Non-Issue Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

While debates over Paul Lukasiak's argument continue to rage, you will not see a post from me on this non-issue. This to me is as silly as the "who stole what from whose position papers" nonsense.

You are welcome to disagree in this non-issue Open Thread. Or debate real issues as you please.

The floor is yours.

< Whatever Happened To The Politics Of Contrast? | When Is Participating "Not Participating?" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Florida should count (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Sunshine on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    This was in MyDD and thought it should be considered by all the other blogs:
    Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.
    That, from the Center for Responsive Politics. I realize that it's still going to be a fight to make the Democratic Party convention a 50-state event, rather than the 48-state event that some want it to be, but this puts to rest the notion that Obama didn't campaign in Florida

    That IS an issue (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    It's not just an issue. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    It's a HUGE issue. While I am not a resident of FL or MI, It would PO me greatly to discount my vote based on the ridiculous, circuitous and ambiguous rules created by a bunch of dunderheads that apparently consider themselves balanced and fair-minded.

    Bull hockey.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    Patrick GAVE the words to Obama.

    No stealing involved.

    Perhaps borrowing not stealing but (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by brodie on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    many in the audience might have felt deceived that Obama seemed to be uttering lines about the power of words which a reasonable listener would conclude came direct from the speaker's heart.

    This excuse making for Obama won't do.

    And as a former academic, he should know about the clear obligation to cite sources on lifted lines.

    Except for "borrowing" Patrick's personal story, this one is a Biden.

    But I won't hold my breath wondering if the MSM will really pick this up and give it legs.


    Not even borrowing (none / 0) (#21)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    Obama went to Patrick and asked him for advice on how to frame a response and Patrick told him this worked for him.

    Sorry, BS (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    Axelrod packaged both of them. Looked it up in his laptop and brought it down for both. There is nothing authentic, this is like marketing pizza or beer. Disgusting.

    x (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:35 AM EST
    Yes, as politics has been since, forever.

    Agree, Stella (none / 0) (#89)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:11:06 PM EST
    Borrowing seems a fair description (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    I hope all of our pols borrow good line and good ideas.

    Well, then (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    Deval for President!

    Thank you for clarifying n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by ctrenta on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#88)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    Obama  took  credit  for  the  words  as  original.

    however, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    even if it is a non-issue, don't you think the GOP can/will use it against him?  

    Politics is about perception.  So, unfortunately, it doesn't matter so much if he gave the lines to BO, b/c b/w this and the "stealing" of HRC's economic plan, I can see the GOP will try to establish a pattern.

    While I support HRC, I will no doubt support the nominee, so I think it's important to consider what the GOP will use against him or her.  

    Actually worse (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM EST
    It's not plagiarism, it's the Axelrod packaging.  They figured out the technique worked with the "people" in Mass, they just apply it to the Dem Primary, without a blink of an eye.  It's like a marketing campaign.  So much for inspiration, pre-packaged, pre tested.  Where is the orataory ?  Where is the authenticity?  IT"S FAKE.  

    Plagiarism probably who cares, it's the packaging that is disgusting.  

    The only downside for Obama here (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:51:20 PM EST
    is that Deval won the election based on campaign rhetoric similar to Obama's, but Deval, according to my reading last night, has not delivered on his promises.  Also, he was backed by Kennedy and Kerry, all three of whom endorsed Obama, but HRC took MA.  Maybe Obama should be distancing himself from Deval, not mimicing him.

    Your non-issue all over CNN today (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:05:01 PM EST
    I just saw more than 5 minutes on it again.  And it's online in the largest paper in Wisconsin -- but more likely that a lot of folks are watching tv here today, with the weather and with the schools closed for President's Day.  A good day for Clinton crossing the state . . . but Obama is gone again today, as he was yesterday, as he was Thursday. . . .

    But (none / 0) (#90)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    he  didn't   admit  he  should  have  credited  the line  until  he  got  caught.  

    My picket of Bill in Wisc. State Journal column (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    Time passing by Clinton generation by Susan Lampert Smith

    ...Out on the sidewalk was someone else who remembered.

    It was another graying Madison icon, marijuana activist Ben Masel, who was sandwiched by Secret Service guys in their sharp suits. Masel was holding up a sign that said, "Where 's Jacki 's medicine? "

    The way Masel tells it, Jacki Rickert, who suffers from a painful connective tissue disorder, met Clinton on his 1992 bus trip through Wisconsin, and asked him to legalize marijuana for medical use. Clinton told her, in his husky drawl, I feel your pain.

    But when he got into office, the president who didn 't inhale didn 't legalize medical marijuana. Jacki didn 't get her medicine. The rest of us who voted for him didn 't get our health-care reform.

    How will the future play out for today 's Obama girls?

    I do know this: After two hours on the cold concrete steps of the Stock Pavilion, I felt my own pain.

    Where 's my medicine?

    Cool beans (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    We loves our Masel press opportunities.

    Jacki should just move to California. (none / 0) (#55)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:57:43 AM EST

    Go to the co-op, present her doctor papers and get her medical marijuana ID, like I did.  Her medicine is in California, Bay Area to be precise.

    maybe a petty issue, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by OldCoastie on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    but I think the "non-issue" of the lifted speech goes to something very basic and fundamental. I've noticed that kids of about 8 start complaining, "he's copying me!" and cheating on a test, when allowed by the cheator and the cheatee, is punishable by F's for both, purchasing a term paper while in college can get you kicked out.... Milli Vanilli was endlessly scorned for lip-synching the words of other singers...

    there is something viscerally wrong with cribbing someone else's speech... I think its gonna stick.

    Agreed. Media don't like it, either (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    especially since the WaPo exposes of reporters doing the plagiarizing.  A Milwaukee reporter was fired for doing so -- and now this Obama story is reported in the Journal Sentinel online today. . . .

    And it's more than this speech (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    the Patrick's campaign commercial is up on YouTube and the message/rhetoric is so similar to BO's that it's freaky.  

    There are two conclusion's that do not bode well for BO: The fact that Axelrod is/was involved with both, And that the governor is now pretty unpopular for not materializing on his words (hence HRC's big win in MA).

    I'm not trying to be combative, but I think this is and may very well be- a big issue  

    So do I (none / 0) (#83)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    So there's this new diary (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    at Daily Kos trumpeting Obama's diary there ("Tone, Truth and the Democratic party"). Every time I read that diary, I seem to pick up on something new. This time I notice the following:
    A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified.  A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

    Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line?  How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?  

    So the question arises: how many people who were so loudly supporting the primary challenge of of Joe Lieberman, or Al Wynn, will now turn around and support this attitude with full force? Many, I suspect.

    This comment in the thread (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    is funny to me:

    His diary bothers me (0 / 0)

    I had missed that diary, and have switched my support to him of late but upon reading that diary of his it gives me pause to wonder. Does he really understand what is afoot in this country and have the clarity it will take to clean it up ?

    I'm more disturbed by that diary than I am comforted.

    Obama's campaign has mirrored that diary. It seems hard for me to understand that the commenter would be surprised by that diary.


    I saw that and responded to it (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    I'm actually happy with that response.

    I would say (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    that, to the extent Obama supporters (who are members of the Democratic party) rationalize this statement, they show how much the Obama campaign is a cult-like movement.

    What does he have to say to raise alarm bells among his supporters?

    With friends like Obama, the Democratic party doesn't even need an opposition. Obama represents all sides of all issues, neatly packaged into one personality.


    That is exactly my problem (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    with him.  And it's a completely insurmountable problem, brought to us purposefully by his campaign.

    It's his fault that I object so strongly to him.

    We have no way of knowing who he'll be as president.  


    You could (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    look at his history of votes for progressive causes in the US Senate, his history of votes for progressive causes in the IL Senate, his history of organizing for progressive causes in Chicago, his history of working for a progressive civil rights firms in Chicago, his progressive tenure as Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review, and his thoughts on why progressive goals are important, which he explained at length in his two books, and maybe look at, in a larger sense, how progressive his proposals are relative to even John Kerry, that are posted on his website.

    I'm not going to try and say that Clinton or Obama are more progressive - they're both slightly better than each other on certain issues but basically indistinguishable. But to pretend he's some kind of Manchurian candidate is ridiculous. His entire life is one long progressive success story.


    I agree (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    But his political style is not one that, it seems to me, promotes progressive and Democratic values and ideas.

    His non-votes (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    are the sticking point for me.

    I know, I know, he's playing "Illinois politics" even at the national level.  I honestly don't care.


    Let';s drop the Cult line (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    IT is clear that Obama may very well be our nominee and that the MEdia is starting to work this cult angle.

    I would prefer we drop that usage here.

    LEt's call them "rabid supporters" or something like that.


    I don't understand the defeatist attitude around (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    here..."may very well be"?  Yes, and so may Clinton.  They're practically neck and neck, and no one said that Obama was down for the count when he was behind.  Obama is the wrench in the Clinton's machine, but that doesn't mean anyone should let him be what the media is making him out to be.  

    Clinton's a fighter and I would sure hope that her supporters would be fighters, too.  


    Absolutely right, but (none / 0) (#71)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    We shouldn't be doing the Republicans' work for them in the primary campaign by encouraging negative character-based attacks.  That goes for both campaigns.  

    AF (none / 0) (#86)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:07:04 PM EST
    So....no more  negative  character-based  attacks on  Clinton?

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:40:38 AM EST
    I don't want to help the media along with their future hatchet jobs. I can stop using that term.

    On the other hand... what do you call people who say they're principled, don't hold to their long held, previously espoused stands on principles, and justify whatever their leader says?

    What makes me infuriated about some of Obama's supporters is that they are so willing to twist what he has said, and what they believe, in order to justify supporting him. The "c" word seems a natural, though I will cease using it. "Rabid supporters" it is.

    And on a personal note, I support HRC as the better candidate of the two, but I don't have/never will justify all her positions on all issues.


    Or "Obamamaniac"s? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    Beautifully put (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    I think the old "all hat and no cattle' applies. Or playing both sides against the middle could be more apropos. All I get from BHO is self-glorification. And I was actually a big supporter of him before he made it very clear clear that he is ready and willing to acquiesce to the GOP on issues that have devastated this country.
    The very apparent intent to diminish the Clinton era and enhance Reagan by BHO and his campaign turned me decidedly against the "Magical Unity Pony", as some refer to the BHO campaign.

    A close relative recently moved to B.C. She would like me to join her there. I am seriously considering it.


    Wow, does he even get why (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM EST
    a 12-year-old girl and her counselors might not want to notify?  So many cases are the result of rape and incest -- or only will lead to abusive punishment when a girl gets home.  Wouldn't a community organizer ever have actually talked with social workers?

    And that line on affirmative action programs, is that more plagiarism?  It reads like Clarence Thomas.


    Here is an op ed from NYT (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    by a former IL Senator who has endorsed Obama.  I think the purpose of the op ed was to convince us those "present" votes were o.k.  But the op ed had the opposite effect on me.



    Cream City (none / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:03:44 PM EST
    In  his  1996  pre-Senate  questionaire, Obama  was  asked  if   he  supported  any  restrictions  to  abortion.  He  answered  NO.  

    He  was  also  asked  if  he  was  for/against  parental  notification for minors  getting  abortions.   He  said  NO.  

    He  has  since   flip-flopped on both of  those issues,  but  I  don't  doubt  that   McCain  will    use  his previous  answers    with  the   evangelicals.


    WAPO (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    Interesting Ignatius article on where does Obama stand, the Mystery of Obama, worth a look along those lines. Not really knowing where he stands cause his web site and his stump speeches just throw everything at us:
    Foreign policy is the area on which Obama has been longest on rhetoric and shortest on details. I've always liked his line about Iraq, that "we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." And when I asked Obama last summer what this might mean in practice, he talked about the need for a residual force in and around Iraq and for a gradual, measured pace of troop withdrawals. But in recent months, his tone has suggested a speedier and more decisive departure from Iraq. I fear that Obama is creating public expectations for a quick solution in Iraq that cannot responsibly be achieved.

    Link fix (none / 0) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    Stella (none / 0) (#85)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:05:06 PM EST
    So  it  seems  Obama  is moving  closer  to   Clinton's  position  on   exiting  Iraq.  



    The point of my previous post (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    You are dead on.

    has anyone seen (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    the video's of BO's and Deval Patrick's speech where, nearly word for word, they give the same response to the criticism that they only give speeches?  

    Pretty interesting, especially considering that they both have/had Axelrod running their camp?  

    It's on Politico and Taylor Marsh.


    Nonissue (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    Issue (none / 0) (#87)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    Does anyone besides me.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    think that Axlerod looks and sounds like a very sleepy Snidely Whiplash? In fairness, HRC doesn't do any better in this department. either.

    Ooops (none / 0) (#11)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    my apologies BTD, I hadn't clicked on your link--I just saw it was an open thread and I thought is was interesting.  

    All it shows (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    is a lack of originality.  I'm not really all that surprised.

    not surprising, to me anyway (none / 0) (#23)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    Laura Ingrahm has already picked up on this non-issue and started her program playing both speeches.  This is just the kinda fodder RW radio loves.  Can Rush be far behind?


    Two party systems, closed primaries, and taxpayers (none / 0) (#32)
    by jerry on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    In the thread below there was a discussion of whether independents are disenfranchised in closed primaries and an argument that if we have a two party system, then they do not have a chance to vote for, or pick their candidate.

    I don't buy that argument, and I do think that primaries should be closed.

    However, I also dislike two party systems.

    So here's my question: if all a party member is doing is selecting a candidate for that party, and since parties aren't mentioned in the Constitution, why are primary elections taxpayer funded?

    Let the parties choose: taxpayer funded open primary, or party funded closed primary.

    (And let the states decide: party organized election or candidate organized election where party is not mentioned.)

    Huh? Many parties can be on ballots (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    in closed primary states.  Do you understand that?

    Why are parties give taxpayer funds to determine (none / 0) (#59)
    by jerry on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    their party candidate?

    (If I understand the wikipedia, in closed primaries, there may be more than two parties, but each has its own ballot.  In the discussion in the other thread, it was basically assumed there were only two parties.   And basically, there are....)

    Why give parties, something the founders didn't want to see evolve, taxpayer funds?


    Barack Obama is winning the election. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Aaron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    Obama: 1,102,  delegates

    Clinton: 978,     delegates

    That's 124 delegate lead for Obama, and that's huge, perhaps insurmountable for the Clinton campaign in a race where delegates are proportionate.

    Obama: 1,262 w/supers

    Clinton: 1,213 w/supers

    Here's the count with the superdelegates, but of course superdelegates can change at any time, and we've already seen some jumping ship from the Clinton campaign throwing their votes behind Obama, that's a trend that will likely be repeated as Obama picks up more net delegates.  

    It seems that the Clinton campaign is displaying the level of incompetence after having miscalculated in Texas, where it's possible they will come up with fewer delegates even if they win the popular vote by a wide margin in some of the strongest Hispanic districts.

    System Worries Clinton Backers: Delegates Won May Not Reflect Popular Vote

    Obama 08, We Are Winning!

    Have you ordered (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    your foam "we're number one finger" yet? Awesome dude....

    LMAO (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    I am so tired of trying figure out acronyms... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    that are so popular on the intertron and no where else in the civilized world. But I still love ya, BTD.

    The Internet, I'm afraid (none / 0) (#63)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    Is a part of the civilized world.

    Just ask. LMAO = Laughing my *ss off.


    Just google the acronym. There (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    are many on the list I've never seen or heard and will never, ever remember.

    Well done. (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    Yea... that was good.

    And I say that as an Obama supporter.


    You know, I "hope," that caucus (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    delegates will change, too?  These are not solid numbers for many states with caucuses, as they have only started their process.  If you really don't know that, advise, and we will explain it yet again. . . .

    pretty compelling argument in NYT (none / 0) (#41)
    by white n az on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:11:58 AM EST
    I would have thought that Jeralyn would have picked up this op-ed on the use of torture as evidence

    Wow, this answers the "non-issue" (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    response well.  It is not a non-issue, as essentially, Obama is not running on the words that seem to so inspire his followers.  They are not his words, so he is running on . . . his baritone, because he is simply reading a script.

    It reminds me of a study of another good reader of scripts -- Ronald Reagan.  There was a great study of his White House speeches by a scholar named Stephen Vaughn, who compared those to Reagan's movie scripts and found he lifted phrases from his films!

    All politicians... (none / 0) (#46)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    ... have speech writers.

    Hillary doesn't write her own speeches either.  Should she credit the true author of the words every time she gives a speech?


    Sorry but it is accepted and expected (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:38:30 AM EST
    in politics that a pol will be using words written by a speechwriter.  No foul there because the widely understood political rules allow that.

    But it is not accepted, as Joe Biden learned the hard way, to pass off as your own the remarks of another pol without giving proper attribution.

    Obama tried to deceive the Dem audience with his personal and original-appearing words and framing.

    That was dishonest.

    And the former academic wouldn't have accepted a lame excuse from one of his students that the essay turned in, strikingly similar to a paper the prof had read in the previous term, had been used with the other student's permission.


    So found Doris Kearns Goodwin (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    and Stephen Ambrose and many others in the media.  Btw, Obama's plagiarism has made it into the online Journal Sentinel today, largest paper in the state with the primary tomorrow.  Not a "non-issue."

    In Angles of Repose, Wallace Stegner (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    did credit his source material.  He didn't footnote the quotes from that material.  His reputation was besmirched.  

    Not the point here (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    Perhaps you would benefit by reading Practically's post again.  Or perhaps not, and you will run the perils of making Obama's mistakes.  It's your call, your life.

    Has anyone else seen this? (none / 0) (#60)
    by KevinMc on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    This is a shocking story and video.

    Hope Steffey Calls Police for Help

    I'm beginning to see more and more stories like this.  I'm beginning to believe the police state conspiracies.

    I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#61)
    by KevinMc on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    I'm sorry I didn't comprehend the title of "Non-issue" only the "Open Thread" part of the title.  Moderator please delete and I will post the link when I find a suitable topic.

    New Story on Rezko (none / 0) (#62)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    Just saw this story on Bloomberg.


    Bottom line - the people who sold the house and lot to Obama and Rezko have come forward and stated that Obama's account of the transaction is completely accurate - re. the price (he made the best offer, no discount involved), and that they did insist that the closings of the two parcels be done on the same day.

    It will be more interesting (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    If they're called as witnesses and tell this truth under oath.

    Shocked to discover they say this (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    as opposed to incriminating themselves.

    Pretty funny. I think this is a non-issue but this story is really dumb.


    But did they offer to take a polygraph? (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    why is it dumb? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    of course it is a non-issue. But there are certainly people working overtime to try to make it an issue, and one aspect of that is a questioning of the terms of the sale. So these people come forward to put those concerns to rest. Whats dumb about that?

    Rezko (none / 0) (#91)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    Did you  see  the  story   on  MenaFn.com (Middle  East  financial  network)   that   Tony Rezko's   real  estate  development  company  entered  into  a  joint   venture    for   a  $150 million  deal  to build  a  power  plant  in  Iraq?  The   Rezmar   joint  venture   will  be  based  in Jordan  and  will supply power  to  Iraq  for   10  years.  (Contract  signed  in 2005)

    How  would  a   Chicago -based  real  estate firm  get  a  contract  like  that,  Tano?    


    Exactly, which gives MORE (none / 0) (#64)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    weight to Hillary's assertion that words are cheap. They're even cheaper when they aren't yours, or when you share "ownership" with your adviser and his other clients.

    Obama's "non-issue" (none / 0) (#82)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:42:47 PM EST
    If  this  were  the  only  example,  we might  all  blow  it off.  It's not.  

    His  "Yes  we  can" comes  from  the  1972   United  Farm  Workers  movement  with  Cesar  Chavez.  

    His  "okie-dokie,"  "bamboozled,"  and  "hoodwinked" after SCarolina  come directly  from  Malcom  X.  

    His  "We   are  the ones  we've  been waiting  for"  is  the title  of  a new  book  about  self-esteem,  much  like  Oprah's   The  Secret.  

    I  think he  should  write  a  new  book:   The  Audacity  of  Recycling  Words.  

    Deleted from FL poll thread as "O/T" (none / 0) (#92)
    by jibeaux on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:52:07 PM EST
    In this Rasmussen poll of Florida, McCain beats Obama by more than he beats Hillary. So the difference between Obama and Hillary in Florida is Red v. Red.

    Other states polled Feb. 17-18:

    Rasmussen in
    Minnesota: McCain 47, Clinton 42; McCain 38, Obama 53. = Hillary (Red) v. Obama (Blue)

    Wisconsin: McCain 49, Clinton 42; McCain 42, Obama 52. = Red v. Blue

    Pennsylvania: McCain 44, Clinton 42; McCain 39, Obama 49. = Red v. Blue

    Oregon: McCain 45, Clinton 42; McCain 40, Obama 49. = Red v. Blue

    Combined electoral votes of MN, WI, PA, and OR: 48 of the 270 needed to win.