home
How many of them care? (none / 0) (#24)
by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:23:44 PM EST
I haven't seen any evidence of Obama's supporters taking this seriously at all. Perhaps his taking credit for other's work is not a big deal, nor his apparent plaigerism issue, nor his repeated "me too" of Hillary's positions and work.

[ Parent ]
Adopting the good ideas (none / 0) (#30)
by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
of others is a good thing....Separating the good ideas from the bad ideas is the issue....

[ Parent ]
Not when you claim them as your own (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:42:10 PM EST
It is good to adopt good ideas, but it is important to give credit where it is due. Obama took credit for writing a lot of good bills that were not his. If he had done that in an academic institution, his career would be over. In politics, it is accepted practice, but that doesn't make it right.

[ Parent ]
A bill is not (none / 0) (#40)
by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
an academic paper.  If it is accepted practice, it sounds as if it doesn't violate the ethical standards for bill sponsorhsip.

[ Parent ]
It may be technically right (none / 0) (#44)
by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:04:17 PM EST
But it still stinks. Especially when the person who is taking credit for the work is using that work as proof that they have experience that they don't have.  

[ Parent ]
It is not accepted.... (none / 0) (#54)
by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
practice for working and introduction of bills.  Sponsorship is just that - we are not talking about sponsoring bills (which is adding your support to a bill).  We are talking about the creation and hard work in passing the bills - and no one wants "free loaders" to lie and take credit.  Case in point Dodd, an Obama backer did not allow Obama to take credit for the Dodd/Frank bill on mortgages.

[ Parent ]
I agree with the exception (none / 0) (#37)
by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:45:15 PM EST
that if Obama gave credit to those whose ideas he adopts, he looks like a suckup. Where are his brave, audacious new ideas? His advisors are republican lite on social security, Healthcare, and the economy. Where are his new ideas going to come from? Hillary? His choice of advisors, like Powers, seem over the top and difficult to swallow. If Powers was his choice is a pro-palestine view his real perspective? Or anti-Israel? Consider his "mentor's" views on Israel. It is not reassuring. And to be left to rely on Obama's not so perfect judgment on which persons to be close too, or which ideas to accept, I am not reassured.

[ Parent ]
Obama is looking more naive to me. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM EST
I think his logic with Wright and perhaps others was:

This/Religion is my private life and has nothing to do with my public life.  Even though JFK's religion speech was necessary and Romney's religion worked against, despite his (painfully clumsy) speech about it.  

I think Obama does not realize that in politics and especially presidential politics, anything at all is fair game.  Anything. at. all.

He's running against Hillary Clinton who has been through almost every kind of media scrutiny for decades.  Surely he didn't think that the Clintons were a special case and that no one else would be subjected to that.  Kerry's swiftboating?  Someone who voluntarily served in Vietnam being attacked for his service?  The press and rumor mongers could make an issue out of who his tailor is if they wanted to.  They've done it for hair cuts!  Katie Couric asked John Edwards about Elizabeth's illness.

In politics, there really are no sacred cows.  

[ Parent ]

Israel (none / 0) (#42)
by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:00:51 PM EST
I don't agree that he is not good on Israel....But his schmoozing of Bloomberg may have a point....

Putting Bloomberg on the ticket as VP would be different and put Florida back in play.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft