From The Pols Do Not Always Tell The Truth Dep't

I know this will come as a big shock to Obama adulators, but Barack Obama does not always tell the truth:

He also did not tell the whole truth about what he said about Ronald Reagan or what he was conveying about Republicans being the party of ideas fighting the conventional wisdom. He also started the attacks, personal or otherwise last night.

Unlike some people, this does not bother me. I always knew Barack Obama was just a pol. Heck, I have been criticizing him for picking the wrong POLITICAL strategy. Even now I do not question his commitment to a progressive and Democratic agenda, nor do I question Hillary's. I think Kevin Drum nails what the question is now:

I believe that both candidates are (a) not only electable, but highly likely to win against any Republican opponent, and (b) close enough on policy issues that their differences are far less important than their ability to get things done. I know that not everyone agrees about this, but this is my starting point. So who would be more effective at moving a progressive agenda forward once they got elected?

I've written what I think is wrong with Obama's approach too many times to count while also explaining why I think IF he comes to adopt a more partisan approach he is in the best position to get a progressive agenda fowarded. But everyone will have their own opinons on that. But I do believe that is the central question now.

< Fred Thompson Quits Presidential Race | Consitutional Questions for Barack Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ouch (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:27:07 PM EST
    That video is too powerful to go away anytime soon.  Contrast that with Hillary Clinton's statement during the debate last night that Universal Health Insurance was a core Democrative value and it results in a solid blow in favor of Clinton.  This is a Democratic primary after all, which Obama seems to keep forgetting.

    I'll say it again BTD... Axelrod.

    Btw, on a somewhat related note, about the debate last night... If Clinton had been as openly angry, frustrated and full of personal animus as Obama was, would the media have ever given her a pass on it?  They love to call her shrill and it seems that term is only applied to women by the chauvinists, but Obama came very close.

    No he would not have (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    But he is a Media Darling.

    It is his most important asset now.


    he's the darling now (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    but if he ends up against McCain in the general, then it's: "sorry Barack, our true love has arrived."

    That does worry me (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:45:39 PM EST
    More than anything, I hope the GOP base turns on McCain.

    Go Mittster!!!


    No (none / 0) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:22:11 PM EST
    She would have been shrill and vicious.  And why is vicious not spelled viscious?  

    the double standard lives (none / 0) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    Sometimes I see people calling her shrill who seem to be doing it on purpose in order to inflame the sentiments of her supporters.  The criticism of the use of that word has been out there quite loudly and yet they insist on the sexist language.  (Mark Halperin, I am talking to you.)

    Got a better word? (none / 0) (#74)
    by fullcircle on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    Maybe people use the word shrill because it is the one that comes to mind when she raises her voice in an argument? The criticism of the word is that it is  sexist, but can you say why it is sexist other than the fact that women have higher voices than men?

    Is booming sexist? Gruff? Gravelly? Is it sexist to say she is short too? The double standard is not so much of a factor as the fact that her voice is annoying at higher volumes.

    HRC is a woman, and as such adjectives that are commonly used to describe females may occasionally come into play.  


    here's the problem (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:49:26 PM EST
    First of all, good luck selling that argument.  I think I heard some crickets dying from the silence.

    Hillary's voice is not in any way "high" in pitch.

    So even under your definition, it is not accurate to call it shrill.


    Here is Rush on HRC's crossing (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    her ankles during the second part of last night's debate:



    WOW (none / 0) (#108)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:00:49 AM EST
    that is disgusting, but I expect nothing less from that pig

    Please re-read (none / 0) (#120)
    by fullcircle on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:31:50 AM EST
    I never said Hillary's voice is high, nor did I define shrill. I said women have higher voices than men. I did say her voice it annoying at high volume, which is admittedly a subjective call.

    The point is she will be stuck with the word because she can't stop people from finding her voice unpleasant when she yells. One of the most common words to use when describing a loud, unpleasant, female voice is shrill. It is only sexist because it is rarely used to describe a man, unless it is used to indicate that he sounds like a woman.Find a recording of Hillary yelling and ask people to describe the sound. Shrill, screeching, what other words would you expect to be used and how many of them are gender neutral?

    I am sure by now that Hillary is aware of the fact that yelling is not a good approach for her to use in  any verbal exchange, and that the only time her voice will be described as commanding is when it carries the force of her ideas or her personality.

    I don't dislike Hillary, but I think often people are a little too defensive about her gender.  Sometimes a word is used because it is the word that comes to mind,the gender bias of the word says more about the world than the subject.


    BS (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    It has nothing to do with the quality of the voice per se. Yes when she acts powerful and raises her voice, calling her shrill is a way to say a woman should not be president.

    It is a way to imagine her less powerful, and a put down. If she had a voice transmuter that could change her voice when she was acting powerful, you would put her down in another way. It is not  the voice it is that she is a woman in a mans world.


    shrill is not an adjective i much (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    care for as there are a number of others that could be used. commanding comes to mind for example. see the difference. i once wrote an article on how the use of certain words in a report could change and influence the meaning whereas other words describe the same situation without that impact. the federal reserve liked it so much, they published it.

    i have also seen shrill used for written words and for men. so just using it for hillary alone is inflamatory and not accurate.


    This is why people can't discuss politics civilly (none / 0) (#137)
    by fullcircle on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:16:00 PM EST
    I have already asked for one re-read and yet both of you seem to have ignored what I have written and inserted your own assumptions.

    Commanding is not a word that would typically be used to replace the word shrill.

    As I said before, it doesn't matter if Hillary or anyone else doesn't LIKE the word shrill it will be applied by the person that chooses to characterize the sound of her voice. That tells you more about that person than it does about Hillary.

    Shrill is not, nor will it ever be a word that has been used for Hillary alone. Hellothere, you say that you have seen shrill used to describe men and written words, and then you say it is inflammatory and inaccurate to use it for Hillary alone. Who suggested it should be used for Hillary alone? When was it established that is was being used only in relation to Hillary (specially when you just said you have heard other uses that presumably had nothing to do with labeling a strong woman as a harridan)?

    Squeaky (seriously, Squeaky?), you assume that when someone uses the word shrill in relation to Hillary they are not talking about her tone of voice, but is that because you like Hillary or because you think that the word choice could not be an honest one? I never put Hillary down, unless saying that her voice is annoying when she yells is a put down. I said her voice could be described as commanding when it was backed by her ideas or personality.

    Forget what calling Hillary shrill says about her, decide what it says about the speaker. It is a word that can be used to define a tone of voice, and is a word that can be used as a sexist pejorative. Everyone doesn't fit in one category just because Hillary is a strong woman.

    Edward does that stupid thumb point thing, Obama falls into to preacherish rhythms too much when her speaks. Rudy looks like something died on his head, McCain can't throw overhand,Romney is an alien wind up toy. There, have I spread the hate far enough too satisfy people that I am not picking on Hillary? I just think she has an annoying voice when she yells and I think some people use the word shrill because it leaps to mind. Yes the media and the Republicans use it to put her down, but some people just think it is accurate when she yells even if they like her. Please tell the other word police to put their ticket books away.


    hmm, frequently words like shrill (none / 0) (#139)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:02:30 PM EST
    have different shades of meaning depending on the person and what they are saying or writing. so far, most of those using the word shrill for hillary are being highly critical and very ugly.

    does that apply to you? i don't know. i don't think she is shrill and yup i think it is an attempt by those who use it to characterize her in a negative manner.

    by choosing words that describe and don't attack is civil by the way.


    Is this correct? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Did Obama actually go with Michelle on one of her job interviews to make sure they were "up to snuff?"

    I think my ovaries just went up into my throat.  And back again.  And here they are in my throat and it tastes like I have swallowed my own vomit.

    Can someone investigoogle better than me?  I've only found it mentioned on one site, so maybe it's just some sort of legend to make me cross into hating him (though, honestly, I would still vote for him in the general election.  Hate is relative when you are fighting the republicans, and it's not like he wouldn't be the first misogynist to sit in the Oval Office...or the last)


    According to this Chicago Tribune (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    interview, yes:



    WOW (none / 0) (#78)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    that article makes Obama and his wife look really calculating.....WOW

    I'm so (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:33 PM EST
    tired of this line about the media not being fair to Clinton.  At some point she has to take responsibility for her short coming, sexism a biased media, the right wing machine, how many excuses are there.

    Contrast that with Hillary Clinton's statement during the debate last night that Universal Health Insurance was a core Democratic value

    If universal Health care is such a core democratic value, why didn't they make another attempt in the Clinton Admin.  He was there two terms, if she learned so much from the first attempt, why didn't she get it done in the second?

    Two terms and the Clinton's have failed on health care on both, why give her a 3rd? That sounds like blind optimism to me.


    No doubt, Dole had a plan (none / 0) (#82)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    why did the clintons leave it out when they addopted the rest of his platform?

    Funny You Should Mention That (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:06:29 AM EST
    Dole did introduce several health care bills in the Senate, they had his name on them and everything.  And then he voted against them as part of the broader Republican decision to kill any kind of healthcare reform.  

    Keep posting BTD even though I (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:28:56 PM EST
    know you have to work now and then. DK is in full meltdown now. Even Psi has a diary about not voting for Clinton. You are my sanity. This video evidence wouldn't be allowed there.

    p/s My Vols are playing Kentucky on ESPN right now. And your young Gators are very impressive so far. I'm a big Billy fan.

    Psi (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:38:28 PM EST
    has been fairly idiotic for quite a long time now.

    This is not new for him.

    Yes, I call them as I see them.

    NOTE: If Psi posted here I would not be allowed to call him idiotic.


    That's why. . . (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:25:33 PM EST
    I came back.

    Melissa McEwan (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:37:15 PM EST
    Ms. McEwan summarizes my problems with being told to take Obama on faith:
    Supporting a candidate shouldn't have to be a faith-based initiative, but blind faith is exactly what my support of Obama requires. I have to ignore that he voted to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State, that his reflexive framing to appeal to moderates alienates progressives, that he endorsed Lieberman, that he supports McCain's immigration plan, that he punted when asked about Pace's bigotry against gays, that he opposes impeachment because he doesn't think Bush has gravely breached his authority (despite claims to the contrary in letters to his constituents), that he has gotten muddled in softball interviews to terrible effect, that he shared a stage with an anti-gay bigot, that he's on the wrong side of the Social Security debate, that he's used sexist attacks (as have his surrogates) against Hillary, that he hasn't been rigorously vetted, that he sloppily invokes ideological opponents despite assertions that he doesn't like their policies, and that he calls for reconciliation without balance. That's a tall order for faith, friends.

    And there's something else, tangentially related, that undermines my faith. Obama positions himself as transcending the ugliness of partisanship, but I like knowing that Edwards and Hillary hate the [expletive deleted] Republicans as much as I do. I love it when Edwards gets into his zone and talks about corporate greed with fury at the anti-American fatcats seething so clearly just below the surface. I love it when Hils talks about the GOP through gritted teeth and hides a snarl behind a smile when the name Bush passes her lips. I trust that. And I trust it because I can't imagine anyone who believes the things I do isn't that. [expletive deleted]. angry. at the Republicans at this point. I want to see that anger. I want to feel it. I want to recognize and connect with it.

    She also talks about his inability to defend his record, particularly his present votes, last night and how much that worries her.  I don't agree with everything she says, but she captures a lot of my concerns about Obama.

    Fair points (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:41:24 PM EST
    I accept that I am operating on faith to a large degree here.

    Well said, BDB (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM EST
    and I might add:  beginning with the last night's debate, BHO is beginning to sound whiny, now, even complaining that Hillary has left Bill and Chelsea to campaign in So. Carolina.  I don't exactly understand the point he wants to convey.  I my opinion, any candidate has the right to determine their own campaign strategy and itinerary. Is he concerned that Hillary gets to campaign sooner with the 2/5 primaries while he has to keep watch over So. Carolina?  Perhaps he is not so confident of winning So. Carolina yet.

    IMO (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:25:16 PM EST
    sites like DKOS and others have done a grave injustice to the democratic party as they have gone over board in cutting down the Clintons (who are and were the shining stars of the party) in order to support Obama...that is very foolish and they will have large egg on their faces....

    what will (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    be Obama's downfall is video, I agree....He tends to change his story everytime he is questioned and people that do that are easy to trip up and expose....He wouldnt last long with the full attack machine of the republicans after him...

    Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:29:16 PM EST
    Kerry had a similar problem.  Neither has mastered the art of defending yourself without leaving huge openings that can be exploited.

    Let me flatter BTD by saying this, but I think the way he defends his arguments on the blogs is a great example of how to always "close the case" without letting the guard down.  Like an immediate shield comes up and the other party is left pounding against a solid wall of anti-bullshi* granite.


    No need to flatter me (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:40:30 PM EST
    Nothing you can say positive about me I have nbot already said to myself.

    "BTD is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I have ever known . . ."


    I've heard that too (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    My sock puppets no doubt.

    oh god (none / 0) (#36)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:00:31 PM EST
    you probably have sock puppets to flatter your other sock puppets.

    do you also have arguments with yourself just to win once in a while?  

    with love,
    (not a BTD sockpuppet)


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:08:39 PM EST
    For the record, I have never had a sock puppet.

    Would have been fun to make one though thinking on it.

    Well, in the old days. Nothing would be fun at daily kos now.

    It really is horrible now.

    Not the FPers, or even all the folks, but the general community is unbelievably vapid.


    You Forgot One Of Your Most Endearing (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:35:08 PM EST
    characteristics - Humility

    Obama is not going to change his (none / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    stripes BTD. In his core he is David Broder.

    We might find out in 8 years (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:37:14 PM EST
    Because I do believe he will be the VP in 2009.

    Yes, Obama is likely to be the running mate to Hillary.

    Watch the dkos heads explode.


    It makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    Unify the party and make the GOP work for their Southern base by recreating the Jimmy Carter coalition of moderate white Southerners and (highly motivated like you have never seen motivated before)  AA voters. They won't win the South, but they might just take the Carolinas and VA.

    More than that (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:43:08 PM EST
    Can you imagine the Media darling status of THAT historic ticket?

    What a way to defuse the Media hatred of Hillary.

    I think it is a no brainer.


    You think so? After last night? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:39:52 PM EST
    I'd hate to see the ad used against them on that.

    it could happen (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:42:16 PM EST
    Think of it like Kobe and Shaq.  We want that ring.  These are our superstars.

    better still think (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    Reagan Bush (no-one do that voodoo like Reagan do)
    or JFK-LBJ.

    I would personally love it. The (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    strongest ticket I could imagine. Use Hillary's partisan ideas and let Obama charm the other side to support them.

    Last night made it more likely (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    Need to pull the Party together.

    No other VP helps like Obama does. Webnn maybe but I have little confidence that Webb would be a good VP type.

    Obama will have been vetted, is a media darling and all the thing I wrote in my other comment.


    I'm not a huge fan of Webb. I hope she (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    chooses Clark if she wins and if Obama says no.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:49:57 PM EST
    I think it is a no brainer.



    I like Clark but see him more (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:05:19 PM EST
    as a Secretary of State or Defense

    Legally, can't be Defense...n/t (none / 0) (#51)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:22:10 PM EST
    If he's still subjected to the 10 year rule (none / 0) (#67)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:49:07 PM EST
    there is another way...
    Congress had passed a law to allow George Marshall to be appointed in 1950 despite having only been a civilian since 1945

    No kidding! Well, whoop de doo... (none / 0) (#109)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    More options!

    I love how you guys rip him apart (none / 0) (#66)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    then hope he becomes VP.  How terribly inconsistent.

    The funny part (none / 0) (#73)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:00:32 PM EST
    "the cult of Obama".
    There were very few "core Democtatic values" that were not on the auction block during the 90s. BBBBut it will be different this time.

    You think he has to be the VP, right? (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    He has to sacrifice his ambition to keep the party together.

    Its not a sacrifice (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    She has to offer it, he doesn't have to accept it. He be a fool not to. The Senate is a terrible platform to run for the President from. All you can do is cast votes that will come back to haunt you.

     The VP's office is a much better place to run for the presidency from since Milhaus did it in 1960.


    Has to? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    Excuse me, he would want to. Would DEMAND it.

    Why? In 8 years, if they win, he is the automatic nominee. He will be 54.

    If they lose, he is the automatic nominee in 4 years.

    Seriously, unopposed.

    NO WAY he does not take it.

    More of a risk of Hillary stupidly not giving it to him.


    The question would be (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    could she trust him to be loyal and a team player?

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:54:14 PM EST
    Ego makes people do stupid things. See Ted Kennedy 1980. I don't think HRC would not offer to him- unless her ego got in the way. The Clinton's are political animals, they are not naifs.

    Carter could not offer VP in 80 (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:57:47 PM EST

    I was a afraid that would get misinterpreted (none / 0) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    Ted's ego was  challenging in the 1st place- when it was clear his heart wasn't in it. You will recall he could not answer the simple why are you running question when he announced.

    However, the context I made the remark was in terms of VP which balled it up.


    What about Edwards? (none / 0) (#38)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:03:57 PM EST
    Anyone else agree with me that his days as a potential VP choice are over?

    The attack dog role is not his best.  He gained no traction with it earlier in this campaign against Hillary but now that he has gone back to his more natural optimistic style he seems to have regained the footing.


    Mostly I like Edwards but HRC cannot offer (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:14:55 PM EST
    the VP to him, unless Obama turns it down. Since I agree Obama is a pol (to quote someone) I don't see him turning it down.

    I think as ugly as this has been, its a no brainer for HRC to offer it- unless there is some skeleton out there.  I think Bill would advise her to.

     I think Edwards can be an attack dog- look what he did to Obama at the last debate. Can he be consistent? I don't see it happening anyway.

    As an aside, I think SC will be Obama's last hurrah. HRC is ceding it to him and campaigning in the super Tuesday states. Like it or not, the upstart challenger hasn't won since 1976 in the Democratic primaries. I say this as a Hart supporter in 1984, a Gore supporter in 1988, and as a Dean supporter in 2004.  It is to Obama's credit he has gotten this far. I think we have watched HRC turn Obama into just another pol (that BTD always knew he was). She has  taken some of the magic from him. I think I finally know how I am going to vote all of a sudden.  


    2004 (none / 0) (#49)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:18:47 PM EST
    Edwards did not convince me of his strenght as VP in 2004.  That is all I will say, because mostly it's not positive.  However I am willing to give him a chance.  I do believe in people "finding their voice" Ahem.

    Between Obama & Edwards for VP (none / 0) (#54)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:23:12 PM EST
    I think Hillary would rather have Edwards.  Edwards has not said too many personal things against Hillary that he would have to swallow.  Obama has been personal and it might just be thrown back at him by their opposition.  Edwards and Hillary are not really too far apart in terms of policy especially on Health Care.  

    But I would not be surprised if Hillary does not choose either one of them and opts instead for someone like Clark which would give her more national/defense cover.


    Well he does seem to have ego (none / 0) (#39)
    by ogo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM EST
    I agree and it is becoming visible (none / 0) (#68)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:49:58 PM EST
    today I read where he was testy with a reporter who asked him if Bill Clinton has gotten inside his head.  I read it in Huffington Post with a link to the article.  Not good.  If he does not win the nomination this time, he may not be a viable candidate even four years from now.

    His early popularity might just be a question of "fairy gold dust" sprinkled around.  Because I have listened to some of the speeches he has made; he does seem to absorb energy from the audience, but he has not really  expounded on anything so spectacular that has not been said well by some other politicians in the past.  I recall of course, Patrick Henry,  John Kennedy, Martin Luther King.

    No matter who wins the democratic nomination, the majority of democrats would enthusiastically support anyone who can replace Bush.


    This is a surprising comment. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    Duly noted.

    [Is this apparent shift due to last night's debate?]


    I'd bet you on that one (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:40:02 AM EST
    Never happen. There's only room for one of them on the ticket.

    Neither one of us received a reply. (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM EST

    I think (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    you folks believe political rifts are irreparable.

    I think that is silly.


    But, that wasn't my question. (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    You imply HRC will be the Dem. nominee.  Why?  

    She is the favorite (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    Do you think she is not?

    I'm waiting to see who the L.A. Times (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:21:26 AM EST

    Historically outsiders have not been the nominee (none / 0) (#133)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    since 1976. Its a good bet HRC will be the nominee. I actually think it more important to elect more and better Democrats to Congress.

    thanks btd, that is exactly (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    what i have been thinking. i would love to see edwards get a cabinet post.

    He's been outed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    So he's liable to be more progressive than he lets on.
    I suppose this is a problem?

    Too funny (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    Just when I needed an example of the adulators I was referring to.

    but to accept your spin, don;t you mean he WAS more progressive than he is NOW?

    But you know the real point, Obama did not tell the truth last night. OR in the parlance of the Hillary hating Obama support - he lied his butt off about this last night.

    Obama is a liar.

    He disgusts me. I can never vote for him.

    I loathe HIM.

    NOTE: this was me doing an Obama cult member imitation.


    Been there done that got the tee shirt (none / 0) (#44)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:13:17 PM EST
    and will never support the clintons again. They will sell you out on the big things. They sold us out on the big things. Her bankruptcy vote is a textbook example. It's who she is what she will always be.

    If Obama's a closet single payer guy I can live with that. Hell, it's the way I think it needs to be done.


    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:18:23 PM EST
    What if he is a closet liar?

    Now, I find your remark on the bankruptcy bill fascinating.

    Can you think of ANY votes by Obama that strike you as selling out? I can. but I am not a blind cult member.


    Well, he'll just have to learn to open up (none / 0) (#65)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    more if he gets the VP slot.
    I find the accusations that he campaigned on the promise not to fund the war disquieting.

    Someone's legislative carreer is just an indicator. If Hillary was just running from her Senate record, I'd have a different point of view of her. She's had the executive and I've got a real problem of how they handeled some fundimental things. Things like the bankruptcy bill just reinforces it.


    Is it possible... (none / 0) (#81)
    by fullcircle on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
    to be a closet liar AND be a politician? I don't think it would strain too many resources to dig up some video of HRC contradicting herself. My six second search found this.


    I am sure we can find similar footage on all of the candidates. They are highly skilled power-seeking-liar-missiles. That doesn't mean that some of them don't want to do some good things, but the hubris necessary to believe that THEY are the only one who can lead the nation on the correct path  makes a few lies seem like a fairly trivial necessity in service of their cause.


    O wad some Power the giftie gie us (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:42:55 PM EST
    O wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as ithers see us!
    It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
    An' foolish notion:
    What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
    An' ev'n devotion!

    That's really special Molly (none / 0) (#86)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    Thank you.

    The Rethugs fear Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by lily15 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    Obama would be their fondest dream...that should tell us something.  Get the video from tonight's Hannity and Colmes.  Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity are talking about how formidable Hillary will be. But they are moaning to each other about how unfair it is. How unfair it is that she is a woman and they will have to worry about attacking her or any backlash they will get if they are not careful.  How unfair it is that conservatives are under attack.  How unfair that she and her husband are so formidable and want power so much that they are willing to have a bare knuckles fight over it.  They looked positively nervous.  Sean kept asking Newt about what line of attack they should take...who was their strongest candidate.  What were they going to do.  It was very interesting to watch.  Hillary scares them...and that is good.

    related theory on Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    Have you noticed that many on the blogs and the MSM are hyperventilating about Bill Clinton's role in this campaign?  Saying he is too involved, that he's having "meltdowns" and being upresidential, etc.

    My impression is that much of that criticism stems from frustrations over not having been able to "knock him out" or "finish him" back in the 90s combined with a real fear of his political skills.   Not convinced?  Ask yourself this question everyone:

    If Bill Clinton was hurting himself and Hillary so badly with his comments and speeches.  If he was indeed having meltdowns and looking ridiculous... why would the Republicans or Barack Obama's campaign desire that he stop such behavior whatsoever?

    Wouldn't it be in their best interest to convince Bill Clinton to continue doing exactly what he is doing?  I mean if it so bad what he is doing, why do you want him to stop?  Geniune concern for his legacy or dignity? Hardly.

    They want him off the campaign trail because he pulls off some amazing political jujitsu.  He is the man of teflon.  The media cannot control him or bury him.  And in my opinion, he does help Hillary.  Not as much as Chelsea, but it's a plus nonetheless.

    We need Bill Clinton in our corner to take on the Republicans, not just this year but every year.  Let's just hope the poor guy doesn't tire himself out and nod off or something ;)


    Jon Stewart (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:27:54 PM EST
    had a video clip of slick Willie last night in which he said something along the lines of "I was walking through the (Las Vegas) casino and I overheard a (culinary worker union) supervisor telling his subordinate that if he didn't promise to caucus for Obama, the super would schedule him to be working at the time of the caucus so he couldn't caucus."

    I'm sorry, Bill Clinton, ex-POTUS, surrounded by guys with dark suits, earphones and Glocks, flanked by paparazzi, aids and lookers-on, amid the general hubbub of a casino, overheard an oblivious supervisor tell his subordinate this?

    The whole clip brought me back to the '90's with that same visceral disgust.

    Puhleeze. Pols don't lie.


    Thanks for making my point (none / 0) (#64)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    Do you see what I mean?  Follow the logic here.

    Barack Obama and his supporters in the media should be happy that Bill Clinton is out there bringing people "back to the 90s with that same visceral disgust."  But, no.  Instead they complain, they plead him to stop it.

    The Obama campaign is about change and contrast, correct?  He talks about not re-fighting the battles of the 90s often.  But in Bill Clinton they supposedly are seeing an out of control character straight from the 90s who is openly reminding everyone of what they are saying we need to change...

    But again... they denounce it.  They want it gone.  Why do this, if it is helping to make their point?

    It is illogical.  If Bill Clinton was truly hurting Hillary, they would encourage him to keep at it.  Notice that she has been winning ever since Iowa.


    sentence of two. The rest of the comment, fwiw, was about 15 too many sentences for me, and, I'd guess, much of blogdom to have the patience to read all the way through.

    Regardless, I don't doubt for a second that slick Willie helps in selling Hillary to their choir.

    However, I think the GE is a tad different, and he's turning non-choir members off now, in a big way, and maybe for good.

    That middle America finds her divisive may not only be related to how middle America views her...


    You forget (none / 0) (#90)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST
    You forget that Bill Clinton has a high approval rating (last I looked about 65%) in the democratic party.....Most democrats love him....Proven by the fact that no matter how much MSM or the blogs smear hatred about her she rises in the polls....

    I guess my point was about middle America (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    not "most Dems."

    but (none / 0) (#95)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    Middle America is mostly republicans and those states would go to them mostly....electoral college being what it is....Kinda like writing off South Carolina and concentrating on the bigger prize...

    other than Dems to get elected. And once elected, she'll need to be effective. A lightening rod may not be the most effective Pres.

    You assume the GOP won't attack (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:39:29 AM EST
    Obama or Edwards and paint them as whackos and turn them into lighting rods.  I find this amusing. Talk about fantasy. It will somehow be different if Obama is elected. How? Why? The GOP is still the GOP. This little bit of calculus never goes into the average Obama supporters calculating.

    As for the battles of the 90's- you would prefer the Clinton gave in to the Gingrich budgets?

    You don't want to refight the battles of the 90's, then elect more progressive Democrats to congress. Otherwise, you will be refighting those fights, regardless of whether Obama or Edwards is elected.


    My assumption is that (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    she is now, and would be if elected, the biggest lightning rod of the three. You are certainly free to hold differing assumptions.

    I think what you say is true (none / 0) (#132)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    I just don't think it will matter one iota. The GOP will oppose everything they can- which is why we need more and better Democrats (tell me again why I voted for Bill Nelson).

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    I've been intemperent twice now to posters (none / 0) (#135)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    I don't wish to be intemperent to. I've got to watch myself.

    Thanks for letting me know (none / 0) (#140)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:24:40 AM EST
    I was concerned I had been harsher than I intended or needed to be. There is a lot of that going around this season. I want to make an effort not to be.

    over 80% (none / 0) (#93)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:06:05 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#91)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    it seemed like you needed the extra sentences to process a simple point.  But anyway, let me keep this one short: Go check Obama's unfavorability numbers and get back to me.  See if they're much different from Hillary at this moment.

    Unfavorability, unflavorability, whatever. (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    Any such numbers, at this point, are irrelevant to my point. A lot of middle Americans - ie., many who are not Dems singing in her choir - think he's a POS. And the Jon Stewart video clip supports that view.

    I'm not trying to prove you wrong or convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. Listen and think, or not. It is your prerogative.


    I am (none / 0) (#101)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    I am a liberal democrat thru and thru...I fought in the trenches for them all my life...I will support whomever is nominated....Right now the democrats are leaning toward Hillary...Fact!!! they also love Bill....By cutting him down you go against the democratic party and as such you arent a true democrat....Think before you hurt the party....

    Good Lord. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:23:43 PM EST
    You sound like GW.

    Nope (none / 0) (#103)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:30:53 PM EST
    No, I sound like a proud democrat that wants to win the white house this year...nothing more and nothing less....there is alot at stake....

    athyro, I agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:28:33 AM EST
    We are losing sight of the big picture here, especially those who say they will not vote or--worse--will vote republican if their candidate loses (or "looses," as is more commonly stated).  This is why the democrats for a day worry me.  We need democrats for a lifetime.  Let's not win the battle but loose (haha!) the war.

    vetting (none / 0) (#35)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    I think the only thing that would stop the offer to him as VP is if there really is more to the case involving that guy in Chicago....then it would be hands off entirely....

    Until Obama stupidly started the racism charges (none / 0) (#42)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:11:05 PM EST
    Hillary pretty much limited her crtiticisms to Obama's inexperience - leaving the VP wide open for him.  A Hillary/Obama ticket would be a win-win-win for the country, the Democrats, and Obama

    the minute (none / 0) (#45)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    he brought up racism to the dialogue he lost my respect....that is such an old and tired argument and has no place in presidential politics.....

    Have you read... (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST
    Pat Buchanan had some things to say about the racial dynamics that may now be hurting Barack Obama.

    Considering that Pat sees just about everything through a racial prism, it is not surprising he is writing about this but there is an article from him out there.  I will not link it but if you can "Google News" the word "Ghettoizing" and Buchanan and it will show up.

    What scares me is that the MSNBC folks seem to have no problems with his anti-semitism and ethnic xenophobia and it makes me wonder if they all sit around smiling and nodding and agreeing with him on these things.


    Here is the (none / 0) (#75)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:01:01 PM EST
    Link that the previous poster was alluding to. It is a very good article....

    yep (none / 0) (#77)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    That's the one.  It may very well be what is happening to Barack, but I disagree with Buchanan's implication that the Clintons deliberately set out to accomplish the "Ghettoizing"

    If anything I think Obama has been burying himself by getting tangled in the back and forth, thus losing his halo as an above-it-all candidate.  He made that choice.  He could have easily continued to glide with his message of hope, ignoring Bill Clinton, and allowing the friendly media to keep rolling out the red carpet.

    In the debate last night we hardly hear the words hope, change, or inspiration from him.  He is off message.  He can get back to it now, but it is his choice.


    don't forget he also pitted the (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    young against the older americans. why, i cannot understand.

    "Never" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    He means never in this campaign...

    Seriously though, anybody can be hit with a gotcha with short enough video clips spliced together from a career of any length at all in politics, particularly as a position grows more nuanced with time and experience.

    No wonder pols tend to just keep repeating the same safe stock phrases. Part of the answer no doubt to atrios's lament, Why is our discourse so stupid?

    well (none / 0) (#69)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    Why the need to nuance Universal Health Care?  I think that's what Hillary was getting at in the debate.  It is something you shoot for, unambiguously.  Go to the mat, shoot for the moon, hope you land close enough.

    Quit calling it Universal Healthcare (none / 0) (#70)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    It is not.  Hillary is not proposing Universal Healthcare, Edwards is not proposing Universal Healthcare and Obama is certainly not proposing Universal Healthcare.

    even in his video (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    Obama calls it Universal Healthcare!

    He says at one point: "single payer, universal health care"

    We will call it Universal Health Care because the Republicans shouldn't get to define this one.


    Well, we shouldn't (none / 0) (#80)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:52 PM EST
    Because it's not.  We are only doing a disservice to ourselves.  I support universal healthcare.  Kucinich was the only candidate with a solution and universal healthcare.

    results (none / 0) (#88)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST
    political strategists know that you have to oversell to sell at all.  

    Great (none / 0) (#107)
    by DA in LA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:58:19 PM EST
    From now on I'll call the death penalty "cake"

    too much (none / 0) (#110)
    by diplomatic on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    but interesting that you bring up the death penalty because it sort of ties into my point above.  Prosecutors seek the death penalty oftentimes but realistically hope for life without parole.  This concept is not easy to grasp if you're willing to grasp it instead of trying to score clever points.

    edit: (none / 0) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:20:31 AM EST
    meant to say "the concept is easy to grasp."

    By the way, regardless of the semantics here one thing was made clear to me last night: Barack Obama's package is less "universal" than that of Edwards or Clinton.

    If the top 2 issues going into Super Tuesday remain the economy and health care, then I think Clinton is in the strongest position.


    Why? Realism. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    That was a good line from her in the debate. I just wish her plan actually shot for the moon, which in this case would be universal single-payer, at a very low premium. But only Kucinich was idealistic enough to promise that. Hillary's plan is a mishmash that works within the current framework and will continue to support the corruption of the present system and its middle men, the insurance companies. But that's what realism does for you. Hillary has learned to work with what is, and certainly people will be better off in terms of not being cut off and in terms of portability. But it's a far cry from shooting for the moon. Obama has obviously learned a trick or two since getting into national politics himself.

    newbie (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    Is Taylor Marsh reviled or accepted here?  I know Kos thinks she is a paid political operative (and possibly helped Hillary murder Vince Vaughn) but she has put together a pretty good play-by-play on the whole Rezko ordeal, which I think is relevant to earlier discussions.  I will say that I worry about folks who are 100% for a candidate without realizing that, hello, they ARE a politician (I liken the reaction to when, as a twelve year old, I caught Fluffy humping the bolster on the sofa.  "You mean he's a DOG?!") so keep in mind that she's a big Hillary supporter.  Her citations seem fairly well backed up, though.  Anyway, TaylorMarsh.com
    (don't tase me, bro!)

    All blogs are accepted here (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:51:26 AM EST
    and none are "reviled" because we don't allow personal attacks and name-calling.

    Welcome to you and the other new commenters that have landed here to follow Big Tent's posts. It's really nice to see a thread like this with substantive and rationally expressed opinions.


    welcome (none / 0) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    Well that website does appear on the blogroll here.  It is a pro-Clinton website over there.

    If you are like me you will start to worry less and less about what Kos thinks.


    Taylor (none / 0) (#97)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    I like Taylor's web site. I go there and read her blogs from time to time...She is an avid supporter of Hillary and thats good considering how many anti Hillary blogs there are out there...

    what I heard (none / 0) (#63)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:38:07 PM EST
    What I actually heard Bill say was that two Latino ladies came up to he and Chelsea and told him about the pressure they had endured....

    I disagree (none / 0) (#83)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    I disagree about the VP slot being offer to Obama not after all this fireworks...he carries too much identity now with the racism etc. They will want to go with someone like Bill Richardson maybe who is half hispanic....

    Richardson (none / 0) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    he threw his support to Obama in Iowa.  Who knows?  His numbers and profile among Latinos is not that spectacular anyway.  He'd probably want to be Secretary of State.  Him being much more diplomatic than I.

    Richardson already stated he is (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:10:22 PM EST
    not interested in going to all those state funerals.

    I would bet (none / 0) (#84)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:46:48 PM EST
    that Bill Clinton plays a mean game of Chess....He is undoubtedly a master of skill at political manuvering without seeming to lift a finger....It is amazing and hats off to him...That is why the republicans are so afraid of Hillary is they fear his abilities in the election.....I have a great deal of respect for that and I am really glad he is a democrat lol....

    I certainly hope not. Here is ans (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:45:28 PM EST
    by the NYT's Edward Rothstein of the connection between an affinity for chess and mental illness:



    Greenspan had some thoughts on that (none / 0) (#106)
    by Rojas on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST
    Eeek! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:47:03 AM EST
    Someone at Taylor Marsh sent me the link about Michelle Obama having her future husband meet her future boss before she took the job. It's on his own website.  Am I being a knee-jerk feminist?  I find this so very, very alarming:

    "In the summer of 1991, Valerie Jarrett, then Mayor Richard Daley's deputy chief of staff, interviewed a young Sidley Austin attorney named Michelle Robinson. After the 90-minute conversation, Jarrett offered her a job, but Robinson called back a day later, not to say "yes" but "maybe." First, she said, her fiance wanted to meet Jarrett."


    Bringing Barack along (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
    was apparently for the benefit of his fledgling political aspirations.  

    Lame, Lame, Lame (none / 0) (#138)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:04:54 PM EST
    If Barack Obama loses the democratic nomination it will be because he is so lame on defense.  Here is his "response" to Meredith Veira asking him about single payer.

    How many people believe his Reagan excuse (that he suddenly couldn't hear the audio)?

    How many people believe he has no idea what Veira is referring to?

    Why does he always seem so unprepared to answer questions that he has to know will get asked?  Why is he so lame defending himself?  Why do I keep asking myself questions like this because it's kind of annoying?