If being shot at shows foreign policy experience 50 Cent is in the running for Secreatary of State
Interesting Gallup Poll
From registered Democrats 28% of Clinton supporters and 19% of Obama supporters say they would vote for McCain if the other Democratic candidate got the nomination. From 1992 to 2004 less than 10% of members registered for a party have voted against their candidate. If this statistics comes out to be a reality it would be almost impossible for either Democratic candidate to win in Nov. However due to such a strong battle between the democratic candidates it is possible people are saying they would vote differently to make either choice look better. This is still a bad outcome for either candidate.
Finn, there’s a difference between people using sources such as National Review as a source for news on the Democratic Party and using DailyKOS. Sure, they’re both biased in different ways, but I’d be more inclined to believe Democrats on Democratic Party news rather than neo-cons.
Stephen: What wasn’t in that poll was the number of Republicans that would switch to the Democratic Party if John McCain was the nominee.
SC #12, I would take the statement of Clinton and Obama supporters re supporting McCain with half a ton of salt. It seems there are historical precedents to back my scepticism up.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/some_context_on_the_democratic.php
Finns, unlike the sniping of right-wing commentary, which has little to do with the Democratic nomination contest, what I linked to @8 is an organisation run by and for Democratic members, in support of all their candidates. Here is a page of some they are supporting: http://www.actblue.com/page/bluemajority. I could have linked directly to this page, but seeing as you have been having trouble with independent analysis, and seem to be smarting for being called up on using discredited gutter arguments of neo-cons like Bill Kristol, I thought the Kos piece might help.
ActBlue, the organisation in question, have raised over $350,000 for all the candidates that they are supporting, and today they endorsed, and are starting to raise for Obama. The fact that the link I provided comes from the Daily Kos does not discount the argument that momentum, money and Party apparatus is increasingly moving to Obama.
Finns
Arguing that a right wing website is as credible as a left wing website, is like arguing that a creation website is equal to an evolution website.
It is not both sides have a different opinion and they balance out.
One side is clearly wrong and spouts rubbish. Its up to you whether you want to support that rubbish.
And the best news of the day, Samantha Power will be back on board once Hillary is gone:
‘And, to the delight of many in the crowd, she even hinted that she could be part of that hypothetical cabinet. “Because of the kind of campaign that Senator Obama has run,” Power said, “it seemed appropriate for someone of my Irish temper to step aside, at least for a while. We will see what happens there.”‘
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/26/samantha-power-unapologet_n_93493.html
Morning Bludgers,
Remember yesterday I said that journos would be sifting through Hillary’s speeches, interviews and media footage to compile a list of ‘misspoken’ moments?
Former Bill adviser, Dick Morris, is the first to publish his list:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html
In a vain attempt to get the first 100 comments to be vaguely psephological, here are some back of the envelope calculations with “excellent cases” for each candidate. Of course they are not realistic, as a proper look would include the size of the congressional districts in terms of delegates and different polling in different states, but this at least shows the enormity of the task facing Clinton.
State-by-state figures from realclearpolitics
superdelegate numbers from demconwatch (who only list a super if they have a media article stated an endorsement, not “leaning towards”).
Clintons best three “states” so far in terms of proportion of pledged delegates:
Arkansas 0.771
American Samoa 0.667
Oklahoma 0.6315
Obama’s best three “states”
Virgin Islands 1
Idaho 0.833333333
DC 0.733333333
If Clinton does as well (in terms of the proportion of delegates) in *all* remaining contests as she did in Oklahoma, she still doesn’t win the pledged delegate total over Obama (which I guess is why the Clinton camp is talking popular vote). She would need to do as well in all the remaining contests as she did in American Samoa (2 out of 3 delegates) to win the pledged delegate total.
If Obama does as well as he did in DC in all the remaining contests, not only does he win the pledged delegate total, but he wins the nomination with his current superdelegate endorsements.
(assuming current superdelegate endorsements)
Obama scenario (as good as DC in all remaining contests)
pledged
Obama 1821
Clinton 1400
total
Obama 2031
Clinton 1646
Clinton scenario (as good as Oklahoma in all remaining contests)
pledged
Obama 1615
Clinton 1606
total
Obama 1825
Clinton 1852
3 – Finns
Look what else Phil Bredesen has to say:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9217.html
If the Democrats think they can let this thing go until June without mortally damaging their presidential prospects – they’re dreamin’
That fundraiser letter to Pelosi is pretty sad. In the week or so since Hillary covened a meeting of her bag-people, those same bag-people have sent out intimidatory public letters to Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi in an attempt to strong arm the Party into endorsing their candidate, threatening otherwise to take their bat and ball and go home. Mature, democratic stuff. For one, it is far too late to be pulling such moves – it just smacks of desparation. Two, it is a completely transparent and hopeless tactic, and does not endear Hillary any further to the SDs who need to make the decision. Three, this lot of pathetic checkbook wanna-be influencers will come crawling back when the chance to be involved in the Obama White house presents itself.
A bit of a wacky opening here (I’d like to think of it as a bit of preaching to the choir), but then ‘The conservative case for Barack Obama’. Glen, other cons, any merit here? Will such arguments wash?:
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html
asanque@ 16.
You’d make a great fascist with that outlook on life.
24 – Grinch
Back to personal attacks?
Try opening up that small small bigoted mind of yours and actually critique the argument. I know that goes against the nature of all your narrow minded nonsense that you love to spout, but at least try to elevate yourself above the meaningless rants that govern your pitiful existence.
Greetings fellow Bludgers
– I can see the war continues (here and in the US).
And Hillary is trying the strong-arm tactics now. Pathetic.
If we at PB are getting fed up with this increasingly pointless contest imagine the phones and faxes running hot in the States. I cannot imagine that the party will let this drag on until June as the political fallout is increasing daily. If she won’t go they will push her: I just wonder who gets the lucky job of being the one to tell her. And then to use the wooden stake, as there is no way she will accept this gracefully.
While the media is happy playing he said/she said and who’s pastor passes the patriot test, the train wreck which is the US economy is about to collide with the presidential election, in a big way. First up, the senate, in two committees, is going to haul Treasury and Fed honchos in and lay bare (ah, pun) the Wall Street bailouts, and secondly, Dodd and Obama’s idea to bailout the underwater mortgage holders is going to come up shortly.
The focus of that fickle beast, the media, is going to get dragged off to the bottom line, and into the ugly cesspool of investment banking, and why the Fed has opened up the world’s biggest pawn shop down on Wall Street.
Over the last few months, in case it’s skipped anyone’s attention while they were busily engaged watching clips of the Rev Wright on youtube, the financial house of cards, otherwise known as the US financial system, has fallen over in a very big way. Some heavyweights, like one time Reagan advisor and Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein are calling it for the deepest recession since, well, the last really really big one.
So we’re in a for a show, as the Fed and Treasury get busy explaining why they are suddenly market players, and how come the greatest ‘free market’ in the universe, has virtually siezed up, and why they’ve taken the astonishing step of lending money to non-commercial banks.
Think of it like this: the casinos are raking it in, money is cheap, these honchos see themselves as lords of the universe (and of course pay themselves accordingly), but suddenly, the music stops, one of their number gets seriously distressed, and the taxpayers are asked to prop them up. But they’re gamblers, the public screams. Yes, replies the Fed, but look how many people are dependent on them, we can’t let them all take a hit.
And so, we now have the mighty US Fed, holding up the private gambling casinos (otherwise known as ‘investment banks’) with public money, who can come with their tacky plastic chips and exchange them for freshly minted dollar bills whenever they need ‘liquidity’ ie the taxpayer is stumping up for their ‘assets’ which no market in the world will touch with a barge pole.
By the time we get to November, nobody will even remember who or what the Rev Wright is. By the time we get to November, the US mortgage markets may have been nationalised if the two big ‘government backed’ enterprises fall over completely, (and I wouldn’t be betting that they don’t!).
Karl Marx is up there, laughing his head off.
The Supers are really caught between a rock and a hard place.
Firstly they have Clinton who is a fair way behind Mr Obama on pledged delegates. The Supers know Clinton has been the only candidate to consistently win the large swing states, but failed in the marginal/purple electorates except Ohio. Clinton backers tell the world she has executive experience, despite never holding an office and being only First Lady, she has served or will have served 2 terms in the US Senate, achieving relatively little but not making any serious blunders. She’s a divisive candidate and will rally the Republicans but has strong appeal with Latinos and blue collar workers the Democrat base.
She has a rocky past and there is enough dirt out their to hurt her in a general election, plus there is the Bill Clinton factor.
In short if the Dems put her up she’ll do well with the Base of the party but risks losing a General Election against McCain.
Then there is Mr Obama, who is well ahead of Mrs Clinton on pledged delegates thanks mainly due to winning dark Red States that will not go Blue come November and his large wins have been mainly assisted by the ‘black vote’. He has also won swing States/purple States important for a General Election. While he has considerable experience in State politics he has yet to serve a full term as US Senator and it is questionable that he has the executive experience to lead, but one could of argued the case against Mr Rudd and he is now PM.
If Race becomes an issue at the election, Obama could become a divisive candidate giving his connections to black radical preachers. This would come as a shock to many given that he has strived not to become a divisive candidate but on the other hand he still holds bigger leads among independents. He is strong with the anti-war wing of the party but holds more moderate views on issues like health care (to appease his wealthy backers and independent voters or swinging Republicans).
On the balance of it Obama would make a better Democrat President than another Clinton. But if he wins the nomination as seems likely given the Dems would slaughter each other if the Supers went against the will of the grassroots he is by no means assured the Presidency as McCain is no ‘political’ push over.
asanque,
I think I did critique your comment.
What is so open about your “I’m right, you are wrong, get stuffed”, view of the world.
You seem to have a problem dealing with different opinions. You really shouldn’t blog while you are frothing at the mouth.
RE McCain -
there has been virtuall no camapaigning yet to attack McCain in his bid for pOTUS. There is so much ammo there once Obama is free to get on with it,that the Repugs won’t stand a chance in the end. Let the Games Begin!
William: moderation?
Funny, it’s the most ‘moderate’ post so far today!
What gives?
I think Obama’s strategy will be to pick a running mate with real gravitas. My money is on Bill Richardson.
Good Dinsdale. Just wish they’d hurry up.
27 – Glen
That was a good analysis. The only point I disagree with is the last paragraph. I do not believe Democrats as a whole will view the superdelegates as going against the grassroots by going with the popular vote and most delegates.
Glen,
Reasonable analysis given the current situation. However, I would differ re the better Dem candidate.
The Obama supporters want to call off the nomiantion now mainly because they are in front. Hillary is determined to fight on and gain the momentum that might sway the SDs come the convention.
The fact that the noination hasn’t been declared yet is because the Democrat hard heads have some concerns or misgivings re Obama. Obviously, whether he can win the Presidency will be high on any list.
I say let the battle continue.
28 – Grinch
No wonder your arguments are so infantile, if by calling me a ‘fascist’, you call a critique.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however people are not entitled to their own facts.
I have no problem dealing with opinion expressed intelligently and to the issue.
However, your posts are anything but intelligent and always personal.
That kind of crap is unacceptable behaviour in real life and you are better off trying to get yourself unbanned from the AM stations then posting your trash here.
GG, i must say that the Republicans have a better system of delegate counting. Winner takes all contests ensures a Winner, the Democrat process whilst more ‘democratic’ leaves open situations like these in which no candidate won the nomination and was instead handed it by party heavyweights.
Say what you will about the Repugs but they do have a far better system IMHO.
Glen,
My problem with winner takes all is that the Primaries are often 3-corner (at least at first) if not more. And so a candidate with broad support can finsish second all over the place and be completely screwed.
Maybe they need a hybrid system, 20% of delegates to the winner, last 80% split proportionately.
I just think they need to condense the time frame. A compltely proportional system will produce a winner by the end…. The problem is that the end is 4 months after the beginning.
Well McCain finished 3rd in Iowa and he went on to win the nomination…it can be done. Yes i agree it makes it hard but at least you dont end up with members of your own side writing the attacks ads of your opponents as Clinton and Obama have done.
asanque,
Is that your Final solution for making brains run on time.
Next!
27
Glen
Good, balanced commentary Glen.
Morning all – Did everyone see the latest Rasmussen poll for Pennsylvania shows 10 point advantage only to Clinton? Any narrowing can only be confirmed by more polls, but interesting.
Re Ferny @ 18 & Pancho @ 22 et al.
The Clinton strategies … lies, threats … I suspect that the remaining strategic options that Hillary has on her desk now are these:
“The Curtain Call”
Bow out now/very soon with as much dignity as she can muster (being covered in excrement) and get behind Obama like a terrier.
OUTCOME : Democrats win election easily.
“Skater A”
Continue the ‘Steven Bradbury’ approach – hang in there behind the pace, and hope Obama falls over. Plus a few lies.
OUTCOME: Obama wins nom, Dems win election narrowly.
“Skater B”
Ramp up the ‘Tonya Harding’ approach – damage Obama as much as possible so supers see him as unelectable.
OUTCOME: Whoever gets nom, damaged Dems lose the election.
“Skater C”
A combination of 2 & 3.
OUTCOME: Whoever gets nom, damaged Dems lose election by heaps
“The Sicilian”
Work feverishly behind the scenes on all super delegates, using threats (including from fundraisers), intimidation, sarcasm, ridicule, bribery and begging so they vote for her en block at a special meeting.
OUTCOME: Whoever gets the nom, Dems lose election due to party disarray.
“The Chameleon”
As with “The Sicilian”, but offer the Obama leaning super delegates a promise to adopt all of Obama’s platform.
OUTCOME: If she gets the nom, Dems lose election because she is seen as a flake, and due to party disarray.
“The Medication”
Start operating in parallel universe in which she is the frontrunner, and she is continually running for cover from sniper fire and aliens, and picking up red phones at all hours.
OUTCOME: Obama wins election, and she lives the rest of her life in a ‘white house’ of her mind, as an imaginary POTUS, and hurts no-one, as long as she keeps taking the pills.
“The Escape”
Ask to be sectioned.
OUTCOME: Dems with Obama win election handsomely, and she gets the treatment she obviously needs for her confabulation disorder, and has an excuse to drop out without officially losing.
Barring the Curtain Call, which she will only opt for under threat of an alien probe, I think The Escape is her best option myself.
Primaries are patently insane — The format is a historical curio.
To my mind, the method of choosing a candidate should be obvious –
1) You have to be a registered party member on the day the primary campaign starts
2) You hold an all-on-the-same-day general election, either preferential or amihotornot style, count the votes, and whoever ends up with the largest pile wins. What does this present, cumbersome, expensive, slow system gain anyone?
For me, the decision is straightforward: I believe Barack Obama to be a person of conviction, who will attempt to govern using his own internal radar. I believe Hillary Clinton to be without conviction, who will allow her own internal radar to be “jammed” by considerations of money, political perception and repaying political debts. I think she’ll engage in flights of populism that bear no relationship to her own beliefs or her view of the best interests of the country, but will simply reflect her desire to be liked.
In the end, they’re both highly competent, intelligent and astute (and, most importantly, ambitious) politicians – I don’t think either one will be disastrous for the country. I think Obama will be the far superior choice, but I think they’re both preferable to McCain — I’ve been following American politics for more than 15 years and I still don’t truly know what McCain’s core is — The one thing I know most about, his militarism, seems alarmingly unhinged.
# 27 Glen , excellent post although do not agree with every point
You said if race becomes an issue , well it will be given Obama is ‘black’ and given the Obama has faced no sustained politically savy “subtle” attacks so far at all and McCain’s machine certainly will in buckets
These savy attacks will include not merely the subtle ‘he is black’ but the subtle type messages he has & still is drawn to the racially divisive on his pastoral teachings despite his words to the contrary. Fear is a powerful political tactic.
Concurrently these savy attacks but more overtly will include publicly demanding Obama answer all the questions his speech did not answer for example ONLY:
what were the actual words in the controversail comments he now condemns.
If Obama evades these questions , his integrity gets questioned & his “change” & new kind of politics/Pollie message is tarnished.
If Obama declares the Wright controversial words he now condemns , then his Presidential hopes are very small (as the words circularly lead to 2nd para attack
All of these Pastorgate concurrently also will lead to demonstrating lack of judgement, commonsense like listening to a whacko and lack of values conviction
Do not expect any of the Obamabots to remotely accept the gross political errors Obama made & failed to adequately OR ’savy’ address in his speech
Glen , your ‘howardism’ is sounding more sensible & ‘open’ than ‘Obamabotism’
Hi there jv-
seems she really only has one reasonable course of action open to her that will do least damage to herself and her party. She won’t of course take this, as she is suffering from Delusions of Grandeur and Entitlement. So it would seem the party will have to do it for her or risk imploding. The only question now is “How Much Longer??”
r/Ron-
you are not also Senatewatch are you?
same obsessive tendancies.
Jen we all know Clinton will fight this to the Convention even if all her Supers left to Obama. She’s would rather the Dems lose the election if she’s not the Presidential candidate.
Bwena kau kwai, Bludgers,
“I’ve had it with the Clintons.
As a New Yorker, I have been proud of Hillary Clinton’s service in the Senate, and I harbor no ill will toward her. If she somehow manages to wrangle the nomination from Obama, I will actively support her general election campaign. But I cannot remain silent any longer while my own senator destroys the Democratic Party, and her own reputation, in a desperate and degrading effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
It’s time for Senator Clinton to act like a leader that I know she can be. Hilary Clinton not only needs to defend Barack Obama, she needs to apologize to him.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-boykin/clinton-owes-obama-an-apo_b_93558.html
About a month ago I mentioned the C-word, “character”, with reference to the 1961 film “The Hustler”and its relevance to the Dem nomination battle. Obi’s Philly Address and HRC’s lame and desperate attempt at war heroine status to try and counter it has brought into focus her lack of character for all to witness:
“The first meeting of Eddie and Fats was about pool. The second, as Bert(Eddie’s manager) correctly predicted, is about character. Bert’s secret is that by “character” he doesn’t mean goodness, honesty or other Boy Scout virtues. He means the snakelike ability to put winning above any other consideration, and to never tempt the odds.”
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020623/REVIEWS08/206230301/1023
As Obi’s speech gained traction among its target audience, Hillary tempted the odds, got caught out, and has been seen to fail the “character” test. She is damaged goods. Her campaign is kaput.
“Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton’s support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.” http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/26/poll_shows_obama_weathering_controversy.html
My only regret at this definitive moment in the campaign is that I can’t say “suck it up” in German for the benefit of the Der Guten Doktor Carr.
I still do not think american will vote for a black president, there are still too many red necks around.
42 – Ron
I disagree.
Since when have the Republicans been subtle? Their fearmongering has always been a blunt weapon and Obama has had lots of practice dealing with Hillary.
My opinion is that in an environment where Iraq and the economy is crashing, Hope trumps Fear.
This is a valid point. However, I still don’t see this as doing any lasting damage. All candidates have their own wacky religious beliefs and leaders and none is wackier then the next.
The same applies to all candidates. I would argue that Hillary’s blatant lying in Bosnia far trumps Pastorgate in terms of judgment, commonsense and lack of values.
I felt this issue was a media beat up. Obama’s speech whilst not perfect won him more fans then he lost and solidified his core constituency. I note the polls are rebounding in his favour after a short dip. Only the pedantic and the right wing are still digging through Obama’s speech line by line. Others have looked at the speech in context and the message of unity it presented.
Glen is capable of good arguments and bad arguments. His particular argument presented a good overview of Hillary’s prospects which are not promising.
However, your straw man repetitive arguments of yours are akin to those Anti-Rudd commentators who predicted each scandal would bring his downfall, and yet amazingly enough, never did.
Ok, let’s try this in parts. Here’s part one:
While the media is happy playing he said/she said and who’s pastor passes the patriot test, the train wreck which is the US economy is about to collide with the presidential election, in a big way. First up, the senate, in two committees, is going to haul Treasury and Fed honchos in and lay bare (ah, pun) the Wall Street bailouts, and secondly, Dodd and Obama’s idea to bailout the underwater mortgage holders is going to come up shortly.
The focus of that fickle beast, the media, is going to get dragged off to the bottom line, and into the ugly cesspool of investment banking, and why the Fed has opened up the world’s biggest pawn shop down on Wall Street.
Over the last few months, in case it’s skipped anyone’s attention while they were busily engaged watching clips of the Rev Wright on youtube, the financial house of cards, otherwise known as the US financial system, has fallen over in a very big way. Some heavyweights, like one time Reagan advisor and Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein are calling it for the deepest recession since, well, the last really really big one.
Part 2:
So we’re in a for a show, as the Fed and Treasury get busy explaining why they are suddenly market players, and how come the greatest ‘free market’ in the universe, has virtually siezed up, and why they’ve taken the astonishing step of lending money to non-commercial banks.
Think of it like this: the casinos are raking it in, money is cheap, these honchos see themselves as lords of the universe (and of course pay themselves accordingly), but suddenly, the music stops, one of their number gets seriously distressed, and the taxpayers are asked to prop them up. But they’re gamblers, the public screams. Yes, replies the Fed, but look how many people are dependent on them, we can’t let them all take a hit.
And so, we now have the mighty US Fed, holding up the private gambling casinos (otherwise known as ‘investment banks’) with public money, who can come with their tacky plastic chips and exchange them for freshly minted dollar bills whenever they need ‘liquidity’ ie the taxpayer is stumping up for their ‘assets’ which no market in the world will touch with a barge pole.
William: What’s going on?
I can’t get posts with more than a paragraph or two to show up?
There is something seriously wrong with the ‘moderation’ filter if that post won’t get through!
Who on earth could be offended by it?
Ron
thought you’d be in a much more jovial mood today……after all those darn racist Indians are getting a belting in the cricket.
#27 Glen: Although I don’t agree with some parts of your post, it is nevertheless the most reasonable post I have ever read from you.
not sure if anyone has linked this today, but it’s a pretty reasonable take on the situation.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clinton_obama_need_to_cool_it.html
I’m watching the markets too, Kirri, and I think the Bear Stearns shareholders who bought in at say, $120 last year might not think that $10 is too great a price.
Though why exactly the Fed has bought about $30bn of securities from Bear Stearns (via JPM) escapes me.
The reason you can’t let the gamblers go bankrupt is not that any one bank is too important, but that if one bank goes down, then there’s a real chance you lost two or three or the whole lot.
Pastor Flap hasn’t hurt Obama
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Hillary is relying on the WORST outcome for an aspiring president, that is, a coup within the party in order to steal the nomination.
Such a result, plus the ever-growing list of lies, would put Hillary in a terrible position for trying to win the presidency. Already she is not trusted by the majority of voters, and now it is becoming increasingly obvious that she is prepared to destroy her party for her own egomaniacal ambitions.
It’s a Catch-22. The longer she clings, hoping for a coup, the more she trashes her reputation, which then makes it less likely for her to win the presidency if she gets the nomination.
In other words, the longer Hillary clings, the less likely the Democrats can win with her as the presidential candidate.
I have been asked a number of times would i support Obama if Obama is nominated. I said YES because basically i am not ANTI Obama. I am anti Repugs. Now I am going to ask the same question to you, the Obama supporters.
Would you support Hillary if she is nominated? Just yes or no. No ifs or buts.
Finns. Yes, I would support Hillary. She would still be a better POTUS than McCain.
Finns -
of course.
KR, I have a spam filter on the word “casino”.
Noocat LOL that’s like saying you’d support Rudd but if Swan was the leader you’d still back them LOL
@ 58 – hi Jen. Thanks for the linked article.
My ‘Skater B’, ‘The Sicilian’ and ‘The Medication’ strategies all get a mention!
Don’t tell me the opinion makers don’t read this site. …
“But despite the evidence, Clinton still believes she can win the nomination by persuading enough superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. (Under the scenario above she would need 70% of the 355 undecided superdelegates to buy her argument.) That is an unrealistic dream, but that happens in presidential campaigns. After 2 years of 18-hour days, candidates and campaign operatives are never ready to concede the obvious. Heck, there was a point in late October 1984 when I thought that with a few more weeks Mondale could have beaten Reagan.
To succeed at this delusion Clinton will need to ratchet up attacks on Obama. That will not alter the outcome, but it will have serious and negative consequences for the general election and for Clinton’s political future. There is little time or margin for error before the damage becomes irreparable. ”
@ 60 Hi Asanque -[Pastor Flap hasn’t hurt Obama] -thanks for that article
So much for Hillary’s [see above] supers strategy -it’s dead in the water:
“Weathering the episode could strengthen his standing among the party leaders nationwide — the superdelegates — whose votes are likely to break the impasse.”
Finn,
My answer is No i wouldn’t support Billary.
If America (and by extension, the World) needs another 4 or 8 years of trash like the Clintons or Republicans to finally wake up….well so be it.
That’s right, I would. That’s because it’s not only about who is leader, but also policy.
KR – re 65 – use ‘lismore’ instead
Finns – Would I support Hillary if she got the nom? …
… …. …. …. mmm.
Glen, is that an admittance that Hillary is the Swan of the Democratic Party?
For the record GG, in a hypothetical Clinton v. McCain I would vote for Hillary. I’d be less inclined to do legwork for her though. This is probably the conclusion that most would Democrats would come to (both Clinton and Obama supporters), despite polling theatrics at the moment.
#70 – come on jv – just say IT. no effing fence sitting here.
#71 Amigo, is that a yes?
71 in response to Finns, not my Grizzly pal, sorry.
Not that I can vote in the US, but I wouldn’t vote Clinton or McCain in this case.
New Clinton Lows
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
“From NBC’s Chuck Todd
As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it’s not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.”
finns – ja
Pancho perhaps or the Gillard of the ALP.
People would still vote for the ALP but would be less enthused.
Finns-m are you taking into account that fact that it is not compulory to vote in the US. Would I be more inclined to stay home if Hillary won over Obama /
Yes. Afraid so. I might get out at the last minute just to make sure that McCain didn’t get in,but it would be reluctantly. And like pancho there is no way I would campaign for her.
so my answer is still yes, but with lots of qualifications and reservations. (And if she was way ahead in the polls against McCain, I probably wouldn’t bother voting at all.)
What an insult to Gillard!
Well actually it’s not, Clinton still has a chance to be a leader, Gillard will never be the ALP leader (being from the Left faction).
59
Rates Analyst
There’s more than a whiff of panic around the whole thing, JPM offering 5 times for Bear than what they did a few days ago makes you wonder how the hell they’re looking at things, and who was doing the arm twisting.
With trillions of dollars of derivatives, the Fed was panicked into thinking they couldn’t let Bear fail, but have they really stopped the rot? The serious people don’t think so, and all the opening of the discount window to investment banks has done is make the scramble for treasuries even more frantic.
I find it astonishing that Greenspan is not locked in stocks on Wall Street to be pelted with rotten fruit, and instead, is being consulted like some Delphic oracle about what the future holds! LOL
Talk about mad! This guy’s done more to get them to this disaster than any other single individual, and he clearly refused to exercise any of the power he had to stop it.
Meanwhile, the he said/she said show is diverting the punters, but as the foreclosure signs go up and job losses grow and the economy stalls, I think the whole Oprah presidential show will get a lot grittier.
Don’t bet on that Glen
Finns – What Jen said. Anyway, Hillary had 5% chance of being the candidate BEFORE sniper-gate, so we won’t need to wrangle with our vicarious apathy in November, because we’ll be full of vicarious Obamathusiasm.
jesus, [Would you support Hillary if she is nominated?] – did i say anything about voting?
Finns – the key word here is ‘vicarious’ – vicarious support; vicarious voting.
Apart from the US citizens among us, of whom I suspect there are a couple.
Finns -don’t think you can leave out that bit in the US.
It would be different here.
Ron @ 2
My argument related to a counterpunch article. Basically the argument is that there is a double standard from some commentators about the Wright Church. The argument goes that the Catholic Church has had many pedophiles amongst it’s priests and has paid $2B to its victims. At the very highest levels, including the last and current popes, pedophilia has been tolerated and covered up (I certainly have never said any church preached pedophilia!!).
There seems to be disproportionate criticism of Wright’s comments compared to the reaction to the Catholic Church. The calls for him being disowned, banned and for Obama to go to another Church logically should equally be applied to the Catholic Church, especially as its sins are much greater. If Obama should have left his Church, the Catholics should have left their Church.
I think a lot of the criticism has therefore been hypocritical. One standard is being applied to a “black” Church and another applied to the Catholic Church (and others).
I think it should be a case of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, myself.
Diogs-
of course all of these issues wuld be resolved if people stopped going to church at all, and rationality and common sense prevailed.
jen,
Walter Mondale’s campaign manager showed his judgement best when he said,
“there was a point in late October 1984 when I thought that with a few more weeks Mondale could have beaten Reagan”.
Sheesh, what a source. However, it does highlight that the only successful Democrat Presidential campaigns since 1976 were run by the Clinton machine. That’s probably why they don’t need to write pap pieces to make a quid.
asanque,
Shanahan would be proud of you. The headline does not match the contents, small sample from partisans and with a largish MOE. Also comments like,
“As reassuring as the poll is for Sen. Obama, Mr. Hart and Mr. McInturff agreed that it did indicate that a substantial number of voters question whether the first-term senator would be a safe choice, or whether more needs to be known about him. Mr. McInturff said some voters are wondering, “Do we know enough about this guy?”
While the senator’s support among Democrats is little changed, he did slip among conservatives and Republican voters, groups that had shown some attraction to Sen. Obama’s message of changing partisan politics in Washington. “I think the survey does indicate that this has taken a little of the patina off Sen. Obama,” Mr. McInturff said.”
tell us what about how Obama might play out in the General Election?
GG,
what don’t you get about the fact that the Obama Movement has thrashed the Clinton Machine?
The Machine started in a near invincible position and The Movement has mowed it down.
GG – First, I notice that you have lost one ‘e’?
Second, numerous polls since Wright have shown lower numbers for independents than either Dems or Reps being concerned by the incident. To me this superficially indicates that Democratic Clinton supporters at this point are inclined to inflate the issue (when seen alongside polls claiming 29% of them will jump ship when Obama is the nominee), staunch Republicans’ eyes are lighting up at it, thinking they finally have something with which to attack Obama, but the less interested middle voters who will decide the election, and are the ones worth paying attention to, are shrugging their shoulders.
Rev. Wright’s Italian Job (Hold the Garlic)
The irrepressible Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is at it again, this time taking aim at Italians — expounding a two millenium grudge against the sons and daughters of Rome — and their (allegedly) breath-altering prediliction for scampi and pesto.
From the Wright-written eulogy for scholar Asa Hilliard in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine: “(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”
After calling Jesus’s crucifixion “a public lynching Italian style” executed in “Apartheid Rome,” he goes on to claim that white supremicists run the U.S. government.
“The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God.”
All this was written before his friend and former parishoner vaulted to the front of the Democratic pack — and before Obama denounced his previous comments on race, AIDS, etc.
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrights_italian_job_hold_t.html
81
Glen
Maybe we’ll never see this tested but I think she could be elected leader. She has simply oozed confidence and competence for over 2 years now and would make an excellent PM IMO.
Julia For PM – fantastic. She is an impressive politician., And I’m not a labor voter.
HarryH,
It was just a factual observation.
The winner of this campaign is undecided unless you can point me to 2025 committed delegates. Can’t get round that one can you?
Finns, after the last distortions were blown away on closer analysis, no-one will pay attention to such grabs until they are contextualised.
Grinch -where’s your e? gone with lowercase r i suspect.
Pancho,
As I said, I think the survey is a crock. However, you can sometimes extract anecdotal info from even the most ordinary polls.
I just don’t think the Wright saga has played out in the wider US community yet. I imagine a lot of voters won’t engage until closer to the election.
So the Lady should pull out?
Latest Rasmussen Poll:
* 22% of Democrats Want Clinton to Drop Out;
* 22% Say Obama Should Withdraw
* A solid majority of Democrats, 62% want the contest to go on.
* for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s Clinton 45%, Obama 45%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_obama_should_withdraw
GG @99, while you may yet be right, the fact that there has been a media blitz and an historic speech viewed over 4 million times on youtube, coupled with these poll numbers is pretty promising for Obama as a politician, and any SDs guaging his ability to withstand a pretty concerted attack before endorsing.
That’s what you’d call a divided Party Finns either way one of them will be a loser in a few months…
Pancho,
I always have concerns about self selecting surveys. Who are the people downloading? Are they going to vote? What about the people who didn’t download?
How influential are the negative snippets that were played?
Cheers.
#62
The Finnigans
Yes.
GG – I am referring to at least 3 polls that have been linked to these threads in the previous days which have each had similar findings.
Why i support Obama:
“i’m not only going to stop the Iraq War, i’m going to try to stop the “mindset” that got us into the Iraq War”
That is a profound statement. America needs Obama. Their economy needs him. Their world standing needs him.
Whether McCain or Clinton get the job matters not one jot. Nothing will change.
102
Glen
Clinton is putting herself ahead of the party and the country – not unlike a certain elderly man who lived, until recently, at Kirribilli House. Clinton would burn the party and it’s chances of winning the white house rather than concede defeat or, as a minimum, act and speak honestly, fairly and graciously.
#100
Finns – did you read the bit about the six percent …
This poll feels a little suspect.
The Big Mo is building. I told you so. the SDs will vote as a block.
Obama Warms to Wrapping Up Contest
By Patrick Healy
ABOARD THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN PLANE – Senator Barack Obama this evening called Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen’s proposal of resolving the Democratic nomination contest in June “a good one” – although Mr. Obama seemed to be endorsing a June wrap-up more than the governor’s specific plan to let superdelegates caucus to choose either Mr. Obama or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“I think giving whoever the nominee is two or three months to pivot into the general election would be extremely helpful, instead of having this drag up to the convention,” Mr. Obama told reporters as he flew from Greensboro, N.C., to New York City.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/obama-warms-to-wrapping-up-contest/
Finns, I think your message is being lost in translation when you mention ‘voting as a block’. I don’t think that there are long odds at all on there being a ‘mini-convention’ where SDs can vote at the same time and give us some finality if Clinton hasn’t bowed out by June. But I had interpreted your ‘block’ as ‘bloc’.
#110 – The SDs have to consider three things if nothing is resolved by June:
1. They have to decide who is more electable in Nov
2. Unity of the Party
3. Legitimacy of the candidate, MI and FL have to be resolved.
The only way is for the SDs vote united as one, as a “block” or “bloc”. They must made their choice as one. If the SDs are split then the Party is also split. That is no good for anyone.
Grinch at 90
Reading comprehension failing you again?
The article was previously titled ‘Pastor Ties Haven’t Hurt Obama’.
Its the article from the link on the right hand side of the page.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=fpa_mostpop
They’ve obviously changed the title since.
The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, a week after Sen. Obama delivered a generally well-received address on race. The poll’s margin for error is 3.7 percentage points for questions put to a cross-section of 700 registered voters, and slightly higher for those questions put only to subgroups of Democratic, Republican or black voters.
The average newspoll margin is plus or minus 3 percent.
The rest of your comments make no sense (but when do they ever?).
100 – Finns
You missed these two quotes
Finns, there is no way they will vote as a bloc to make or announce the decision. This will smell like 1968. The reasons for why they are doing what they will do will need to be made transparent first, then when a decision has been made it will be ratified, maybe by a unanimous vote, maybe not. For this reason, everything that the Clintons have so far offered at various times will not be enough. They need Obama to be caught in bed with Hagee and Falwell. And maybe a forth party.
and in the familiar cry of all car-travelling children the world over…
” are we there yet??”
Pancho,
Misunderstood. I regard the Youtube download as a self selecting survey. As for the otherUS polls, they seem to be all over the place. l suspect this is because of the the large numbers that do not vote despite having strong opinions (a bit like PB actually).
I am looking for something a bit more reliable. Hopefully, this Votemaster site will be the one. They appear to have a track record and seem reasonably balanced with their analysis.
But heh, pick your poison.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar24.html#news
pancho -
how about Monica?
H said he enjoyed reading a book, Philip Roth’s latest novel, “Exit Ghost.”
from above link.
A piece on the paper that Hillary gave the Wright quotes to: http://www.slate.com/id/2187473/. What is she up to? She’s bucketing scruples outta that campaign like water from the hull of a sinking ship.
Pancho, froth party? Count me in.
#114 – i dont care how the SDs do it. But they must speak with ONE voice.
Finns, so you are expecting, for example, Hillary and Bill to vote for Obama? Doesn’t seem all that likely at this stage.
asanque,
Changing the headline after the event. How very Goebels. I suppose it proves that the poll and the article do not really add to the sum total of knowlege and is best ignored.
123 – Grinch
By all means keep ignoring polls and facts and anything else which doesn’t fit in your narrow world view.
You can also ignore the section dealing with Close Contest showing that the majority of people were satisfied with Obama’s speech.
Jen, that’d have to be a dealbreaker.
Pancho @ 199 – Oh dear, what fantasy is Hillary living out now?
So, Scaife is an extreme right-wing newspaper mogul who spent over $2.3m for dirt on Bill Clinton (when Bill was pres.) but now Hillary is feeding stories to the same scumbag who was leader of ‘the great right-wing conspiracy’ against the Clintons, and he’s putting out her dirt on Obama?
I thought this line, by Scaife to a female reporter years ago when she asked why he gave so much money to the new right, best showed the sort of guy he is:
“You f*cking Communist c*nt, get out of here.”
Why does Hillary choose to return to his office for interviews when this flea says such extreme things in public? Very bad judgement in her choice of personal newspaperman I’d say! She needs to make a 37 minute speech and repudiate him immediately.
126 that’s Pancho @ 119
AND Hillary’s tame newspaper guy is the Scaife who spread the rumour though his paper that Hillary had Vince Foster murdered. What flows in her veins?
No. 17
Asanque, what delicious irony that you argue that a “right wing site” cannot possibly be superior to a “left wing site” and that any argument to that effect is like comparing creationism and evolution.
This is coming from the same doofus demanding that opponents critique arguments. Why should they bother with such pitiful and obnoxious dismissals of alternative views awaiting them at the end?
Asanque is at it again, this time with the full force of idiocy behind him.
Asides the ethics of the act, why, of all the interviewers and papers that she spoke to, did she offer this information to this paper? Did she want to give it to a source she knew would wring all they could out of it? Is she patching up relations with the other side? I can almost understand the justification for most of the hardball tactics, but what is with this weirdness now?
GP has just owned Asanque totally burned him there.
Ah GP -you’re here. .
doofus, obnoxious, idiot…
welcome and thanks for raising the tone as usual.
No. 132
I always like to lift the level of discussion above the mindnumbing depths of your posts Jen. Always enjoyable.
GP, I’d be interested in an analysis of an article I linked to @24 if you fancy.
GP @ 129 – It’s the same logic as that used against the ABC or any ‘left wing ‘ thought these days.
‘Left wing’ has been defined by the right over the past 11 years or so as anything intelligent, critical, thoughtful or enquiring. For example, the ABC. Any programme that questioned the policies and practice of the Howard government had ‘left wing bias’. By this definition, carefully nurtured by the right, anything intelligent, enquiring or thoughtful they didn’t agee with could be dismissed as ‘left wing’.
By the right’s own definition:
Left wing = intelligent, thoughtful, reflective, compassionate, critical, enquiring, evolutionary, inclusive.
Right wing = compliant, loyal, hard, cold, efficient, divisive, classist, racist, creationist, low-brow.
No 134
An interesting article. I agree with it in full, except for the denigration of Ronald Reagan, the greatest US President of all time.
Ron Paul was the only Republican to actually self-reflect on the principles of the GOP. George W Bush has been an abject failure in adhering to them. The epitome of imperialist big government incompetence, George Bush has trashed the American economy, trashed American liberty and trashed the reputation of Americans worldwide.
It is about time he is ejected. McCain’s too old. Hillary hasn’t got the numbers. Obama is the only light at the end of the tunnel. It is just a shame Ron Paul wasn’t more popular.
129 – GP
As much fun as it is to swap insults with a pompous little twit like you.
How about providing concrete examples of respected ‘right wing’ sites that provide accurate information.
I’ll post ‘left wing’ sites and lets see who has more?
My contention is nothing more then my opinion. If its not a valid one, I’m sure you will have no difficulty proving it wrong.
I think the last 8 years have shown the utter fallacy of approaching life with a ‘right wing’, black and white view point.
The ‘why bother’ I can’t be bothered proving my argument approach as you will just dismiss them is just a little tedious.
Have you enjoyed the utter obliteration of the Liberal party due to the inane support of people like you for John Howard?
That’s the likely fate of the Republicans. Ah, how good it will be without any neoconservatives out there ruining the world.
There is a fine line between courage in defending a view point and abject stupidity.
I’ve never considered you a very courageous person.
131 – Glen
Stick to providing comments on the US election, as your track record elsewhere leaves precious little to be desired.
No 137
Huh, you are a mosaic of hypocrisy Asanque with your supercilious disregard for everything that doesn’t conform to your world view.
Case in point:”show me a right wing site with accurate information”. You’ll never find such a site accurate, because it’s not written with an unhealthy dose of left wing apologism. How convenient.
Can we please have no more of this idiotic argument about whether being right-wing or left-wing is more “accurate”.
#99 GG – [However, you can sometimes extract anecdotal info from even the most ordinary polls] – my little “most ordinary poll” where i asked [Would you support Hillary if she is nominated?] reveals most, if not ALL, of the Obama Dreamers here are supporting Obama because of their hatred of Hillary. Nothing else.
This has blinded them completely as to any positives Hillary might have or any negatives Obama might have. They would not say it of course, but they would support McCain if Hillary wins the nomination, which she will.
138 – GP
Running an argument that I have expressed an opinion, and am unlikely to change it even if provided evidence, so why bother – is the more pathetic response one can give.
There are others on this board who can form a view as well. This type of excuse is generally provided by those who are unable to prove their point so will respond with nothing but insults. Petty little people.
I hope that we are all mature enough on this board to answer a strong opinion with evidence to the contrary, no matter what the issue.
I think that I have always had the courtesy of viewing an article before I critique it.
Some exceptions to that rule apply of course.
Nevertheless, William has said to stop it, so I will continue no further.
Finns
Name one person who has said they will support McCain if Hillary wins the nomination.
Your straw man is just not a coherent argument.
There are also many who support Obama who noted they would support Hillary if she won. Not that I’m one of them.
No 135
So “compassionate” was the Left that they place their faith in Paul Keating, a rabid supporter of despotic dictator Soeharto, murderer of 100,000 people.
Finn – Would I support Hillary if she is given the nod? Of course I would – though my expectations of real change would be minimal. I believe most of my fellow ‘Dreamers” (note that everyone who has ever contributed to the advancement of humanity has been a ‘dreamer’) have said likewise.
So I’m a little puzzled by the conclusion you’ve drawn from your ‘ordinary poll’ that “They would not say it of course, but they would support McCain if Hillary wins the nomination.”
And your evidence for that is…??
Finnigans!!
I would NEVER NEVER support McCain. And I have said so many times so how the EFFFF do you make the statement that
” They would not say it of course, but they would support McCain if Hillary wins the nomination, which she will.’”
Who, my friend, is exhibiting blindness??
How on earth can you draw the conclusion that Obama supporters (ie “left wing supporters) would vote REpublican. I am gobsmacked!!!!
Finns, you have just lost whatever scant credibility you had left.
Despite everyone saying they would support Hillary if she got the nomination, you have chosen to create your own conclusion, one that deliberately demonises those who support Obama.
When I said I would support Hillary over McCain, I actually MEANT it. I wasn’t lying. I suspect others were also not lying.
I am also capable of seeing positives and negatives in ALL candidates.
It’s quite sad that you need to cling onto false constructions of reality in order to justify your ongoing support for Hillary. Very, very desperate.
I’d vote Nader if it was Hillary vs McCain.
Their democracy needs a good kick if those two lemons are the best they can come up with.
Ahem 139 yes.
Meanwhile a job for Ron to sort…
‘I came to Canada in 1957.
I watched on TV the racism in the Southern US.
As a kid I couldn’t understand it or accept it.
I was taught to accept every one as to who they are and not what they are.
The only way I see colour is that they have a better tan than I do.
I see no other differences.
Why is colour brought up? Why is sex brought up?
The person is more important than these subjects.
If these subjects are more important in this election than the person, you have a problem.
Forget colour, forget gender, see the person and understand their views before you decide.
As for the Wright video, see the whole video before you condemn Obama.’
http://agonist.org/don/20080325/on_race_in_south_central_texas
Worth a read.
No, you wouldn’t Diogs. You’d vote for McCain. Ask Finnigans.
So Dio – you’d vote for a shriveled lemon to prevent the other two lemons gaining office, and in doing so you would guarantee the election of Grandpa McLemon?
But don’t press the ‘inhale’ link whatever you do; ok Dr D may…
I think Finnigans is annoyed he didn’t get the answer he was hoping with his little poll, so he just believed what he wanted to believe anyway!
I think he has lost his mind.
Food for thought, leftards:
http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/autumn_08/policy_myths_autumn08.html
#153 – [so he just believed what he wanted to believe anyway!] – gee, this is so profound, am blown away.
Ferny- I don’t think there’s much to choose between Billary and Macca. They are both too flawed as human beings for me to vote for. Obviously it would be an impotent protest vote but I’m not a “hold your nose and vote X” kind of person.
‘The possibility that greater inequality might be a desirable thing…’
say no more.
Thank Christ the neocons are on the way pout, followed closely by the religious right and the economic rationalists.
No 158
You just proved the author’s point, Jen. How dense you are.
#154 – like this?
http://www.conceptualist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/cat1.gif
OK Finns. I forgive you. That’s really good.
GP-
proving the author’s point has no merit if the author has no merit.
#161 – forgive and love your density!!!!
GP
Oh, my pastor!
‘greater inequality…as a way of strengthening work incentives or rewarding risk’
So, who offers the incentives and the rewards? Well what do you know!! The upper class owners of wealth through the ages.
It’s an old old story GP. The drone workers should be happy with their station in life down there, even though they must work their rings out to survive (aka ’strong work incentive’). .
Finns – Was I a registered US voter, I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary despite my disappointment should Obama be dumped by the party heavies. She must be ever-so-slightly better than McCain, I would be hoping, if only on the basis that she ought to have got the message drummed into her skull through Obama’s support levels that the people want some real effing change, for pastor’s sake.
No 164
Jaundiced, did you read the whole article or did you join the full force of idiocy behind asanque?
I shall continue my pastoral efforts, nonetheless.
GP – I know this is probably what you want but the CIS is a bunch of rich investment bankers and Lucy Turnbull who are to the economic right of Ghengis Khan and I disagree with the essence of its being. Voila:
“TONY ABBOTT MHR
SPEECH TO THE CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT STUDIES POLICY MAKERS FORUM
Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Thanks very much Greg. Thanks very much ladies and gentlemen and it’s great to be at the Centre for Independent Studies. I can’t remember which particular number of talks with the CIS this is but certainly, Greg, it’s been long for me a very intellectually fruitful association. I’m delighted that some 27 years after that dinner in Lindfield you’re still prepared to give me the podium from time to time on topics of some public interest. …”
165 – GP
Your petty digs at me just reduce your own arguments.
I would generally be happy to read your posted articles and post a rebuttal.
However your small minded insults and resorting to the lowest common denominator really highlights you as a skidmark that is unworthy of comment.
I would say as a supposed beacon of right wing commentary, your demeanour speaks volumes to your inadequacies as a human being.
No 166
Jaundiced, read the article. Stop dismissing it because Lucy Turnbull or an investment banker is involved, as if that somehow discredits their intellectual contribution. If you think it does, it would be a striking double standard to your pretence of “inclusivity”.
You wanted a reasonable right wing source, and I’ve contributed one. It happens to make some very compelling arguments, all of which are adequately sourced.
No 167
The hypocrisy continues. It’s an epic saga folks. You’ve been insulting anyone with a conservative view, and now you find the reciprocal act intolerable.
Enough, you two.
GP 168 -I think we are testing the patience of our fellow bludgers here by continuing on an off-topic tangent. But …
Very briefly – I agee that much taxation revenue is poorly targetted. I agree that throwing money at deep-seated social problems will not fix them. I don’t agree that government’s should not be involved in solving society’s problems, because many require a big picture approach, and money, properly spent.
I don’t agree that there is a problem with teacher quality or curriculum content. The rest is ideological b/s from deregulation central, which you would expest form a group of rich bankers and Lucy Turnbull.
Now let’s get back to US politics, shall we???
Jaundiced View, why is it that if someone of wealth contributes to intellectual discussion, you’re suddenly dismissive of their ideas? Some of the wealthiest people in the world are the also the most generous. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are but two of many philanthropists. Wealth does not preclude compassion or intellectual capacity, and you’re insinuation that it does is as absurd as it is arrogant.
GP – On topic, and for example, in regard to government involvement in helping the disadvantaged, the US needs a properly organised public health system. Correct?
This is one of the main areas of debate in the primaries. The failure of unregulated private medicine to deliver health care for poor Americans is a world class scandal. Correct?
So the candidates (Clinton and Obama at least – haven’t heard much from McCain on it but stand to be corrected) are talking about spending money from taxes to create a safety net of free – or cheap – health care for poor sick people. Correct?
The private health insurers are a big obstacle to this, and the reason Billary failed to deliver on health care in 1993. Correct?
Obviously government has a role there, as it still does in Aus. Correct?
Tony Abbott and the CIS would not agree I fear. Not deregulated enough for them. What about you?
*your not you’re. apologies
Oh William.
169 – GP
Just for the record, I have not personally insulted anyone here unless they have started it.
I have better things to do with my time then start personal insult fights.
If I have insulted conservative viewpoints, that has caused insult to anyone, then they are welcome to rebut those points.
I apologise to any posters who have read this forum today that have been put off by my vitriolic comments. I don’t see why we can’t all stick to the point without degenerating into personal insults.
That’s my final word on the issue – apologies to you also William.
Back on topic:
More polls which show why the Democrats really need to finalise a candidate
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9229.html
GP @ 172 Fair question, although I’m not convinced I was arrogant.
But I agree that to generalise is dangerous. I too know wealthy people who are have an excellent social conscience and an egalitarian outlook. It’s just that in this instance, with that organisation it is promoting the concept of deregulation, small government – ‘every man for themselves’. And they enjoy having Tony Abbott back regularly, and he was there at the inception. So I think it’s fair enough to suggest that this group is at the least one of like minded free-marketeers. So their organisation’s ‘contribution to the intellectual discussion’ will be within the boundaries of its limited ideology and it is not as free as the rest of us to graze in the wide intellectual pastures.
Asanque #176 [More polls which show why the Democrats really need to finalise a candidate]
Indeed, and who that candidate might be is getting firmer:
“CLINTON TACTICS TURN OFF SOME SUPERDELEGATES
At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party’s nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign’s tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good.
The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton’s direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/820834.aspx
Some interesting numbers and uncommitted SD hypotheses and tabulations, as well as wisdom of crowd stuff here:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4806
180 – Grinch
William I hope you delete the above post from this serial offender who shows no remorse for his actions and continues to mindlessly agitate these issues.
Sorry, Pancho.
I meant 179 and the Grinch.
Evening all.
Has anyone quoted this yet? It’s an interesting statement by Clinton
She’s got a point. But wow, the more she says stuff like that, the more I seriously have to wonder how much she cares about her own party.
Fair call, Asanque. GG, please try and make your comments about politics, and not other commenters. I have should have deleted #41 as well.
jv- I’m disappointed with your right v left argument. Remember the “Argumentum Ad Hominem”. The identity of the person making an argument is completely irrelevant to the argument’s worth. Just as you would not automatically agree nor disagree with all the comments any bludger, the same is true of any commentator.
Of course there are exceptions to this rule. Richard Dawkins has never been incorrect about anything and as sure as the sun will come up, his next one will be correct. And of the bludgers, I’ve never disagreed with a single one of Pancho’s posts. But one day, the time will inevitably come…
jv @178, that is an interesting piece. I think the below bits are telling
and
If she wants to keep playing chicken with these SDs rather than ‘chilling’, they’re probably more likely to call her bluff earlier than later.
No 173
Looks like you copy and pasted from Michael Moore’s Sicko. I watched the film, but it is a highly idealised, barely factual film. Hardly worth the documentary monicker it has been given.
See why here:
http://kylesmithonline.com/?p=306
Diogenes, if you’re interested, the best piece on Iraq I’ve read for a long time:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/27/danner/index.html
…and a sobering look at what it has done.
Diogenes @ 184 [I’m disappointed with your right v left argument. Remember the “Argumentum Ad Hominem”. ]
Yes, Diogenes, I must admit to overstepping the philosophical mark, but gee – it’s the Centre for Independent Studies and the Tony Abbott Allstars. Can I be excused this once?
I agree about Richard Dawkins – same with Sam Harris – his ‘The End of Faith’ is a great read.
GP @ 186 I haven’t seen Michael Moore’s Sicko. I must be capable of ‘highly idealised, barely factual’ material by myself, naturally
Yeah Pancho @ 185 – put that mood with your guy’s analysis of the SD’s, and well, it’s time to polish the casket.
jv- It’s just a yellow card at this stage.
“Thank Christ the neocons are on the way out, followed closely by the religious right and the economic rationalists.”
I love it when you cuss and talk dirty with a lisp, jen.
The Bickel link was worth the squiz. He talks a lot of sense re a quick sorting, However his hard-on for an Obama/Clinton-ticket idea might look good on paper but won’t play on the park.
Sage comments too from jv Machiavelli @ 67.
Meanwhile, a bad hair day at a Bosnian Airstrip develops entanglements going forward.
Wed March 26: Boadicea Delivers Us.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/laloalcaraz;_ylt=Aiv4TcCOajUeWnBXbCsiH4bV.i8C
Thurs March 27: Oh, What A Tangled Web We Weave…..
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/robertariail;_ylt=Anv.xyXOKrNItrUSqV9A3Tfe.sgF
Thurs March 27: Once Upon A Time In America…..
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tonyauth;_ylt=Ah9.C5LMNNbsQjGxOmrFDDEV2r8F
what lisp ec?
listhp, jen
Read the book, then watch the campaign:
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307279408&ref=banner&name=FreeSalon
187 KR
That Salon article extends what I read in an excellent book called “What Terrorists Want” by Louise Richardson. In fact, it’s just pathetic that with a little basic reading and commonsense, any reasonably intelligent person could have predicted all of the terrorist fiasco committed by the Bush Administration. The sickness of that regime has rotten it to its core. He really is the “Worst President Ever”.
Tues March 25: Check the hands.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/billday;_ylt=ApPQN5b2YwtQcikQse0kSk_V.i8C
Thurs March 27: This whole “economic downturn” thing is all your fault, Kirri, you commie fifth columnist punk who never mithus a lisp!
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=AuPtkNxgUNbrlshZky6hFNvb.sgF
No body-bag or flag-furled coffin shots thanks, members of the media,
By Signing Statement,
G.W.B.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=AhTs4Zr36KeJHpP2tP2JWZJR_b4F
jen, it was your typo “way pout” that suggested a lisp, your sentiments on the necons, the RR and the ERs I endorse wholeheartedly.
It’s happened. The waiting has gotten to me. Stressed by the never-ending Dem primaries I have turned to booze.
Grays on-line wine auctions to be precise. I blame Hillary that I now have several cases of semillion, colombard, shiraz and shiraz-voignier on the way.
I guess the Aussie Obama victory party is at my place.
Either that or I’m going to have to learn how to become an alcoholic to get through it all.
195
Diogenes
Yeah, it takes some imagination to conjure a more incompetent bunch of ideological nutters, and there was no shortage of well informed people to tell them that invading Iraq was not a smart idea. But the audacity to hope(!) that they could just will the Middle East to their ideal was a lunacy beyond any comprehending, and they only had to see how the Russians had fared in Afghanistan to know how local insurgents could run a superpower ragged over time.
But the blowback! I liked Chalabi’s line about America’s problem in Iraq being that it’s friends are allied to its enemies and it’s enemies are allied to its friends. That imbecile Bush needs to be shoved off stage pronto and a replaced by a sentient human being.
Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080327/ts_nm/usa_politics_pelosi_dc
Wed Mar 26: Torture Dick Talks Tough: Says FU America in One Word.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=AuJ.dBxAng5HiYK6xbPUeoBN_b4F
The Imbecile’s Credibility Problem Poorly Received on Wall St..
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/billschorr;_ylt=AoJ.ZzUq64tDoPEhP_k2ONQxvTYC
Thurs March 27: “Hey Honey, getta load o’ this!”
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jeffstahler;_ylt=AsTDDWBsIE9ETbLaVRkDHJFU_b4F
OK – I did read the ‘way Pout’ mistype, and I considered owning up, but then I thought it was a Freudain slip of the first order as I was feeling a little miffed after Finns statement that really I’d vote Republican – so there you have it. Not a listhp, just self actualisation.
And I’m still glad that the f*ckers are on the way out.
(just to get through moderation).
Ferny, whatever it takes to get you through, just pace yourself. It’s a strain on us all this freakin’ obsession with history being made before our eyes. But what times we’ll have to recall down the road apiece. Participating in it. Remember to exercise and eat good tucker and be kind to critters and folk who love you.
Thurs. Mar 27: The Company call it Blow-back; The GOP, Surge-back.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/edstein;_ylt=AiTgT7theA3_i5OU9h.TJKFJ_b4F
Thurs March 27: Lara Croft Misspoccio Clinton. Candidate for Dem. Party Nomination.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=Av87IoHnRGTGmyPWzas5hshT_b4F
KR – Salon article looks interesting but too much to read on screen – printed for bedtime reading:
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003
Ferny – You could have splashed out at Langton’s quality wine auction seeing Barack is having such a vintage run. By the way, what region is the shiraz from?
Jen – Have you misspoke too?
JV – the shiraz is from Mt Benson and the shiraz-voignier from Langhorne Creek
203
jaundiced view
And by tomorrow the whole game will have shifted yet again as the Shiite south erupts into sectarian warfare.
Looks like the Brits got out of the way just in time, eh?
Meanwhile, the Green Zone is being used for mortar practice for the fourth day in a row, some civilians wounded, (an accountant was killed there on Sunday…number’s up, so to speak).
So much for the ’success’ in Iraq when the governing sect is fighting to death amongst its own.
jv @203-
I’ve too busy ducking from sniper fire from my good friends GP, GG. Glen,R/ron et al. Although I am sure they would all attest that every word I write is a misspoken one. Or ‘mind-numbing’ at the very least.
as for the real issue at hand:
she’s toast . Charred in fact.
oops…viognier
just to complete the evening (if not posted before)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=politics_primary_hs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=politics_primary_hs
KR – weren’t there 30 killed today somewhere in Iraq?
Ferny – Limestone coast – good stuff from memory. Is that near McLaren Vale? Love those McLaren Vale shiraz’s.
jen – there has been a little flack around today. I got sucked in earlier to distraction ploys too, as did a couple of others. It’s the ticking clock, everyone’s tense. Four weeks to Penn. It’s a bit like waiting for a ram’s nuts to fall off after applying the rubber ring.
JV…yep Limestone Coast. Halliday gave it 91. I have 24 bottles….and 12 of the Langhorne Creek. Want one?
Jv-
ouch.
Particularly if you are the ram: we must show them some sympathy as they buck and writhe in pain. I will try to rise above their piteous bleatings.
Guys , try some savlon, or a pack of frozen peas at the very least.
night all.
Just so everyone knows what we are fighting against re the Islamo fascists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eacP_FQ__F4
Ferny – 91, good score from Mr H. Do I want one? Certainly! Most generous of you. My ‘cellar’ is a little low at present, you know: people visiting, taking a bottle out to dinner, taking a bottle in the car for the trip to Sydney, taking a bottle to bed – the usual.
GG -What are you on about there?
I get a kick out of reading all the posts on PB and if the posts keep going on these elections there will probably be in excess of 10k posts before they go to vote.
I wonder if the village idiot will let them have a vote. I have, using my very limited search skills, scoured the net to find out whether the idiot has the power to declare a state of emergency if he and bomb bomb declare war on Eiran and become the Bushariff of USA.
I am not sure of how up to date the site i found is but if it is still current then he could really nut out.
Someone with a legal brain may help me with an update on his powers if this stuff is outdated.
“In the event of a collapse of the “dollar,” here are the powers that the Executive may exercise as per this 1973 U.S. Senate Report. ”
“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”
http://www.fame.org/HTM/Senate%20Report%2093-549%20War%20and%20Emergency%20Powers%20Acts.htm#_ftnref1
Wonder if he thinks it’s cool to have all that leverage.
JV – always happy to share a shiraz with someone who appreciates a good South Aussie red…and my cellar has recently become overstocked. Nice problem to have.
Gaffhook -[Someone with a legal brain may help me with an update on his powers if this stuff is outdated.]
I wouldn’t worry too much. A nice conspiracy idea though. The wars don’t work for Bush any more , so he creates chaos in the economy so he can be the strong leader to save the country on another front altogether. I wouldn’t put it past some of the neocons either. But it wouldn’t wash, because if things got that bad, Bush would be seen as the architect of economic destruction and popular opinion would simply not allow him to suspend everything under those reserve powers while he kept on stuffing things up. No, not on. Those sorts of political powers can only be exercised with the tacit assent of the people.
You’re on, Ferny G. Your tasting room or mine?
#88 Diogenes ,
you didn’t respond o my first question in #2
You did not respond to my 2nd & last question in #2
You used analogy to defend Obama’s attendence asking if you attend a Preacher preaching pedophilia does that make you a pedophilia supporter
Answer NO
I took your own analogy a step further and asked should continue to attend with your kids a Church preaching pedophilia
You didn’t answer but I assume your answer would be NO.
So , using your own analogy, Obama should not have continue attendance ?
Is the Obama campaign behind this sort of negative campaigning?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/27/2200511.htm?section=world
GG – 219 Re the article -
“One anonymous Democratic Party official is reported as saying she can only win the Democratic presidential nomination by exercising the “Tonya Harding option” – a reference to the disgraced American figure skater who tried to have her opponent kneecapped.”
They got the ice skating angle right, but they forgot the great Steven Bradbury!
Hillary has the media snowed – they noticed her skates, but she has them believing she is trying to emulate Tonya Harding, when her evil plan all along is to copy Bradbury. And he did win the gold medal.
Diogens #88 ,as to your argument of the Catholic Church pedophilia , your argument seems somewhat circular.
The alleged pedophilia Priest if he remains , then of course people should not continue to attend , and if they did I would condemn them for lack of judgement , but I would not claim they were supporters of pedophilia.
But the priests are sacked , so whether to attend is academic.
Wright was not sacked , so Obama should not have to continued to attend , which similarly shows lack of judgement , but I similarly do not & never claimed Obama supports Wrights views. However as a US Senator his additional error was to give Wright’s views a semblance of credibility.
My argument is consistent for both situations & yours I think is not.
As to the broad issue of pedophilia in the CatholicChurch , you think its hypocracy against a ‘black’ Church vs other Churchs. I could not disagree more.
Ordinary people of any colour , religion or politics are appalled by pedophilia as are Politicians so its not hypocracy.
The impediment to addressing this disproportionate ‘Catholic’ pedophilia seems to be the reluctance of all Governments to cross the separation of Church & State line on numerous grounds including committing political suicide. The Church has been unwilling to put into place satisfatory safeguards , sanctions & policing & audits of pedophilia which i’d believe is a lack of leadership committment & submit have been grossly negilgent at best , but I assume their teachings are genuine. The Media also can be blamed for not making the issue a matter of prime public interest/importance. but i have no solutions other than the above. However an analogy to Wright’s Church is not the answer I feel
jv,
Laugh, I nearly started.
You know the Obambi faction here has thrown the most vile character barbs towards the sainted Hillary, yet here we have their saviours “representative” being very “uncharitable.
I am just looking for the wall to wall outrage.
Garden Gnome Alert
Metho Mistress says ‘The Australian-US alliance will make a “smooth” transition under Rudd..
Wellfmd that’s a relief…
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/michelle-grattan/2008/03/27/1206207295511.html
Puts the teddy bears picnic here in relief too
PS Ron your review of this please; one g or two g version is immaterial…but welcomed…
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/#80481
GG- I thought it was a Democrat party ‘insider’ who used the Harding analogy? He can’t help it if he he’s an official with a sense of humour
No 177
JV did you read the article or not? Again you simply dismiss the intellectual validity of an argument because it is right wing, espoused by wealthy people and because Tony Abbott is a patron of its views.
You have not offered a proper opposing argument. You’ve proved the very point that the article illustrates.
JV,
You are seriously suggesting that a humorous aside is now posted all over the world out of the blue for no apparent reason?
You should be drinking not inhaling those reds.
GP 225 – Ah no,no,no, you won’t get me twice in one day. Once is sufficient to secure your retainer I’m sure. Have a good evening.
GG – Well, the MSM could be turning on her, I suppose. You can’t just put it down to Obama operatives. Have they infiltrated every agency now? Anyway, don’t worry – Hillary tells us she’s as tough as old nick, so she’ll handle it. If she gets up she can get that funny bastard official sacked later on the quiet like the travel office people before.
I’m off like Hillary’s ice skates.
Ron…dear ron…?
#51 asanque
1/ “This is a valid point re what controversial words were used. However, I still don’t see this as doing any lasting damage. All candidates have their own wacky religious beliefs and leaders and none is wackier then the next.”
The difference is he is his Pastor whereas the other wackos like Faalwell are endorsees not their Pastor.
#51 asanque
2/ “Pastorgate concurrently also will lead to demonstrating lack of judgement, commonsense like listening to a whacko and lack of values conviction’]
The same applies to all candidates.”
I take it from this you agree Obama made these 3 errors (as did Diogenes.)
But MOST of your colleagues do not agree and won’t even acknowledge it.
Your view seems to be Hillary re Bosnia “mis-speak” is much much worse whereas Diogenes thinks the 3 errors are not major issues. I can understand but not agree with both regarding your less severe Obama critique as its a value judgement.
I submit POTUS assessment is a comparative assessment of strenghs & flaws of all candidates believing all have flaws but some think here the O is without them
codger @ 228 – remember The Crystals – the song wasn’t really about b/Bill – just look at the words.
The Crystals – Da Doo Ron Ron
(Phil Spector/Jeff Barry/Ellie Greenwich)
“I met him on a Monday and my heart stood still
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Somebody told me that his name was Bill
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Yes, my heart stood still
Yes, his name was Bill
And when he walked me home
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
I knew what he was doin’ when he caught my eye
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
He looked so quiet, but my oh my
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Yes, he caught my eye
Yes, my oh my
And when he walked me home
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Picked me up at seven and he looked so fine
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Someday soon, I’m gonna make him mine
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Yes, he looked so fine
Yes, I’ll make him mine
And when he walked me home
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
Da doo ron ron ron da doo ron ron
(repeat and fade out)”
Ron,
“I submit POTUS assessment is a comparative assessment of strenghs & flaws of all candidates believing all have flaws but some think here the O is without them”
The sweet words of truth.
#223
codger Says:
March 28th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Ron – I’m also interested in your opinion. For the moment (as far as I understand) you have not confirmed if you have or have not taken the time to take in the more complete picture. If you are not familiar with the full speech then I would suggest that your questions are irrelevant and should be ignored. If on the other-hand you have reviewed the full sermon – then I would be willing to address the substance and purpose of your questions.
Over to you Ron.
and Growler #222
“You know the Obambi faction here has thrown the most vile character barbs towards the sainted Hillary..”
and yet Finns today here extracted from the same group a almost unaminous vote for Hillary (If Obama was not the candidate). Astonishing.
Who said truth is sweet, Horse..still waiting dear Ron ron ron ron. Do it.
jv, you’re aweful, simply.
Nosebag GG…good feel good fit.
Mr Bowe 4 weeks, do we get brownies, cookies? Or just sh*t faced…
#234
codger – but what if the question had been Ron Paul versus Hillary – me – chances are I would be voting Ron Paul
No 235
Agreed. Ron Paul was the best candidate of them all. Shame the Americans were asleep when they voted.
Codger & Junior Senator seek my views on one single sermon which is allegedly “pure’.
However you are implying that quoting one ‘pure’ sermon PROVES no others were ‘inpure’. Plainly this is a flawed argument.
Obama agrees with me because he condemned some Wright sermon comments.
Obama said they were quote
You should read his words:
“Wrights weren’t simply controversial.
They expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country
a view that sees white racism as endemic,
that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America;
were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity
racially charged at a time when we need to come together”
About time you lot stopped denying Obama’s OWN claims against Wright sermons
#237
Ron – you fail again to answer a very simple question. A yes or no will suffice. That answer will inevitably cast some long shadows – but I should point out that your building the mountains in this exercise.
This blog is directed other than to Codger & Junior Senator
#223 Codger & #232 Junior Senator linked a site which had one persons view that one clip of one Wright sermon was allegedly ‘pure’.
These 2 guys presumably agreed & wanted me to listen to the sermon & blog.
If bloggers read my reply #237 it is evident I’d be wasting my time listening to this one sermon because one sermon proves nothing either way.
I would be astounded if any other blogers disagreed at all with my #237 blog !
As for Codger & Junior Senator , it is rare that one is able to totally demolish the premise of your opponents arguments to the extent their own supporters can not support them but your premise was so flawed it has occurred here
Had you been astute you would not have been foolish enough to invite me to further embarass you
#233 – [and yet Finns today here extracted from the same group a almost unaminous vote for Hillary (If Obama was not the candidate). Astonishing] – Ron , these Obambiphiles here think they can walk on water, like their Messiah. they didnt even realise they walked straight into a water trap. i simply asked them if “they have stopped beating their wives/husbands”, as you see, their answers was “yes”, “no”, “maybe”, “not sure” “but”, “no comment”.
Poor Finns. From Reuters:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080327/pl_nm/usa_politics_campaign_dc;_ylt=AuWG6fLNg1THtSJ98ekO0yWs0NUE
Maybe they’ll call you next. But I guess the marginalia is sort of interesting.
Pointing out that Hillary has lost a race, or is not the preferred candidate, or is hurting herself and the Clinton legacy by lying barefaced about her past exploits (Bosnia, NAFTA) smearing her opponent directly or by extension (Wright, Commander-in-Chief) or attempting to intimidate party leaders (the letters to Dean and Pelosi, ‘Judas’ Richardson), is to look at the facts, not to muckrake. These are only the latest tactics which spring to mind. All of these are concrete examples – not admittedly hilarious like your allusions to the ‘messiah’ and ‘walks on water’ – of where Hillary is overstepping the mark in an internal party race.
But acknowledging all that does not preclude me from concluding that in a hypothetical Clinton v. McCain race I can say that I would support Clinton. There are a couple of reasons. One, her policies on Healthcare and Iraq are more sane than McCain’s, and this would be illustrated after some of the heat is out of this nomination campaign – the choice would be clear on that front. Two, I remember the Democrats having a similar argument in 2000 along the lines of ‘Gore is no different to Bush’. That worked out well.
So yes, it is possible to point out Hillary’s shortcomings, and acknowledge that against McCain, she would be the pick. You know what? In a Kucinich v. McCain race I’d support Kucinich too, but, like your hypothetical, that aint gonna happen. So I think I’ll spend more time trying to analyse what’s actually happening.
Pelosi’s reponse to the poor billionaires who aren’t gonna be made ambassadors now:
‘“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Sens. Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August,” Daly said. “That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”’
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0308/Pelosis_office_responds_to_Clinton_supporters.html
She has just offered Obama’s grassroots another way to mobilise. MoveOn is petitioning a slapdown. Who could think this crap is gonna work?:
http://pol.moveon.org/emails/superdel_letter.html
Obama draws the battle lines, and look who’s on the other side, without mentioning Bill’s presidency by name:
“Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” Mr. Obama said. “The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady sustainable growth — a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”
…watch this horse get a run as the economy tanks.
A couple of resonant lines from Obama’s speech:
Mr. Obama argued Mr. McCain’s approach offers far too little to rescue the deteriorating economy.
“While this is consistent with Senator McCain’s determination to run for George Bush’s third term, it won’t help families who are suffering,” Mr. Obama said.
“When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn,” he said, “a patchwork quilt of regulators were unable or unwilling to protect the American people.”
…and this should get written up in lights:
But, as Mr. Obama’s aides noted in handouts supporting the speech, the banking and insurance industries spent more than $300 million on a successful campaign to repeal the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
…which was the way Wall Street opened the sluice gates and went on a veritable orgy of dubious practices that lead to the dotcom bubble, Enron etc and finally the sub-prime monstrosity.
So let McCain run for George Bush’s third term, because ‘more of the same’ is not going to be an option on the ballot come November.
229 – Ron
I wasn’t referring to Falwell specifically. I was referring to their own religious ministers and as a natural follow on, the leaders of their entire church.
The problem with your argument is the natural follow on, is that any adviser, relative etc. of the candidates who hold strong opinions will be the next to be critically analysed and each candidate will suffer as a result, that just doesn’t happen.
Polls show this to be a non-issue.
Any candidate that goes to a church based organisation is making these errors in my opinion. In this particular case, Obama’s pastor had some wackier comments then most. I’d feel a lot happier if Obama wasn’t religiously inclined but that doesn’t constitute a major issue for me, as I prefer to concentrate on the policies and speeches of the actual candidate. Guilt by affiliation has some merit but really needs a consistent pattern to really be an issue.
241 – Pancho
Exactly. You will notice that the majority of the posters backing Obama are against Hillary on rational grounds that are argued rather then the straw men that keep getting thrown up by some. No one is claiming that Obama is perfect, No one is claiming that they will vote for McCain if Hillary wins candidacy. Yet despite this, the same ludicrous arguments keep getting rehashed.
Some direct parallels to the last Australian election: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/clinton-camp-obama-is-mean-and-hes-a-copycat-too/
““If Senator Obama has to copy policy ideas when he’s a candidate on the campaign trail, how is he going to solve people’s problems if he’s president?” she said. “When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership.””
That one is eerily similar.
Ron
1. I haven’t changed my opinion that Obama was showing a lack of judgement by going to that church.
2. You’ve put in lots of arguments pertaining to me questioning what would happen if congregation should do if a priest was preaching pedophilia. I HAVE NEVER MADE THAT SUGGESTION. ITS UNTHINKABLE. (And Ferny and Dyno would rightly be disgusted in me if I did).
3. I have said it’s OK for a parishioner to continue to go to a Catholic Church, despite its abhorrent history of tolerating and covering up for pedophilia, just as it’s OK for the people in Wright’s church to continue to go, despite some of his wacky beliefs.
4. The hypocrisy lies in the conservative commentators who demand that Obama et al not attend and rail against the Trinity Church (which is bigger than Wright), but they did not demand the same of Catholics.
5. You might notice that I was alone in saying I couldn’t vote for Hillary and would vote for Nader. I suspect most people at this site are more “rusted on” as voters than I am. So they are Democrats first. I have never followed any party and vote differently almost every time (I think I’m up to seven, including Liberal!!).
Dio – you’ve voted Liberal??!
Well….before I denounce your sorry arse to blogging hell for such a confession I recall once – when I was young and stupid – voting for the National Party in Qld. Labor was a mess at the time, and this is how I rationalised it back then. But, nonetheless, I briefly became an accomplice in the Bjelke-Petersen regime.
As for being rusted-on. I can’t be a rusted-on Democrat, having never been in a position to vote for them. Besides, they’re far too conservative for me. Even Obama, as much a breath of fresh air as he is, is nonetheless a prisoner to American conservativism and jingoism. So, I may be a rusted-on leftie these days (which only means I value robust and compassionate social policy and the involvement of government in regulating business activity to provide protections to its citizens), but not a rusted-on Democrat.
And….are we still debating the Wright beat-up (for that’s what it was)??? America has moved on. The election is a moving feast. Keep up if you wanna be fed.
249 Ferny
I have certainly moved on re Wright, actually I was never much interested in him. But Ron had asked a series of questions about my views and he never gives up until he gets an answer. The questions were fair enough so I answered them.
I have been a good friend of Andrew Southcott (our local Lib Fed member) since we were eleven. He’s an intelligent, very decent and genuine person, but not a great politician. I voted for him once in a Howie vs Beasley election. I never liked Beasley. The best thing Labor ever did was chucking him out.
More good news from the ’success’ in Iraq: one of two main oil pipelines that pump to the southern ports got blown up yesterday. And with the fighting in Basra, it may hold up workers for the next shift at the oilfields.
Keep it mind, when you’re next at the bowser, just what a ’success’ this giving democracy to Iraq has been.
Oh, and I heard that cretin Dubbya on radio talking up Maliki against the Shiite militia he’s fighting in Basra, saying these fighters were trained in Iran. Funny, but it’s Maliki’s mob and the D’awa party that are rabidly pro-Iranian, and the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al Sadr that are vehemently anti-Iranian.
But what the heck, never let an opportunity go by to repeat the propaganda line du jour, especially in America, since they’ve only been at war there for five years so they can’t be expected to know anything about who they are fighting.
Dio – bit harsh re Kim. He’s a decent chap in a pond of unsavoury self-interested creatures. Leadership, though, was not his strong suit.
As for Wright – at the risk of encouraging the worrying obsessions afoot – his church is middle-class, predominantly black, Americana. It is middle America with a complexion and is part of a mainstream US Christian conservative denomination. Hardly the stuff of the Black Panthers. Is that all they got? It’s laughable.
Ron-
“I submit POTUS assessment is a comparative assessment of strenghs & flaws of all candidates believing all have flaws but some think here the O is without them”
just to make sure you get it I will try again (and again and again)….
Obams is LESS flawed than Hillary, he did not support IRAQ whereas she did, and he appears to be a less compromised and indebted to the powers that be politician. Therefore I would prefer him to win .
However I would prefer ANY DEMOCRAT (Finns…) over any Republican.
Is that clear enough. Do you need it in triplicate?
I DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER SAID THAT OBAMA IS FLAWLESS.
fks sake..
Jen,
Reason is no match for the irrational. Best ignored.
Did you all hear that the Wright thingy has had no effect on the polls?
OK, can we move on?
In case anyone missed it, Obama made a speech setting out some big policy differences with McCain:
The comparison with Sen. John McCain’s speech on Tuesday could not be more stark. Obama’s jibe — that McCain’s “plan … amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen,” is not off the mark. McCain took great pains to stress his intent to intervene in the workings of Wall Street as minimally as possible. For those deluded souls who might still think there is no significant difference between the two major parties in the United States, a review of McCain’s and Obama’s speeches this week is in order. They are like bookends at opposite ends of the economics shelf. Obama snuggles up to John Maynard Keynes, while McCain seeks the warm embrace of Milton Friedman. Obama sounded like he understood what he was talking about. McCain sounded like he was reading a speech designed to make him look like he understood what was going on.
Salon.com
…and it’s here that the voters will be focused in November, not Wright, not Bosnia, not any one a thousand little irrelevancies (is Obama a Muslim, FFS!).
As hard as it may seem, even the US voters are not as dumbarsed as the media, with it’s incessant need to fill the void of its own making, since they have lives, real lives, and they are going to want real answers to some big questions come November.
Not: is the Rev Wright an unpatriotic racist?
I think Finnigans has been hitting it heavy with the turps. If not that, then he is deliberately trying to wind people up because, surely, even he would know his last few posts have gone off the rails.
Predict the Democrat Race (popular vote) – analysis by Jay Cost
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/predict_the_dem_race.html
More maths and myths (look away if you are easily offended by numbers)
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=33560BF4BACE0BC9C3AEB100DE033EE6?diaryId=4798
Keynes??? I thought he had been sent to economics purgatory years ago. Last I heard he was only mentioned in business schools as an object of pillory.
As the US economy rips apart are we about to see the intellectual genesis of FDR’s New Deal restored to legitimacy?
Nugget Coombs will be smiling in the great beyond.
259
Ferny Grover
As truly wonderous as it may seem Ferny, it looks like the creaking ship of Wall Street will beach onto a new shore or sink where it is. What’s brewing here is a fundamental revision, not a tinkering at the edges, and when even ex Goldman Sachs CEO, now Treasury Sec Paulsen says it’s time to get some regulation into the markets you know it’s sea change time! LOL
Big thing are afoot Ferny, big things, and Obama is flagging them now. Watch with interest as the punters get screwed over by this collapsing behemoth and their taxes are sent to bailout the gamblers, and see if they don’t get very, very antsy about the whole thing.
Stay tuned, this is the biggest game in town, and anyone who thinks financial market regulation is not sexy enough compared with the Rev Wright just has not experienced the kind of financial hurricane that’s coming down.
Oh what the heck, never let it be said we are too serious in PB land:
A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple-ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/03/27/D8VM2BC80_nipple_rings/index.html
…ouch!
And good to see the mad paranoid security system of the US has identified another WMD!
Ahem, and now, to resume the serious tone once more, here’s a transcript of Obama’s speech…well worth a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27text-obama.html?pagewanted=all
…and one wonders if it will be remembered as long as the other senator’s one.
Hey jv -
just a thought. Seeing as we all know that Obama can walk on water we should recruit him for the Synchronised Swimming squad!
I’m onto it.
Kirribilli Removals @ 255 -
Not: is the Rev Wright an unpatriotic racist?
Not, IMO, only someone telling the truth as he sees it, which is a refreshing change from the miasma of denial many Americans live in. Mostly, what he says, or quotes others saying, is fairly accurate.
The reason his words are attacked as ‘controversial’ and ‘devisive,’ even ‘unpatriotic’ is that, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson’s character in a Few Good Men: “They can’t handle the truth!”
KR – Obama’s speech – Not bad for a guy with no substance.
Here’s a taste…
“Ironically, it was in reaction to the high taxes and some of the outmoded structures of the New Deal that both individuals and institutions in the ’80s and ’90s began pushing for changes to this regulatory structure. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused and even embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting, insider dealing, things that have always threatened the long-term stability of our economic system. Too often we’ve lost that common stake in each other’s prosperity…
Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one, aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.”
265
Ferny Grover
yes, it’s a very good speech, but it’s about more than words, even if sometimes he got the audience’s attention with gems like:
“What was bad for Main Street turned out to be bad for Wall Street. Pain trickled up.”
…but there’s something deep going on here, especially when a candidate gets an endorsement from a well respected Fed Chairman like Volker, he gets a bit more status to talk about these things, especially in these interesting times.
I can smell the death of Reaganism, just as John McCain is trying to resurrect his corpse and ride it to November. I wish him luck.
Obama keeps thumping the tom-tom of campaign money shaping policy and everytime he does he sends a clarion call to all those held captive by vested interests – and to the vested interests – that their empire is about to join that of Ozimandeus.
How they must fear and loathe him.
“How they must fear and loathe him.”
FG, I think this is one reason why the MSM will probably be unkind to Obama in the run up to the election. A lot of the media are owned by big corporations and shareholders who will want to maintain privileged links with the powers-to-be in Washington.
Noocat,
Which is precisely why the World needs an unauthorised outbreak of democracy to occur in the US of A.
“Which is precisely why the World needs an unauthorised outbreak of democracy to occur in the US of A.”
Absolutely! And the only way that will happen is by having a leader who is willing to break away from the usual pack.
Noocat – I take it you don’t mean Hillary????
Of course.
Regarding Hillary and her supporters, maybe it is soon time to start healing the rift. Daily Kos put out this article yesterday, a story of one grieving Hillary supporter:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/27/174853/859/508/485636
It has since attracted a huge number of blog entries, some grieving Hillary’s loss, some rubbing the salt in, and some calling for the battle lines to now be placed between Obama and McCain, Democrats and Republicans, rather than between Obama and Hillary.
“Clinton supporters are deeply hurt. No matter what you think about Clinton, her supporters are good people. They’re on our side, and they’re hurt.
As it starts to sink in that this is over (and it is), Clinton’s supporters are going to be deeply pained. We don’t need to pile on. These are our friends. They really are, even if they look like bitter enemies right now. Lets stop hurting our friends, please. We’ve won.”
Am I the only person concerned that we have someone running for President who has a tendency to hallucinate snipers shooting at her when she doesn’t get a full night’s sleep? Isn’t someone like that fundamentally dangerous and unfit to be POTUS.
“I made a mistake and started a nuclear war with China. I shouldn’t have done it but I was tired from a few hard days. It’s been really busy recently. ”
FFS. We deserve better.
With Bush and Co. standing by watching their great folly in Iraq as it sucks up over 10 billion bucks a month and as it slowly unravels, so do the last shreds of credibility they’ve gambled on the ’surge’ saving the Republian party’s bacon in November. Just two days ago, a nest of neocons was pronouncing the civil war in Iraq over! Yep, Mission Accomplished. Good timing boyz, oh well, another innane prophesy to put on the humongous pile of stupid predictions these rightwing nutoids have uttered over the last six years. (Bonfire of the Innanities, anyone?)
But even more pressing will be the housing story, and here Bush and his stalwart ‘free marketeers’ have already indicated they can’t be arsed bailing out the ones getting turfed out of their homes, but they don’t mind bailing out one of the very companies that aggresively profited from putting them there in the first place.
McCain, (George Bush but much older), has signed on to this too, and essentially said that anyone who’s getting foreclosed by the bank need not ask for government help. Like, hey, it’s ALL their fault, so stiff cheese.
This might play well to the neocons and the rightwing nutzoids, but watch this idiotic display of hanging tough gradually move out to the outer stratoshphere of public opinion over the next 6 months. One way or another, the social catastrophe of millions loosing their homes just cannot be dumped into the street like so much economic garbage without severe consequences to the entire nation.
Market ideologues are about to crash into the ugly reality that their once feted financial system is in fact a wreck, and public opinion will instinctively know where the blame lies. McCain has made a huge mistake by signing onto the Bush agenda, but that’s the Faustian pact he had to make to get the nomination. Now that he has it, it’s too late, it will gradually choke the life out of him.
KR
i see the Obama/Bloomberg ticket is being raised again.
What do you think about a ticket like that for the times we are in?
i don’t know much about Bloomberg other than he’s short,rich,egocentric and seems to be fairly palatable to Dems and Repubs.
275
HarryH
Strange isn’t it? Essentially I think the media is just getting a tad bored with the Democrat’s he said/she said and is fishing for another red herring to chase around the pond for a couple of news cycles.
I seriously doubt Obama would want to team up with Bloomberg (it’s not like he needs the money! LOL), but having him on side isn’t a bad thing.
God, they’re even talking about Gore/Obama for crissakes! Maybe it’s all getting just too silly.
has Hillary conceeded?
or conceded.
Ferny:
Consider what Keynes said in 1931:
A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him.
…I wouldn’t be disparaging Keynes just at the moment! LOL
278
Jen
nah, she’s too busy dodging bullets in her mind, curing cancer, and restoring peace to Dafur to be bothered with such mundane facts like the one which says she can’t beat Obama.
she’s toast
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
#246 asanque
229 – Ron
“Any candidate that goes to a church based organisation is making these errors in my opinion. In this particular case, Obama’s pastor had some wackier comments then most. I’d feel a lot happier if Obama wasn’t religiously inclined but that doesn’t constitute a major issue for me, as I prefer to concentrate on the policies and speeches of the actual candidate. Guilt by affiliation has some merit but really needs a consistent pattern to really be an issue.”
Thanks for you honesty. Thanks for acknowledging there was A problem in his attendance. I accept its your pegogative to think “its not a major issue for me”
Whereas I think it is and I think Obama also thinks so ! given the severity of his condemnation of Wrights comments which he said were more than ‘controversial
Consequently I believe Obama having recognised belatedly it was a major issue
sought to politically address it by condemnation of Wrights quote “more than controversial comments” but at the same time he did not want to ‘burn’ his ‘friend’ (which if he had , politically would have made his defence even more fragile & a well being morally wrong).
Therefore in trying to address two problems concurrently , he succeded in one (kept his friend) & significantly failed in the other
Obama compromised his political defence by not ackowledging his past ‘errors’ & left the major issue not killed off which McCain will make an issue.
( by Fox type tactics as you correctly suggest but I suspect the right’ may have learned to concurrently run subtle more effective message.
I reckon in his speech politically he should have genuinely acknowledged NOW he sees his ‘errors’ (like Rudd’s strip club), genuinely dropped the ‘church’ as a consequence and so dropped the Pastors values so killing the issue (like Rudd did) but tried to keep the friend as agreeing to disagree on fundamental issues
His main speech message would have been stronger (we all can learn from making mistakes on how to best solve the race problem & not give ‘racial charged views any credibility by attendance) and his POTUS bid would not be reliant on independent voters being so influenced by Pastorgate
In due course you may have a view.
ps/ re Falwell , and your question of how far the ‘natural flow on ‘ goes
My view is ‘if the sermon messages are in Obama’s words ‘more than controversial’ I agree non attendance should equally apply to any of his other Ministers preaching similar sermons and should apply to. And also should apply to Senior Advisors because both are preaching signifiant ‘advice’.
I think your friends (other than your Pastor if the same) or your relatives are far less politically relevant & objections to these less credible
#248 Diogenes ,
re point 1/ thank you for the acknowledgement of an Obama a lack of judgement ‘error’ (as did asanque frankly do, although both of you feel its not a big issue)
re point 2/ I know you did not make that suggestion nor was I implying it.
If you thought I was , then I appologise without qualifiation.
I was simply taking your original analogy on pedophilia (versus if you keep attending Wright’s sermons) and suggesting if one took your analogy to its logical concusion , any sane person would leave the Church & not return
…thats all.
re point 3/ , entirely agree with you any ordinary citizen can attend either the Catholic with its history of pedophilia or Wrights ‘wacko’ church.
However as per point 1/ you agree that Obama not being an ordinary citizen showed an error of judgement in doing so as he was & is not an ordinary citizen
re point 4/ absolutely agree with you if Obama was an ordinary citizen
re point 5/ accept , & observe that by you not being ‘rusted on’ is possibly why you are able to recognise flaws or ‘political expediency’ in candidates the ‘rusted on’ can not see at all
Hey, Do ron Ron, have a click on jen’s link at 281. Pew have got a 10 point national spread average Obi over Mrs Harding-Croft-Clinton. Time to shut the Pastorgate, The Kid’s bolted clear and is now showing a clean pair of heels with his Ecomo-gate sppech. No one exept wingnuts, rusted-on GOPpers and Fox-jocks gives a rat’s about Wright anymore.
Comes a time when you’ve just got to let go, son. It’s been well over a week now. Closure for you on this one is going to be difficult, but it’s definitely time to move on, cobber.
Like a good Clintonaut, Ron has constructed his pwn reality where the white race is going to rise up as one and turn on Barack Hussein come November. This is becuase Obama didn’t reject his racist pastor and prove to Fox News that even though his skin is black, he is really trying to be just as white as Bill O’Reilly and is willing to abandon his own church and his own community to win Fox News’ and Ron’s approval.
This is Ron’s reality.
Two more supers back The Kid, Rep Lipinski (IL) and Williams (CT). Those snails just keep nibbling away at the rotting carcass that is Billary’s ambition to be POTUS. She must be spewing that she didn’t run in 2004.
Welcome to Friday sundowner time bludgers. It’s been a tough week but we made it through. Cheese and biscuit anyone? – it’s Roaring Forties blue. Or a smoked oyster perhaps? Pass that bottle of McLaren Vale shiraz would you Ferny G? Ta.
Jen @ 263 – Barack in the synchro team? Great idea. He’s got the balance. What colour nose clip for Barack?
@ 281 – Yeah, she’s million year old carbon. Can’t wait for another Pennsylvania poll to see if there’s support for a narrowing, as in the rassmussen poll (only 10 points in it).
Diogenes @ 273
No Diogenes, you’re not. A dead-set, caught red-handed, no excuse premeditated material lie with the motivation apparent. How can she survive that?? If she is ever a witness in any court, her credibility will immediately be shot to bits with the first question in cross-examination. Her evidence would be useless. So the US could end up with a President who isn’t a credible witnes in any forum of justice? Even Bill didn’t get to that low point in the Monica scandal, as his ‘credibility gap’ involved one person’s word against another, and was not formally proven.
Ferny @ 265 & KR @274
What’s all this Obama talk about regulation? Just like the bloody socialists, as soon as they get a sniff of power they want to put the brakes on. The market can’t operate with big brother looking over it’s shoulder. Government should clear out of the financial world and let the professionals get on with what they know best. … whoops – sorry – shouldn’t have looked at the Centre for Independent Studies site yesterday. I’ve been brainwashed. Thanks a lot Finns.
Finns – By the way, you’d better get a copy of the Obama finance speech over to CIS forensics immediately to see if it measures up for the intellectual economic elite.
287 -’its shoulder’, not ‘it’s shoulder’
287 – and that should be ‘billion year old carbon’ – apologies to Joni Mitchell
287
jaundiced view
Oh god I wish you hadn’t said that! Now I’ve got to go and crack a nice Shardy and fish out the smoked oysters and mmmmm, let’s see…
And you’re so right, tough week, especially listening to that sqwarking pastor stuff. I’m sooooooooo over it, as of about the first 2 minutes. But I see it’s now taken the role as a career subject for the forensic nitpicking class and the intellectually myopic who cannot wean themselves from Faux News.
If that’s the best attack that Miss Pocahontas and her geriatric doppleganger can muster, the boy’s as safe as houses…er, change that, safe as Bear’s Big Book of Dodgey Assets.
I can see it now. Hillary Clinton is called as a witness in Bill’s tax evasion case (He is to be called in her case at a later date). From the transcript:
Counsel for the prosecution, after Hillary has given evidence in chief supporting Bil’s version of truth-
Q.Ms Clinton, did you say to the world in 2008 that you were the subject of sniper when you visited Bosnia in 1996, and had to run with your head down for cover, and that there was no welcoming ceremony?
A. Well, I was tired after a busy schedule in 2008.
Q. Just answer the question please. Did you say that?
A. It depends on your definition of ’sniper fire’, and ‘welcomingr’.
Q. There was no sniper fire was there?
A. There could have been if the situation had been unsafe. And there had been reports of water pistols in the hands of trained children as young as five.
Q. And there was a welcoming party wasn’t there?
A. Not to me. I didn’t find it ‘welcoming’ having to stand in the freezing cold and listen to some brat spout poetry in a foreign languange, when I should have been in the five star US military hotel in town having a jacuzzi.
Q. You are familiar with the terms ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are you?
A. I’m sorry … er … can you rephrase that in a more obfuscatory way, to help me understand?
Q. If you were prepared to lie then why should we believe anything you say now?
A. Because I’m very experienced with a phone.
KR – I guess all the Pastor Wright lint will have been picked from obsessive navels before long, now the polls show minimal impact.
292
jaundiced view
Never misunderestimate the CNG (compulsive navel gazers) JV, for they know not what they gaze at.
Earth shattering events have been ripping through the financial fabric of a nation and we’re stuck picking bits of fluff out of our blog.
Eeek, it’s maddening, but sadly predictable. No doubt, after the first big bump, everyone kept dancing on the Titanic because the very notion of it sinking was utterly beyond their comprehension.
Now is such a moment.
When it’s listing at 45 degrees it’ll get their attention.
KR – and I’m wondering how long it will take to get things back into financial order – assuming the system survives of course.
New financial regulations after November would be as effective at fixing the current sub-prime mess as would putting a 9pm curfew on your kids a few years after they’ve left home and moved into a share house with their uni mates.
294
jaundiced view
Apart from the usual spruikers calling a stock market bottom (more like pig’s arse_ but that’s just a comic observation!), there’s an army of economic commentators just trying to get their heads around the fact that gravity just went negative and the world as they’ve known it for decades has literaly turned upside down. (Ah, that would make a ‘bottom’ more like a head, and that’s what a lot of people will be wearing!)
I wouldn’t be putting any money on this ‘crisis’ (understatement of the century) going away anytime soon. Put it up there alongside the Iraq war for yet another drawn out river of human misery, sweeping lives along with it in the inexorable processes of purging human folly.
This ought to make Ron happier with Obama.
Obama Would Have Left if Wright Stayed
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_WRIGHT?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=HOME
296
Diogenes
I won’t warn you again Dio, but can you please take that fluff outside, I’ve just vacuumed the blog! LOL
Fri March 28: When Even Your Best Friends Won’t Tell You.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/robertariail;_ylt=ApRV98RPJLoFixJ7F0iA63be.sgF
Fri March 28: How US Democracy Works:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tonyauth;_ylt=AnDRZYtiDPYgpPzYnPJmAxsV2r8F
Thurs March 27: Things To Do when you’re a busy work-a-day Brutusina.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jeffdanziger;_ylt=AsOZ3mHKUDAxG2F3.nHirnJX_b4F
Talking about fluff, how did I miss this one. Madame Hillary had seances with Eleanor Roosevelt in a solarium on top of the White House. Evidently they had quite a nice chat. Sort of explains the sniper hallucination story. Hillary’s mind has a serious defect in its reality-testing capacity.
Hillary’s religion: abortion, and seances with Eleanor
http://johnseilerblogs.com/?p=306
It’s a terrible tragedy for her, Dio. Even the cartoonists are dining out on the poor darling.
Fri March 28: Tall Tales & True from Her Legendary Past…..
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=AmDIqtGrDlD9BLki3t2VOgbV.i8C
Thurs March 27: Candidate Displays Finesse at Diplomacy.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich;_ylt=Au_y7I5eguocm2v.NcoHZUVR_b4F
Thurs March 27: Somebody Give a Speech Around Here?
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/patoliphant;_ylt=Ag1ybF4EtGNGx9NNil_pqiXd.sgF
#296 Diogenes post FOR ALL BLOGGERS TO READ
I have argued almost alone , against a discourteous at best bloggers chorus of ‘move on’ that Obama should leave the Church plus drop Wright and plus in doing so repudiate what he stands for.
How are you guys NOW going to rationalise the fact Obama NOW says he was going to leave this year the Church SOLELY because of the Pastors views !
vs. the barbs against my one man cruscade that he should do precisely that
You guys claimed it was a non issue , the good Obama polls proved my case was wrong , I was racist obssessive , a closed mind , that Wright words politically were not so bad to be a big issue I’m anti Obama , etc etc etc.
yet Obama now has come to the same conclusion as I have been putting
ie leave the Church drop Wright & in doing so repudiate what he stands for.
To be so wrong on such a fundamental issue of political policy was my point you guys simply ignored an opposing opinion because it was opposing , and I await the magnamity of your responses as I tick them off to later thank you
I’ll blog later on my view he still has not done enough (and I expect Obama to similarly conclude in the future but again belately
Ever get sick of talking to yourself Ron?
Here’s Sean Hannity’s Phone Number
1800 BLACKBOOGEYMAN
Hey Ron, can ya flog that dead horse outside please, the horsehair is getting all mixed up with the navel fluff and it’s a dead cert that some poor navel gazer is going to go cross-eyed trying to sort it out.
Pssst, Ron, Ronnie, Maaaaaate. Here’s a nice new word for you to ponder.
Obsession: a persistent idea or thought dominating a person’s mind.
You can give it a rest, son, put it to bed, it’s all over red rover.
Hype it any which way,
Pastorgate ain’t gon’ play.
Just when a gal thought it was safe to go back in the water……….
Fri March 28: a moron could read this attritional battle-plan, why not Dem HQ?
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/henrypayne;_ylt=Alk2eVQp0IAYwP_xVoe.WbI0vTYC
Fri March 28: Seems they’re not gonna cut her a lot of slack on the Invent-A-Me routine.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/henrypayne;_ylt=Alk2eVQp0IAYwP_xVoe.WbI0vTYC
Thurs March 27: No, they’ll be taking this one to the limit
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=AlwTkcg29kmJrv_kwY0BP0lN_b4F
Hillary “Zelig” Clinton caught in another lie
If only Bill had’ve listened to Hillary and stopped the Rwandan Genocide rather that HELPING it happen by making the UN remove many peacekeepers from Rwanda. Those two are really very sick puppies.
Hillary Clinton And Rwanda
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/03/hilary-clinton.html
one good thing about this Nom race is it has exposed the Clintons as the scum they are.
20 years of the filthy Bush/Clinton era is OVER.
good riddance.
HarryH
It’s actually 28 if you include the 8 years Bush Sr spent as VP. I think he was probably the most decent of all the Bush/Clintons.
I actually liked Bill back when he was El Prez. Hillary too for that matter. They made a formidable pair.
But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s time to move on. Hillary’s behaviour has only confirmed that fact.
305
Diogenes
But Dio, she’s probably talking about the alternate universe that she inhabits were she can go back in time and alter the events there. It’s a well known facility that only the ‘experienced’ can claim, and lesser mortals must contend with the boring old historical facts in this universe.
Look, anyone who can go back in time, avert the Rwandan genocide, dodge imaginery bullets, solve the Northern Ireland mess, save the Kosovars and whatever, well, obviously, such a being deserves the Democrat nomination.
Maybe she’ll go back in time and win all the delegates and the majority vote…but of course she’ll have to tell President Obama that he isn’t the legitimate POTUS.
Speaking of parallel universes and going back in time, the US is bombing some of the fractious areas of Basra while the Baghdad government is engaging a running battle in the streets.
Gosh, it’s almost like the good old days, Saddam belting the bejesus out the southern Shiites and the Yanks doing the odd raid from the no fly zones. Oh, except this time Baghdad is in uproar, the government is Shiite and pro-Iranian, and the Mahdi Army is Shiite and hostile to the Maliki government.
It’s all just too weird, at least with Saddam and the Ba’athists it was easy to understand.
#303 Kirribilli Removals,
You can not be serious.
A week ago , Obama in his speech said. “I can not disown the man”. He now has.
Whereas I,ve said for a week he should disown the man & his Church He now has
You guys said I was wrong (and worst)
You say I’m floging a dead horse but Obama himself in his interview today unambiguously agrees with me & disagrees with you. And you can not even acknowledge when your politically opinion is so grossly wrong.
Instead you blog as if Obama has said nothing. Astonishing
Ron, What’s the score in the cricket?…
I can be serious, in fact it took me all of about two minutes to realise a couple of soundbites could be mixed into a veritable cesspit of half-baked opinions and so I’ve dutifully avoided it.
Hate to say it, but I have hardly read a word about it since, anywhere, and intend to keep it that way.
Life is too short.
Has anyone considered that Hillary really is the Walter Mitty of Politics? She CANNOT tell the difference between reality and fantasy. She might not be lying after all.
Fantasy 1. Opposed NAFTA ; Reality 1. gave a number of pro-NAFTA seminars
Fantasy 2. Urged Rwanda intervention ; Reality 2. Did nothing
Fantasy 3. Had seances and chatted with Elenor Roosevelt ; Reality 3. Sat in a room talking to a psychic faking an old woman’s voice
Fantasy 4. Landed in Bosnia under sniper fire ; Reality 4. Ambled put to chat to friendly greeting party
Fantasy 5. Crucial role in the Northern Island peace process; Reality 5. Might have hosted an afternoon tea or two
Fantasy 6. Claims she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary ; Reality 6. Was born SIX years before Sir Edmund climbed Everest. How the hell can you pretend you were named after a famous person incorrectly.
Members of the jury. I rest my case. Hillary is a dangerous fantasist loony in whose perverted little mind, fantasy and reality co-exist. I await the case for the defence.
KR – who would have thought 5 years ago that the U.S. military would be used to help a pro Iranian Iraqi government in its fight subdue a bunch of anti Saddam, anti Iranian, pro Iraq patriots?
You wouldn’t have dreamed this up if you’d been doing crack 24/7 for a decade!
I suspect the blowback in 1, 5, 10 or 20 years will really be something….and scarier than hell
HH,
India 453/1. Sehwag 300 not out off 278 balls.
Ron is in the unfortunate position of being right (probably), except that we’ve covered the ground so often that no-one else cares anymore.
The big story is that Clinton’s gone.
Fantasy 5. Crucial role in the Northern Island peace process; Reality 5. Might have hosted an afternoon tea or two
Dio – you forgot to add that she also nicked the teapot!
Dio @ 314,
Did you make up Fantasy 3? I hadn’t heard that one.
315
MayoFeral
hahahaha…come to think of it, someone WAS doing coke for quite a while before he let a bunch of neocons talk him into it! LOL
It’s all too freakin’ bizarre. And if it wasn’t for the endless human misery it’s created, it would be funny.
We used to able to laugh at Dubbya, but not now that we can see what this sad clown has unleashed.
I’m switching sides. I want to vote for Martin Sheen
How funny it is that the left wingers are attacking each (Obama vs Hillary) other instead of McCain…the 2 Democrats may be damaged goods by the Convention and people would rather stick with a known quantity.
308
you know Ferny -
i liked Bob Hawke once too. And Gough. and (my favourite) Paul Keating.
I also have a soft spot for Kim Beazley.
However, their time has come: their dance is over.
As is Bill and Hillary Clinton’s.
They are starting to get that sleazy feel that Bob and Blanche did when they did the Women’s Weekly spread in their white towelling dressing gowns with their fake tans …
sad and finished.
286
Diogenes
You can add another one:
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania endorsed on Friday Barack Obama’s campaign for the Democratic nomination for president in a boost for the Illinois senator.
Ferny Grover i second that well not completely.
I want to vote for Alan Alda!
Predictable Glen!
But it would be a tough choice wouldn’t it?!
320 Ferny
thanks to Max I have been glued to the plasma wide screen (kidding) watching The West Wing….uncanny parrallels.
Is Hillary really going to drag this out when the result is so obvious?
And is just me, or have a significant number of the Anti-Obi squad disappeared from PB today?
Possibly preparing their mourning outfits, poor loves.
Indeed FG, if only all Presidential Debates were like Santos v Vinick!
McCain vs Hillary (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
McCain vs Obama (zzzzzzzChangeWeCanBelieveInzzzzzzzzzzz)
318 Dyno
I wish I was making this stuff up but I’m not. There is a link to the seances at 299. It’s in a biography called “God and Hilary Clinton: A Spiritual Life” which is actually pro-Hillary. The story is that the lady who ghost-wrote Hilary’s “It Takes A Village” (and got stiffed on the deal because she blabbed that Billary had needed help to write it) leaked the story to Bob Woodward to get back at her.
Ron, let me count the ways:
1. You have not ever acknowledged the societal role that Black US preachers have historically played in U.S. communities, and that, seen alongside this tradition, Wright is nothing out of the ordinary.
2. You were wrong about the effect that this flap would have on Obama as recent polling has unanimously shown.
3. You have never acknowledged that most of the offensive language used was presented in soundbites on FOX and later contextualised in lengthy deconstructions.
4. You have not acknowledged that a quotation from a removed party made up what was regarded as the most offensive soundbite.
5. You have constantly misrepresented a complex and enduring problem symbolised by this incident, because you have made a fort behind an incredibly narrow interpretation of the whole thing. The latest disingenuous portrayal, above, is that Obama “unambiguously agrees with me & disagrees with you”. This is false. Obama actually said, in his interview, that
If you do not want to acknowledge the politics, implications and nuance in this statement, that is fine, and I guess I can’t explain them to you further. You go on to say “you blog as if Obama has said nothing.” Your argument is that Wright has said something, not Obama. I do have a different opinion of the politics of this incident to you. I have previously tried to explain why, but it seems to have slipped by you. That is fine too. But it really is boring to just keep trotting out the same opening of an argument as if nothing else had presented itself in all the time since all this came to light. This is my last two cents.
Shouldn’ta done that…
Diogs-
if you are suggesting that Hillary’s behaviour indicates a serious delusional condition , born out of decades of a belief in her/ their omnipotence and power, then seriously, I agree.
Think the Madness of King George III –
think Clintons.
Glen – first time you’ve made me laugh out loud! (But at least the predicted Obama/McCain debate was partly intelligible…..YES.WE.CAN!)
Jen, As for Hillary – there appears (to me at least) to be a growing chorus of opeds – not to mention cartoonists – calling for her to face reality and finish it.
Bet she won’t.
No Pancho….you shouldnt
- but it was very eloquent nonetheless
There is a reason why Hillbilly almost everyday says how great it is to have a contest and how much she’s looking forward to the convention…me thinks she is getting pressure to quit! A bad withdrawal for Clinton could end up making Clinton’s independents and swinging Democrats go over to McCain…that is the downside of fighting out a drawn out nomination battle as both sides detest each other and are unlikely to be supportive of the other candidate…
McCain is been giving a golden opportunity to win the Presidency…and just think had things gone differently in 2000 he could be in the last few months of his Second Term as President now were it not for W. Then maybe the Democrats would be facing a mormon or a baptist preacher lol and not a decorated war veteran!
Vinnick V Obama would be a great contest. Someone was saying a while back that the Santos character was based on Obama’s earlier meteoric rise.
But Vinnick had style, McCain as Vinnick would have used the contents of the brief-case, in that famous episode, to wreak as much mayhem as possible. “Whatever it takes” is all Johnny Bomb-Bomb’s go.
If it is Obama and McCain the West Wing is scarily coming to life!
pancho-
waste of time my friend.
But great rebut of the never-ever- stopping -broken record of r/Ron trying to get traction on the icy slope of a glacial slide to defeat.
I hope she appreciates the efforts made on her behalf.
Kirribilli Removals :
you did blog the subject in #303 , replied in #311 ,
its been a long day , perhaps you may reconsider adequacy of your #311 tomorrow
Dyno #316: thx , a mythical bottle of beer is in the post
Pancho # 329: if you’d had the courtesy of reading my blogs , you would know i do not watch Fox as its rubbish 100% biased neocon.
I have ACTUALLY blogged that Obama should leave the Church plus drop Wright and plus in doing so repudiate what he stands for. You disagreed with me
Obama has done precisely what I suggested.
Now to camoflage your embarassment to write a disingenous blog
It’s a genuine moral vacuum in the two Clinton heads.
- and it’s worth noting that if Obama hadn’t been such a good candidate the voters would not have found out the horrible truth until too late.
A post under Diogenes’ Obsidianwings article about Hillary’s latest confabulation re Rwanda:
“And what a convenient moment to make this claim, when the woman formerly in the Obama campaign organization best equipped to evaluate this claim, a women who has interviewed almost everyone and read almost everything there is to read about Rwanda policy in the 1990s has just resigned and made herself un-interviewable. Given Power’s specialty, this seems almost like a claim engineered to make her head explode — or to taunt her out of silence.
What a lovely couple they are. ‘Monstrous’ isn’t the right word, agreed, but there’s a sadistic, Rovian edge there that ‘grotesque’ only hints at.”
Ron-
how are you coping with the fact that Obama is going to be the nominee??
Do you need some support to face facts , or are you going to keep banging on endlessly and pointlessly with the insignificant story abut Obama knowing a pastor who was quoted out of context?
If I was you I would give it up.
Nice try, but no point. Obama has won.
Niight all.
Ferny ,
you were another with strong opposing opinions and your response to Obama’s backdown of I will not disown the man or the Church is to delude yourself Obama didn’t backdown and that my prognois was not correct
& instead fire a subtle barb as if that would hit any target.
Jen , I assume you read my views on Fox so any others on Fox will demonstrate
your standard. Your allegation #337 I’m a Clinton supporter , where is any blog where I have said so or ae you making an assumption on my critiques of Obama (which todays Obama backdown proves my prognosis was proven)
Ron is not a Clinton supporter…he just has a deep distrust of coloured people.
If in doubt, go read the comments on Possums blog about the cricket.
EC #335 Part of the point abput Vinnick as a charcater was the casting of old “Hawkeye” to play him. From Hawkeye to Bomb-bomb McCain is a bit of a leap.
West Wing ended with Santos appointing Vinnick to the Cabinet. One would hope that President Obama, if he remains loyal to the script, appoints McCain to some post where access to explosives is not part of the deal.
HarryH ,
Given my long work with indigenous Australians , your bigotary & hypocracy is not the first I’ve encountered
Unlike you , i think Noel Pearson or Pat Dodson would with alittle political training make excellent PM’s
Robert so long as Obama’s VP doesnt die during the campaign, McCain would win the Presidency. The directors/writers originally planned a Vinick win but didn’t think it fair for Santos to lose his VP and the election on the one night!
Ron, I’m not contributing to your obsession
Kev07
Obama08
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/28/us/28license.650.jpg
I find this Hillary delusion behaviour fascinating. The more you look at it, it becomes more apparent that she may genuinely not know the difference between truth and lies. A good article here :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=todays_columnists
examples -
“What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics.”
…
and
“What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: “Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.” “
This claim McCain would simply bomb is fantasy left bloging . The US military will not agree to enter a certain defeat against Iran.
The threat McCain poses is his flawed Iraq policy & other m/e wpolicys which may lead to the fall of the Saudi’s , Kuwait such as what occurred with the Shah’s overthrow & a complete m/e meltdown plus increased terrorism with more lethal weapons
Ferny what you are saying is you refuse to admit when you are wrong even when your man Obama backs down as I correctly suggested he do.
This is delusion of reality at its finest
Ron, I am not contributing to your obsession because you have become rude and annoying. You are free to read anything that makes you happy into my silence on the matter.
j/v #348
you are carrying on about a 10 years ago TV stunt. Beatup , move on.
Pollies do it all the time including 100% pure O
Ron #344,
As an indigenous Australian, I thank you for your “long work”, whatever it was. but I can only judge you on the crap you’ve posted here. You persist in describing Wright as racist for the supposed sin of describing the American state, which presided over genocide against indigenous people and slavery against Africans, as “white”. No wonder you think that idiot Pearson would make a good PM.
Back in the real world, the “success” of the surge is about to be exposed for the bulls#@t is always was. It will take a little time for the reality of this to seep into the consciousness of American voters, but there is plenty of time. How can McCain even begin to understand the fact that the US is currently backing the most pro-Iranian group of Shi-ites against another Shi-ite faction and that only US air power is staving off total defeat on the streets of Basra? (Well he probably has some understanding of the last point.)
KR is right on this. The war is about to leap back onto the front pages and the recession will continue to deepen. The swiftboats failed to deliver their torpedoes and they’re about to be swamped by a Tsunami.
Ferny , you accuse me of being rude because Obama proved you wrong today and you are embarrased to admit it, given your numerous (and now proved inaccurate blogs)
JV 348:
Funny line in that piece…
‘What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics.’
Ron @ 344
By saying “with a little political training” you really mean….as long as they behave like a good white man and fit in with OUR culture. I will correct my original statement by saying…you are not distrusting of coloured people, you are distrusting of coloured culture.
Your writings are transparent.
Things are getting a little worse for HRC
Pennsylvania senator to endorse Obama
NEW YORK – Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey plans to endorse Democrat Barack Obama Friday, a move that could help the presidential candidate make inroads with white working-class voters dubbed “Casey Democrats” in the Keystone State.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement
Think of how easy it would have been for Obama to disown Wright as he should have on day one, he made this controversy a controversy by not nailing it on the head. Shows his lack of political nous, but i find it hilarious that he now says if he knew he said those things he’d have left, perhaps he should of bought Wright’s videos lol!
Ron, this is tedious. But seeing as you persist, let me say this. I’m always happy to admit when I’m wrong. Hell, I’m wrong about something at least once a day. In this case, however, I’m not wrong. Wright – in context – is correct and is merely expressing what black preachers have been saying about American injustice for decades. In the scheme iof things Wright is tame and has nothing to apologise for.
If Obama is correctly quoted re his ‘The View’ interview today (and it’s a big if) then he has diminished himself. Sometimes we forget that he is a politician after all. Wright remains the senior pastor of the church. He therefore remains in a position of authority. On their website he is the ranking cleryman. His semi-retirement should have no bearing on Obama’s decision to stay or leave. If Obama truly found the comments offensive, Wright’s continued leadership presence in spite of his changed role should be enough for Obama to leave. Yet he stays. Something doesn’t feel right. So I’ll hold my judgment till I see the full interview.
And Ron, I won’t reply to anything else on the Wright issue because as you seem unable to notice, we’re sick of it and I want to move on.
#353 Robert , “You persist in describing Wright as racist ”
This is the 2nd time I need to correct you on this wrong statement.
I originally said Wright made ‘racist comments’ , BUT it was proved to me by bloggers that literally the word ‘racist’ was incorrect.
So many days ago I then withdrew my assertion of ‘racist statement’ and substituted Obama’s description of ‘racially charged comments’ and have many times since used the substituted Obama description of the comments
did you miss by correcting blog ?
Secondly , I find it unusual that some bloggers have labelled me as a racist.
I’m very critical of the Indian teams use of ‘racism’ as was Possum rightly AND
I’ve criticised some Aboriginal Leaders & successive Governments in their lack of getting an overall vision commitment of what indigenous leaders in different parts differently or jointly wish for in an ideal final reconciliation status socially , economically etc and then implementing the plan after proper consideration.
Both of these forays have it easy to throw the label and difficult to throw off
#329
Pancho – good post!
Kina @ 355 [-cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one’s beliefs.]
So the dissonance is when she tells the lie, knowing it to be a lie?
Interesting. There really must be an explanation, because she should have known there was a good chance of being caught out on the sniper-fire thing. There was a comedian and a singer with her, media, minders. But apparently this likelihood was shut out somehow. Or is it that she has been lying for so long now that she can’t really tell when she does. It defies a logical expanation so far.
I mean, this is the ‘Lindsay pamphlet’ moment of her campaign, except she is the one caught red-handed. Amazing. I’d love to understand how it, and the Rwanda thing come to be possible in her mind.
Ferny , well thanks for replying and I could criticise some bloggers (including you) for commenting on non Wright issues eg. Iraq & used the word tedious
however its easy to say & bloggers political interests are different
I do not personally have a big problem with Wright or his teachings , I’m not querying his right to say what he wants as you believe Ferny even if I disagree with him) , its a free country the US. My sole issue is Obama a Pollie (not Wright) and the politics of it for Obama (not for Wright)
jv @ 362
Long time Democratic heavy David Geffin summed the Clintons up over a year ago. He was a staunch Clinton supporter and longtime donor but he publicly disowned them saying he just could no longer stomach their lying. He said it was just unbelievable how lying came so naturally to them.
and keep in mind, this was when Hill was considered a shoe-in for the Nom and Barack was considered a blip on the radar.
Kina – Further research reveals that the concept of cognitive dissonance was discussed in relation to the war in Iraq and the gradual revelation of the bush administrations lies, as in:
“American supporters of the President, in other words, wanted to be duped. The alternative would have resulted in a painful shattering of illusions. Any glimpse of the plain truth staring them in the face would have led to cognitive dissonance, to the jarring recognition that not only were they lied to, but that they themselves bore responsibility for allowing themselves to be conned. ”
So, Hillary was relying on cognitive dissonance – people would be conned by her version of events, and would not want to believe that what she said was fantasy. I can understand that about the Rwanda thing – there was more chance of some doubt for her to get the benefit of,. But the sniper-fire episode is so starkly clear.
Well, the voters’ cognitive dissonance hasn’t chimed in this time. People have been prepared to have their illusions shattered after all – not enough emotional investment in Hillary by enough people I guess.
364 Harry H – Yes, it’s been there in the background I know, but these examples are mind-blowing – the Clintons are just empty moral vessels (even for politicians).
so you would be silly enough to vote for McCain instead of Hillary if for whatever reason Obama was ‘unavailable’. nonsense
Oh and JV – I forgot to respond to your earlier post re the ‘tasting room’. If you’re ever in Qld I’ll have a bottle of shiraz put aside with your name on it.
… or a semillion, verdelho, shiraz-viognier, reisling, traminer-reisling, colombard….etc, etc. My cup runneth over
and one for me unpoisened
Here we go, a whole article on Hillary’s Bosnia and cognitive dissonance at DailyKos looking for the explanation as to why she did it that I wanted:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/13829/5932/440/484679
The author finishes up thus:
“My theory is that Hillary, in her need to justify her run for the Presidency, and believing that she is the best person to lead the country, has had her mind manufacture events – out of real events – which support her belief. Classic cognitive dissonance at work: her firm belief does not agree with the facts. Eventually, her subconscious got around to changing the facts.
I have never really bought into the intentional lie – too easily contradicted. I have never bought into the “misstatement” – it was misrepresented too often, and she would never persist with a misstatement when confronted with half of it. But she did.
The explanation which remains is that she thought she was being truthful. Whether that’s better or worse is an exercise for the reader.”
Oh dear, it really is confabulation. Or she might need lithium.
Ron, I’d never waste a good wine by adding anything – let alone poison. You’re welcome to share a glass.
Ferny 367 – Wow, the tips of the nerve-ends of my mid-palate are quivering with pleasure at the thought. And I’ll be tantalisingly close next week at Byron. There’s a trip to Airlie in July, but no doubt there will be a gold coast visit soon, if that’s near you
Ferny – Perhaps we can start a PB ‘new left’ wine appreciation society.
JV, I’ll be on the Gold Coast speaking at a convention in mid April…then another one in Kingscliffe later. I’m in Brisbane so it’s not too far.
Ferny , wine offer accepted with thank
seeing I’m a lover of wine but not an expert , you will be pleased to know I will be entirely reliant on your judgement & in particular hope the temptation of making an exception re additions is resisted with a smile
Glad to hear you’re conventional Ferny.
Don’t tell me Ron – you don’t know wine, but you know what you like
frankly j/v , I always defer to the recommendation of whoever I’m with and have been happy. No I’m not an expert at all & but do enjoy the health benefits
but white wine only , despite my political leanings for red
Well Ron, when it comes to wine I like it both ways – so have a wide selection of whites and reds. Nothing beats a good SA Shiraz though – especially on a winters evening. Follow it with an aged port (at least 10-12 years) and coffee. On rare occassions I may even sucumb to a cigar as well. How Liberal of me.
Ron – Forget whites – you don’t know what you’re missing – the marvellous aroma of a big SA shiraz swirling around the glass … The first sip and the explosion of complex rich flavours taking your palate firmly in hand with or without your consent … the heat and power of the alcohol and the tannins hitting the back of your throat … the intense zephyr of aroma breezing through the cranial backwaters … the developing complexity and length of flavour searching your mind for an explanation … the confusion of the senses of taste and smell as you focus on the personal charater of that particular wine …
and … all that happens again and again, six or seven times per glass, or 15-17 if you’re drinking from the bottle. Or 150-160 if you’re guzzling the whole case.
There ends wine appreciation – step 1.
Anyway g’night all
Brilliant JV — makes me want to grab my 6 or 7 times right now.
SA Shiraz…..mmmmmmmmm
Night all
The Pew Report 27/3/08
that Obama is weathering the Rev. Wright storm and
in addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.
These are National figures & like the National Polls match ups are largely irrelevant as one has to win “States” where the %’ s may be different.
Notwithstanding , the polling on Pastorgate is not a surprise as I’ve blogged before , McCain has not fired any shots yet & when he does they will damage Obama in votes with independents in the ‘red’ states obama needs to win.
The counter attacks on McCain re Iraq will need to be powerful as ‘fear’ is the most potent weapon whilst blaming McCain solely for Wall Street will be hard.
On the ‘Muslim’ attack , the 25% is an example of how effective ‘fear’ is politically & why Pastorgate (where I’ve said Obama does have some ‘errors to attack) will hurt Obama when McCain attacks , WHEN A CLEAR UNTRUTH SUCH AS OBAMA IS A MUSLIM can have such an adverse political effect.
Its so subtlely easy to slur politically and Hillary did so as follows :
“Barack Obama was a Christian…”as far as I know,”
that signal gave indirect credence to the Barack-as-Muslim inference
paradoxically am partial to alot of ports at night end
just had to blog , to get mind off the thirst I got at the description in j/v #380 of that first sip
Hillary Clinton is sane, as far as I know. May well become the McCain line.
As one commentator wrote if at the end of it all both candidates are too damaged they may ask for Dole/Obama ticket.
Gallop Poll rolling results …
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105724/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-48-Clinton-44.aspx
Casey endorsement on the New York Times.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/the-casey-endorsement/
So they have finally realised that Wall Street can’t be trusted to regulate itself, what genius abounds!
With a daunting task at hand, the Wall Street Journal reports policymakers are now looking beyond short-term cash injections and considering long-term regulatory fixes. Doing this effectively will mean walking a tightrope. Over the past decade, economists say a system of loose credit and endless leverage led to a murky “shadow banking system” (IHT) beyond the purview of regulators. But experts also warn against going overboard. One analyst comments in the FT that a regulatory backlash against banks could have “costly” and “unintended consequences.” Examining the underlying financial system, the Economist article cited above says: “This system worked; indeed, at its simplest, it still does, spreading risk, promoting economic efficiency and providing cheap capital.”
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15811/system_error_reboot_in_progress.html?breadcrumb=%2Findex
JS #385 And the gap is now widening:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx
“Today’s Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.”
If so Robert, the “turkeys” are voting for Christmas.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar28.html
359
Ferny Grover
“Ron, this is tedious.”
Ferny, I admire your astute summation, your aposite choice of words, your candour, your precision, your admission of the facts…now, if only we could move on! LOL
GG – you fail to mention a couple of things. One, while these calculations have Obama trailing McCain (with 228 votes) they also have Clinton losing (with 239). Neither count is anywhere near the 270 needed. If this seems a little odd to you, given the fact that the Democrats are streamrolling on Republicans with regards to organisations and numbers perhaps you haven’t taken into account the fact that the election is about eight months away, and there is still no Democratic candidate. Therefore supporters of Hillary and Obama are noting their candidate, but supporters of the Democrats do not yet have their brand and organisation moving. If Kerry and Gore didn’t end up with numbers like these, I can guarantee you, with the organisation that the Dems have this year, that Obama’s count will be well over 228.
Another interesting thing about this map is how numbers are split from strong to barely. On the Obama map we have:
Strong Dem (142)
Weak Dem (33)
Barely Dem (53)
Exactly tied (9)
Barely GOP (131)
Weak GOP (55)
Strong GOP (115)
On the Clinton map:
Strong Dem (74)
Weak Dem (97)
Barely Dem (68)
Exactly tied (44)
Barely GOP (24)
Weak GOP (110)
Strong GOP (121)
Particularly interesting to me is the strong/weak Dem numbers – Obama S: 142, W: 33; Clinton S: 74, W 97. This indicates to me that Obama is the candidate with the strength at the base. Another column to note is the ‘barely GOP’ numbers – Obama: 131; Clinton 24. Obama is clearly far more enticing to swing states by these maps.
If we were to give Clinton her entire 24 ‘barely GOP’s on top of her 239, she ends up with 263 vote – still a loss. If we give Obama half of the ‘barely GOP’ numbers he has in play on top of his 228 he ends up with 293.5 – a huge victory.
I’m not sure the “turkeys” are voting at all – I think they’re misreading polling on this page.
KR,
Too much of a good thing is never enough. Ron is right.
http://thenewcurrencylad.blogspot.com/2008/03/fear-and-loathing-on-road-to-denver.html
Actually that’s not really fair of me – let’s give them half of the ‘tied’s as well: Clinton 285 (assuming she wins all barely GOPs), Obama 298 (assuming he wins half barely GOPs). Either way the numbers aint too bad if you do a little analysis.
Pancho,
I see the strategy now. You win by allocating your opponents votes to your preferred candidate. How very Robert Mugabe.
hello Growler
KR has joined the Obamabots finally.
Pity ,before he read this post , proving the existence of what some Obamabots
said did not exist
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/index.html
Ron, old son, I’ve had real money on Obama since last year!
As for all this Wright stuff, it’s the most miserable lot of whacky dribble I’ve ever seen.
FFS, dubbya put together a coalition of Rapture wierdos, Southern Baptists and Neoconservatives and was elected…twice!
And the poor old Rev Wright does a few lines of black agro and you lot go mental (and I mean that in it’s true clinical sense, you’ve flipped old son).
Get a freakin’ grip, go smell the roses before you need the smelling salts.
Not at all GG, you will see that my post opened by noting a three cornered polling situation at the moment, which is giving numbers that do not correspond to what the contests have historically looked like come November. I then looked at the numbers you had presented (which, in spite of your turkey comment, show Clinton being decimated as well – something I think in both cases is impossible) and drew two conclusions. One, that Obama is stronger at the base, two, that he has more states in play. And just a tip – the Mugabe stuff doesn’t really strengthen your argument.
Hillary chucks a Huck: she’s staying in the race!
Well, bless my socks, who’d have thought she say such a thing?
But the chorus is getting louder, and it’s pretty much saying the same thing, even if she doesn’t want to hear it.
So strap yourselves in bludgers, as the Clinton time machine whisks you to the world’s trouble spots where Hillary dashes to the rescue and changes the course of human history.
Pass the popcorn…it’s going to be a hell of a ride. Let’s hope we get back in time for Obama to win in November…we’d hate to miss it.
#394
Growler , you are missing Pancho’s logic here
Last week , Obama says I can not disown the man & his views
Today , Obama essentially says I disown the man & his views
Pancho reads the later but disbelieves what they say….thinking Obamabotically nothing has changed. Astonishing.
How can one take his judgemental figures credibly , when he can not accept Obama’s written words is a massive backdown
Ron, you are stuck in a loop aren’t you? My post @391 is specifically to do with a electoral vote map that GG posted, and my take on the numbers. Nothing to do with Wright. Play the ball not the man.
Also, have a look at this article : “Please stop saying the following things. They are incredible stupid” http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/please-stop-saying-the-followi.php. ‘Obamabot’ fits right in there.
Here is a direct quote that you have interpreted as ‘disowning the man’:
“”Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church,”
Can you honestly not see the caveats there? I see five. And your other point: “Last week , Obama says I can not disown the man & his views” is wrong. Obama did disown what were identified as offensive views in the speech.
I maintain that Obama would have sold out his image, community, and the reasons why many people support him if he had cut Wright loose the moment there was trouble. The polls are on my side.
I think Hillary will keep asking the question till she gets the answer she and the US people want and need.
What great character she has. No religious mentors spouting dubious pearls of wisdom for her. No white flags of surrrender for her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNe2xy5YRLo
GG – Dido? I reckon this is more like Hillary’s latest anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIBzbdo2LjU
Pancho,
Hillary actually chose Nik’s other great hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqqXMXpyAkE&NR=1
Hey Growler
“I think Hillary will keep asking the question till she gets the answer she and the US people want and need.”
That would be the When Should I Quit question?
I saw that one in the sidebar as well…thought it might come back.
Here’s what alison has to say, on the NYTimes blog:
one of the fallacy’s being peddled by Sen Clinton and her surrogates is that this is a “close” race –
The race is not close -
Sen Obama has 20% more pledged delegates (166)
Sen Obama has 9% more total delegates (131)
Sen Obama has 6% more popular vote w/o Fl (2.6 million)
Sen Obama has 3% more popular vote with Fl (1.4 million)
There are only 10 contests left –
There is no way Sen Clinton can win this nomination unless the superdelegates subvert the system.
What is a VERY important fact that is rarely mentioned is that out of the almost 800 superdelegates – if they are divided into 2 groups
(1) elected officials
(2) party people
Sen Obama is ahead in elected officials among the superdelegates
Sen Clinton’s superdelegate lead is all in the party people — most of whom were made super delegates under her husband’s admininstration and/or Terry McAuliffe’s tenure as the head of the DNC
So the superdelagate issue is even more absurd than being portrayed – because the only way Sen Clinton can win this nomination is if a group of cronies/party insiders – vote her in
This is why the nomination is over
And to stay in the race with the hope that Sen Obama implodes while continually praising Sen McCain is why the democratic party’s hand is being forced
This will be done May 6th – but that s another month plus of blood letting for no good reason expect ego and entitlement
— Posted by alison
Leftoid Cyber Cellars; a dedicated Plonk & Zonk zone.
GG
they played that Dido – White Flag song at Lewis Moran’s funeral too.
i think he DID go down with the ship too.
OK, I don’t often do this, but hey, I just dropped the nice post from ‘alison’ above, and I’m in expansive mood before toddling off to do other things, but I can’t resist giving you this.
If you don’t normally read economic articles, read this one. If you do read up on economics, still read it.
Better still, think about it, because each and every one of us is smack in the middle of it:
A good flim flam needs a good mountebank and a good mark. Two weeks ago, we pointed out that Wall Street was full of bright cads and dull sharks. Then, last week, we showed that conceited humbuggers run the central banks. Today, it is the politicians we come, not to bury, but to praise. They did their work well; they set up the marks.
The two great political figures of the last thirty years were Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan. These titans from the two sides of the Atlantic led the way to a new idea of how the world should work. Thenceforth, capitalism was king. But it was a new kind of capitalism they had crowned, one with a strange, unnatural face. It was not the old free enterprise, king of the jungle, red in tooth and claw. This new capitalism was more like the owner of a pet shop, where all the animals were cute and cuddly — and didn’t eat the customers.
Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan and their followers had seen how centrally planned economies worked; the Chinese and Russians showed what happened when bureaucrats ran an economy. The free market seemed like the best alternative. But the trouble was, these new ‘conservatives’ had no real respect for it. Instead of quaking before it in genuine fear and awe, like Moses before the burning bush, they began to believe that they could be its master. Then, they developed a whole host of fantasies about what this tamed beast could do for them.
Not only could the free market solve the problem of poverty, it could solve almost every other problem too. It was a social panacea. Just look at the wealthy countries, they said. Switzerland is clean and prosperous. By contrast, communist China is a dump. People are healthier and happier in capitalist countries, where they have better automobiles and lower birthrates. Science, supported by the free market, would find cures to diseases too…and even help people live longer. The logic was simple enough: free enterprise made people rich. And with their money, they could do wonders — cleaning up the factories, building hospitals and clinics, organizing public day care and Pilates classes…even getting rid of smoking!
Nothing was too absurd or contradictory for the True Believers. Gradually, they began to confuse the fruit with the tree…and then mistake the tree for a lamppost. Financial incentives were thought to be the key to everything. If an executive failed to maximize shareholder value, it was because his bonus was not large enough. If students showed poor test results, it was because teachers were paid by the job, not by the outcome. And if terrorists attacked a building in New York, it was because they lacked financial opportunities in Cairo. (Later, people were dumbfounded when doctors who had worked for the National Health Service tried to blow up cars in Glasgow and London.)
The ideas were slippery but they greased the skids. Soon, the marks were ready to go along with anything. Shareholders consented to hundreds of millions in bonuses and stock options for key executives. Investors signed up for hedge funds, willingly giving managers “2% and 20%” for putting quarters in the slot machine for them. Taxpayers allowed huge tax cuts – widely believed to be aiding the wealthy – because they looked forward to the day when they would be wealthy too. And almost everyone, everywhere eagerly went on a spending spree, in the belief that this new, kindler, gentler capitalism would add wealth faster than they could get rid of it. And if they overspent, hyper-capitalism would soon catch up.
In public finance, this delusion led to Dick Cheney’s famous quip: “Deficits don’t matter.” This, in turn, led to the greatest explosion of government red ink the planet had ever seen. During the first seven years of the George W. Bush administration, about $20 trillion was added to the U.S. ‘financing gap’ – more than under all America’s other presidents put together.
What was good for the top was good for the bottom. Private households, too, ran deficits of their own. Savings rates fell close to zero while U.S. household debt rose from less than $2 trillion in the first year of the Reagan administration to nearly $13 trillion in the 6th year of the present administration.
In Britain the story is about the same. Before the Thatcher revolution, household debt was about 65% of household income. By 1988, it had reached 100%. And by 2007, it was more than 150%.
When a consumer spends a dollar he earned, it is taken in as income to the businesses that receive it. But it offset by a cost too – a wage expense. But if the consumer spends a borrowed dollar, it comes to business like manna from heaven, with no balancing wage cost. Higher profits, greater leverage, more debt – it was all catnip to Wall Street. Financial assets were only 4.5 times GDP in 1980. Now they are 10 times as large. But that is nothing compared to the sugary confections of the credit industry. Credit default swaps, alone, are said to be worth $45 trillion.
The earnings of the financial sector equaled only 10% of total corporate earnings in 1980. By 2007, they made up 40% of the total, even though they still only employed 5% of the workforce.
But, “that game is now up,” says the Economist. The “new” capitalism was a fraud. It didn’t make people rich. It only allowed them to get rich – or poor – depending on what they did with it. Americans used their economic freedom to ruin themselves. But that’s just the way capitalism really works. You don’t get what you expect…or what you want; you get what you deserve.
Enjoy your weekend,
Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/
Good day bludgers
I’m pleased to see we are all in fine fettle.
I’m still fascinated by Billary’s inability to distinguish fantasy from reality (I notice the defence has yet to take the stand to my post @ 314).
If you think about Snipergate, it really is weird. Politicians lie all the time, that’s what their job is. But they try very hard not to get caught. It takes a terrible politician to lie when they are going to get caught in such an explosive fashion.
But that’s not the truly weird thing. The astounding thing is that there was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR BILLARY TO LIE. She was trying to build up her foreign credentials by saying she went to Bosnia etc etc. That is fair enough and I think she deserves kudos for going there, however big or small her role was. Saying that she landed in a corkscrew fashion under sniper fire ADDS NOTHING to the boost she deservedly would get to her credibility in foreign affairs. It makes the story more exciting but it does not make her role any more critical to the peace process in Bosnia. She has gambled a positive and lost into becoming a big negative for no gain. Why would she do that? Unless she really remembered the fantasy as real. More on this later….
I agree Diogenes.
here is something so unbelivably stupid and unnecessary about her doing this that you have to wonder whether she can no longer distinguish fantasy from reality. But it also reeks of hubris and delusions of grandeur – she has almost superpowers.
Perhaps after so many years as First Lady and Celebrity Senator, Hillary has started to believe her own publicity.
Whci makes her a dangerous option for POTUS.
not sure if this has already been linked. Says it all really.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_whitewater_proxy.html
Kirribilli Removals , listen sunshine your denial that this is not important is becoming tedious.
Obama thinks the subject is important enough to publicly & signifiantly CHANGE his position yesterday from his position speech a week ago.
Obama , unlike you , will not be wasting his very valuable POTUS time on a “non issue” unless you think him a fool.
Pancho , ditto. Try removing all caveats which were quite clever spin to camoflage the message and the new/changed position will be clearer.
As for playing the man rather than the ball , if you want to throw barbs don’t be precious when there is return fire.You should follow the standards of 2 of your colleagues (but not Obamabots)
The Kid canters 8 points clear in gallop poll.
Beltway Stooge stumbles as greater than MoE margin causes Curly problem for (Hil)Larry. (Woop, woop woop woop woop, knuck, knuck, knuck)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx
Fri March 28: Due To Popular Demand, Big Brother and The Holding Co. will extend their Special Farewell Tour as Valkyrie Riders mount-up to whack I-ran.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jeffstahler;_ylt=AhsRUdawI_YxDIEIxJmK7eNU_b4F
Fri March 28: No soft-landings here as Uncle Sammy succumbs to Future Eating, then forgets why.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles;_ylt=AqADfQmY5VWj.BD4tCMk7PBJ_b4F
————————————-
Why do Oz PMs always feel compelled to grovel to POTUSes? Now Tin-Tin has dubbed The Imbecile an “Honorary Queenslander”. Only a matter of time now before Canetoadia introduces the Death Penalty for non-payment of traffic fines, jay-walking and schoolyard insolence to teachers, preachers and elders.
The Black and White of/in Obama:
28/03/08 – “Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church,” Obama said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1Qr-L0EeMgyfelWgKLbSVBZlZdwD8VMLJRG3
18/03/08 – Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
14/03/08 – The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign – On My Faith and My Church
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
11/04/07 – “There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,” Obama told ABC News in an April 11 interview.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1
EC – Rudd’s ‘honorary Qlder’ offering to Bush is enough to drive me to (considerably more) drink!
Thankfully such a move would be ruled ultra vires – he doesn’t have the power.
He DOES have the power, however, to dubb him a dishonourable imbecile. I admit, though, that this is a reserve power that is almost never used.
Finns and Ron –
get over it.
It’s not working, and it’s had it’s run.
What do you think of the latest polls re Obama’s definitive lead over Hillary?
PRINCETON, NJ — Today’s Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.
see what I mean guys?
“Hillary And Bill: We Aren’t Going Anywhere”
Errrr, right. We’ve, well most of us anyhow, deduced that fact some time back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/hillary-and-bill-we-aren_n_93975.html
And now we have the Hillary Deathwatch…
http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/
If Rudd is going to make a Bush an Honorary Queenslander then he should at least make the correct brother the Honorary Queenslander(the fomer Governor of Florida rather than the Former Governor of Texas).
Ferny -
it should be Hillary The Undead Watch.
wooden stake time.
this is from one of the US’s more credible news sources- the Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/hillaryclinton
Off topic, but for PBs with Foxtel, The Movie Channel is running “Amazing Grace” on high rotation. Great Movie re the struggle to outlaw slavery in the late 18th Century.
If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favour and tune in your eyeballs. As KR might say, “Pass the Popcorn”.
Here’s a scenario in which neither current PB cheer squad wins, but I could live with that. It would at least ensure defeat for the Repugs.:
“Let’s say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let’s also assume—and this may be a real stretch—that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they’d have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party—and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate?”
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/03/gore-to-the-rescue.html
However, I don’t think Mr Obama will be in the non-viable category the way he is surging on now beyond the recent media furore (which I hesitate to name for fear of flushing out any One-Note-Johnnys) has been seen through by the voters.
Ec @ 407[ Leftoid Cyber Cellars; a dedicated Plonk & Zonk zone.]
Good name EC, all we need is a stocked cellar. Is this the ‘zonk’ you were talking about? :
“Zonk! is a dice game of unknown origin quite similar to Farkle. It is a social game where two or more players will smoke the herb as points are earned, but has also been used as a drinking game for those who choose not to smoke.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zonk
The rules of the game are great.
Diogenes & Kina – re the HRC confabulation
Diogenes– Did you see the discussion last night about Hillary’s version of cognitive dissonance- eg post # 369 with the link to the Daily Kos article?
It really is interesting because there is clearly a psychological basis for her behaviour. And Bill is standing by and even helping her in her madness in the case of the Rwanda fabrications.
Hillary’s misspeaking on the Bosnia trip is part of a pattern of behaviour; she once claimed that her parents named her after Edmund Hillary, even though she was born six years before he climbed Everest, when he was an unknown New Zealand beekeeper. It’s a kind of fabulation or self-invention that is such a deep-seated habit that it doesn’t enter the conscious mind as ‘will I tell a porky or not?’. There are many other people who’ve done similar things, eg the writer Barbara Baynton, and Daisy Bates. Fabulation of this kind is not always carried out for gain but seems to arise from a desire for impressiveness or glamour.
in case you missed this link the oyther day, there is no doubt that her propensity for porkies is more than occasional. And some of them are absolut whoppers – ie: howTF does she think no one will expose her?
Some serious psychological issues it would seem.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html
415 The Finnigans
your selcome blog did not shake them into reality
Your quotes & links showing Obama contradicting himself on values & showing political expediency (like all Pollies do) , are all gtting stored away by the McCain machine for later airing.
Just as well Michelle Gratten is not critiquing Obama here , the wolves would be after her also.
btw- I don’t agree with his support for McCain.
EC: “Why do Oz PMs always feel compelled to grovel to POTUSes?”
Probably Aussie PM’s unlike the masses understand we need the US , and they substantially can live without us. Perhaps Bush is only an honorary Queenslander within the confines of Bogga Road walls
#417 – [Finns and Ron - get over it] – i was, almost. but who brought it up again? It was Obama. he has now more effing positions on the pastorgate than the Kama Sutra. At least, i get to enjoy some of the Kama sutra positions, whereas the twisting and turning of Obama is really painful.
Obama: [He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America] – just wondering how his two young daughters are dealing now with some of the worst stereotyping his Pastor has done. Apparently he has now insulted the Italians.
ps: apology for the pun.
jv @ 425
Party Elders??????
Gore,Dean,Kerry??????
The same party elders who lost TWICE to an imbecile????????
I think the Dem voters have made it abundantly clear that they have had enough of the “Party Elders”…..you know, new broom n all that stuff.
apres @ 426 – I think it’s because of a desire for gain in this instance though. It’s the obsession with the prize that causes her mind to change the facts to suit. What’s scary is that she may genuinely – at least at first – not be conscious of what her mind is doing.
Because, as the Daily Kos article points out (@369) it doesn’t compute that she would tell a deliberate lie about, say Bosnia, with such a high chance it would be exposed. Same with ‘misspoke’ – why wouldn’t she correct it at the first opportunity? Instead she ‘misspoke’ 3 times about Bosnia.
So the conclusion has to be that part of her mind is directing her utterances without her conscious participation.
It may as well be an alien making her say things all the way from Planet X by remote control. (what do you reckon Jen?)
Gee … I think someone else should answer the 3am calls, don’t you?
Finns!
Too much information…
“At least, i get to enjoy some of the Kama sutra positions, whereas the twisting and turning of Obama is really painful.”
(Which is your favourite?)
jv-
alien abduction does indeed appear to be the most likely explanation.
Otherwise we are left with the even more disturbing idea that a very senior and influential politician who aspires to be POTUS is a compulsive liar. Surely Not!
re the 3am calls – what if it’s Monica ringing for Bill?
#434 – take your pick!
http://places.mongabay.com/india/kama_sutra_carvings_03.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/goasia/1/0/X/O/2/56736168_3f1663a2ca.jpg
http://www.sadashivan.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kamasutra1.jpg
jv and apres
I like the “cognitive dissonance” theory, but it doesn’t explain Bill’s behaviour. There is another possibility. The Clinton Couple are suffering from “folie a deux”. This is a rare psychological condition in which a close couple, normally twins or marital partners, come to share delusional beliefs. It often occurs after prolonged persecution of a couple.
Bill: Hill, I really wish I did something about those 500,000 Rwandans who were macheted to death.
Hillary: Oh Bill. At least one of us was right. Remember that time I thought it was a shame there was a genocide in Africa?
Bill: Yeah, that’s right Hill. You did say something like that. Between the two of us, we’re always right aren’t we?
(Which is your favourite?)
jen, jen, jen! You like playing with fire, don’t you?
Finns #431 its really Obama’s Philly speech defence fortress of Wright being shifted backwards today but this defence fortress still has leaks and so it will go backwards again as his present defence is not “politiically” defensible
If it keeps going backwards , JWT’s claim against Latham may be raised (or is it already). “who can you trust”
JWT love me or loath me but no policys or Latham :great policys, but do I know him…signal “trust”
j/v , suggested academically Gore was the best guarantee of a Democrat win 6 wks ago rather trying to create history with either current candidate , but…
Finns-
not the one where your legs fall off surely?
Diogenes – “Folie a deux” -That could be our answer – I suppose it’s a bit like the murdering married couples of history who justify everything as they go, and support and protect each other and keep reinforcing their mutual fantasy world, like the Makins of MacDonaldtown at the beginning of last century and all those children buried in the backyard.
Jen 435 – Yeah, I feel sorry for those rational scientific types who don’t believe in aliens, because thay are left with the only rational explanation -that Hillary is mad, and so is Bill.
Ron , do you mean JWH?
jv@439
at least it’s more interesting than that bloody endless stuff about PastorsauceGate.
Finns – looks pretty tame – I can only make out basic positions 1,2 & 3
jen [not the one where your legs fall off surely?]
jen – that’s the position Heather Mills favours
jv-
you are BAD.
Finns 437. Is that a Republican elephant looking on in the second pic, or just Lord Ganesh?
apres- I also wondered about the elephant: you’d need a big bedroom.
Finns & Jen – music should be involved, always
http://poly.chromatic.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/200710031547.jpg
I agree Harry. It certainly isn’t my preference – the lad is streets ahead with me – blocks – and as I say, his momentum should keep rebuilding now, so such a prospect wouldn’t be canvassed by the heavies.
But – we need to be aware of their thinking.
Are SDs following the Greenback road? Again, it doesn’t make sense for Hillary to be behind on this count:
“Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton’s PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.
The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That’s based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who’d endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.
In cases where superdelegates received money from Obama’s Hope Fund but none from Clinton’s PAC, Obama got the superdelegates’ support 85 percent of the time. And in cases where superdelegates received money from Clinton’s Hillpac but none from Obama’s PAC, 75 percent backed Clinton.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31905.html
To my dear Obamaphiles, no, I am not the elephant man. Personally, i prefer the delicate world of the pillow world myself.
There is a house in old Gion, Kyoto,
they call the Rising Sun,
it’s been the ruins of many a poor girls,
and ChoCho San, she was one.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51L89QmwwBL._AA240_.jpg
http://laurganism.com/wp-images/octopus.jpg
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186162.php
“It appears that we may be seeing the first signs of the long predicted super delegate move against Sen. Clinton. Casey’s endorsement today of Obama is a clear sign — he’d been pledged to neutrality. Also of note is Dodd’s call to bring the race to a close and Leahy’s call for Sen. Clinton to get out of the race. On the one hand that’s hardly surprising. They’ve both already endorsed Obama. So of course they want him to win it. But it’s also a line they’ve been unwilling to cross to this point — and a high hurdle for a fellow senator.
What’s caught my eye even more (and we’re putting together a piece on this) has been the trickle of comments — often only noted in local papers — from Clinton super-delegates who are maintaining their support for Hillary but also saying that that support either may or will change if Obama wins the majority of the pledged delegates.
There are clearly a number of forces in play here, not least of which is the clock and the math. But also playing a clear role are the initial signs that Obama has weathered the Wright controversy relatively unscathed. And perhaps more than anything the fact that in the last week or so the Clinton campaign has just descended into something like an all-night shark hop.”
pancho-
the initial ooze becomes a haemorrhage.
Jen, it’s beginning to look that way. The politics of the end of this race will be real tricky though, methinks. Clinton obviously annoyed alot of party folks in the last week, but still commands respect and even fear among a lot of others. My bet is that a whole swathe of them are hoping against hope that Obama can match her in Pennsylvania, then win North Carolina and Indiana comfortably to give them cover. I would be surprised if there was big SD movement before this time (as long as Clinton calms down a little), but it should be all over bar the shouting by 7 May.
Pancho
There are only two questions I’m waiting to have answered.
1. What date will Billary concede on?
2. Will she cry in her concession speech? (OK, I admit it, I’m a bastard)
Haha! – Quick have a look at the facial expressions the 3 Clintons in this montage in the SMH – accompanying the story that Chelsea has said her Mum would make a better pres that Dad was. All 3 expressions are perfect for such a story.
http://www.smh.com.au/
Diogenes – I reckon Hillary won’t cry in her concession speech – she can’t get anything out of it. You know of the ‘actress personality’ I’m sure, and I think she has it. ( I’m afraid I must be a bastard too)
Pancho
I should add a third.
3. Will Billary be dragged off the stage kicking and screaming in a straitjacket at the DNC after getting on stage to accept the Democrat Presidential nomination?
4.Will Billary accept the VP nod on Nader’s ticket?
Diogenes – Although I can think of when the timing of a concession would be right (23 April if she lost Penn, 7 May if she lost Indiana) I wouldn’t put money on either of those dates. I just cannot visualise that speech at the moment – she seems determined to stay until 2025 people tell her to go. But maybe, if she lost either of the above, her team would start to fracture and advise her it was time.
I don’t see her crying in a concession, but rather being sort of stoic. She isn’t done yet – she’ll still needs the party, whether in the Senate, Cabinet or for future postings.
.
This article from the WSJ sums up exactly how I feel about her at the moment:
“I think we’ve reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don’t. There’s no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don’t. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don’t, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Which is kind of sad, cos in the recent days when she has released positions and spoken policy, her strengths again have come through. If she had run a policy oriented campaign rather than a tricksy mudslinging one she would have many many more admirers than she currently does. And she wouldn’t be digging herself deeper into the hole she seems fixated on at the moment.
5. or will she challenge Ralph for the lead spot on his ticket by running an ad with Ralph asleep at 3 a.m. while Hill is ducking Serbian bullets.
6. Obama is going to get a thrashing from McCain. Hillary is 50-50.
Electoral Votes, total 538, To win: 270.
Mar. 28 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 239 McCain 255 Ties 44
Mar. 26/27 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 246 McCain 248 Ties 44
Mar. 25 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 273 McCain 221 Ties 44
Mar. 24 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 268 McCain 246 Ties 24
Mar. 28 – Electoral Votes: Obama 228 McCain 301 Ties 9
Mar. 26/27 – Electoral Votes: Obama 228 McCain 301 Ties 9
Mar. 25 – Electoral Votes: Obama 218 McCain 296 Ties 24
Mar. 24 – Electoral Votes: Obama 231 McCain 292 Ties 15
From the Votemaster – http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Does anyone have any figures from within, say, the last week, on how HRC’s donations are going?
I’m thinking that running out of money could be a catalyst for her giving up, but I don’t have any recent info on this.
i’m so glad for the Clinton huggers that they found that electoral-vote site.
it is like methodone to a withdrawing addict for them.
HH @465,
Yeesss, but it’s quite interesting, don’t you think?
jv at 425: “zonked”; as in out of one’s skull.
People are biochemically individuals in the way they react to pharmacological and/or psychoactive substances. Each to the poison that suits one best, sez I. Oh, how one envies those natural born cheapskates who are just 24/7 high on life. Bastards.
Didn’t know about the game called “zonk” but as an equal opportunity stoner I’m happy to let others socially partake of whatever turns them on. Tell ya the truth, most days after my second Peruvian arabica bean mountain mist organic, I’m happy to discuss politics with Beelzebub’s most motor-mouthed demons or Gabriel’s garrulous gadflys depending on who’s giving the wittiest rhetoric on that particular day. My local barista says that on days when I’m unself-disiplined enough to order a third, I can entertain patrons for hours doing an imaginative and completely spontaneous Smeagol. Wisely he always refuses to serve me a fourth.
The joint ain’t padded.
Talk is cheap. Tapping a keyboard takes a little more effort, and motor-fingered blog-comment material is much easier to skim through or bypass especially if it’s been typed by a “known” nong.
Where would one publicize an ex-Beatle whose ex-missus, a celebrity unidexter, has just taken him to the cleaners?
Why, Net Worth News, of course!
*men in white coats surround offender*
Finns, by your numbers Clinton has lost 30 votes in the past 4 days, while Obama is steady. Each of them is being thrashed by a GOP with less money, worse organisation, and far less party members that the Dems currently have. These results are what you get in a 3 cornered contest.
In addition, as I posted @391, by this breakdown Obama has 140 votes as ‘tied’ or ‘barely GOP’, Clinton has 68 as ‘tied’ or ‘barely GOP’. These are the votes that come straight into play once there is a nominee. Obama is looking OK, even by these figures.
Dyno,
pancho beat me to the punch.
totally irrelevant while their is a 3 cornered race.
otherwise McCain wouldn’t be about $3 with the bookies.
Obama: “8/03/08 – “Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people” – when did the Pastor “acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people”. can any of you Obamaphiles please provide evidence or link of the Pastor’s apology. If not, another lies told by Obama.
Latest.
OBAMA, Barack 1.95
MCCAIN, John 2.85
CLINTON, Hillary 4.25
He’ll blow out to 4$, Harry, when Obi gets the nod.
Finns-Any chance of getting a response to this?
Has anyone considered that Hillary really is the Walter Mitty of Politics? She CANNOT tell the difference between reality and fantasy. She might not be lying after all.
Fantasy 1. Opposed NAFTA ; Reality 1. gave a number of pro-NAFTA seminars
Fantasy 2. Urged Rwanda intervention ; Reality 2. Did nothing
Fantasy 3. Had seances and chatted with Elenor Roosevelt ; Reality 3. Sat in a room talking to a psychic faking an old woman’s voice
Fantasy 4. Landed in Bosnia under sniper fire ; Reality 4. Ambled put to chat to friendly greeting party
Fantasy 5. Crucial role in the Northern Island peace process; Reality 5. Might have hosted an afternoon tea or two
Fantasy 6. Claims she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary ; Reality 6. Was born SIX years before Sir Edmund climbed Everest. How the hell can you pretend you were named after a famous person incorrectly.
Members of the jury. I rest my case. Hillary is a dangerous fantasist loony in whose perverted little mind, fantasy and reality co-exist. I await the case for the defence.
Finn, your time starts Now:
tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick….
Finns – I dunno if Wright has offered a public apology or not. If he has, I admit I haven’t seen it. But I wouldn’t be too brash about opening up a contest on the ‘lies’ front if you want to denigrate Obama to Clinton’s advantage. I guarantee you’ll lose that one.
This is actually really bad news for Obama. Once people start talking about alternative contenders (e.g. Gore) then he is gorn for all money. He should pull out now so he can escape with some dignity.
Clinton/Gore has been the only successful Presidential winning partenrship for the Democratic Party sincee 1976.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/world/
Backing another winner I see GG, after the first one didn’t come in! Don’t chase your tail too much though, or you’ll start to get dizzy. I’m beginning to see why you say you don’t bet on anything that talks.
Right GG – so the guy with an impregnable lead (to quote your article) should pull out because some journalist somewhere floated the name of Al Gore – who, by the way, doesn’t want the gig and wouldn’t win it if he did.
It’s obvious really.
While I agree there is more to Clinton’s ‘misspeaks’ than just a faulty memory, I wouldn’t be too critical of the false Edmund Hillary linkage. IME, lots of folk have familial legends that don’t quite stack up. Certainly, there was one such from my early years that I only learnt wasn’t true when I was well into my fifties. OTOH, there are 2 or 3 events from about when I was 4 or 5 that I now know definitely happened but my parents always swore didn’t. I’m sure they weren’t lying, just that what was significant enough to me to retain the memory wasn’t important to them and so was forgotten.
.
Ron @ 430 –
Probably Aussie PM’s unlike the masses understand we need the US,
Care to elaborate?
Hmm,
Selectively quoting and leaving out the key words. Very naughty, but what can you expect from Obama’s Oily Ostriches.
“Senator Obama enjoys a virtually impregnable lead over Senator Clinton among pledged delegates after 44 valid nominating contests. He has won roughly double the number of states and is ahead in the popular vote.
But the race has been so tight that neither candidate can reach the magic number of 2,025 delegates necessary to wrap up the nomination at the Democrats’ August convention in Denver.
So the choice of standard-bearer could rest with nearly 800 “superdelegates,” party luminaries appointed to the convention to exercise their independent judgment.”
Hillary wants to slug it out for another three months. Seriously.
“Obama-Clinton: A Murder-Suicide in Progress, and How to Stop It”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/obamaclinton-a-murders_b_93871.html
Growler, not wishing to over-burden you, as it were, but what is the relevance of your abc link to a potential Clinton/Gore ticket and is anyone beside’s yourself proposing such a team for November?
479 GG
There’s a good site where you can compare odds on the election. Obama and Billary are pretty static. Gore has been shortening big time. He’s into 14/1 on one site.
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/democrat-candidate
Exposed!! Obama told more fibs (#470) and questionable anti war stance.
1. How his father and mother met. Obama was reported often citing that in his stump speech that his parents met as a result of the March on Selma, Alabama, during the height of the Civil Rights. A romantic encounter and union, he was born, how sweet. However, Obama was born in August 4, 1961, so he probably was conceived in Nov 1960, so it couldn’t have happened the way Obama stated beacuse Selma happened in March 1965.
2. His father’s background.
In his autobiographical book “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama paints a heroic picture of his father as having emerged from a poor Kenyan village, where he was nothing more than a simple goat herder, to become a Harvard-educated economist, destined to return to Africa to fulfill his promise. Unfortunately, the reality is much bleaker than the tale Obama tells in his book.
In truth, Barack Obama senior, Obama’s father, was a polygamist who had already abandoned one wife and child in Africa when he met Obama’s mother in Hawaii. After being educated at Harvard, Obama senior returned to Africa, abandoning Obama and his mother, to live the life of a chronic alcoholic who ultimately killed himself in his second drink-induced car accident, while driving drunk on the streets of Nairobi………………. Now, if Hillary is to be blasted for her lies about Bosnia, so should Obama. I’m sure this is just the beginning.
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=30&threadid=547734
A drunk and a bigot – what the US Presidental hopeful HASN’T said about his father… It is a classic story of the American dream made real: an impoverished Kenyan goatherd rising to become a brilliant Harvard-educated economist…. This extraordinary story is told by US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama as he recalls the life of the man who inspired him to political success – his father. Mr Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, is flying off the shelves of US book stores, exciting and astonishing readers in equal measure. It is a bestseller, and no wonder – because the story just gets better and better.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431908&in_page_id=1770
3. Supported the the Patriot Act and Questionable Anti War stance. And here it might be worth noting, as Matt Gonzales did last week, that,“Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worst attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.” It was an interesting vote for a candidate who frequently refers to his background as a civil rights lawyer.
………………
One day before he gave his famous Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic Convention, the “antiwar” Obama told the New York Times that he wasn’t sure how he would have voted on the U.S. Congress’s fateful 2002 Iraq war resolution had he been serving in the United States Senate at the time. Here is the relevant Times passage: “In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.’ But, I’m not privy to
Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. “The very next day Obama was quoted as follows in the Chicago Tribune: “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16784
EC,
In politics realities emerge from highly unlikely situations all the time.
Cases in point.
(a) A Kevin Rudd Labor Government was unthinkable in mid 2006. What have we got?
(b) The Victorian sign off on the Murray River Plan. Newspaper reports in the morning saying it would not happen. 5pm and the deal is done.
Obama and Hillary are relying on the SDs to give them the nomination. Their decision will be based on who they think can win in November. There is no compelling evidence anywhere that convinces me that Obama can do that.
The endorsement of Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr for Obama appears to be a major coup d’état indeed. Son of very popular former governor and very socially conservative. As the governor and most of the major mayors had stacked up against him, Pennsylvania looked like it might bog the contest down.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/obama-gets-boost-clinton_n_93866.html
The next set of polls should be very interesting.
Finn, you are a true genius of the internet. Single-handedly you have destroyed the campaign of the Junior Senator from Illinois with your deft use of quotation and laser-like linkage. The moment Obi’s people read your history-making comment at 482, they’ll realise that his campaign-bolt is shot. Despairing though they may be, they’ll thank you for it.
Barack will want to thank you personally, Finn, for relieving himself and his family of needless humiliation and suffering by failing to come to terms with the situation as you see it. Your gesture shows you to be a gentleman of noble disposition and fine standing.
Finally, I salute you for the accuracy of your observations and the prescience of your commentary.
More the fool Matty Drudge for not pouncing on talent like yours when he could have got you cheap!
#485 – u have no idea how expensive i am. there is no way you can afford me.
484 Scotty – There is a poll out today – American Reseach Group – showing Clinton with a 12 point lead, and there was one from Rassmussen a couple of days ago showing a similar result of 10 points. The post sniper-gate polls next week will indeed be interesting.
I think If Obama gets a result in the primary at around 10 points behind, then Sir Edmund’s god-daughter will need to step into the room full of mirrors (or in her case she can save time but just imagining one), because it isn’t going to be pretty for her in the following states.
Finns – enough of the expanda-filla about Barack – what about the defence of Sir Edmund’s God-daughter she so desperately needs?
#488 jv – my point is a very simple one. as i said many times, i am not anti Obama. they all lied. they are politician and by definition they have to lie.
GWB lied, JWH lied, Kevin Rudd lied, Ted Kennedy lied, Bill Clinton lied, Hillary Clinton lied and Obama also lied. The all lied.
So please, you Obamaphiles, dont get on your moral high horse and crucified Hillary Clinton because she lied. Look at your man objectively, he also lied, but that does not mean he is a bad man. Ditto with Hillary.
“In politics realities emerge from highly unlikely situations all the time.”
That’s very good, Growler, you show a great deal of promise.
However, you two “Cases in point” are complete bollocks. The first, temporally, and the second; well, “newpaper reports in the morning saying it would not happen” hardly has the aura of authenticity, does it?
At the risk of starting a civil war, if Bush is an honorary Queenslander then what are Hillary Clinton and John McCain? It goes without saying that Obama would be a South Australian.
Johnny Bomb-Bomb, Pine Gap, Northern Territory. The guy’s a freakin’ maverick supposedly.
HRC woulndn’t actually have a State as such, but she’d definitly be from Sydney. Point Piper or Mosman, let’s not kid around here.
Re Diogenes 491- Correct EC and Hillary has much in common with many of the Iemma govt ministers, so NSW for her unfortunately.
Hell Dio….it’s obvious. Hillary and McCain would be Tasmanians!
485 Enemy Combatant Says:
“Finn, you are a true genius of the internet”
abit chuffed you’ve put me into 2nd place there mate.
However Finns continues to demonstrate Obama’s lies.
The problem for Obama is that voters know all Pollies lie , what changes swinging voters is the substance of the issue to them. And his lies are on the 2 (of 3) closest to US values : namely do not trash the flag and mainstream religion so do not be near a black fundo. spreading racial unrest using God.
(black fundo ranking just behind those dreaded Muslims)
Mayo #478 Yes I’ve always cringed at every PM meeting with a POTUS
and you ask me the importance of the US ‘alliance’…thought it was self evident
Obama’s in hot water over anti Jewish comments from his supporters. Please note this is NOT from pro-Obama Fcuknews, but from the huffingtonpost, a well known ANTI Obama website.
Exaggeration? Yes. Inelegant? Yes. Incorrect? Not really, insofar that today news broke of Obama advisor General Tony McPeak coming under fire from Jewish groups for perceived anti-Israel comments blaming influential U.S. Jews for hindering a Middle East peace plan, and considering that yesterday new information surfaced about anti-Israel articles published in the newsletter of Trinity United Church of Christ, where Jeremiah Wright is pastor and Obama is a longtime parishioner. This was news that ran today and yesterday across mainstream news sources — including MSNBC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/chris-matthews-really-pla_n_93985.html
at the rate we are going Finns, the pro Obama & Obamabots just won’t blog here
such will be shock their man of ‘values’ is valus imploding
Ron, yep, his values are imploding. But he can rely on his sex appeal.
“When Obama claims that his distant-cousin Brad Pitt got the better looking side of the gene pool, Barbara (Walters) declares, “We thought you were very sexy looking” – The View.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/barack-obama-on-the-view_n_93861.html
I said earlier that Obama got more positions than the Kama Sutra. yep, it will come handy with these ladies of the View.
yen – wish u were there?
Apparently in her younger days when she worked at Scores her working name was
“Miss Poken”!
I find it fascinating that the only things the anti-Obama cheer squad can find to attack him with are people Obama knows rather than him. His pastor, his father, his supporters, someone he walked past in a hotel, a dog that ran across his lawn once, the aliens who dressed up as him when they were pretending to be Elenor Roosevelt chatting to Billary in the solarium of the White House. It’s really very a sure sign they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Finns @ 496 – Look who the advisor is coming under fire from:
“A group of Republican Jews called this week on Barack Obama to sack retired General Merrill A. “Tony” McPeak for what it considers anti-Israel views and comments.”
“The Republican Jewish Coalition cited past interviews in which McPeak blamed lack of progress on a Middle East peace deal on the political influence of US Jews, and pointed to McPeak’s past criticism of Israel for not returning to pre-1967 war borders. ”
.. and lo and behold…
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign on Tuesday also pointed to McPeak’s views, sending reporters an article predicting that McPeak would be forced out.”
What a co-incidence! Hillary’s at one with the Republican Jewish Coalition – no surprise really given her support of the Israel lobby.
All this is reflective of the forces of darkness that Barack will be up against trying to change, yes change the status quo.
A retired General expresses an opinion about the inflexibility of Israel, and well, look what happens.
Finns, just how does this reflect badly on Obama? What, poor judgement because he has an advisor who isn’t up the Israel lobby’s a*se? And he is telling tells the absolute truth. It is exactly the sort of approach required for change in the Middle East. More power to him.
Keep trying Finns
#501 – i will, i will
“Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Pity About The Iraqi civilians. Mind you, they only live there. The country belongs to someone else.
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/51041/
502 Finns Oh, I know you will. That is, unless you can be convinced of the error of your ways, which I’m here to attempt.
You see Finns , Obama stands for change, whereas McCain & Hillary stand for, well, no change. Of course those who have been advantaged by the sort of foreign and domestic policies of the Bush/Clinton decades will throw mud at Obama. Groups like the Israel lobby. There really is no surprise in this.
The surprise will be if they have no better mud than the sort of ‘by wounding his helpers I will weaken him’ stuff you posted about.
503 EC – Snap! @ 348,- well worth reading again.
Jen, this is way off topic, but might be entertaining: Barry Everingham (royal watcher, republican) on your Sophie:
http://barryeveringham.blogspot.com/2008/01/sophie-mirabella-what-can-she-do-for.html
Ron @ 495 -
Mayo #478 Yes I’ve always cringed at every PM meeting with a POTUS
and you ask me the importance of the US ‘alliance’…thought it was self evident
Everyone always says that, but it’s never been self evident to me which is why I asked
well MayoFeral , if you do not agree the blog is yours to say why
Tut tut. I seen that there were comments made between 8-9pm tonight. Earth Hour. Shouldn’t you lefties be setting an example for us ice melting, earth polluting, doomsday inviting righties?
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
Carry on.
Would it look churlish if Dubbya complained about Australia removing a small handful of combat troops from southern Iraq when several thousand Brits are camped outside Basra where a full scale battle is going on?
Guess it would, huh?
Mad dogs and Englishmen got caught in the noonday sun, but just couldn’t quite remember why they were there.
j/v #504 and the ‘change’ message Obama brings
and your pastoral challenge in #502 to ‘convert’ Finns. Let me try with you
Few disagree with the Obama message
However Hillary and McCain have had a long media POTUS level scutiny history on both of them. We already know their strengths & the obnoxious flaws.
Whereas Obama is a new man on the block, with no serious POTUS level srutiny critique.You ares till with his fine message & react to criticism of his emerging flaws in the context of your known obnoxious flaws in the other 2 *& so there
reluctance to accept may be not much better than the other 2. (grab a wine now)
However others including me and some non ‘right’ media are continuing to open signicant flaws in both his history , judgement ,values conviction , backdown today , listening 20 years to a ‘wacko’ he now condemns & in values disowns today , political expediency etc. But thats not to say his message is tainted , but it is to say some consider rightly the messenger O is imploding on values.
On political grounds , not message Hillary is loking increasingly safer.
well Max , if you were drinking between 8 and 9pm , why didn’t you invite me. I’d be happy to accept any time instead of that ‘ice melting’
Bloomin’ heck!
last time i popped in here for a sqizz everything was beautiful, dolphins were frollicing under the sea and songs were being sung..
but now! karma sutra oh my goodness! pornographic images fill my head, the only tackle I’m thinking of now has nothing to do with the fishies but an awful lot to do with long John Holmes.
The kiss of death
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Whos_got_her_back.html
Bonus Quote of the Day
“A good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long.”
– Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by ABC News, on the “commentry of Poll Bludger regular, Ron.” “Ron’s always good for a laugh during a busy day on the campaign trail. He’s a big hit with all the strategists”, the Senator added.
but EC they never shout the drinks
Bloody cheapskates!
Nader is a nut. The Democrats are trying to preselect their candidate for the Presidential election, they are trying to find their best chance of winning. Clearly a continuing shooting match doesn’t help.
Nader is just trying to justify the stupidity of his own running.
Ron, MoveOn.org has a petition to give you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMr-bmkI6Uw
Vera walk the dog…or better still hug a squeeby…
For the not wron out Ron watchers; hey & your good self Ron does this sound familiar?
‘This Wright business is a perfect example of the American electorate at its squeeby worst — panicky, gutless, acting more on reflex than thought, incapable of retaining information for more than a few minutes at a time. It’s also a great example of how the presidential election process has become more about enforcing the attitudes of a cultural orthodoxy than a system for choosing leaders.
Through scandal after idiotic scandal, the election process has become a painfully prolonged, deeply irritating exercise in policing conventional wisdom, through a variety of means keeping the public in a state of heightened, dumb animal panic, and ultimately turning the election itself into a Darwinian contest — survival of the Squeebiest.’
http://www.alternet.org/election08/80577/
HarryH nb cultural orthodoxy. Spot on.
Here’s one for KR:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/28/clinton_get_some_popcorn_and_s.html
Here’s a good, though rambling summary of one of the week’s main themes.
“The Swiftboating of Barack Obama
That’s why Obama’s ‘revolution’ represents that most threatening commodity of all for those who employ contemptuous deceit to mask “economic policies that favor the few over the many,” as he accurately labeled it.
It’s a revolution, ultimately, of respect – and that’s really dangerous. For the first time in a very long time, a presidential candidate is speaking to Americans as if they were grown-ups.*
We’re about to find out if anyone is listening.”
* Jon Stewart actually suggested this first earlier in the week.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7942/
Now, codger, back to glom your (always worth reading) link.
Mythematics FG, kicking in? The squeebying!
There’s no myth in those matics, Codger. The numbers are all bad for Hillary however you want to slice and dice them. The unauthorised outbreak of democracy is going all medieval on Camp Clinton’s arse and she cannot, cannot, cannot get close to BHO in pledged delegates or popular vote from here. The hard fact is that the voters have taken her measure and found her wanting.
All Obama’s detractors can throw at him are pathetic and gutless guilt by association smears. None take on his policies or try to best his arguments. All they offer is cynicism for hope and more of the same.
It all adds up to a grim few weeks for Hillary.
Can she convince the massive number of SDs she needs to back her? All the trends for the past few months say no.
Will she quit? Not a chance.
Turning Worm #519
Maybe you missed my 2 or 3 previous posts when Pancho & Jen said I was a a ‘Fox’ viewer or supporter , I did view Fox for a short time in 2006 or 2007 and thought it was 100% extreme ‘right’ & in disgust have never looked at it since.
But if you wish to continue saying I’m a “Fox News ” viewer , thats fine.
Labelling me has been amusing given I’ve been accused variously on William’s blog of being a Pro Howard voter , a ‘racist’ , an Obama betrayer , a Socialist , ,a Clinton-ite etc , which collectively seem rather contradictory!
but I’m still here and happy & so should you if you look at a film of Ruwanda , Darfur & the like
Ferny #524 “All Obama’s detractors can throw at him are pathetic and gutless guilt by association smears”
I thought Finns links & quotes quoting Obama’s own contradictory comments would merit consideration.
As to policys , Hillary’s healthcare Policy is closer to Labor’s than Obama’s & Obama’s plan to bail out some of the Wall Street mess asks the question ‘where will the money come from’ as its going to have to come from the Chinese bond investors. Hence the meltdown’s dilemma
This short, scholarly essay from the 18th of March goes down like a mellow merlot, leaving truth’s richness to linger satisfyingly on the mind’s palate.
“The Monkey Trap, and Hillary Clinton’s
Blind Rush to Defeat”
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays8p/monkey.htm
Some interesting info on a MSNBC broadcast talking about the possible floating of the position of New York Governer for Hillary Clinton – as a part of a managed exit plan that would keep Hillary and her supporters happy. Apparently the recently elected NY Governor David Paterson is under fire from a number of bunkers and the idea is that Hillary could be parachuted in to replace him. The plan covers a number of bases in that it delivers an exit strategy that does not put Hillary back into the Senate (which would be hostile to her as a consequence of the primaries process), but establishes her in readiness for a subsequent presidential run if Obama is beaten by McCain. The schedule under discussion is post Pennsylvania where the numbers looking ahead can be argued by Hillary as insurmountable and she could concede with grace.
One could reasonably view this as a viable carrot and stick solution – the carrot is the role of Governor and the potential for a run in the next primary, and the stick is the potential sledgehammer wielded by Pelosi and Dean (in the form of more than a couple of hundred superdelegates). What is interesting in this scenario is the potential situation if Clinton decides to continue – she will be faced with impossible numbers, an inevitable political backlash, diminishing financial options, and negative press coverage for the remainder of the campaign.
Seems like a plan to me. But one important ingredient here is the obligation on Obama to perform well in Pennsylvania and claim a moral victory and at the same time make sure that there is not a Rongate in the process between now and then.
So far i have documented lies/fibs/exaggerations/embellishments of Obama, these are:
1. How his father and mother met.
2. His father’s background.
3. When he first found out about his Pastor’s controversial statement
4. Whether he was there or not there in person when the controversial statements were made.
5. The reason why he is still staying at the Church.
6. That the Pastor has apologised for his controversial statements
7. His anti Iraq war stance.
This is an interesting one. Obama claims he was a “Constitutional Law Professor” at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title there was a “Senior Lecturer”. – “most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.” As far as I know, we never called our Senior Lecturers in my Uni days as “Professors”. As far as I know the term “Professor” is always used in a more strict sense than the term “Doctor” is used.
Let me repeat my point again. We need to examine Obama, and he will turn out to be no better or worse in lying as a politician. Ditto with Hillary. You make up your own mind whether Obama “embellished” this or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/26/was-obama-a-law-professor.aspx
Finn,
Benjamin Diraeli might have had Obama in mind when he said this in descrbing an opponent:
“A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.”
University of Chicago exposes the lies which the latest talking point from Clinton HQ is based on.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_vindicated_on_lawschool_title.html
#531: “Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track”.
The last time I check the dictionary “regarded” as:
1: to consider and appraise usually from a particular point of view
2: to pay attention to : take into consideration or account
3 a: to show respect or consideration for b: to hold in high esteem
4: to look at
What do you expect the University of Chicago Law School to say? If he was a professor, why doesn’t UCLS just says “He was a professor of law at this University”, rather than “regarded”. Just like you guys have “regarded” Obama as the new Messiah.
He was NOT a Professor, he was just a Senior Lecturer. i told you he’s a naughty boy. Lie No: 8.
Finnigans, why do you regard the spin from Camp Clinton to be the truth, over the expressed views of The University of Chicago?
MoveOn.org has a petition to give you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMr-bmkI6Uw
Ah how time has changed. Dubya said the withdrawal of Aussie troops now a “return of success”. It was a cowardly “cut and run” before. You see, after few good years, you guys will also say what a great POTUS Hillary has been.
EC @ 490,
I see you extended earth hour to include closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears. That way no information that does agree with your pre-determined programme of prejudice can seep through and “enlighten” you.
Seriously, your “yippy bean” blogs make more sense than this alleged response.
“Look At Me, America, I’m Teri Schiavo!”
New York Senator, Hillary Clinton at a presser yesterday.
Hillary is the Teri Schiavo of the Dem Party. She’s made her political bed and she’s lying in it with life-support up the wazoo. Her handlers remind this reporter of Dr. Bill “Doc” Frist, former GOP Senate leader who could diagnose via a single glance at a TV monitor, and Ricky “The Fixer” Santorum and Tommy “The Hammer” DeLay who were all great humanitarians and wanted to keep Teri alive uber alles because it was god’s will to protect the sanctity of life on the one hand, and placate one’s base on the other.
But now, as they squeal like harpies and wail like the damned, the evil-doers are hellbento on pulling the plug on a candidate in the full bloom of her political life-support-system.
Dem Party faithful were kind of hoping that The Party wouldn’t have to publicly resort to the vat of moltern metal solution, as seen in the final Alien movie, while the kiddies were watching TV. All loyal Dems want is what’s best for The Party and The Nation.
Still, for Americans these days instant vapourization in liquid metal is a media outcome far more desirable than a Janet Jackson-style wardrobe malfunction. Always gotta protect those innocent children, eh?
EC’s secrets revealed:
How to make a Dadist blog.
Take a newspaper link.
Find the cut and paste function.
Choose from this link an article the length you want to make your blog.
Cut and paste the article.
Print out the article
Next carefully cut out each of the words that make up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
Post to PB
The blog will resemble you.
And there you are–an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.
I have wondered why, despite her enormous foreign policy experience, Billary never seems to talk about Osama bin Laden. Clearly, there had to be a good reason. Macca also never mentions him because the Repugs thought their army was too lazy, cowardly and inept to catch him in Tora-Bora so they let the Northern Alliance have a go. But Billary, why doesn’t she mention the leader of al-Qaeda?
Perhaps I’ve found the answer. Could it be that the Bill and his co-president completely fuc*ed up about bin Laden? Oh, dear. It doesn’t get any worse than this.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have explicitly admitted that they rejected an offer from Sudan in 1996 to arrest and extradite Osama bin Laden. At the time OBL was a prime suspect in the first attack on the WTC in 1993. Sudan had previously made good on the same offer regarding Carlos the Jackal.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Obama quote said on TV Friday, please look at carefully:
“The reverend has not acknowledged that what he has said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, so I have left the Church ,
or I am comfortable to remain in the Church” (after 20 years)
This statement exposes Obama’s hypocracy with swinging voters , so what did he do ? He put in 2 irrelevant caveats ( & a consequential reverse negative at end ) to camoflage what he was saying. i’ve removed them because:
The first irrelevant caveat: the Rev. has retired , I removed by treating the speech as being made 6 weeks ago when the Rev. was unretired.
The second irrelevant caveat: required the Rev. to acknowledge what alot of his 20 year sermons was offensive. The rev. was never going to say he’s wrong!The consequential reverse negative wasn’t comfortable’ becomes ‘is comfortable’
What do you think of Obama views in the caveat free quote above ? silence ?
original quote with the 2 caveats & the consequestial reverse negative at end
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/index.html
We know Hillary has flaws but the belief here Obama is ‘flaw-less’ reminds me of Howard supporters’ closed minds that Howard was ‘flaw-less’. Astonishing logic
Hi Bludgers-
Does anyone know the time?? (did daylight savings end last night or not??).
Apres – thanks for that link on Sophie: my happiness will be complete the day she gets booted.
Ron – I never ever said anything about you and Fox news. I did however say I was sick of hearing about Pastorsauce Gate. And I still am.
Meanwhile.according to RealClear polls Obama’s overall lead against Hillary is blowing out to over 4%, and he is in front against McCain. The slow trickle gathers speed…
Ron you are rewriting Obama’s quotes now? To remove the irrelevant parts and to make his true meaning clearer? Just like Fox News did with Jeremiah Wright’s sermons?
522
Enemy Combatant
Nice piece, sums it up better than a million monkeys blogging on a million blogrolls, who haven’t yet managed even one speech from Shakespeare, let alone an entire play.
Ron 540
I strongly suggest you’ve entirely missed the plot:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7942/
…a careful reading of this should help, if not, try medication, or a nice walk in the bush, or on the beach, before your head explodes! LOL
Diogenes,
Pretty ordinary post. Your beloved Republicans tried this line in 2004.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114423&show=the-daily-show&title=Pataki%20Ataki
Ron@540
as I said on PB 3 days ago…
just to make sure you get it I will try again (and again and again)….
Obama is LESS flawed than Hillary, he did not support IRAQ whereas she did, and he appears to be a less compromised and indebted to the powers that be politician. Therefore I would prefer him to win .
However I would prefer ANY DEMOCRAT (Finns…) over any Republican.
Is that clear enough. Do you need it in triplicate?
I DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER SAID THAT OBAMA IS FLAWLESS.
(is it just me….???)
Growler- Diogenes is a Republican???
Have you Clintonites collectively lost your marbles?
jv – I think our alien abduction theory is gaining credence by the day.
KR @ 543,
A dissenting view re Obama’s speech from within the comments in response:
The media have been flooded with paternalistic excuses for Jeremiah Wright, and Barack Obama’s was the most condescending of all.
First, Reverend Wright was Obama’s crazy old “uncle,” and now he’s a dinosaur mired in the tarpit of segregation:
For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.
Poor old guy! He thinks it’s still 1951. Don’t wake him up!
It just gets worse.
Asked why he didn’t denounce the controversial comments when he first heard of them more than a year ago, Obama noted Wright was on the verge of retirement.
Poor old guy! Put him in a nursing home and forget him!
There is no resemblance whatsoever between this miserable picture and anything about Jeremiah Wright that I have seen or read.
Instead of the half-dead “uncle” Obama describes, the Jeremiah Wright I see in the famous videos is a fluent and highly educated man burning up enough energy to run a marathon in the course of every sermon.
Physically, this guy could kick Obama’s scrawny butt all the way from Philadelphia to New York, and mentally, Jeremiah Wright can talk and think rings around Barack Obama in every form of human communication except reading a speech from a teleprompter.
Jeremiah Wright is not your pathetic, half-dead “uncle,” Mr. Obama!
Jeremiah Wright is fully responsible for himself, and when he curses America and subscribes to the hateful black-power “theology” of James Cone, he deserves as much condemnation as the white-power neo-Nazis in their stinking gun-clubs in Idaho and Alabama.
Barack Obama’s condescending defense of Jeremiah Wright is a throwback to the paternalism of Jim Crow and the ante-bellum South, where the black “race” was supposed to need the guidance of superior beings like the Grand Dragon of the local KKK.
The only difference is that now the superior being is Barack Obama.
Jen,
Irony.
GG 544
There’s that “argumentum ad hominem” again. Just because a Republican makes the argument, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I notice you did not address that issue of Bill Clinton giving Osama bin Laden a free pass to continue his “terrorist rampage against the free world”. Perhaps Billary told Bill not to have Osama extradited so she could capture him herself after killing those snipers in Bosnia and bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Growler-
so now Obama is superior towards blacks…
yuh.
Growler @548.
Ahhh…Explains all your recent posts in fact.
Diogenes,
Actually, it is “stickitum upyourarsem”. Hillary responsible for Osama Bin Laden. Is that the bottom of a barrel I hear being scraped?
552 Growler
What you can hear is a tissue of lies crumbling down around Billary actually. You have to listen carefully coz tissues don’t make much noise.
Can you tell me how much damage Osama bin Laden would have caused from a prison cell in the US if Bill Clinton and his co-president had’ve shown some “judgement and experience” and had Osama bin Laden extradited? I’m really keen to know. The Repugs completely stuffed up on the “bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US” report and have been caned for it.
But the Clinton’s stuffed up much worse by letting bin Laden go free.
BTW Pretending I said “Hillary responsible for bin Laden” is a Straw Man argument.
That’s awfully kind of you, Growler, picking up on those Dadaist influences, Salvador would have been so proud. You know if you keep paying attention like this I shall have to give quite serious consideration to you becoming my amenuensis.
Thanks, Kirri.
Diogenes,
Neither do they crumble.
Tissues become soggy and disintegrate like from the tears of despairing ex-teachers who taught you English and logic.
547
Greeensborough Growler
Sorry Growls, you’ve gone to the dark side with Uncle Ron, have fun, if that amuses you, but the rest of the world has well and truly moved on.
Oh, by the way, give our regards to Rush and Ann and Matt Drudge and co. while you are there, OK?
Hurry back, we can’t wait forever for you to catch up.
If you have any respect left for the Clinton’s then do not read the following:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clinton-hillary-obama-2007270-bill-edmund
Just had a skim – Ron, take it easy man. You seem to be taking different opinions as personal attacks on you. And let me just pull you up on:
“Maybe you missed my 2 or 3 previous posts when Pancho & Jen said I was a a ‘Fox’ viewer or supporter , I did view Fox for a short time in 2006 or 2007 and thought it was 100% extreme ‘right’ & in disgust have never looked at it since.”
I have never made such a statement, nor do I care what you watch or do. If people did not follow FOX at all, how would they know what a big market player was up to, or be able to critique their arguments. What I did say (and you are more than welcome to find my direct quote if you disagree with this distilation) was that in your many posts, you never acknowledged that this saga was kicked off by FOX and their ilk playing snippets of sermons on a loop that were later contextualised and given an entirely different meaning. I believe I also made mention of what was thought to be the most offensive passage which was a direct quote from Ambassador Peck.
Again – this is not a personal attack on you. I have a different opinion, and so do many people.
EC @ 515 [Bonus Quote of the Day
“A good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long.”
– Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by ABC News]
on the length of the Dem nomination battle
Hillary’s response was –“ I like long movies”.
A little research proves that Hillary is fabulating YET AGAIN.
SHE doesn’t like long movies … and the hypothetical movie Barack was talking about was L-O-O-ONG.
From
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/03/04/the-favorite-movies-of-the-presidential-candidates/
Hillary’s favourite movies:
Wizard of Oz – 102 mins
Casablanca – 102 mins
Out of Africa – 150 mins
TOTAL RUNTIME = 354 mins ; average 118 mins
Barack’s favourite’s are:
Lawrence of Arabia – 227 mins
The Godfather – 175 mins
The Godfather Part II – 200 mins
TOTAL RUNTIME = 602 mins; average 201 mins
Barack wins again.
Exposed once more contradicting what is already on the record, if she isn’t finished yet, then “Runtime-gate” is the final nail in Hillary’s coffin.
Gosh, the ’surge’ is a real ’success’, eh?
Remember, Grandpa is counting on this turning into something he can keep spinning come November, but I don’t like his chances.
Does Maliki have a chance of taking Basra from al Sadr without Baghdad and a few other places going feral? I’d say it’s unlikely.
So, once again, the Republican fig leaf falls to reveal the ugly truth, Iraq is a bloody mess which their stupid invasion created and they cannot fix it. McCain’s going to have more incoming mortars raining down on his campaign than the Green Zone gets every day.
Does Hillary Clinton have “cognitive dissonance”?
I think she is just a pathological liar similar to Howard. Why did she make up another lie to cover her original Bosnia lie? Just because that’s what pathological liars do.
http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/confront_a_liar/public/compulsive_lying.html
Jen 546 [jv - I think our alien abduction theory is gaining credence by the day.]
Hi jen – Ooh yeah, I reckon there must now be circles of flattened reeds close by several PBers’ squats, just like the ones near camp Clinton
Diogenes – That’s it, enforce the logical standard – it can’t be beaten by the HRC acolytes, the Logical Fallacy Kings, as shown by GG at 552.
Jen 556
Love this:
“New Zealander For Whom Sen. Clinton Named Dies; Also First Man To Climb Everest. Sen. Clinton Was At The Summit To Greet Him, After Landing Under Heavy Sniper Fire From The Abominable Snowman.”
…can’t wait to see the youtube clip of that!
KR @ 547
i was going to write a similar response to GG but couldn’t be bothered until i saw yours.
The world is changing and passing dinosaurs like GG by. For 25-30 years the world has drifted further and further Right. It has culminated in the complete imbecility of George W Bush and his neocon entourage and they have brought that drift to a halt. The old thinking is being swept aside . Politics is returning to the Centre.
It gives me great heart to see Obama continue to have the confidence of the people of America after his politically courageous and intelligent speech after the Wright beat up.
Obama will continue to be swiftboated by the dinosaurs and their minions, and i’m more confident than ever that these attacks are part of the era that is being swept aside.
They won’t work.
JV,
Obama’s choices raise legitimate questions, once again, about his character.
Lawrence of Arabia is the story of how modern Iraq was made. It was such a successful ploy that people are still talking about it. Is there a secret plan for a long term occupation of this territory in the future.
Godfather 1 and 2 in one sitting. Obviously, a film about Pastor Wright. Lots of killing and maiming and glorification of criminal behaviour. Obama was too polite to leave even though he says he did not agree with the values espoused.
HarryH -
they are just like the liberal party here: unable to accept or believe that their time is up. Muckraking stuff that the electorate isn’t responding to (cos they can see it for what it is: total crap) like unsavoury associates (Rezko/ Brian Burke), seeming scandals, (I’m waiting for Baracks gay past or love child), and then they really go for the low tactics (the fake pamphlet, the reworking of Wright’s quotes ) in attempt to appeal to racism.
Guess what?
It doesn’t work. We are all over it and want a new approach, which is why the neophyte Rudd got the gig, and why Obama will too.
I’m reading Samantha Power’s book “A Problem from Hell: America and teh Age of Genocide” (which is fantastic BTW) and I read the most cynical quote I’ve ever seen.
During the Burundan Genocide in 1972, the US demonstrated it’s complete indifference to genocide as usual. About 100,000 died. One junior official in the State Department urged his boss do more to stop it. The reply was a chilling;
“Do you know of any official whose career has been advanced because he spoke out for human rights?”
Nice.
The other day, a quick thought occured to me about Hillary and her ‘under fire’ story, but I quickly dismissed it as being a tad too tacky (even for me! LOL). But Mark Stein must have been reading my brainwaves, as he says about Hillary, who:
… reminded me of Elena Ceausescu still trying to pull the don’t-you-know-who-I-am routine even as the firing squad was taking aim.
…now, that’s ‘under fire’!
That’s ‘Steyn’, for the record.
Jen@ 565 – We’ve already had an ‘Obama is gay’ bit. Some nutjob has been trying to sue him for taking coke and performing ’sex acts’ (when did that phrase become the norm?) in a limo. A Denver paper published something then withdrew pretty quickly.
Diogenes @566 – can you even imagine someone like Samantha Power in a cabinet? Exciting times ahead.
Dio,
People like Samantha Power are reasons why the prospect of an Obama presidency is so exciting. She is one of the thinkers that will be advising him.
Of course she was one of the first targets to be de-legitimised by the neocons but she was too smart and quickly stood aside from the campaign before she was damaged.
563
HarryH
Two terms of that moron Bush and his cabal of reformed Trotskyites (nothing worse than a reformed alcoholic and a bunch of reformed Trots! LOL), otherwise known as the Neocons, has burnt out the political right.
The Republicans are broke, busted and discredited, and as one of them said recently about Hastert’s seat falling to the Dems: it was, for the Republicans, like Saddam’s statue being pulled down. The ultimate humiliation and symbol of their demise.
Now, for Miss Pocahontas to get her head out of her own legend and face the fact that she will never sell herself to enough of her own party, let alone the broader electorate, to be POTUS.
Then Obama can get on with it.
Jen and HarryH,
Dylan’s “Times they are A’Changin” was released in 1964. So who’s mantra has been left behind when juxtaposed against the reality of life.
And face it, you guys are just selective in your outrage against muckraking.
As a wise person often says, your arguments “are toast”.
Hillary’s Death Rattle
http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/
573GG
‘As a wise person often says, your arguments “are toast”.’
Aww shucks Growler..
GG @ 564 – And Hillary’s favourite, “The Wizard of Oz”? Any possible relevance to the Hillary currently?
It IS of course a musical fantasy, and is obviously the world to which she has retreated now in her mind , except there is no yellow bick road to the Emerald City any more.
from http://www.ruinedendings.com/film1418plot
(I have put my additions in brackets [] )
“The Wizard of Oz plot summary ”
“After the terrible cyclone [the primaries], Dorothy finds herself lost in a strange, magical and technicolour world[full of sniper fire]. There she meets the miniscule and enchanting Munchkins [Chelseal] and the Good Witch of The North, Glinda [Geraldine Ferraro] who tells Dorothy that the only way to get home is to visit the Emerald City [where the superdelegates live], where she must ask the Great Wizard of Oz [Dean] for help.
Along the yellow-brick road to the Emerald City, Dorothy and and her faithful little dog Toto [Bill] meet many strange and frightening creatures [pledged delegates for Obama].
The Scarecrow [Walter Mondale], the Cowardly lion [John Mack], and the Tin Man [Eliot Spitzer] join her adventure, each one hoping to meet the Great Wizard.
Dorothy has a final showdown with the Wicked Witch [Pelosi] whose sister [Samantha Power] was unfortunately flattened when Dorothy’s house landed in Munchkin Land [the political wilderness] after the Cyclone [primaries].”
Seems a pretty apposite storyline to me.
GG @ 573
another typical response….distort to extreme.
No-one’s talking about Dylan except you(did i miss the clip of Obama on Meet The Press dressed in paisley?). We’re talking about a return to a sane and intelligent Centre.
keep clawing dinosaur
HarryH,
You seem obsessed with calling me names. That you don’t like my shredding of your turgid little mantras of bubble speak is clear. However, most people enjoy the cut and thrust of debate. You just want everyone to agree with you and when they don’t you hold your breath, stomp on the ground and generally make a prize gig of yourself.
jv,
Nice story. I guess Obama will just have to make an offer she can’t refuse.
Cheers.
saw Dylan last year- fantastic!
appears to have been able to move with the times, which is something a few of you here may benefit from.
#580 jen – my brother asked me to go with him. i said no, as i dont want to watch and hear mumbling, as much as i love Dylan. He went and after 40mins he walked out and called me to say i was right.
Finns- I heard much the same from plenty who went. It was like watching an autopsy according to a few.
Hiya Finns –
apparently Dylan is a real hit and miss affair- depends on his mood. : I was seeing him for the first time, but I was with someone who had seen him several times before and said that the night I went was by far the best. Must have been me…
More confusing Texas delegate malarkey is going on. If you fancy working it out and explaining it to me, there are some live counts here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5484
TPMs take at this stage is that its about 60/40 to Obama, which will give him enough delegates to overtake Clinton’s lead of 4 in that state: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_and_hillary_camps_battli.php
Jen
I trust it wasn’t due to any mood enhancers.
Farewell Obama by Bob Dylan
Farewell Obama The bells of the crown
Are being stolen by bandits I must follow the sound
The triangle tingles And the trumpet play slow
Farewell Obama The sky is on fire And I must go.
There’s no need for anger There’s no need for blame
There’s nothing to prove Ev’rything’s still the same
Just a table standing empty By the edge of the sea
Farewell Obama The sky is trembling And I must leave.
The jacks and queens Have forsaked the courtyard
Fifty-two gypsies Now file past the guards In the space
where the deuce And the ace once ran wild
Farewell Obama The sky is folding I’ll see you in a while.
See the cross-eyed pirates sitting Perched in the sun
Shooting tin cans With a sawed-off shotgun
And the neighbors they clap And they cheer with each blast
Farewell Obama The sky’s changing color And I must leave fast.
King Kong, little elves On the rooftoops they dance
Valentino-type tangos While the make-up man’s hands
Shut the eyes of the dead Not to embarrass anyone
Farewell Obama The sky is embarrassed And I must be gone.
The machine guns are roaring The puppets heave rocks
The fiends nail time bombs To the hands of the clocks
Call me any name you like I will never deny it
Farewell Obama The sky is erupting I must go where it’s quiet.
Obama campaign’s press release:
“With more than 56 percent of the results tallied from today’s 284 Democratic district conventions across Texas, Sen. Barack Obama currently is projected to earn a 38-29 pledged delegate win in the Texas caucuses, exactly as projected on the day after the March 4th precinct caucuses. The nine delegate margin in the caucuses means Obama will gain a net margin of five pledged delegates from Texas because Senator Clinton narrowly won the Texas primary by only four delegates, 65-61.”
Diogs-
who, me or him?
So another 9 delegates to Obama Finns – are you practicing those dance steps yet? I wanna see fleet feet!
Anyone who hasn’t looked at the other General post on PB should check out Bushfire Bill’s contributions today. Absoulte gold.
Go Swanee!
jv, you tell a great story.
“Obama Says Clinton Should Keep Running” |
Of course Obi would say that, wouldn’t he? Arrogance for him is so yesterday.
He’s just a hope and dreams man,
Goin’ from town to town,
Doin’ one night shows
And newsgrab rodeos.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_RDP?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Another bit of Obama’s press release about the Texas caucuses, my italics:
“”Today’s record-shattering turnout sends a clear message that the American people are ready for change in Washington and new leadership in the White House that will stand up for working families.”
Echos of Novembers past, Pancho.
What the hell’s an election these days without its Macaca Moment?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/26/watch-paul-begala-says-h_n_93631.html
pancho-
I hope he spares us the Working Families mantra again!! I don’t think I could stand any more after our election.
Inadvertantly, Mugabe admits to rigging elections.
“We don’t rig elections. I cannot sleep with my conscience if I have rigged,” he said as he cast his ballot in Harare.
Opposition claims lead in Zimbabwe poll
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23455090-12377,00.html
Apparantly there was some sniper fire in Bosnia!
She really is brave!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I23fjRN-PGc
Is Bonsai a little country?
NAFTA lie exposed
Shame on you Billary Clinton, shame on you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aIh3LlgXGg
A very good article on Clinton, Bosnia,Obama,Wright and YouTube:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html?hp
…and the strange world of fictional delusion that the Clintonista have failed to realise no longer cuts it.
Diogenes,
Egg beater award for you.
KR,
Nothing new. Just a compendium of opionated misinformation. She’s still standing.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23455381-26397,00.html
Is Obama lying when he says that Hillary should stay in the race?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23454940-26397,00.html
harryH, you’ll enjoy this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30kristof.html?hp
601
Greeensborough Growler
The polls, Growler, the polls.
Show me the numbers, or give it a rest.
KR,
“Neither Clinton nor Obama can win 2,025 delegates necessary to wrap up the party’s nomination, leaving the decision up to the superdelegates, party grandees who can vote for who they want at the national convention in August.”
604
Greeensborough Growler
And your point is?
KR @ 600 – It’s all laid out there KR.
GG, r/Ron, Finns e.t al. Did you read that NYT article?
Regardless, this truth problem of Hillary’s is really a the killer blow for her campaign, you must admit.
Any convoluted join-all-the-dots, look-what-his-friend-said stuff against Obama is of no consequence in the face of Hillary’s very own personal and very public bizarre behaviour.
The woman is clearly living in a psychological twilight-world in which she will lie into the camera time and time again, and when caught out in the most embarrasing and clear-cut way possible, try to obfuscate about being tired, or having ‘misspoke’, thinking that will do the trick.
Isn’t it time you admitted this is more than a little freaky? And is at least one full astral plane above normal political expediency?
You can’t gloss it over with the old ‘Ah, but all politicians are the same, they all lie, and put themselves in the best possible light’ line. This is a big kahuna. This is a compulsive blatant liar, who can’t stop it even when there is a very high chance of being caught.
She has a serial history of the same thing. She ‘tried to stop the genocide in Rwanda’ – no she didn’t. She was ‘a strong voice against NAFTA’ – no she wasn’t. She was ‘named after Sir Edmund’ – no she wasn’t etc.
And what would you put it down to?
She has a genuine diagnosible psychological problem.
She must also be capable of taking Bill and the campaign team with her on these ethereal excursions. That’s even weirder.
Come on guys, please, for your own peace of mind, you must let the Hillarian scales fall from your eyes. It will be a tremendous weight off your shoulders.
You don’t really want a borderline personality disordered twitcher picking up the White House phone do you?
Show me 2025 committed delegates and I will give it a rest.
607
Greeensborough Growler
OK GG, the moment Obama has them sown up, I’ll let you know. Meanwhile, you’re welcome to keep us amused with your Miss Pocahontas and her travelling circus of heroic deeds.
God knows, it helps with the tedium, even as it adds to it.
Gee whiz JV, the more you write the less you say. You seem to be at the negotiation stage in this anger management hierarchy.
Hillary is not going anywhere and you will have to deal with this fact. All the anti Hillary character assasination and vituperation, all the moral outrage and all the nice speaking by a man that smells nice does not change the situation.
KR,
“God knows, it helps with the tedium, even as it adds to it”.
That would be your expositions on the US Mortgage Crisis.
Cheers.
GG @ 609 [All the anti Hillary character assasination and vituperation]
No, she did it herself, without a leader (to paraphrase Rumpole)
Do you still maintain she is reliable? No reservations at all about her stability?
Speaking of tedium, where’s Das Wunderkind to break it?
You know, to tell us how superior Hillary is over that fraud Obama.
I don’t know about you Bludgers, but I’m getting serious withdrawal symptoms. Is it time yet for another slapping?
Sorry GG, but your wet lettuce is well past its use by date.
JV,
I think Rumpole spoke a lot about “she who must be obeyed”. You seem to have an issue with assertive women.
That’s OK, but don’t try and dress it up as some sort of legitimate political critique. Hillary is as reliable and stable as any of the candidates.
GG- Hillary is totally reliable. You can predict with 100% certainty that when she opens her mouth that she will lie. However, I cannot vouch for her stability.
Diogenes,
You’ll be interested in this I am sure.
http://www.bigpond.com/news/entertainment/content/20080329/2202699.asp
GG 613 – [You seem to have an issue with assertive women.]
In fact, I am attracted to assertive women, particularly in uniform
However, I have always had a problem with histrionic women, most of whom are also compulsive liars.
#606 – jv – what is new in that NYT article? Nothing. In the last few days, i have conclusively proved that:
1. You guys are driven purely by the hatred of Hillary. Ditto with the author of that NYT article and others. Hillary told a lie about her visit to Bosnia, but she has been crucified as if she has committed a genocide in Bosnia.
2. Obama has committed 8 lies. The lies he told about the Pastorgate will sink his presidency in November if he is lucky enough to win the nomination. He will be remembered as the POTUS candidate who snatches defeat from the jaw of victory for the Dems. Hillary will become the Senate Majority Leader, No: 3 while Obama will sink like a stone (sounds like a line from a Dylan’s song). Hillary will run for POTUS again in 2012 and win.
GG
While I agree about a lot of the things you have said in the last week or so on delegate numbers, I just need to note that the recent stuff on Hillary’s exaggerations are bothering me too. I don’t think she’s evil or any of that (and I do think Obama’s character is streets ahead) – but as I’ve already mentioned, I would vote for Hillary if Obama was not in the running – but all the same – this recent stuff is causing me to re-evaluate the candidate (and I’m not focussing on a lie – but much more on the rationalization of the behaviour). I’m not swaying significantly, but all the same I’ve started to look more closely at (a) what a McCain option really represents against a possibly faulted Hillary Rodham Clinton as POTUS candidate, while watching closely for (b) the potential Clinton exit mechanisms that would keep the party and the voting base in shape for a general election with Obama as the nominee.
GG- I’m a bit concerned that no-one has wanted to put the play on in 70 years. It’s like not showing a van Gogh painting for 70 years. But Hemingway is great at the “do the means justify the ends” question.
“The first professional US production of Ernest Hemingway’s Spanish Civil War play The Fifth Column has opened in New York, 70 years after it was written, begging the question, “what took so long?”
Director Jonathan Bank says people should not assume the delay was because the play is no good.
“That’s the prejudice. That’s the huge hurdle that you have to get over,” he said.”
Finns, you really do live in your very own Lala Land don’t you? You havent ‘proven’ anything. Treating your ‘arguments’ with contempt is not that same as treating Hillary with contempt but you can’t tell the difference. Most of us have said we would support Hillary if Obama fell under a bus – and you chose to take our words as ‘evidence’ of some deep seated hatred of Hillary. This is your invention, like most of what passes for rational argument in your world.
You’re the guy, as I recall, who would vote for any woman, Dem or GOP, over Obama simply because of her gender.
And we’re supposed to take anything you say seriously?!
KR @ 600
That article is very interesting, not so much for the Hillary-lies bit, but the way that story has played out. It seems it was out in January but no-one really cared. It was only after Hillary repeated it two more times, prompting Sinbad to speak out that anything happened.
The term he uses “viral politics” is an extension of the meme theory, tipping points and epidemic theory. It does seem that youtube et al have changed the way ideas (especially simple visual ones) propagate. Malcolm Gladwell’s book is a simple account of the phenomenon which is more prescient than ever with the internet.
One of the things that put me off Hillary at the start (I started out fairly ambivalent on Obama v Clinton) was a youtube video of a lady complaining that Hillary, who she had always worked for, was misrepresenting Obama on the pro-choice issue. She felt strongly enough to go on youtube and express her disgust and changed her support to Obama.
As you say, interesting times.
KR,
Is this the Das Wunderkind you were thinking of?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX4RhchF8yE
#620 FG – [you really do live in your very own Lala Land] – i definitely prefer my own Lala Land than yours. what a stupid statement. tra-la-la-la-la
Has Comical Ali taken over from al-Maliki as PM of Iraq? How deluded can one person be?
“He called the fight for control of Basra “a decisive and final battle.”"
And US air strikes have killed eight civilians. Weren’t we hearing from George W that it was a good sign that the Iraqi Government, such as it is, was able to fix Basra without British help (perhaps the Yanks don’t count as help).
Further information for the benefit of those still out on planet Lala, and a
rather strong indication that the Dem nomination will be settled on either Sir Edmund’s god-daughter or the other candidate well before the convention:
Quote of the Day
“If we have an ugly, divided convention, we will lose. John McCain is not a strong candidate for president. The only way we lose is if we are divided.”
– DNC Chairman Howard Dean, quoted by the New York Times.
That NYT article is good. Particularly:
“The war is certainly a bigger issue in 2008 than race. Yet it remains a persistent Beltway refrain that race will hinder Mr. Obama at every turn, no matter how often reality contradicts the thesis. Whites wouldn’t vote for a black man in states like Iowa and New Hampshire; whites wouldn’t vote for blacks in South Carolina; blacks wouldn’t vote for a black man who wasn’t black enough. The newest incessantly repeated scenario has it that Mr. Obama’s fate now all depends on a stereotypical white blue-collar male voter in the apotheosized rust belt town of Deer Hunter, Pa.”
The fact is that Obama has cleared every hurdle so far. There is a more complicated path sure, but I really think it is deluded Republican operatives more so than anyone else who sees Wright as the endgame.
Yes, race is undoubtedly going to be an issue now. And so is Wright, and his sermons. But these will not be the number one issue. You will have Iraq and the economy out front. Iraq will remain a big negative for McCain, and while it remains at the forefront of ’security’ concerns, this neutralises the ‘natural’ Republican advantage on this front. The economy is unstable (at best) and the Republicans have been at the helm. Couple the Democrats better grasp of economic rhetoric with their healthcare policies and this should be another big winner for them.
Character will be another big issue as always. Obama will be hit with Wright, but he is already responding and creating his own narrative without Republican 527s getting involved yet. Polling has shown little interest and by the time the Republicans get their gloves off it will look like a dirty Rovian tactic. By the way, McCain has said he will stay away from Wright, so it will need to be done by 527s, which will make it look even more sleazy. McCain’s character will cop age, forgetfulness and stumbling (Iraq/Iran/Al Qaeda), attempts to join the Democratic Party, and his own supporters such as Hagee, who will not play well to a conservative Catholic base.
For all that has happened over the past couple of weeks, I don’t see that much in the wider landscape has changed (and that includes all the snarkiness and ‘proven’ arguments on here). Obama is still a strong favoutite to romp it home against the aged McCain. As soon as comparisons between the two are made Obama will present as much more attractive to the centre and Independents. And his much maligned rhetorical skills are very attractive to these people who so loved Reagan.
This is also interesting from today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901909.html?hpid=topnews
I think that this shows she is really feeling behind, and feeling the pressure. This statement in turn can only be putting pressure on SDs to align themselves with Obama to end it all, but she must feel that she needs more room than 2025 gives her. Pushing the finish line back a hundred or two is surely the only thing she is seeking here, and it is high risk stuff.
The RCP averages now have Obama 4.2 ahead of Clinton – 46-41.8 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
Also Obama back ahead of McCain in nation polling averages: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#charts
And Clinton back behind (but only just): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html#charts
Pretty good numbers either way for the Democrats at the moment. For the purposes of this page, though, I bet it means we’ll be seeing a little less of the electoral vote page with snippy comments once these numbers flow through. Pity really…
Bill seems to have taken over from Comical Ali in the Clinton camp. He says there is less than 1% in the popular vote. Actually the only way you can get that number is by including Florida AND Michigan, where Bami wasn’t on the ballot. The good people at RCP have finally pulled their Clintonesque finger out and are reporting a proper popular vote which has Bami 3.0% ahead which is 827,000.
I find it interesting that the Repubs are being blamed 100% for the economy when the Dems have controlled Congress for nearly 2 years. Not saying it isn’t mostly George’s doing, but I doubt the Dems would get off so lightly if this was playing out here.
Never let it be said that I am not a fair man. This doesn’t look too good for Obama but I’ll put it up anyway. Judicial Watch has released its top ten most corrupt politicians. There’s a lot of names we recognise there. Obama, Billary, Giuliani, Huckabee and Pelosi. But there’s no bloody McCain!
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
Mayo,
That’s a thought I’ve had for a while.
I actually think the Dem candidate will need to do more on the economy than just dump on McCain: ie he/she will need to show evidence of a plan that might work.
I wouldn’t worry too much about Judicial Watch Diog. This is a conservative bunch of obsessives who are forever suing politicians – but are yet to win a case.
They have had a particular campaign against the Clintons over the years, driven largely by donations from some very anti-Clinton sources. To be fair though, they have also sued Cheney and the Bush administration on seperate occasions.
Crazies.
“And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movement’s epitome — and its fruit.” NYT.
One should never underestimate the regenerative power of the home-grown All-American Imbecile. P.T. Barnum was well aware of the frequency of their parturition and their rifeness for expolitation. Immersed as they are in jingoism, fundamentalism, consumerism and rankism, millions of the bastards gestate as we speak.
The thing is, a lot of them are about to have their life-styles compromised and many are expected to be too stupid to handle the changes. As a consequence, their population will gradually dwindle along Darwinian imperatives. Tectonic Seppo-Kultural forces will clash causing simultaneous explosions of millions of good, wholesome American skulls.
Like grapes on a vine, brains will pop in regional clusters. Flat-earthers, fundies and Creation Science devotees will be blown away without warning with Ezekial 25;17-type force. In Century 21, there are no safe cerebral fault-lines in The Home of The Brave. Philly to Frisco will resemble the set of an early-period Peter Jackson film. “Splatter-Factor” will become a term familiar to Network Meteorologists. Adding poignancy to an already horrific tragedy,Tom Cruise will want to star in The Movie, but no director will want to touch him.
In America, today is a good day to stock up on Wellington Boots.
Ferny-Good to hear.
I’ve heard there are hundreds of rich people in US jails praying that Billary will be the next President so they can pay their way out of jail with auctioned-off Presidential pardons when the Clinton family get back in. I think the going rate from Bill was about $200,000 but Hillary might drive a harder bargain.
Don’t seem to have a reference for that one…
Iraq , a different perspective,
Obama is an accident of historical timing. Had Obama been in the Senate in 2002 he also probably would have voted for the Iraq war resolution.
In 2002 , the minority Senate Democrats negotiated a responsible & politically clever Iraq war resolution with the majority Senate Repugs. Along with Hillary , John Kerry , John Edwards & Joe Biden voting were 50% plus of the minority Senate Democrats. At the time any reprisal for 9/11 was THE US voters thirst
Instead Obama cynically claims his judgement was superior to Hillarys without mentioning Edwards , Kerry or Biden or the other Senate Democrats. It was a good resolution negotiated by a minority. The available CIA etc intelligence supported the view Saddam DID have WMD’s (we now know it was ‘faulty’)
If Obama had opposed the resolution in the 2002 “terror” climate , its likely Pastorgate would have been exposed then & he would not even be a candidate now.
Worse still , the invasion would have still occurred ANYWAY , but with an open ended Repug only war resolution , a more monstrous army involvement against the Shia that could have seen the US also in conflict with Bush’s other evil Iran
….where that would have left the world re Iran ballistic missiles flying anywhere
The Democrats Leadership in 2002 ,including Hillary , acted responsibly in support of Weapons Inspector Bix. The Obama attack on Democrat leadership in 2002 was a looney left protest or cynical political posturing by him (as a non Senator) that would have left Bush with a totally unconditional Repug based Senate resolution.
Instead there was an invasion limited to getting rid of Suddam & ‘WMD’s’ but not the Shia leadership so close to Iran nor any authority to persue Iran. The 2 groups who acted irresponsibly were Security Council (France, Russia & China) and Bush who was hellbent on an invasion irrespective) , all of whom were not interested in the Democrat leadeship resolution for different reasons
The minority Democrat leadership including Hillary , John Kerry , John Edwards & Biden acted responsibly and Obama’s attacks on them are irresponsible & if he’d had his way may have involved the US directly with Iran such was Bush’s manic intention for reprisal for 9/11.
Hillarys error was not to follow John Edwards lead 6 months after the invasion when no WMD’s were found , who alleged correctly the Democrat leaderships Iraq war resolution (including Hillary) would have via Bix also found no WMD’s but without the need for war !
More importantly Edwards alleged the entire war premise had been discredited by faulty intelligence of alleged WMD’s & criticised bush for the war and said he now opposed the continued occupation….so should have Hillary instead of expediently supporting her huge NY j.w.ish voter block & seeking ‘centre’ (read anti Arab read 9/11 ) voter support.
Hillary was being politically expedient as was Obama remaining in a very politically strong Chicargo Church base for political support reasons. however Obama’s now exposed flaws re that Church go beyond political expediency.
Even in this blog , covering all the nuances involved with the invasion is impossible but to do one liners ‘oh Hillary supported the war’ is intellectually a poor excuse for not considering the complexity of the politics in post 9/11 US :
the Democrat Senators were in minority to a war mongering Repug Senate majority , a wish by citizens for A 9/11 reprisal , the fear WMD’s may be there , the wish to protect US oil supplies , the danger of involving Iran and Bushs wish to have war irrespective.
If you wish to citicise Hillary , blame her for NOT following Edwards admirable lead.
“Did you see Charlie Rose’s interview of Senator Chuck Hagel (R) last night?
He seems to be very impressed with Senator Barack Obama. When asked by Charlie if he would endorse him, Hagel first said something like, “I don’t know….I might” Rose immediately said, “Do you realize what you just said?” Hagel quickly changed his comment to include that he would want to talk to John (McCain) first, then Obama to see where they were headed and then make a decision. It was only after Rose said, “And Senator Clinton too”, that Hagel said something like, yes, if she is the nominee of course.”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/chuck-hagel-for-barack-obama-c.php
and the Democrat leadership resolution crucially included a requirement for unrestricted weapons inspections by Bix’s weapons experts to look for WMD’s and if Saddam did not agree with this Security Council resolution , armed intervention was authorised to find the WMD’s
from a minority Senate leadership , the best they could have got & they got it
Ron – “If you wish to citicise Hillary , blame her for NOT following Edwards admirable lead.”
That is what most Democrats do. It was her continued active support for the war that caused much bad feeling. Further, while I take your point that those positioning for Presidential runs seemed to vote for the war, the majority of House Dems, and 21 out of 50 Senators voted against. So we are not just talking about a few renegades, half of the party was against the war from the beginning. This article outlines a few positions: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=299575
And some more analysis on Bush and McCain strategist Mark McKinnon, who has again confirmed he will step aside if Obama is the nominee. And why:
‘I’ve come to a point in my life where I think character is important. I think he has great character. Again, I think he’s really wrong on fundamental issues, but yeah, I just don’t want to — you know, I kind of want to put my guns down. It’s just a matter of degrees, and like I said, I don’t think I’m the best person to have in that slot for the campaign. So it would just be better for me to step to the sidelines.’
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/28/like-mccain-needs-a-bicycle.aspx
Ron @ 636 -
Instead there was an invasion limited to getting rid of Suddam & ‘WMD’s’ but not the Shia leadership so close to Iran nor any authority to persue Iran.
You seem to be arguing that by some of the Dems, including Hillary, voting to give Bush authorisation for war they prevented a worse/wider conflict. On what basis? And are you suggesting the U.S. would have otherwise attacked the “Shia leadership so close to Iran” (and maybe Iran itself) during the invasion phase? In 2003 Bush was seems to have been unaware of whatever ‘Shia leadership’ there was in Iraq, or its links to Iran. Heck, a couple of years later he still didn’t seem to know there was a difference between Sunnis and Shia.
Even if he had, back in 2003 the Shia weren’t part of the plan..to the extent there actually was one. The U.S. had already bought the next friendly Iraqi dictator – Chalabi – with them.
The fact that not only are the Shia running the country, but U.S. forces are supporting the Iran aligned Shia govrnment against Moqtada’s Iraq patriot militia even as I type this shows how little thought was given to the Shias until well after the original plans for ruling Iraq fell apart.
The 2 groups who acted irresponsibly were Security Council (France, Russia & China) and Bush
How did the SC act irresponsibly? By refusing to legitimise Bush’s precipitous war?
# 639 Pancho
Ron – “If you wish to citicise Hillary , blame her for NOT following Edwards admirable lead.”
‘That is what most Democrats do. It was her continued active support for the war that caused much bad feeling’
Yes they do Pancho , agree. Most Democrats in the US think this way because they think the Democrat leadership including Hillary negotiated the best deal & a responsible one (in a minority senate status they could have) , including most the 29 of 50 who votd against it. None of them think the Senate Democrat leadership were pro Iraq war.
But alot of bloggers think Hillary simply voted for war & opposed it , and I think this is an unwarranted criticism completely. WHEREAS I’m in the majority US Democrats position on this.
correction:with the majority not in the majority
Obama is a phenomenon, really. Until very recently, he was an almost unheard-of one-term Senator. He is a true small-l liberal. He is black. He’s created his own political machine that has out-run the party apparatus. He’s drawing support from all sections of American society. He’s genuinely winning so far and he is almost certain to beat Clinton, regardless of her refusal to surrender.
You have to ask, “How could this be so? What has happened in America that such an improbable outcome could occur?”
But you also have to ask, “What if he does the seeming-impossible and actually wins in November?”
Obama appeals to me, I have to admit. But I don’t know exactly why. Is it just that he’s not a Republican and not a Clinton? Is it that, embodying in every possible way, a break with conventions of the past, he is the voice of the future? Is that just nonsense? One thing is for sure, I am not content with the past and do want a different future. I want something different for myself and for others, even if I can’t quite see such a future let alone articluate a vision for it.
Maybe I am not alone, and that I feel what millions of Americans also feel. How strange.
Ron – What Hillary did over a longer period was give tacit support to the war by not admitting a folly and apologising to the people until long after every other notable figure in the party had done so. Remember, it was not until about a month ago that she actually admitted the fault that the rest of the party had long ago and apologised! This was years of ongoing bad form, and probably why figures such as Pelosi and Kennedy among others are supporting Obama.
I understand the point you are making about initial realism and populism in the vote, and perhaps if Obama was in the Senate then he would have done the same. We’ll never know on that front. But it would seem that Hillary played the wrong card here, stubbornly choosing populism for almost five years before admitting a mistake. And it is a real bad issue to have played bad politics with as far as the Dems base is concerned.
Blindoptimist #644
“Obama appeals to me, I have to admit. But I don’t know exactly why”
You then mention his new style of politcs & ‘change’ message etc.
This is my worry with you guys. Go past the overall general rhetoric which probably most of us find extemely attractive , and why would one. But what is there specifically Obama is promising
(Hillary has changed her Iraq position from her wrong/flawed occupation support to immediate withdrawal (same as Obama) , both of which are naive positions as its going to be hard to get out without working out what mess will remain)
r/Ron @ 642 – It’s a bit like the markets – by the time you notice that something has happened to affect the market, it has already been factored in to the price. In politics – the voters hear some relevant news and their reaction is immediately in the mix and is reflected in the next polls.
Revisionist history about how or why Hillary voted in 2002 isn’t going to make any difference to the polls because everyone already knows everything there is to know, and it’s been reflected in the polls for a long time -negatively.
Ron, it was perfectly obvious to many ordinary people that the Iraq war was a politically-contrived adventure, ill-conceived and likely to go wrong. The war-policies of the US, UK and Australia were obviously based on conveniently faked-up intelligence estimates and politically-motivated falsehoods. If the sceptical public could see this, it is extraordinary that the Washington, London and Canberra insiders could not.
I don’t know who deserves more condemnation: the originators of these policies or those who could have opposed them but did not. Clinton had her chances, made her choices and was wrong. She has very little credibility on this issue.
Ron – I agree with you that there is no great difference between the two of them on the big issues. Up against McCain (and very crudely) they are the pro-healthcare, anti-war candidates. He is the opposite. There are differences with regards to their healthcare policies (Hillary’s is closer to what the Dems have historically sought), and foreign policy (Obama would take a less militarist approach) but the many nuances would not really play out in a General Election. They remain the pro-health, anti-war candidates against the individualist hawk in McCain.
So the difference, beside these things, is what you sweep aside. Rhetoric and presentation are incredibly important. It is these qualities which are drawing people to Obama now, these qualities which are attractive to independents and ‘Reagan Democrat’ types, and these qualities which may lead to the forming of a new progressive alliance. To lead a coalition on healthcare, and possibly out of the war, the leader will need to use all the persuasive powers from within the Presidential role to garner both public and Congressional support. I think Obama is better placed than Clinton to do this. For all of her positives, she remains a divisive figure who does not have Obama’s powers of persuasion.
Pancho #642 and #645 taken together,
thank you ackowledging the legitimacy of my #636 & # 638 blog that Hillary should not accused of supporting the Iraq invasion & should be acknowledged with Edwards , Biden & Kerry & other Democrats for negotiating a responsible Iraq war resolution (WITH unrestricted weapons inspection pre conditions) resolution ex their Senate minority position)
in a post 9/11 reprisals thirsty electorate
I support entirely your #645 blog. Not sure you’ll win friends but hey.
Hillary’s terrible raq blunder was what you said in detail (ie her POST invasion decisions) & she should be ashamed of it. This was also my point but without explaining as you did the effect & timefame of that blunder.
A minor point is about 45% of Democrats support her despite the blunder or perhaps inspite of it
Sat. 29 March: Obi nails the MacCleans vote.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/jerryholbert;_ylt=AiJKYzeFNhONU5Z0Ay5Gjerb.sgF
Fri March 28: Dental Cream Sales Squeezed Going Forward:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/ettahulme;_ylt=AgCDjb_Lqu6GPVpWCRIKx0BS_b4F
Sat Match 29: Leftoid Weasels Ripped Her Flesh:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/billschorr;_ylt=Ak4nQHZzujqKVK7okHO8KocxvTYC
646
Ron Says:
March 30th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Blindoptimist #644
“Obama appeals to me, I have to admit. But I don’t know exactly why”
You then mention his new style of politcs & ‘change’ message etc.
This is my worry with you guys….
Well, it is a puzzle, Ron. Obama really has touched people, even the remote and unaffected, like me. That is why I asked the question: How can this be so?
He is, on the face of it, the most unlikely candidate. But he is winning. How come? What is going on in the popular psyche? It can’t be that everyone has taken leave of their faculties at the same time. What is the deal with Barack? It is a puzzle…
651
Enemy Combatant
Zapped with the weasels!
Ron @650 – minor point, but while I understand the politics of the decision -particularly of the hard-nosed realists positioning for presidential runs – and the fact that the Dems were not in a position to stop the Bush-Cheney machine, I don’t think their actions were entirely responsible.
Hillary, among others, did not even read the 90 page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq which was full of misgivings. They were strongly advised to do at the time by Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and did not, for political or other reasons. Graham voted against the war.
Obama is a man of rare and powerful character. That’s what gives his rhetoric its potency. Without character he would just be an eloquent windbag.
Character is rare in life. In public life it is virtually non-existent. In Obama the public sees a chance for a new way of doing politics – of engagement with the process, of freedom from the power of vested interests and cynical, destructive, politics.
In Obama they are rallying to someone they feel they can trust.
Character…..it’s the thing that’s simultaeously propelling Obama and destroying Hillary.
That’s the deal with Barack. Who’d have thought.
Spot on, Pancho. I have a lot of trouble with politicians who duck the issues. If they won’t declare themsleves, if they won’t take the trouble to be well-informed and apply their reason and conscience to situations, then they can’t be relied on at all. The trouble is, the public have to rely on them whether we like it or not. I also think it is possibly excusable to be non-committed on funding country roads and indifferent to the subtleties of capital gains tax laws, but it is not excusable to choose to be ignorant about the case for war-making.
#654 Pancho , taken with your #642 & #645 ,
We are quite close in views as I’ve blogged in my 3 repies.
Regarding the ‘I don’t think their actions were entirely responsible’ , I can see where you are going (somewhat agree) , however as you”ve acknowledged there were Democratic politics positioning for 2004 involved as well plus the political reality of trying to limit Bush from getting a blank cheque” for war which may have exrended elsewhere in the M/E given he is/was a war mongerer.
#649
yes entirely agree with first paragrapg , whilst the 2nd para differences need debate perhaps later if thats OK with you. Because I agree your 2nd par. IS a substantial difference between the two Democrats but my view varies
EC @651 & KR @ 653 hands off Mr Zappa! Hey Ron squeeby rules. Still waiting.
#647 j/v
you are right what the polls say re Hillary & Iraq.
I’m simply contending the basis of the condemnation is wrong , she should be being blamed for her post Iraq position not for the go to war resolution.
The difference is substantial regarding what POTUS attributes one does like in Hillary & the political consequences she should pay for them. Obama is accusing her of the wrong flaws
Well spoken Ferny. I’ll think about character and trust. People want to give trust, I suppose. It is what follows from a sense of connection or identification. It is also a reciprocal thing. Obama says to people….”this is about you….about you and me together…it is about belief…it is about believing in ourselves….” That is, he is calling on people’s sense of self-belief and his political project has become their shared purpose. Support for him is an expression of self-belief: of course people will want to trust him…. it is kind of scary, really. It sounds like evangelical politics to me, but it is working….
Ron, I think Michael Moore summed up a lot of peoples feelings on Hillary’s support for the Iraq war best. Moore says that 30% or 100 million Americans figured out that the war was wrong before it started and he doesn’t want a President who 100 million Americans are smarter than.
You can see the interview he did with Larry King Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsZxsR1KXxM
He covers the specific point I mentioned at about 4 minutes in.
#652 blindoptimist ,
you have not said why , howver you feel Pancho’s #649 blog does & if so
my #657 blog agrees with his first par. and suggests later debate on the 2nd ,
not sure if this answers your query
#661 , but on your own %’s , 70% did support the war with pre conditions.
I’d normally take the 70% over the 30% anytime and some bloggers may rest on that.
However you may wish to read ALL of my & Pancho’s blogs collectively to view an overall view , although the 100% anti war section of the ALP will never accept any moderation of the post 9/11 politics & WMD’s fears
Maybe we need some evangelical politics, blindoptimist…or more correctly, evangelistic. I’m not talking religion here, but an expansive belief in the kind of democracy we want to have.
We stopped believing long ago that things can be better. We stopped believing in ourselves, our values and our leaders. We lowered and lowered and lowered the bar of professional ethics in our leadership and allowed them to herd us into a mad stampede to mediocrity.
Perhaps we’re all tired of compromising and are ready to make a stand for some values along with some competency in those who aspire to lead. Perhaps we’re tired of excusing self-interest as ‘just the way things are done’.
Perhaps we want to raise the bar. And on that score Obama is head and shoulders above the rest.
Perhaps it’s just time to do better.
#661 is to Turning Worm’s blog
I have a family who are all born-again happy clappers. This is very disturbing to a seasoned sceptic and inveterate non-joiner, like me. I know that evangelism is a well-practiced art in the US and the people have a semi-mystical view of their Presidents. I sure hope they don’t think they are going to elect a magician of some sort. Such a crazy mixture, those Americans.
Not a magician blindoptimist – and not a messiah, a preacher or a saint.
Just a leader with character and a chance to reclaim some values.
Ferny & blindoptimist , your views and Pancho’s at #649 are similar & your aspirational principles you wish to see I do not disagree with.
Whether those qualities & vision are more than rhetoric & whether execution of them will occur , I have reservations based on my value judgement which I’m happy to debate but perhaps not at this hour
Certainly the firsr para of Pancho’s #649 I’ve said I agree with and indeed have previously so blogged BUT seemed to got dismissed due to Pastorgate views
Ferny, I can see the appeal and your point is well-made. So many people hope for more, much more. I can imagine that Americans must feel betrayed by their political institutions and the political/bureaucratic/exuctive class that run them. The war, the economy, the disgraceful state of federal finances, the ineptitude, criminality and dishonesty all cry out for action. You’re probably right, Ferny, and time has come for a better deal in America….
Skip the squeeby Ron, EC & KR for you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huazqHdbgts
#667
Ferny Grover Says:
An interesting thing is that nobody needs to clarify who you are talking about.
…and here in Australia too blindoptimist. After years of hard right politics encouraging an ethic of greed and self-interest, the wave of renewal is spreading.
We’re better than what we’ve become and there’s a mood afoot for change.
#636
Ron
Sorry to say this but IMO you just stepped over a line.
Your Rongate obsession was one thing but your 636 post took you into territory that you do not understand. Perhaps you were not involved, perhaps you have not talked with the principals, maybe you have not negotiated deals with the deputies and operation officers, maybe you have not had a chance to walk around the corridors of power, but even so – that is no excuse for the ignorance you exemplified in 636.
Good point, junior senator. And I believe you’re right too, Ferny.
Don’t you think this is interesting? If this mood-shift is happening, what caused it? Why?
Maybe, it is reaction to uncertainty, errors and failures: the decline of American economic supremacy, the onset of enivonmental tragedy, the destruction and futility of war. Maybe, the ideas of an ordered, free, rational, secular, democratic, egalitarian, just and prosperous society have just been belted around too much. Maybe the public just want to affirm these things do matter more than fear and greed. Maybe, but it’s hard to know…
670
Junior Senator – it’s like a light in a very dark place and it’s obvious where it’s coming from.
If you’re right, ferny, then optimism is back in style. About time too.
Good grief, blindoptimist! It’s all of the above – and a loss of faith in how our governments have led us as much as where they’ve led us. It’s a reassertion of who we want to be and what we expect in those who claim to be leaders.
Remember all those values we were brought up to believe were right – honesty, fairness, justice, courtesy, compassion, courage?
They’re finding their voice again.
Optimism, blindoptimist?? Some might call it the audacity of hope!
641 MayoFeral
Ron @ 636
Just scrolled back & missed your post , hence sorry had not replied MayoFeral
The Iraq war resolution negotiated by & voted for by all senior Democrat leaders (Edwards , Kerry , Biden & Hillary, 42% of Democrat Senators) was a mixture of Geo Politics & US politics , posturing for 2004 Pres. against a background of 9/11 , desire for US reprisals , intelligence there were WMD’s & other intelligence casting doubt etc etc. Even the intelligence supporting WMD’s existence whilst NOW retrospectively discredited , at the time represented a fear argument.
Frankly MayoFeral , unless you & others read my blogs 636,638, 642, 650 7 657 AND Pancho’s 639 , 645 & 654 COLLECTIVELY , anything said is not in context.
If and only if one ignores the context described in these blogs , there still remains the question:
As the majority Senate Repugs & Bush would have preferred a resolution for war with a blank cheque. Bush , Cheney & Rumsfeld would have probaly been prepared for an all out M/E war given their irrational war mongering ideology.
Heaven help us where it could have ended.
Instead the Senate Democratic leadership limited the scope of what the war mongerers could do:
There could only be an Iraq invasion limited to getting rid of Suddam & ‘WMD’s’.
But FIRST , the resolution required the UN Weapons Inpection team lead by Bix to have UNRESTRICTED access in Iraq to search for WMD’s (which Saddam till then had refused). The UN resolution failed to get France , Russia or China’s OK
and so they are also culpable I think.
I think the Democratic leadership including Hillary were correct , rather than giving Bush a blank cheque resolution that the UN definitely would have knocked back. With hindsight , you may judge the Democratic leadership badly , but I think harshly.
Hillary as I’ve said should have followed Edwards post invasion stance.
Night all
ps/ and I think Obama probably would have (as does Pancho) voted for the Iraq resolution with the above pre conditions as he wa an aspiring Pollie & there were the above reasons for the conditions attached to the resolution.
I contend subsequently he would have folowed Edwards post invasion stance
seeya fg
But there are still questions. If it’s about those things, is it about Obama? Or is it about the people? (It’s such a departure from the script, so far anyway)
683 Blindoptimist
sorry to disappoint you & Ferny , but the Geo political world is more than the ideals both of you support (which in theory I do not disagree with). Its about politics , power, numbers , oil , greed , money , military etc and policy issues & judgement & character attributes vs expediency.
Ron,
You list is the usual script. Which is why Obama’s popularity is so surprising. I think it is an enigma…really…
I’m not surprised at THIS stage Blindoptimist because intelligent people are pssed off with cynical politicans & their completely inequitable policys to selectively buy votes & disregard social & justicel disadvantage both here & in the US as well as the double standards the US applies overseas.
My concern is I personally see some serious holes in Obama and as a more thorough examination occurs in the real fight more will come out against McCain the ‘right’ will strike successfully and win Pre. , when it should have been unloseable for the Democrats
Do you think Clinton wold stand a better chance?
Blindoptimist , needs a lng answer to properly explain the plus’s & minus’s of each & its late.
The short answers are I think Obama will win the nomination. I think Hillary JUST would stand a better chance for numerous reasons.
The voters when absolutely forced to make a choice in the secrecy of the ballot box often vote differently to what their polling answers say. Witness the massive Rudd narrowing in the lasst week compared to 9 months polling showing a Rudd landslide.
When thry are forced to make that ssecret choice they often are influenced by the 2004 Howard quetion he put to voters
“Who do you trust”
The voters WANTED to turf out the rodent plus ALP Latham had better policys !
but the voters took the ‘love him or loath him option’ ….they knew what they’ll get and with McCain they do
whereas with Obama they do not and Pastorgate feeds into this in the worse for Obama worst possible way
ie. the Pastor trashed the flag and trashed mainstream reilgion (both NO’s NO’s
in the US) plus the Pastor was associated with the American fear being racial divisiveness all of which independent voters in a ballot box will fear
sorry for typo’s
Ron don’t answer the front door, it’s a guitar.
Blindoptimist , you may in due course wish to debate some of the points I’ve raised as they’re only my opinions.
Codger $690 , with the guitar comes with a supporting intellectual argument in rebutal as Pancho was able to do then I’m always happy to engage otherwise
I adopt the Gough Whitlam quote as applicable
Goodnight all
Well Ron, I sure hope you are not comparing Latham to Obama!
Seriously, I think the odds still favour the Democrat this year, even though McCain is a fairly strong candidate. The economy, government finances, the housing market, the war, the desire for a fresh start….these are democratic plus factors. I think the pastor-izing stuff will register with some republicans, but will bore the rest of the electorate in no time.
Candidate Gore? Who’da thunk this possible?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23455900-5012748,00.html
Blindoptimist #644 – [Obama appeals to me, I have to admit. But I don’t know exactly why] – i tell you why. Substitute Obama in your sentence with God/Religion/Faith, you have your answer. i am sure the bloggers are intelligent enough to understand what i am getting. Obama has not done anything substantial in his political life, he has no track records whatsoever. He was worshiped as lilywhite. And I have proved he is just another politician who speaks well.
Actually your blog name “Blindoptimist” also says it all. In Obama, it is all Blindoptimist and if that is you are happy with, you can have him. i prefer the more solid, reliable and known Hillary, warts and all.
Finns @ 695 – You eschew the chance for change in favour of the guarantee of more of the same. Be arch conservative if you wish – you remind me of what my very conservative grandmother would say at election time (in the long, long days of Menzies) – “Oh well, better the devil you know …” Of course, she’d also periodically launch into Celtic tongues, but I don’t expect you to do that.
Your problem is, and I’m going to keep coming back to this, you face a fundamental contradiction, because your supposedly ‘conservative’ or ’safe’ candidate Hillary has emerged as the greater practical risk, because she is clearly psychologically unstable, as recent events have shown.
Finnegans, I have noticed the evangelizing quality of Obama’s presentations. This troubles me too, because I am devoutly irreligious. That is the thing I’m interested in though: how can it be that an otherwise obscure beginner can have so much appeal.
670
codger
ah, brings it all back…as in flashback! LOL
Love the Zap, a man who extended the musical possibilities and never took the lyrics seriously.
GG, much as I admire Gore, you’d have to think this is a sign of desperation on the part of the Dems.
Blindoptimist & Ferny Grover
I generally agree with your comments re Obama. That there is a real desire for change amongst the American electorate.
Hillary Clinton will remain in the race for the Democractic nomination for as long as it is in the best interests of the Republician Party for her to do so.
My intuitive feeling is that Obama will win the nomination and the Presidency.
blindoptimist – The Dems are nowhere near desperate enough to draft Gore. They are still short-priced favourites to regain the White House. Gore will never happen. GG on the other hand is a little bit desperate – he don’t wanna give up the dream, having placed himself so firmly in the anti-O camp. He’s also loving a needle though.
Joke of the day comes from turncoat Joe!
““I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy,” Lieberman told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week. ”It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.””
What a couple of bozos those two are.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/30/lieberman-likens-mccain-to-jfk/
#996 – jv – [Be arch conservative if you wish] – moi conservative? Voted Labor all my life and the revolution is not a dinner party.
Unlike blindoptimist: [Finnegans, I have noticed the evangelizing quality of Obama’s presentations. This troubles me too, because I am devoutly irreligious] – i am not seduced by Kumbaya politics of the evangelizing kind. Obama’s life has been an insecured one and he’s still searching for his identity and belonging. he thought he found it with the Pastor, but unfortunately that is dear to him is destroying him.
Lieberman is a shonk.
Someone asked earlier about finances. Clinton’s look dire – she hasn’t been paying bills and has gotten a bad reputation in the political production community. Her much vaunted organisation is just not up to scratch:
‘Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles…
If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other upfront expenses would have been less than $2 million.
By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html
Pancho #702 There is one parallel. McCain had a bit of a reputation as a root rat – though clearly not in JFK’s league.
kumbaya politics…..good phrase. So you prefer the Princess to the Prophet, Finnigans?
Ron at 679
This is nonsense.
Lets not peddle into this neoconservative myth that it was in any way the UN’s fault.
This was ENTIRELY the US’s fault.
The US proposed a resolution for war, the UN denied it as it had no basis. The US strongarmed as many countries as they could and still failed to get the resolution they wanted (rightly so!) The US then relied on a 10 year old resolution to somehow support their nonsensical war.
Hans Blix was ALLOWED unrestricted access to Iraq, despite this, and the fact that the US couldn’t prove that Iraq had WMD, the US chose to invade anyway.
This illegal use of force in my opinion constituted a breach of internationa law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war
Selected excerpts
['In March 2003, Hans Blix reported that, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found," in Iraq, saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue.[45] But the U.S. government announced that “diplomacy has failed” and that it would proceed with a coalition of allied countries, named the “coalition of the willing”, to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government abruptly advised U.N. weapons inspectors to immediately pull out of Baghdad.
There were also serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”[97]‘]
‘The Organisation’ strikes again. From the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut:
“What I think is so interesting about this dynamic is that the Clinton campaign has virtually no friends in the media at this point. They’ve managed to alienate most of the press corps”
Maybe they need ‘people skills’ on board?
703 – Finnigans
I don’t believe voting for one party for all one’s life is necessarily a good trait.
One should look at each party on its own merits when deciding your vote.
It could be pure coincidence that Labor has had the best policies all your life, but it does help to broaden one’s viewpoint and at least consider alternatives. I grant that Howard and his vile legacy wasn’t much of an alternative though.
Finnigans, I hardly think Labor and revolution make frequent dinner companions. Asanque has a point. An open mind is a great asset.
Obama by double digits in todays Gallup, 52-42:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx
KR will love Paul Sheehan’s praise of Bernanke in the SMH today:
“History will record that the hero of the hour was Ben Bernanke, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, who mobilised his fellow bank governors over the weekend of March 15-16, and invoked emergency powers not used since the Depression. In effect, the US government went guarantor for $US30 billion ($32.7 billion) of what would otherwise be worthless mortgage-backed securities held by Bear Stearns. This averted the complete collapse of the bank and a catastrophic blow to confidence in the system of financial derivatives, a system whose contracts now total more than $500 trillion.”
But on Greenspan…
“One person who has been warning about the possibility of a system-wide financial meltdown, well before the Bank for International Settlements did so, is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, international business editor of London’s Daily Telegraph…
He believes Bernanke made the right move, just as his predecessor at the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, made all the wrong moves. “Alan Greenspan caused this bubble. He excessively deregulated the market, he let the market fundamentalists run, and allowed the mortgage sector to run rampant. He lifted government controls where they were needed and interfered where it was not needed. He forced the price of credit down artificially even when the economy was growing at 4 per cent.”
Last week Evans-Pritchard, ever pungent, wrote in an opinion piece: “Put a clothes peg on your nose. The moral stench of bailouts for the uber-rich will be sickening.
“None of us wants to pay a farthing to rescue the bankers and assorted debt pimps who got us into this financial mess, and in doing so exposed our societies to such harm … Yet we must forbear. It was such sentiments that turned the 1930 recession into [the Depression].”
Debt pimps? Almost as colourful as KR, isn’t he.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/2008/03/30/1206850700844.html
…and who does Hillary want as her chief economic adviser????
Alan Greenspan.
Not thinking straight is she.
Ferny- This is at counterpunch today.
“Hillary Clinton shuttles between criticisms of McCain’s stance and her formal declaration in one recent speech that she wants Clinton-era Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, and former Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker to lead a “high-level emergency working group” to recommend ways to restructure at-risk mortgages to help avert more foreclosures.
Her nomination of Rubin and Greenspan scarcely encourages confidence in Mrs C’s oft-proclaimed capacity to hit the ground running in times of crisis. Rubin was the arch deregulator in Bill Clinton’s second term. It was Rubin who successfully pushed for repeal in 1999 of the Glass Steagall Act which, amidst financial collapse in early 1933 (when Roosevelt closed down the banking system altogether) placed regulatory barriers between commercial and investment banking.
As fed chairman in the Clinton and early Bush years Greenspan deliberately encouraged the growth of speculative bubbles. He chose in 1996 not to set margin requirements on stock market speculators and in later years fiercely advocated the deregulation of the financial system. His fingerprints are all over the sub-prime disaster.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03292008.html
Kinda fills ya with confidence don’ it Diog?
Wouldn’t it be refreshing change if we didn’ have a lunatic running the asylum for once.
What a bunch!
Nixon – liar,
Reagan- B-grade actor turned demented,
The Bush’s – warmongerers, and in the case of the younger just effing stupid,
Clinton – almost impeached for lying (oh, is that sex??)
and back to the current Imbecile ..
and now we have the choice of a compulsive pathlogical liar, a doddering old bloke who wants to bomb someone, anyone,
or a young, vibrant and clever man with a vision for a better future.
Not really hard is it if you think about it..
Ferny- They almost make Howie look good. Almost…
*rolls eyes*
Finnegans, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
By the way, seems that all the polls are showing clear leads by Obama. Hillary hasn’t won a poll against Obama since the FOX News one about 10 days ago.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
# 710 asanque
a retrospective simplistic assessment of the Iraq war resolution of course leaves 42% of all Democratic Senators including their then senior leadership (Edwards , Kerry , Clinton & Biden ) as irresponsible & war mongerers. That they were just like Bush.
Thats your view but its not supported either by the context of the post 9/11 times & Pres. posturing I’ve outlined , nor the text of the actual Senate resolution and nor crucially by the point Bix did not get 100% unrestricted access & so never could never remotely guarantee Saddam was not hiding any WMD’s. Yet some intelligence at that time said there were WMD’s.
Against this background , & in minority in the Senate , the Democrat leadership including Hillary & 42% of Democrat Senators acted reasonably responsible against a President who wanted a blank cheque. Most Democrat pollies unlike you think the same way as I & instead criticise Hillary’s post invasion position.
So your claims of ‘nonsense’ are only your opinion, which you can obviously have
First Zimbabwe results in two hours time.
http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=africa&item=080330215311.j3jloumq.php
720 Ron
You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.
That is not a simplistic assessment, that is what actually occurred. Wikipedia may not always be the most accurate of sources, but it is dead right on this point. I haven’t assessed the specific vote by US senators, but irrespective the US war on Iraq was illegal under international law and highly provocative.
The Senate resolution is immaterial as that is US law. Hans Blix did get 100% unrestricted access. Even if he was getting 99% access, the weapons inspections were proceeding and Iraq was no threat. The US pulled out the UN weapons inspectors due to their illegal war. You consistently forget the point that Iraq was no threat whatsoever whilst UN weapons inspectors were going through Iraq. There was no reason for the invasion.
The Democrat leadership let the US and the world bigtime by their irresponsible authorisation of the war. Even if they voted for further weapons inspections, that obviously did not proceed given Bush’s stance. They share the blame for not putting the brakes or at least protesting against this illegal war.
Iraq was no threat whilst UN weapons inspectors were still in there. Only an idiot would have proscribed a war in those circumstances, and unfortunately for the world, idiots were not in short supply.
just as you think it’s safe to go into the water……… hmmm…. hmmmm….. hmmmm
March 30, 2008, Four Stumps in the Water for Obama , By Charles Lipson
As the high-water mark for Barack Obama recedes, his campaign must now confront several dangerous stumps that were once hidden below the surface
1. The first is the volatile mix of race and religion, begun with the Rev. Wright controversy. Videos have now surfaced of virulent race-baiting by yet another Chicago preacher with ties to Obama, the Rev. James Meeks. Obama was not a member of Meeks’s church and their connection may be only a tactical alliance between prominent local figures. That’s the question: how close are those ties? Meeks is no ordinary pastor. He is an important political and religious figure in African-American Chicago. He not only leads a mammoth congregation, he is an Illinois state senator and a key player in Jesse Jackson’s powerful local political organization, which is squarely behind Obama’s run for the Presidency.
2. Obama’s second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: Emil Jones. Jones heads the Illinois State Senate and is one of the two most powerful legislators in Springfield. He played a vital role in Obama’s rise in state politics and, most significantly, he blessed Obama’s underdog candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Now that Obama is playing on a national stage, his ties to Jones raise uncomfortable questions about his years in Illinois politics. That’s because Jones is a old-fashioned, wheeler-dealer, the sort that Mike Royko used to write about when he was shredding Richard J. Daley and the Cook Count Democratic machine.
3. The Rezko trial highlights another problem for Obama, potentially a devastating one, though it is unlikely to arise for several months or more. Antoin “Tony” Rezko is on trial for taking large bribes in return for political favors. The feds allege that he was able to steer state contracts and policy decisions, such as authorization to build hospitals in specific locations, because he was so close to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (for whom he was a top fundraiser) and because he was willing to share the graft with his cronies. Alas for Tony Rezko, one of those cronies has now flipped, and his damning testimony is corroborated by plenty of wiretap evidence. Close observers of the trial think Rezko is in deep trouble. Obama’s name has come up only a few times, and no one has alleged any connection between these charges and the candidate. Still, Rezko problems are bad news for Obama because the two have close, long-standing ties. Obama initially downplayed those ties and minimized the money Rezko had raised for him.
4. Obama’s final stump also lies in Kenwood, where he was friendly with the 1960s radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn, now married, were members of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/four_stumps_in_the_water_for_o.html
723 – The Finns
I read that article.
It just struck me as just how little the right wingers can dig up on Obama given the scrutiny he has been under.
Meanwhile, you contrast this against the list of blunders that both McCain and Clinton have committed and its not surprising to see exactly why Obama is so popular in comparison. And by popular whilst the % is close, I mean how someone with so little name recognition can be equal or ahead of the other two candidates in such a short time span.
Finns – Obama’s four hidden problems by your article that he might hit are Wright, the Chicago legislature, Rezko and the Weathermen. Unfortunately, given your wish not to move into the dance industry, all of these connections have been probed to various extents, and all have received responses.
Wright is obviously in the forefront of everyone’s mind. From a distance, this could have been huge and derailed him in a day. Obama negated its power and sailed by it, redefining the overall narrative on the way.
Chicago legislature and Chicago figures? Clinton and McCain have much worse records over a much longer period. Of course a Chicago politician (and a presidential candidate) have shady connections. But as far as comparisons go between Obama, Clinton and McCain, the closet skeletons are far less numerous in Obama’s case. If it all goes negative, he can just drop words like Whitewater and Keating to reinforce acknowledged unsavoury incidents in his opponents histories.
Rezko has been done to death. This is not new or hidden. It has been followed since 2005 and nothing has stuck. No luck there I’m afraid.
And visiting two Weathermen in the 1960s? Huge stretch to assume anyone will understand or be interested. Another non-starter.
725 – Pancho
Further to your post. Whilst neither ties are great for Clinton and Obama, Norman Hsu is Hillary’s Rezko, and is far worse then Rezko.
#724 – [It just struck me as just how little the right wingers can dig up on Obama given the scrutiny he has been under] – it shows how blinded you Obamaphiles have been. Why would the right wingers show you anything juicy they have dug up now. They will save them for the real event in November where they will crush Obama.
713
Ferny Grover
Shananna (not be confused with the hero of Timor Leste) is a plonk of the first order, (as if we didn’t already know!).
Bernanke, when the sub-prime mess was towering like a tsunami, declared it to be of small import, just a little problem in the lower end of the food chain that wouldn’t be contagious!
FFS, the man is an idiot, a dolt, and just as incapable as his predecessor of comprehending the decades long descent into financial hell that the US has been in a mad headlong rush achieve.
And when Bear went belly up, the only thing these clowns could do was offer to open the doors to the Fed’s vault and let the thieves and grubby urchins come and raid the stores and leave behind their tatty old rubbish. “Dumpster of last resort” is what one writer dubbed them! LOL
The Fed, as the only respectable chairman recently said (Volcker), has ‘lost it’. And he wasn’t being cute.
So now we have the edifying spectacle of the world’s biggest central bank underwriting the world’s biggest financial debacle. But not even a year back, Greenspan was still considered the ‘maestro’ by these people!
Don’t make me laugh! This thing didn’t happen overnight, it took years and years of neglect and malfeasance to bring to this stage, and at every turn, Greenspan was always there, topping up the vodka in the punch bowl.
They’ll have decades to ponder the stupidity, and Bernanke will turn out to be the fall guy.
Just wait and see.
Geez Finns -
they should be able to do better than this list with the countless hours and dollars that would be going into finding something that will stick.
Really, unless the man had never spoken to anyone of doubtful charcter, or not ever been in political fund raising or camapigning, or if his family had no history (ie If he had been hatched out of an egg and lived inside a bubble) there is no way, nor is there a living soul who could not have something dug up on them with enough effort made.
I’m waitng for the guy who reveals that Obi cheated at monopoly once when they were 11.
Finns @727 – yep, and Hillary is the inevitable candidate who will crush Obama like a bug. Now you are seeing shadowy operatives from a broken party as the inevitable victors. The first delusion was wrong and the second one don’t seem too likely at the moment. Maybe you’re ‘blinded’ by being a ‘Hillophile’. It even feels stupid writing such things.
Replace Obama with Hillary, who I think is a much higher risk and scandal prone.
You mean Hillary’s campaign is not only unable to formulate strategy (only planned to Super Tuesday/small state rubbish), unable to balance its books ($5 million Hillary loan), unable to pay its debts, unable to understand maths and unable to dig up dirt on its opponents?
Sounds like a really successful candidate there…
Pancho,
Re the post on Gore and your 701,
You say, “The Dems are nowhere near desperate enough to draft Gore. They are still short-priced favourites to regain the White House. Gore will never happen.”
The article says, “Opinion polls show Senator McCain stretching his lead over both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, whose campaigns are engaged in a daily cycle of attacks, character assassination and mutual recriminations on religion, race and the economy”.
This is why you and asanque the whinger cannot be taken seriously. You cherry pick the facts, misrepresent what you don’t like and then make up the rest.
#731 – McCain will crush Obama.
Electoral Votes, total 538, To win: 270.
Mar. 30 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 239 McCain 268 Ties 31
Mar. 28/29 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 239 McCain 255 Ties 44
Mar. 26/27 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 246 McCain 248 Ties 44
Mar. 25 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 273 McCain 221 Ties 44
Mar. 24 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 268 McCain 246 Ties 24
Mar. 30 – Electoral Votes: Obama 215 McCain 314 Ties 9
Mar. 28/29 – Electoral Votes: Obama 228 McCain 301 Ties 9
Mar. 26/27 – Electoral Votes: Obama 228 McCain 301 Ties 9
Mar. 25 – Electoral Votes: Obama 218 McCain 296 Ties 24
Mar. 24 – Electoral Votes: Obama 231 McCain 292 Ties 15
From the Votemaster – http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Further, given what we have seen of Obama’s organisational nous, there is no chance that he has not had teams of researchers combing over everything that he has ever done. Whatever the Republicans have, he has as well. We saw this in the Wright saga – Obama had quietly been distancing himself from the pastor for over a year before the story broke. His campaign knew it was coming, and had a strategy to counteract it. There will be no surprises as far as his campaign insiders are concerned.
GG @732
The latest RCP has Obama leading McCain nationally by 0.2% and McCain leading Billary by 1.6%.
I think Gore is pretty unlikely to happen unless the whole Democrat thing goes to sh*t. You can get 100/1 on him for POTUS at the moment which I think is a great bet. I’m pretty sure he’d beat McCain in the General. I think he was too lazy to run.
732 – Grinch
Back to personal attacks?
You are making a good case for a permanent ban.
Something that I will push for strongly each time you initiate a personal attack with no provocation.
Its hard to decide who is a bigger moronic hypocrite, you or Mark Penn. I think you win.
The latest national polls show Obama ahead of McCain, whereas Hillary is behind.
Before you go on your latest unsubstantiated moronic rant, at least try and review the material.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Get a life.
GG – “The article says,”
This is a Herald Sun article, based on one opinion from Time Magazine. It is an interesting intellectual exercise, but nowhere near received wisdom, and in my opinion would not be acceptable to Democratic voters or the wider populace. There is a reason why Gore’s nomination is pennies to a pound. And in response to:
You are wrong. These articles were likely written during the Wright downturn in Obama’s polls. RCP now shows, on average, Obama leading Clinton by 4.6 points, and leading McCain by 0.2.
Finns,
do you remember that terrible feeling when you were a kid when someone first told you that Santa wasn’t real, and how hard you wanted it to not be true?
How you tried to hang on to your belief despite all the evidence, and how eventually the weight of public opinion ( all the other kids that knew), finally led you to the place where it was Ok to let got of your old belief, disappointng though it was. But then you could join the group of those in the know (who got to taunt the little kids and feel superior with their knowledge).
You know what I’m saying Finns. As a fellow leftie , try letting go – you’ll be relieved.
Plus you get to join the synchronised swim team.
From my perspective, it seems that the ‘discourse’ has moved from Rezko, Wright and the ‘misspoke’ moment etc towards ‘when will Hillary concede’. I note that ‘high-ups’ are starting to call for a ‘resolution’ (which I have interpreted as indirectly calling out Hillary).
This cannot possibly be good for a Clinton nomination. Surely it will be difficult for Clinton to change this discourse before Pennsylvania, rather than wait for the victory there to change it. I think the ‘high-ups’ will continue to mount this pressure indirectly over the next week and if she doesn’t concede, move towards directly calling for her to pull out.
For her to avoid this, she needs something to chagne the discourse. However, as happened with Mr Rudd last year, the ‘mud’ isn’t ’sticking’. Regardless of the significance of the Rezko and Wright controversies noted by The Finnigans (#723), it doesn’t appear to have impacted the electorate in any significant manner.
I don’t know how long she has, but i do not believe she will make it to Pennsylvania.
Big call Yo ho ho. I wouldn’t go so far as to say she’ll be out by then, but I would note that Huckabee, Romney, Edwards, Giuliani and Richardson all claimed the were in it till the end just before they dropped out (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/30/162324/643/888/487282). She’s feeling the heat.
yo ho ho- I agree with everything you say excpet the last bit- unless someone does the wooden stake thing: she won’t go of her own volition.
whoos- except (’m trying …)
Jen
I appreciate you agreeance, although i feel that will get me labelled as an ‘obamabot’ (is that still the name these days? I was out of the loop last week).
it’s the risk you take yo ho ho. Obamabot is only one many that include- dreamers, imbeciles, ninnies, wolves (?)… you get the picture.
(If you need nostril clips let me know. I’m getting a bulk order as I suspect our numbers will be swelling over the next little while. You need to speak to the Clinton camp for a good deal on flack jackets.)
Asanque,
Grinch is not my moniker. Why are you so continuously discourteous.
“unsubstantiated moronic rant”, “Its hard to decide who is a bigger moronic hypocrite, you or Mark Penn”
Gee asanque, if I had any feelings, I would be upset. Is that your hypocrisy slip showing. You should learn some manners if you want to continue here.
Unlike you, I can fight it out on the boards. Frankly, if you can’t cut the intellectual challenge of having your prejudices skewered, then you need to move on.
#738 – Jen – [Finns, do you remember that terrible feeling when you were a kid when someone first told you that Santa wasn’t real, and how hard you wanted it to not be true?]
exactly. got an advantage over u, my parents also never believed in Santa. so i never had that problem, that is why i also dont believe in the fairy tale of Obama. tq for bringing this up. i have forgotten it.
745 – Grinch
Courtesy is for those that deserve courtesy. I feel no compulsion to be courteous towards someone of your ilk.
Hey, I’m more then happy to fight it out against your senile rantings, however it does a great discourtesy to the rest of the board who are discussing more substantive matters.
William, I won’t tell you how to run your board and you do a good job.
However, to stop constructive threads turning into flamefests, you would do well to give warnings and bans to those posters who consistently and flagrantly personally insult other users without provocation. These people add nothing to this forum and obviously have limited degrees of civil protocol.
I refuse to sit quietly and be personally harassed all the time without provocation by the same moronic poster.
The whole board suffers as a result of the continual infighting started by the Grinch.
Finns -
do you think that helps explain why you are hanging on to the fantasy that Hillary can win?
An unresolved Santa-complex: A need to believe in the world of make believe that was denied you as a child…
Finns – ” that is why i also dont believe in the fairy tale of Obama. tq for bringing this up. i have forgotten it.”
Aha! This is a trauma issue! I think you are just meant to let the memories come flooding back. Or something. Usually in a hazy montage with sweet music in the background as the whole story come together. Then you realise that you really Obama and he fills a hole that Santa never could.
Whoops. Sorry for the plagiarism Jen, I missed yours…
pancho- no probs: it’s the zeitgeist thing. Bit like the polls in the US…
asanque,
So the script is anyone not enamoured with your logic and pretensions of intellect are flame throwers, senile ranters and moronic posters.
I think you need to get over yourself.
Perhaps a cuppa, a Bex and a good lie down might do you good.
jen,
Since when has Santa not been real?
All
We’re less than halfway to the PA primary. Cabin fever seems to have struck with a vengeance. William I hope all the axes and knives are well locked away . . . and thank heavens that we’ve nothing like the Second Amendment.
I drop by from time-to-time to pick up the large amount of info, insight, humour and jaw-dropping chutzpah on display on this wonderful site. But I’m finding it’s getting a trifle irksome wading through MBs of vitriol to find the aforementioned goodies. It’s like being in a room of rusted-on barrackers lined up behind their teams with nothing to do but wait for the next game – still three weeks away.
Sigh . . . why can’t everyone just play the issues not the fellow-PBers? Or at least take the fracas out the back of the pub.
I think I’m going to give PB – or at least the US election threads – a rest until 20/4.
Growler-
I’ve got some bad news for you…
Also I need to fess up that i think Iwas the one responsible for the Grinch thing. Bu it was meant in a loving and caring way. (ironically – didn’t the Grinch stop Santa coming to town…?)
752 – Grinch
Nope, just you.
so who is now in the fantasy land?
Finns – I am going to have to stick with the position that it appears to be the Hillary camp at the top of the Faraway Tree.
All the polls are indicating an Obama win, but still you all persist in the vain hope that “something” will stop him, when all that is happening is that as each day goes by she looks worse and worse. Sorry.
dyspnoeia -
I think most of us try and keep it good humoured.
…most of the time…
dyspnoeia stay & play the field…options are
1. Squeeby
2. Bot
3. Plus you get to join the synchronised swim team.
Not sure about this. I think Hillary will probably make it to Pennsylvania, not because of a turnaround in expectations about winning the Dem. nomination, but purely out of a stubborn and desperate hope for a miracle.
Hillary is now relying on Democrats making history by overturning the outcome of the primaries. But if this happened, the amount of bad feeling amongst Democrats and their supporters would probably make it very hard for her to win the general election.
In other words, Hillary is now a liability for the Democrat cause. And those who continue to support her and urge her to press on will only be doing damage to Democrat hopes of winning the election.
#722
Asanque you cannot have your own facts either even though you attempted to
You say ” Wikipedia may not always be the most accurate of sources, but it is dead right on this point” So you admit you selectively quote when the source agrees with you , otherwise the source is no good.
I said its a simplimistic assessment to lump 42% of Democratic Senators including Edwards , Kerry , Clinton & Biden ) as irresponsible & war mongerers. ie. That they were just like Bush.‘
You say: That is not a simplistic assessment, that is what actually occurred. You have indeed a terrible vew of ALL those Democrat leaders , 21 Senators
No doubt you’ll keep thinking that way but most Democratic Pollies as I would regard your assessment not only as nonsense for you misundertanding the complexities & nuances of the Iraq issues but probably be more cutting.
I certainly do not intend to again restate those varying complexities & nuances, because your argument reduces the question to a simplistic Right and Wrong ,
quote “Iraq was not a threat whilst inspectors were there’ , like this is the guy who gassed his own people & later massacred Kuwait & which some Intelligence asserted there were WMD’s (hindsight wrong)
With this info , the case that Saddam was a POSSIBLE threat was indesputably agreed by MOST Nations on this earth including the ALP, unlike you. But most Nations wanted to persevere in pressuring Saddam to give Bix an unfettered & UNINTERRUPTED go to establish if the possible threat was actually real or not. despite Saddam’s historical treatment of Bix’s inspections.
Whereas Bush was not interested , he wanted war & was going to have it irrespective of other Nations sensible alternative of perseverence against Saddam to give Bix a fair & uninterrupted go. Yes the Democratic leadership , 42% of Senators could have as you want simply opposed a blank cheque war resolution & felt good even if the blank cheque ended up in a full M/E conflict. instead they negotiated ‘conditions’ in the resolution for both limiting the blank cheque , supporting the UN Bix approach & responding to the Pres posturing & political climate in post 9/11 wishing reprisals , etc etc as previously explained
I’ll stick by edwards , Kerry , Biden & Clinton & 42% of Democratic Senators actions & the complex reasons behind their resolution vote with ‘conditions’.
You can stick with Obama’s stance of an empty vote of opposition & you are welcome to it
The reason there are all these fights is because the stupid Yanks have this six week gap in the primaries and nature abhors a vacuum. Why the hell aren’t they holding primaries now? The DNC really need to have a good look at how they’ve run this fiasco.
Finnigans… it’s you.
Jen,
I have no problem with you using the name because we have had enough banter to almost know each other. Why only the other night we were talking about elongated torches with special tantric qualities. (I don’t know what that was about).
However, asanque is happiest when posting rude provocation and whingeing. So, it is my melancholy duty to give him more petard on which to hoist himself. It is worth the admittance just to point out his continuous and unrelenting hypocrisy on this name calling business, (that he so fervently eschews).
GG- Am I allowed to call you Grinch? It sort of suits you.
Agreed Diogs –
at least we can’t do drive-by’s on PB… I’d be feeling a bit edgy over in the US as the tempers fray.
Also, the real possibility of some nutter/s taking it upon themselves to sort out the results must increase as the candidtaes are forced to tread water for another month. Not tomention that the content of the reporting will descend into the trivial and ridiculoius as the primaries ra dragged out.
God knows what Growler and asanque will be up to be then.
candidates /to mention/ ridiculous,/ are/
guess I could use the time to learn to type.
And Hillary could try to learn to tell the truth.
dyspnoeia stay; you can be a bot, a squeeby or best of all…
‘you get to join the synchronised swim team’
Here we go!
“WASHINGTON — Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama’s side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina’s seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group — just one has so far — before that state’s May 6 primary, several Democrats say.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news
Thanks Growler –
I feel quite priveleged.
Now if you two could just calm doown a little… perhaps a little dip in the pB pool?.
down.
fk.
and privileged.
Diogenes,
Only if you want to.
Jen,
If I was any calmer, I wouldn’t be able to finish this sente………
762 – Ron
I’m not sure I understand.
Are you disagreeing or not with the excerpts quoted from Wikipedia?
Here is the Wikipedia Link on the US war resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution
Here is what was not agreed:
['The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Defeated 24 - 75.
[edit] The Durbin Amendment
Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Defeated 30 – 70.’]
Here are the Democratic Senators that voted against
Ron
['Iraq was not a threat whilst inspectors were there’ , like this is the guy who gassed his own people & later massacred Kuwait & which some Intelligence asserted there were WMD’s (hindsight wrong)]‘
You cannot invade a country for human rights abuses without the UN sanctioning any such invasion. To do so creates a precedent for invading any country (even the US for Guantanemo Bay).
And Iraq was not a threat to the US, thus no grounds for invasion existed under the UN Convention.
The ALP did not support the invasion of Iraq. You cannot invade a country on a POSSIBLE threat.
The UN gave the US an opportunity to provide proof. The US provided “proof”, the UN looked at what the US provided them and found nothing.
That’s what they got, and it still wasn’t enough for the Bush-Crazy neoconservatives.
No they didn’t, how exactly did the authorisation as passed put any conditions on Bush? – See link.
765 – Grinch
I do not whinge or use rude provocation as a general rule. My previous posting history indicates this, whereas you on the other hand seldom have anything beyond mere stupidity to add.
Here is a simple rule. I do not insult others that do not insult me first.
Its a simple rule to live by and how most of the other posters post on this forum.
However, its hardly an insult to call your posts moronic, because truth is a defence to defamation.
During the height of the “Vietnam” street protests of hundreds of thousands of protesters , at its leader I read was the inspiring rhetoric of Dr Jim Cairns
of a new politics and ‘change’ message for a disallusioned with the ‘right’ public
but without Jeremah’s religous stamp.
Has Dr Jim Cairns reincarnated in the US ? The similarities are frightening
Just for the record, this whole shitfight happened when the Grinch posted at 732 with a personal insult.
I’m happy ignoring him and his stupidity on the whole (especially after last time), but note that he is always the instigator.
Ron -
the invasion of Iraq was an abomination. It has been proved to be one of the most unwarrented and disastrous acts by the US military in it’s history. Even conservatives are critical of the action although they were all too ready to believ the out and out lies told at the time : ie: WMD’s – not there. A nuclear attack could hit Londodn within 40 minutes. Crap. Removal of Saddam would bring peace to Iraq. Nonsense. and best of al…It’s not about Oi l- f*cking bullsh*t. (excuse me).
While you pontificate about the political nuances that may or may not have happened when Iraq was invaded the cold hard facts remain: hundreds of thoiusands of innocent civilians have been killed as a result of this action. Hunndreds of thousands more have been displaced, injured, traumatised, and had their lives ruined.
It was wrong then. It’s wrong now. And Clinton supported it.
“my parents also never believed in Santa.”
That’s too bad, Finn. Might actually help to explain why you want to cling to Hillary Rodham Rosebud so. They stiffed you with respect of the traditional largesse of Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy too?
Yes, Finn, this explains quite a lot really. You had no toys as a child.
So when you find a reason to believe in something, you don’t want to let it go easily in case there’s nothing left to replace it. In case you have to confront the awful truth head-on and acknowledge to your tormentors that what you so desperately believed in, was nothing but illusion. That another strong and powerful parental figure has once again failed to deliver for you, has reinforced your denial, rendering you incapable of being nurtured at rationality’s bosom. Thereby leaving you hapless and betrayed like another dud Rosebud.
We Obamaphiles want to coax you into a little catharsis here. It’s what’s best for you, Finn, please understand that. We actually like you even though you’re a crazy cockamamie mixed-up kid. There are some here among us who think that with a little more humility, vulnerability and humanity you could become formidable as a dialectician and a logician.
But the Santa deal with your olds has left some rather nasty scars with lots of proud flesh. Now at least we know why you need to get it worked on. For that we are most grateful, Finn.
#738 Jen – [You know what I’m saying Finns. As a fellow leftie , try letting go - you’ll be relieved] – you mean like this?
“In a ritual I don’t understand, parents get great pleasure out of tricking their children into believing that a fat guy in a fluffy red outfit is going to come down their chimney on Christmas Eve and leave them gifts. Leaving aside the wisdom of taking advantage of children’s gullibility (why would they not believe what their parents tell them is true?), the concept of Santa Claus teaches children to reject capitalism and embrace socialism”
http://www.calicocat.com/2004/12/santa-claus-and-capitalism.html
Finns- I’ve threatened Mrs Diogenes with banning Santa and Christmas and coming clean with the kids. It lead-ballooned. How did your parents get away with it? Or do I have to change to another religion? Buddhism maybe…
“elongated torches with special tantric qualities”
Man, I miss all the good debates!
Oh Finns –
my kiddies Love Santa. As one said recently: he must be true ‘cos Mum could never afford all that stuff. And right she is.
It’s part of the magic of childhood – it’s just time that Hillary left it behind.
possum –
you don’t want to know!
Suffice to say there were alien abducyions, anal probes and steel cigars on PB a few nights ago. It’s what happens when the primaries are dragged out.
Re Santa,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQbyT0cUMNc
btw Grinch –
you’ve lost an e again.
should we read any significance into this?
is there any relationship to the lowercase/uppercase r/Ron mystery?
I figure the ‘ee’ is at work – that’s the GG the hardman by day, and eee is home at night – that’s where we get to see a little more of the character fleshed out with some youtubing, bawdy humour and such and such.
This may help explain…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDcmDAUdnQ
# 775 asanque ,
you have profoundly misunderstood or distorted both the political & actual complexities & nuances collectively I’ve listed variously over about 8 blogs to suit your view. A view I regard as simplistic anti war which I can get anywhere
I conclude by restating:
Bush wanted War. He was going to have war despite the UN & the minority Democrat Senators views. He wanted a blank cheque resolution for war without any reference to existing UN weapon inspections resolutions nor requiring to take them into consideration before acting. He did not get it because of the Democrats. You care to read the actual resolution.
I’ll stick by Edwards , Kerry , Biden & Clinton & 42% of Democratic Senators actions & the complex reasons behind their resolution vote with ‘conditions’.
You can stick with Obama’s stance of an empty vote of opposition , where war may extended anywhere & you are welcome to it
“I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging.”
-At the dedication of his portrait; Austin Texas;Jan 4 2002.
It would be standing room only.
Possum,
The late night version can be far more daring than normal programmes. The working name for the offshoot is “Big Bludger unplugged”.
asanque is leading the campaign to close it down.
Growler- that’s unkind and provocative. Asanqua and I have fun in the evenings too.
(My home computer has died so i can’t play at the moment.)
GG
I’m betting you blog from two different computers, one during the day with “ee” and uncensored “eee” adults only version at night. Although that mayonnaise disgrace was during the day…
and I should add , had Edwards , Kerry , Biden or Clinton , been POTUS there would NOT have been an invasion , but instead perseverance to further pressure Saddam to give Bix’s inspectors a fair & uninterrupted go.
I also suspect Obama would have also voted for the Iraq war resolution with conditions , along with his Democratic leadership for some or all of their reasons
790 – Ron
You contradict yourself and fail to address any of the points raised in my posts or Wikipedia.
If Bush wanted War, its incumbent on the senators to oppose the war as a matter of course.
I’m uncertain of what you claim is actually gained by putting ‘limited’ at best restrictions on Bush’s right to wage war, which were ignored in any case.
Surely a vote of ‘no’ is better then a vote of ‘we’ll try to restrict it but fail miserably’.
And I posted the actual resolution which did not have ANY reference to what would have been brave, which is actual UN sanction.
Such as that proposed by Levin:
This makes no sense whatsoever. You are claiming its worse to vote “no” entirely, then to vote “yes, but with limitations” that are completely ignored anyway.
Please explain.
btw Ron-
I know I am in no position to be correcting other people’s typos, but I think it’s Blix.
Not sure that it is an argument to say that if Hillary had been POTUS Iraq`wouldn;t have happened (seeing as she voted for it), or that Obi would have voted for it (seeing as he didn’t). I think that is known as Magical Thinking (what happened is not what happened just ‘cos we wish it was so).
792 – Grinch
You are not the board.
I’m leading the campaign to “close you down”
Frankly I don’t really care about the nonsense you come up with, as long as its not a personal insult towards me. I’m sure that myself like many others have gotten used to ignoring your posts a long time ago.
Ron @ 762-
With this info , the case that Saddam was a POSSIBLE threat was indesputably agreed by MOST Nations on this earth including the ALP,
All nations with a military are a “POSSIBLE” threat. Papua-New Guinea could at any moment launch an air attack using its Cessna and Iroquoi choppers against RAAF Base Tindal.
OTOH, could any unit of the Iraqi military have launched an attack, even one as modest of the potential PNG effort, against the U.S., Britain, Australia, or even a neighbouring country? Lets get the opinion of some guys that might have had knowledge of the true state of Iraq’s capacity to do harm:
24/2/2001: Secretary of State Colin Powell:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2001/02/iraq-010224zsb.htm
24/2/2001: Colin Powell:
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2001/february/me0224b.html
c. 20/4/2001: National Security Advisor Condi Rice:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html
16/9/2001: Vice-President Cheney:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
asanque , you missed the message I made. You choose not to consider the complexities & instead rely on simple assessment…an assessment based on selectively looking at events & context , so I can not help your understanding.
As I said , You can stick with Obama’s stance of an empty vote of opposition , where war may extended anywhere & you are welcome to it.
The longest standing dictator in the world may be on his way out.
“In a briefing to diplomats, independent election observers put the result at 55% for Tsvangirai, 36% for Mugabe and 9% for Makoni, with 66% of votes counted.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-zimbabwe31mar31,1,3636982.story
“JAPAN’S Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is “not concerned” about not hearing from Kevin Rudd, or
by the PM’s decision not to visit Japan”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23459407-601,00.html
jesus, or maybe i should say shinto. these japanese got a nerve to complain about our Dear Leader for not visiting japan in this trip and for not calling the japanese PM, Mr. Fukuda. For the later, it is protocol for the foreign leader to call the new leader to congratulate. Bush did it, Brown did it and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono did it.
For the last 5 years, Koizumi/Abe of japan in co-hort with Dubya and JWH have tried to gang up against the rise of China via its so called The Trilateral Dialogue. Japan also was very active in the background trying to use Taiwan’s independence as a wedge to the relationship between China/USA and China/Aust, especially under the old corrupt Pres. Chen Sui Bien. To their credit, Dubya and JWH told Japan to fcuk-off about Taiwan’s independence.
Japan is watching the rise of China with fear, anxiety, trepidation, jealousy and grudge. This is the Japan who stole everything from China and never even say a word of thank-you. This is the japan who invaded and raped China but wont tell their children about it in their history book. It was an “adventure” say the history books.
BTW: there are 3 movies coming out soon about the Rape of Nanking.
800 – Ron
What are you talking about? What is your message?
Which specific part are you unclear on?
Please enunciate clearly why Obama’s stance of a vote in opposition therefore means war may be extended anywhere.
If you could spin Pastorgate, at least make some effort at spinning Iraq.
I didn’t care enough about Pastorgate to comment, but I’m happy to provide a comprehensive rebuttal on the flawed Iraq venture.
802 – the Finns
Er.
This is the quote from the Japan PM
How is that complaining?
The whole thing is a media beat up by the useless right wing hacks at the Australian in any case.
The Japanese don’t really care that Rudd didn’t visit them. He’s going there later anyway.
799 MayoFeral
Ron @ 762 “With this info , the case that Saddam was a POSSIBLE threat was indesputably agreed by MOST Nations on this earth including the ALP,”
well thats great , do not finish what I said most nations wanted to do which would have proved they thought Saddam was a POSSIBLE threat. Its just the other Nations wanted Blix to have a fair go & uninterupted go to establish if the possible was real or not real
No , instead of believing most of the Nation’s views , you selectively quote Dick , Condi Rice & Colin Powell …people who otherwise you would never rely on to support an argument.
801
Diogenes
Remind me again, when was the last dictator voted out? LOL
806 KR
I’m guessing Marcos – and he ignored the result too.
Bring on the People Power!
807
Ferny Grover
Pussy ‘dictators’ if you ask me! Saddam never got less than 99.9999% of the vote! LOL
KR- It’s a great question. Plenty of them have “elections”. I believe Saddam was even more popular than the Ruddster and routinely got 99% of the vote.
Evidently all the booth results are up in the local polling booths, about 9000 of them, but there seems to be a lack of calculators or even an abacus in Zimbabwe to add them up. Still it does mean people at each booth will know the trend and may be displeased if the final result doesn’t seem to fit.
This is a site you can follow the results at. They’re not official though.
http://www.zimelectionresults.com/
asanque ,
Suffice to say I support thr Democratic leadership of Edwards , Kerry Biden & Clinton and othe Democratic Senators for the complex reasons they had & some of which I’ve detailed , which are beyond your comprehension.
You continue to submit simplistic anti war simple assessment of Iraq
You can stick with Obama’s stance of an empty vote of opposition & where war may have extended anywhere and you are welcome to it , something I suspect you are uncomfortable with
811 – Ron
That’s a bit rude.
Perhaps if you explained it more clearly, then it would not be “beyond my comprehension”.
You have listed a number of reasons that I have rebutted.
You have replied to me 3 times with the same meaningless sentences that are not backed with any rationale whatsoever.
Until you answer further, I am unsure how you expect anyone to take your posts on this issue with any credibility. People are unwilling to accept your unsubstantiated opinion. On the other hand, I’ve referenced Wikipedia twice and specifically the Authorisation itself.
You have also failed to explain in any detail why a “no” vote is worse than a “yes with restrictions” vote that completely failed in its purpose.
811 – Ron
Funnily enough, you’ve accepted the democratic leadership of Kerry, Edwards, Biden and co, despite each of them (apart from Clinton) noting that their “yes” vote was a mistake and an error on their part.
Reference to 813
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-28-edwards-2008_x.htm
Ron @ 805 -
799 MayoFeral
Ron @ 762 “With this info , the case that Saddam was a POSSIBLE threat was indesputably agreed by MOST Nations on this earth including the ALP,”
well thats great , do not finish what I said most nations wanted to do which would have proved they thought Saddam was a POSSIBLE threat. Its just the other Nations wanted Blix to have a fair go & uninterupted go to establish if the possible was real or not real
So? What does the beliefs of other nations have to do with how Clinton, Edwards and the others voted on the resolution for war? The only material factor is what the U.S. government thought and had said on the record, and as I point out, until the Bush administration decided to launch its unprovoked, illegal war on Iraq senior members of the administration believed Saddam posed no threat to anyone outside that country. Clinton, et al, should have been aware of that. They should also have at the very least read the intelligence brief before voting. They didn’t. Most of those who did voted against.
No , instead of believing most of the Nation’s views , you selectively quote Dick , Condi Rice & Colin Powell …people who otherwise you would never rely on to support an argument.
Please point to anything in the sources I quote that in any way alters what is said in the passages I did quote. And how are the opinions of the VP, Sec of State and National Security Advisor not relevent? Weren’t they 3 of the 4 or 5 most important players making the case for war? If I’d quoted several of the many who’d opposed it you would have also alleged bias, wouldn’t you?
Ron, you can rewrite history as much as you like to ‘prove’ how right Clinton was to vote for war, but the fact is she voted to allow the President of the United States to launch an unprovoked war of aggression against a country which posed no threat to America. Even if Iraq was knee deep in WMD’s it still wouldn’t have been a threat. To believe otherwise you’d must a) demonstrate a capacity to deliver them in sufficient quantity to do more than superficial harm to the U.S., and b) provide convincing evidence that Saddam was madder than a turpentined cat. For only a madman would attack the U.S. with WMDs and expect to live and prosper.
The real explanation for Clinton’s vote for war is that she believed she would be politically damaged if she didn’t and her ambitions were far more important that the lives of a some Iraqis! To quote her husband’s Sec of State, Madeline Albright when asked about the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi babies and toddlers due to sanctions: “the price is worth it”
asanque
it is completely futile engaging with Ron. The more you engage with him the more claptrap every visitor to this site has to browse through. He obviously has no clue about Iraq.
i for one am no longer interested in Ron’s rambling inane arguments or GG’s sniping blogging style.
Looking forward to reading informative posts and contributing now and then.
Impending suite of endorsements for Obama according to the Washington Post.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html
woop – Wall Street Journal
Ah,
HarryH, the Zag to Arseanques Zig.
It really is “Send in the Clowns” time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8C1Kw-hy58
junior senator @817- yep, she’s been caught bluffing and called on it. I think the ‘I’ll take this to a floor fight at the convention’ comment really hurt her. A lot of these SDs are up for election in November as well, and the last thing they want is for the fight to drag on that far and look part of a petty scrap. The North Carolina delegation moving as one could be big. If that reinforces a huge win there it might give Edwards an opening to step up with an endorsement.
SDs are coming under more scrutiny now, and won’t be able to sit on the fence for too much longer. I think even June is a stretch – there is no chance of getting to August. There is a new page up at Demconwatch about the ‘Pelosi Club’ – those offering implicit Obama support by reaffirming a democratic process. It should wedge a few more out into the open: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/superdelegates-pledging-to-back.html
Today on PB a discussion on the revisionist perspective on Hillary’s vote to invade Iraq in 2002 has raged.
Meanwhile a large grand piano has begun to slip perilously in its cradle 5 floors above a yellow brick sidewalk in Rochester NY. Walking briskly along the sidewalk towards what will soon be the point of impact is a yellow pinafore dress-clad 61 year old woman with a fermentous imagination, whistling “Somewhere, Over the Rainbow”. Can the Wizard warn her in time? Can anyone?
See below for the next exciting episode:
Pancho @ 770 & repeated by junior senator @ 817
Spot-on reference Pancho. Some other bits of that article from the Wall street Journal bear quoting:
“Meanwhile, elected officials in other states with upcoming contests, including Indiana, Montana and Oregon, are weighing whether to endorse Sen. Obama.” …
“Since the “Super Tuesday” primaries on Feb. 5, Sen. Obama has won commitments from 64 superdelegates and Sen. Clinton has gotten nine. “ …
“Even raising the prospect of a convention fight could backfire for Sen. Clinton by antagonizing the superdelegates she needs. Many superdelegates are on the ballot themselves this year, and the last thing they want is a chaotic convention that plays into the hands of Republicans.”
2002 was then – this is now.
Growler , you misunderstand the “rules of engagement”
You must accept all ‘barbs’ thrown at you by obamabots & others irrespective.
You are allowed to throw return fire ‘barbs’ as long as the Omamabot’s feelings are not hurt by them
hope you repent
JV,
This is the team in charge of the Obama piano pushing team.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5XX9LX2es4
#822
Ron – I would interested in what your definition of an ‘obamabot’ is and who you believe are the obamabots posting on this site.
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the support. But truly, I am am totally impertinent to their barbs.