Candidates Battle Over Exaggerations

The sniping continued today between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns.

Hillary says she mispoke about her Bosnia trip. Obama aides pounce. Hillary aides pounce back.

After Mr. Obama’s campaign mocked her Tuesday for her misstatements, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign went on the offensive, citing news reports that identified instances where Mr. Obama had exaggerated.

“Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer, among other issues,” said a Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer. “When it comes to his record, just words won’t do.”

McCain's aides took a more sensible approach:

A senior adviser to the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, cited the Democratic skirmishing to note that politicians sometimes made misstatements.

This is such a non-story for me, but it's in the news, so if you want to discuss it, go ahead, beat it to death.

< Rush Limbaugh Attacks Dan Abrams and Me | Double Voting Investigation in Houston >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by ROK on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:27:34 PM EST
    you use "experience" as your core attribute and exaggerate most of it, it is simply not a non-issue. BO does not have foreign policy experience either.

    "exaggerate most of it"? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    I would say that's a bit of an exaggeration.  ;)

    I agree... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ROK on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    That was a bit much, but calling it a non-story and refusing to consider that this raises some concerns is a little much for me as well.

    I'll change it to "exaggerate her involvement in it". Better?


    Works for me :) (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    I agree, she did exaggerate, but there was also truth to the 'story'.

    I really don't know why she did, it may have just grown. When I was trying to dig up news stories from then, I found other interesting articles about other trips. She does have some good background on interacting with the different cultures and situations that weren't all tea and cookies. I need to go back and look at one of the orgs she started up (I worked on a video for it back then, which I totally forgot about until I was researching this week!) I think it may have been in relation to some of these trips.


    Memory is strange (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:52:18 PM EST
    It's a three phase thing, acquisition, retention and retrieval. If something is off in one, it affects the others. It's a subject those of us who challenge inaccurate eyewitness identifications know a lot about. The witnesses usually aren't lying, they are mistaken, and it's from a combination of factors.

    Tonight my son and I were discussing an incident of major importance to him when he was in high school. I was so off on even critical facts. I was totally suprised since my memory seemed vivid. It was vivid, but it was inaccurate.


    Was your son... (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:47:04 AM EST
    ...ducking for cover from possible sniper fire.  

    Please.  This is more than just "misspeaking."  This is deliberately inventing details about something that did not happen, something anyone would remember, in order to make a political point.  There's no "memory defense" here.  


    false memories (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:41:02 AM EST
    If an event is dramatic enough, you'd think all participants would recall it the same way.  No way!  My son, age 2, sustained a cut by his eye.  Big sister and I rushed him to the doctor (after hours) and held the boy down during stitching.  Thirty years later, my husband told her and me about holding his son down while the doctor stitched.  Husband was truly shocked to find it wasn't so.  What we live and what we hear may become confused and create false memories.

    Same thing happen to HRC?


    You Know... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    HRC also said she was sleep-deprived, and just said the wrong thing.  She wrote abt it in her book, and got the names mixed up.  That happens.  She wasn't reading a script, she was talking.  Like no one has EVER misspoke before?

    The difference with Obama, though, is that he has INFLATED his resume on numerous occasions, and put it in PRINT.  That is a big difference to me.  If he got names confused or something when he was talking extemporaneously, that's one thing, and you just gotta let it go.  But that is not the case here.  His has been systematic.

    The worst part of this is how this ONE misstatement of hers has been made the narrative for her lying abt ALL Of her experiences, and is being used to diminish ALL of her international experience.  There's even a poll abt this on AOL asking if this now puts to rest her saying she has MORE experience than Obama.  Most people are saying yes!  It is a logical fallacy, but it being used pretty well by the MSM and Obama camp.  Really frustrating.


    Like the above... (none / 0) (#158)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    In which I used the wrong verb tense - sorry - pain meds post-surgery...

    I thought sleep depravation was the worst (none / 0) (#166)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    part of her explanation given the 3 a.m. ad.  Sort of hilarious really.

    It was written (none / 0) (#167)
    by Raheem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    the comments were actually written about her dodging bullets... she also said the same thing months earlier in Iowa... it was a lil more than a "misspeak"

    Absolutely True (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    It's a very common misconception that trauma makes memory better.  There's actually quite a bit of evidence suggesting the opposite is true.  This is particularly damaging to criminal defendants because victims of traumatic events are very prone to saying things like "I could never forget that face."  In fact, many Innocence Project exonorees were convicted with eye witness ID and testimony.  I'm pretty sure every single one of our exonorees here in GA were ID'd by eye-witnesses.  
    Sorry to go a little O/T. I guess (and I agree with Jeralyn; it's a non-story.  About as relevant to her ability to lead as Wright's comments are to Obama's) it would be interesting to find out whether she ever had to run, head down to a waiting vehicle because of sniper fire.  If she did, she may well be telling the truth about misremembering.  If not, she was probably exaggerating to bolster her foreign policy cred.  Either way, I don't really care.

    You're totally wrong about the pilot (none / 0) (#179)
    by tree on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:18:10 AM EST
    First off, numerous other people on the plane attested to the fact that the plane had to make a corkscrew landing and that the passengers were told to sit on their flak jackets. And as for your supposed pilot of the C-17, I know he's a total phony. How do I know this? Reports of the flight at the time listed the pilot as CHERYL Beineke. Yup, that's right, the pilot was a female.

    Gee, maybe you just misremembered what you read? Maybe you just imagined it.

    And BTW, its Tuzla in Bosnia, not Tarzla and there is no Tarzla in California either. There is a Tarzana though. Another case of misremembering on your part no doubt. And its a faulty memory of something that is only a few days old, too. What a shame.


    So, she wasn't playing politics? (none / 0) (#65)
    by ROK on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:03:07 AM EST
    Do you think that she honestly believed her inaccuracies to be fact?

    yes I do (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:21:23 AM EST
    she was inaccurate, not intentionally lying. She knew others were on the trip.

    So... (none / 0) (#132)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:23:31 AM EST
    Obama is bad because he took his kids to church, and Hillary is good because she took her kid to a sniper-filled, photo-op, war-zone?  Got it.  Nothing but straight shooters here at TalkLeft.  But boy, that DailyKos sure is biased and mean.

    It was clearly not intentional (none / 0) (#76)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:22:49 AM EST
    There is no way she did it on purpose when it could be checked so easily.  Masterminds like the Clintons wouldn't make a mistake like that.

    My visual memory is better (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:09:29 AM EST
    than my 'other' memory. But I was also trained to 'capture' and 'record'. My overall memory is better about things that mean something to me vs 'stuff'. I often have people relaying past events to me and I just nod and smile, lol!~. I guess it would be the initial retention with me, then. If it was 'stuff', I have a hard time retrieving.

    Interesting about the event with your son. It's usually the reverse with my mom and I. We do tend to remember my more 'humorous' moments the same though {blush}

    In the past few years, my friends and I have started blaming lack of memory on downloading our brain making room for new info ;)


    You need to read the book (none / 0) (#81)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:29:47 AM EST
    "Where did I leave my glasses"


    It's really kind of counterintuitive as to how errors creep into our memories--there is a section on that.  Very interesting stuff.


    Oh sorry (none / 0) (#83)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:32:59 AM EST
    about the ugly link but that interview was really pretty fabulous and I thought the book was worth a trip to the library for sure.

    Memory (none / 0) (#82)
    by Nadai on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:32:30 AM EST
    I've had the same experience - vivid but wrong.  I can clearly remember one event happening to me which actually happened to my youngest sister.  In another "memory", I've conflated two events that happened 3-4 years apart into one, even making the later event the "cause" of the earlier one.  And those are just the "memories" I know are wrong.

    Eh (none / 0) (#89)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:39:37 AM EST
    My link to that book doesn't 'splain the kind of memory thing that I'm thinking about.  One thing that startled me is that a memory we retrieve often is subject to having errors inserted.  It's like every time you take it out you make a not-so-great xerox and that's what gets put back in the memory bits of the brain.  Do this often and you compound the errors.  I would have thought something you think of often would be better-remembered and, well, sharper.

    I have some memories that seem very vivid that I am quite certain were just dreams.  They must be dreams that have recurred or something, and just seem completely real.  Some are from when I was about five or six, but some are relatively recent.  They seem pretty real, and I have no clue about the childhood ones.


    Playing (none / 0) (#133)
    by 0 politico on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:29:29 AM EST
    politcis is expected.

    As for as memories are concerned, if we all had perfect memory we would either be forced to be better people, or we would all be in perpetual trouble.

    One thing to note, the video seemed to show that she came in on a military transport vice AF-2 or a charter.  My recollection is that this is not a normal mode of transportation to places that are of no real secuirty concern to visiting dignitaries.


    It's a news cycle story (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
    that's about it.  If she doesn't make any more gaffes of this sort, it will be forgotten in a week.

    We are going to have 3 more weeks of this sort of thing.  The media needs something to talk about and with no primaries and not much else going on, they will be looking for gotchas.

    I think if it continues (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:39:52 PM EST
    it will hurt Obama more. His campaign is no longer being seen as above the fray. And when words like 'mocking' are used to describe their actions . . . methinks the gig may be up in that area.

    Only thing i have to say . .



    Whistle past the graveyard much? (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Arabiflora on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:05:18 PM EST
    The repeated lies by HRC about the Bosnia visit constitute some pretty serious 'gotcha', dontcha think?

    No more than Obama's claim he was (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST
    a street urchin in Indonesia as a kid.  Just stop already.

    No, I think that's trivial (none / 0) (#32)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:22:03 PM EST
    and in the same league as all of Obama's many exaggerations (upthread, for example).

    Politicians pad their resumes - it's been going on since the Roman Republic at least, and quite likely longer.


    Waiting for revelation about the (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:33:35 PM EST

    No, it will become even bigger (none / 0) (#40)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    You give the "news" too much credit since they consider this absolute proof that not only is she a liar and evil, but inherently incapable of being president.  Just watch.  And if any Obama supporters take glee in this, just wait if Obama becomes the nominee.  It'll be a bloodbath.

    Personally, I'm not going to cut her much slack on this even though I support her because she should know better about the media, especially since it plays into the hands of the Republicans (Yes, I'm one of those that believe it'd be outrageous for the superdelegates not to select her, assuming she does well in the next round of primaries).  The media will take even a hint of blood in the water and have an absolute feeding frenzy.  Meanwhile, Obama continues to stab himself repeatedly and no one minds much, if any attention (e.g., McPeak, Wright, Power on Iraq, NAFTA, etc.).


    I think people may start to notice though (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:22:17 AM EST
    and the MSM is starting to. Obama is 'attacking' on fairly airy issues. She is and can counter with solid issues.

    For instance, he's been on her for taxes when he only released a year. She calls him on it. Then he releases more while on break and also to continue to deflect bad news on him (good move, Easter sermon was starting to get noise). And then bring up her "transparency" issue again. Well, she hits back with him releasing his state senate records. Which, imo, are more valid and could be a problem for him, than either's taxes. Who anywhere thinks Clinton is stupid enough to run for president with incriminating tax returns, much less file them with the IRS? So basically, he's blowing smoke trying to assault her character, and she's going to fire back on something more solid/real.

    I'm actually surprised at some of his moves now that he's a bit tarnished. Releasing that pic of Bill with Wright at the WH was stupid since the news reports said they released it. It also reminded people of the Rezco pic that was 'leaked'. ahem. And to bring up Wright again in a pre-tapped radio interview. Huh? It's becoming obvious his campaign is smearing her. And the dude's campaign thinks they have this in the bag? Why the dirt then?

    And yes, there will be an Obama bloodbath in the GE, imo. {sigh}

    personally, we should all take it upon ourselves to challenge the media daily. I mean really, how can you look at someone's schedule, see they went to a mtg and suddenly know what they said/did?! I'm sorry, I'm NOT that stupid and it's insulting they've reduced news to this level. GRRRRRR!


    I dont recall Obama (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:43:39 PM EST
    suggesting that he was taking sniper fire while teaching constitutional law.  

    he wasn't a constitutional law professor (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:06:50 PM EST
    at all. He was a senior lecturer. Not a professor. There's a difference. I was a "lecturer in law" for seven semesters at Denver Univ.'s law school  and I never would have referred to myself as a professor. Teaching courses to law students at a law school doesn't make you a professor.

    Obama in March, 2007:

    "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. "I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer."

    Is it important? No. Is it an exaggeration? Yes. I think it's petty to criticize him for it, but I think it's petty to criticize Hillary for the Bosnia comments. She's said she made a mistake. That doesn't change the fact that she traveled to a war zone and has more foreign policy experience than Obama.


    Do you know much about his experience (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    as a Civil Rights Attorney?

    In one stump speech (before the DC primaries I think, have it bookmarked somewhere), he mentions arguing civil rights in court. I haven't found much info regarding that.

    I think the most frustrating thing about Obama, for me, is trying to find out info on him. I was trying to find any past history on him regarding issues that are important for me, and so far I'm beginning to believe I've lost my research skills. I know I can write his campaign, but I like to find independent sources (for both candidates)


    join the club (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    I've spent hours on Lexis researching him and it's so frustrating. He's really a blank slate in some areas and very inconsistent in others.

    Oy. Thanks (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:29:51 PM EST
    I was getting very frustrated and I've tried many different topics/issues.

    I couldn't even find much on his AG p.o.v. and he's in a mid-west state. I know what he said in Iowa, but, well, that's not a credible source since it's campaign pander.

    One thing I started doing, was comparing statements they put out regarding current issues/events. It's interesting to look at them side by side. Her's generally have more teeth/meat in them. There was a definite difference in their take on import safety and what needs to be done.


    I repeat...and repeat (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    From Axelrod, direct from the horses mouth below the quote.  This was the rush, before he had a record.  They wanted a blank slate, they wanted a vehicle to attach the narrative.  The whole viral campaign, the religiosity, the duplicity of the victim when in truth the sends out the surrogates to plant the stories.

    Axelrod says that the way to cut through all the noise is to see campaigns as an author might, to understand that you need not just ideas but also a credible and authentic character, a distinct politics rooted in personality.


    "One of the reasons Bush has succeeded in two elections," Axelrod says, "is that in his own rough-hewn way he has conveyed a sense of this is who I am, warts and all." For Obama, because of Senator Hillary Clinton's far-greater experience and establishment backing, this is a particularly essential project. "If we run a conventional campaign and look like a conventional candidacy, we lose," Axelrod says.
      Obama's Narrator

    The law firm lists notable cases they've (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:20:36 PM EST
    handled, and some appear to be on behalf of plaintiff's in federal civil rights matters, such as employement discrimination.  Obama's name is not associated with any of the cases, as I recall.  

    I was a "lecturer on piano" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:14:07 PM EST
    at the College-Conservatory of Music at the Univ. of Cincinnati.  I always thought the approp. image would be sitting on a grand piano w/a rose between my teeth.  I never referred to myself as a Professor either.  Would have led to a very loud and hasty put-down.

    I taught at an art college (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:20:54 PM EST
    Professor wasn't something I called myself either  ;) I taught both studio and business classes and I honestly don't remember how they referred to us. Wasn't that important to me (the title, teaching was)

    Pay wasn't that great either. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:24:31 PM EST
    disagree (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:05:09 AM EST
    perhaps you need to revisit the principles and phases of memory -- acquisition, retention, retrieval. I just put a comment about it above.

    A teacher doesn't confuse his title, particularly with one that hasn't been bestowed. A teacher knows if he or she is a professor or not. it's not something one forgets or gets confused about. You either were a professor or you weren't.

    What happened on a trip many years ago is typical of what would get confused. From an article I wrote about ten years ago on the subject:

    Memory does not function like a video recorder. A video recorder captures a scene or an event and stores it on tape. The recorded image does not change over time. It is not altered by external or subsequent events. Memory, on the other hand changes and fluctuates, based upon several factors. When someone experiences an important event, it is not simply recorded like a movie on a videocassette. Rather, the person acquires fragments of information from the environment. This information then is combined with information previously stored in memory, with information acquired after the event occurs, and even with the individualís prior expectations. The result of this amalgamation is the personís memory of the event.

    Psychological experts inform us that the memory process can be divided into three stages. The first is the acquisition stage, referring to the individualís perception of the event, and the entry of the information into the memory system. This is followed by the retention phase, during which time elapses before the witness tries to remember the event. The final stage is the retrieval stage, which occurs when the witness tries to recall the stored information.  

    There's more, but you get my point.


    At UNC-Chapel Hill (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:57:56 AM EST
    Every "visiting lecturer" is referred to, by students and faculty, as "professor." Obama was, too, at the University of Chicago.  

    Simply put... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ROK on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:19:16 AM EST
    It's the politics of memory.

    and Vice Versa (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    Everyone that supports Obama, views everything about Clinton from a negative position.  The briefing was about sniper fire and that there had been some in recent days and weeks.  Also, the greeting ceremony, was not cancelled, it was shortened.  The point was, although none of wants to give an example, it that we seriously misremember things.  

    Even Joe Klein (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:55:57 AM EST
    who is no friend of Hillary had this to say on Cooper Anderson's 360 last night:

    JOE KLEIN, COLUMNIST, "TIME": Well, actually, tonight, I had dinner with someone who was on that plane...

    COOPER: Sinbad?

    KLEIN: ... with Hillary Clinton.


    KLEIN: And -- and the fact is that they were told that there was -- that they had to take evasive action because of sniper fire, one of those precipitous landings that a lot of us have -- have taken, but, on the ground, there was obviously no problem.

    It's a war story, and -- and she exaggerated it. And it doesn't speak well of her. And it's very un-Hillary like. But could I just, for the sake of the fact that we're in silly season now, and everybody -- all these candidates are totally exhausted, just plead for charity, not only for her, but for the Obama supporters who have said embarrassing things in the next segment and...

    Spin it however you like but it was some fact and some exaggeration.  


    Yes, he was a professor... (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:49:26 AM EST
    ...all visiting lecturers at my university are referred to as "professor," even by their tenured colleagues. No student calls them "Lecturer" - they say "Professor."

    It's perfectly fair to use the title.


    officially (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by VicAjax on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:07:29 AM EST
    he was a "senior lecturer." and at my school too, we referred to senior lecturers as "professor."

    No, just because he was called (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    that title by students and others who don't understand it doesn't mean it was his title.

    I could call you something, but it doesn't mean that's what you are.


    It's an important distinction (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:48:28 AM EST
    A lecturer is typically hired on contract to teach a particular course and/or is not a full, tenure-track member of the academic department.

    On the other hand, (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:49:47 AM EST
    I'm not going to defend Clinton's words either. Those were just stupid.

    Nice try, but sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:33:13 PM EST
    As with others up above, I was an electronics instructor at a community college for 6 years and have never "misspoken" and referred to myself as a professor.

    If your standard is "describing things that never happened", Obama being a law professor is in that category, but then you'd be harder on him than I'd be.

    In fact I'm usually careful to mention that it was "XYZ Technical Institute" when I taught there, while it's "XYZ Community College" now.

    And a girl I knew pretty well in high school was a Playboy centerfold later (so was another girl I sat behind in Econ 101, but that was a big lecture).


    Np student or colleague calls... (none / 0) (#161)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:22:15 AM EST
    ...a college teacher "Lecturer Smith."  They say "Professor Smith."

    slight difference... (none / 0) (#43)
    by jor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:33 PM EST
    ... no one outside of academia knows the difference between a lecturer (or part-time lecturer) and professor. Most people probably don't even know what a law school lecturer is. Law school professor is easy to understand.  So in this case, its an exageration for the sake of clarity.

    On the other hand, running under cover from sniper fire isn't really open to confusing anyone or being unclear.


    B.S. He was in academia as a lecturer (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:15:01 AM EST
    so he does not have this excuse for conflating his resume.  And saying that a lot of people do not know the difference is saying that he is taking advantage of that.

    I very much appreciate those on this site who are well aware of the difference and have not attempted to conflate their teaching experience.  What one has to go through even to earn the credentials to hope to get hired with faculty status -- i.e., being in the professorial ranks, and only the very top rank is a (full) professor -- is very hard, a long haul.

    And being fulltime faculty entails far more than teaching a class.  

    Knowing this, too, just adds to my distaste, increasing by the day, for Obama and his "story."  I think now that he is a fake in more ways that we have yet to know.  But I bet the Republicans already know.


    heh... (none / 0) (#112)
    by jor on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:28:19 AM EST
    ... apparently others in the comments note U of C appeared to be willing to offer him a tenured position --- he just didnt want it.

    You show your ignorance again (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    No one not already on faculty gets offered a tenured position.

    It's clear to me that he didn't want the hard work of taking a tenure-TRACK position and then doing what it takes, for years, to earn tenure.


    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    No one not already on faculty gets offered a tenured position
    That is not even close to being true. In fact at some top Universities it is rare for any junior faculty to ever get Tenure. At places like Harvard tenure is only offered to outside people in order to lure them in. It is not surprising that he was offered tenure, as he was evidentially a star.

    And, unless the professor is given automatic tenure, it is almost inconceivable that someone working to get tenure by going up the tenure track ladder would have time to do anything but teach, grade papers and publish. So having a life in Politics as a State Senator, and trying to go the normal route of full time tenure track professor are mutually exclusive.


    Nope. But I'm done discussing it (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    as you really have to look at U of C rules.

    Done? (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    How convienent. I do not know about the rules regarding tenure at U of C, but I would be shocked to learn that they do not battle for top academics by offering them endowed chairs with tenure, plus other perks, in order to lure them from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.

    If they only grant tenure from their own ranks, than they are playing by different rules than all the other top Universities and are at a severe disadvantage.


    He's not a "top academic" (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    and that's the point.  He's a parttime academic, a lecturer.  Tenure is voted on by tenured faculty, fulltimers.  And it requires scholarly publications, which weight more than teaching, and especially teaching only one class.  A top teacher is not a "top academic."  Seen his scholarly publication record?

    Change The Subject? (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:56:47 PM EST
    I only questioned your claim that tenure at U of C was only available to those already teaching there. And I do not doubt that Obama was offered tenure and turned it down because he was not interested in an pursuing a full time academic career.

    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:30:47 AM EST
    I am teaching Election Law this semester as an adjunct.  Nonetheless, everyone from staff to students refer to me as Professor.  I know the difference, but few others make the distinction.

    In Obama's case, I'd call it padding his (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    resume.  In Clinton's case, I'd call it watching too many movies.  

    i can agree ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by jor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:54:45 PM EST
    ... with that.

    For the sake of clarity, bull (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:53:36 PM EST
    more like for the sake of sounding like he was more important than the truth.  It's the same thing.

    This would be important to an academic (none / 0) (#146)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:42:08 AM EST
    Heck, I've been a lecturer. There's no way that's the same as being a professor, even without tenure.

    There are huge differences in status, authority, networking abilities, all the way down to schedules and parking, and (of course) stuff like salary, pensions, and health insurance.

    It's not a trivial difference at all.

    Now, I can understand a non-academic not getting the difference. Maybe to them all teachers are professors. (Heck, I've called Obama a professor myself)

    But Obama IS an academic. He should know. This could be a bigger deal than you think, especially in the wine rack crowd.


    I thought he was a professor (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Lena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    too. My sister is one, and now I know the huge difference between a lecturer and professor (she just got tenure too!).

    No one in her department would ever make the mistake of confusing the two. You just work too hard to be a professor.

    Someone upthread mentioned that the average layperson doesn't know the difference. Others mentioned that students don't make a distinction between the two. But Obama knows. And Obama should have. It just seems deceptive to me.

    And it actually DOES change my perception of him. If he were a professor, I'd imagine him as an academic, with all the training and education that implies. If he's a lecturer, I imagine him as a lawyer - who teaches on the side (and who also exagerates his own importance, taking advantage of the ignorance of the people).


    Wine rack crowd (none / 0) (#149)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    I like that.

    Professor with a little "p" (none / 0) (#162)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    Can mean a teacher at the college or grad school level, whether or not a Professor.

    According to the dictionary.

    So Obama's statement was completely accurate.


    News Fast (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Iphie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:44:26 PM EST
    I'm so weary of this. I hope that the next few weeks leading up to PA isn't filled with this sort of thing. I think I'm going to go on a news fast for a couple of days -- just block it all out. If there's any actual news that happens, I'm sure I'll get wind of it.

    Here are some Obama's Lies- (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by DemBillC on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:49:40 PM EST
    Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: "I meant the whole civil rights movement."

    Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter. ... ..

    White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists "won't work in my White House" after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions. ... ..

    Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never become law as Obama seemed to suggest.

    Immigration is a case in point for Obama, but not the only one. In 2007, after the first comprehensive immigration bill had died, the senators were back at it, and again, Obama was notably absent, staffers and senators said. At one meeting, three key negotiators recalled, he entered late and raised a number of questions about the bill's employment verification system. Kennedy and Specter both rebuked him, saying that the issue had already been resolved and that he was coming late to the discussion. Kennedy dressed him down, according to witnesses, and Obama left shortly thereafter.
    "Senator Obama came in late, brought up issues that had been hashed and rehashed," Specter recalled. "He didn't stay long."

    Just this week, as the financial markets were roiling in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse, Obama made another claim that was greeted with disbelief in some corners of Capitol Hill. On March 13, Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled legislative proposals to allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new loans from banks willing to help homeowners in or approaching foreclosure.

    ...and we haven't even gotten back into all the ramblings on Obama and Rezko, or to the current status of Rev. Wright, where Obama said he hadn't heard his preacher's anti-American screeds, before he had to admit he had. As they say in blogworld... this one is still developing. However, unlike the other stories that the press shrugs off, Rev. Wright seems to be sticking. Something about it goes deeper than policies and politics, and Obama's team senses it, too.

    I'll give him a pass on the embellishments (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by K Lynne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:27:36 AM EST
    with regard to his personal narrative (single mom, foreign experience @ age 10, etc.) and the upgrades to job titles, but taking credit for the hard work of others really irks me.  

    Obama reminds me of a co-worker during summer break from college who always got to work late, left early, took long lunches, and tried to take credit for everything I did.  She eventually got caught and was fired.  

    I can't help but think that Obama's history of sponsoring bills in name only, skipping important votes, refusing to take any strong positions on much of anything that isn't politically expedient, and neglecting to hold committee meetings is going to come back to bite him in a big way - either in the GE or as POTUS, if he makes it that far...  


    please don't call them lies (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:18:24 PM EST
    they may be exaggerations or inconsistencies but lies implies intent and I don't think that's been established.

    Obama Exagerates All the Time... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:51:00 PM EST
    The whole grew up in poverty, was a street urchin, ect. all largely untr...errr... EXAGERATED charactorizations; )

    and being raised by a single mother (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:13:02 PM EST
    his mother remarried when he was four or five and moved to Indonesia where they lived with her new husband. He returned to Hawaii around age 10 to live with his grandparents (accounts I read said she stayed in Indonesia) until he graduated high school. So from age two to four, he had a single mother. Yet he talks about how it shaped him.  As a single mother since my kid was two, that one grabs me the wrong way very time I hear it.

    It's possible his mother moved back to Hawaii and they lived with her parents, but once again, every version I've read is a little different so it's hard to tell.


    One article I read sd. he wanted to (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:15:55 PM EST
    go back to Hawaii and she wanted to stay in Indonesia, but he talked her into it, and it was very emotional for her.  She was apparently doing anthropolocy field work.  

    I've read she went back for periods to visit (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:19:50 PM EST
    but if you in your grandparents house, they pay the rent and buy the food and clothes, and your mother comes and stays, how is that being raised by a single mother, in the economic sense in which he portrays it?

    I agree with you. Both Obama and his (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:22:39 PM EST
    mother were fortunate they could each pursue their own pathways and he had a place to live, loving grandparents, and the ability to attend a very good private school.

    My niece was raised mostly by my parents (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:36:51 AM EST
    for different reasons. My sister was a single mother who was struggling and had 'issues'. I don't think my niece really thinks of herself as being raised by a single mother. I know she loves her grandparents and does turn to them as parents (she's 27 now) when she needs to lean. They (now that she's an adult) have a rotating relationship. Sometimes they are parents, but now most of the time, grandparents that raised her. Her mother did not raise her for a majority of her childhood. And it wasn't a choice issue for anyone. And she's pretty clear on that, as I think many kids/adults are who were raised by single mothers or grandparents. I think, imo, it comes down to who was there for you.

    Most of my extended family... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
    ...casual observers, but dem leaning, ALL thought that he was born to a high school student in Kansas and raised with the help of his grand parents in poor conditions.  This is obviously the intentional impression he is trying to leave with many and what I thought until actually reading more about him.  Others I have talked to recite the rags to riches story about how he was a street urchin on the streets,  doing whatever street urchins do,  lifted himself out of poverty, got himself into Harvard, ect. He really is the national Rorschach test: everybody has their own little fairy tale bio of Obama, and I've talked to few that are even CLOSE to being right: he spent most of his childhood in a two parent upper middle class home in Hawaii and Indonesia. My God, how is it that Clinton can be torn to shreds for misremembering a stupid trip to Bosnia, but Obama can get away with characterizing his years living with his wealthy oil executive step dad in Jakarta as having a childhood as a "nomad" and a "street urchin"?!?

    Either the NYT or LA TImes (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:37:08 AM EST
    recently ran an article interviewing people who were in Obama's memoirs under different names.  The people interviewed sd. Obama exaggerated characteristics or combined several people into one person.  They weren't objecting, just stating their opinions from reading the memoirs and remembering how they were at the time Obama wrote about.

    And the Chicago Trib story too... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:34:31 AM EST
    Had some great gems:
    ...several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race...

    And the specific racial tension in highschool that he always recounts? Best friend says that is all "bull sh#t":

    In his best-selling autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," Obama describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student, "Ray." The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese. In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an angry young black man.

    He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa said, were not about race. "Not even close," he said, adding that Obama was dealing with "some inner turmoil" in those days.

    "But it wasn't a race thing," he said. "Barry's biggest struggles then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were his feelings of abandonment. The idea that his biggest struggle was race is [bull]."

    Yep (none / 0) (#139)
    by kayla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:06:19 AM EST
    Yesterday I was talking to my mom about what Hillary said about how we can't pick our family members, but we can pick our pastors.  And she goes, What was she referring to?  And I tell her she was probably referring to Obama's grandmother who raised him and who Obama says had some resentment issues.  My mom responds with, "What?  I thought his teen mom raised him?!"

    Very much agrees (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:06:22 AM EST
    with the accounts I have read.  I think that is what really got me about his recent discussions of his grandmother.  If I understand correctly, his grandmother provided him a home and helped to provide him a very nice private education.  Obama might not be where he is today without his grandparents being there for him as a child and young man.

    not that it matters... (none / 0) (#115)
    by jor on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:38:43 AM EST
    ... but the early years of life are the most important in terms of the development of a childs brain. Might be interesting to see if dual parents matter more when a child is younger vs. older.

    Yeah, I think the Obama campaign may (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    end up appreciating "exaggerate" in the near future, lol!~  ;)

    The problem with Obama's record is (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:51:03 PM EST
    that it is very thin, and his big accomplishments turn out to be not his at all. His "amazing" record in the Illinois Senate turns out to be nothing more than his friend and mentor, the Speaker, putting his name on the bills as a sponsor. Obama didn't mind taking credit for the work of his fellow Democrats, some of whom had been working for years to get the bills through a Republican legislature. As soon as the Dems took over and Obama's mentor became Speaker Obama's name magically appeared on the bills as a sponsor. When they pass, he takes the credit for them.

    He has apparently continued to do the same thing in Washington, only he shows up at press conferences and takes credit for legislation worked on by committees of which he is a member, but whose meetings he doesn't bother to attend. One part of a story linked in another thread, quoted two Senators as saying that he had not done any work on the bills, and one saying that he had shown up at a committee meeting, brought up matters that had already been settled, been annoyed that the committee wouldn't rehash them, and then left. The committee finished the bill, got it passed and then when the press conference happened, up popped Sen. Obama, thanking everyone for the help on his bill.

    This guy's record needs close scrutiny to make sure we KNOW what he actually did, and what he just managed to get his name on and take credit for. You may disagree with Hillary Clinton's stance on things, or her votes, but no one can say that she doesn't work hard, that the work she does isn't all hers and the credit she takes is, for the most part, earned. So far, the only thing Obama has earned is a reputation as a orator. Not a speechwriter, an orator. Basically, he talks nicely. Since he is touting his experience, looking at what actual experience he has is a perfectly valid thing to do in an election.

    let me see if i have this straight: (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:12:02 PM EST
    sen. clinton, while the first lady, visited a war zone (granted, no bombs were dropping at the time, but a war zone nonetheless) and perhaps embellished the circumstances a bit, is getting grief? meanwhile, sen. obama, who's never been closer to a war zone than playing a video game, gets a pass on a real issue, pastor wright?

    sorry, don't buy it. yeah, no one was shooting, at the time. funny thing about war zones nowadays, the front lines tend to be fluid, if they exist at all. she and chelsea were in danger, USO tour or not.

    i bet sen. clinton knows the difference between sunni and shia muslims, and doesn't make mistakes on actual important issues.

    Yes, it was very dangerous... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:42:26 PM EST
    ... so dangerous that Sinbad was required to tag along.  Do you understand what "exagerate" means? It seems not.

    I know! I know! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:05:59 AM EST
    It means something like when you claim you were a law professor, but you never really were. Right?

    I loved how in the press conference (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kayla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:12:07 AM EST
    She goes, "I'd still stack my foreign policy experience against Senator Obama's any day."

    Help me understand... (none / 0) (#134)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:30:09 AM EST
    how non-stop coverage and sniping is "getting a pass."  

    Dont you mean snipering? (none / 0) (#144)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:33:04 AM EST
    pow pow pow (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:25:34 PM EST
    well, you said beat it to death. :-) I agree, non story. Boring. Like none of us ever exaggerated before. Heck, my camping in kings canyon mountains stories get stranger every time I tell them. What, you don't think I rode a bear down the boulder fields while puffing on a cigar.

    If it's pretty constant of course, it might hint at some psychological issues. But every once in a while, the usual resume padding, I just don't really care. In Hillary's case it seemed like a war story. Kind of like my camping story. You mix a few trips together, things get a bit more interesting, you forgot some over time, etc. For Obama it's embellishing or adding more to the single mom bit than is really there, or puffing up the foreign experience with what he did at age 6. I let those slide.

    Of course if one side is trying to make hay of one of these, it's fine that the other side pounce on things it has. Eventually they'll get tired and need a nap.

    Good analysis. Now please (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:23 PM EST
    compare and contrast with Bill Richardson's claim he got an offer from major league baseball.  

    Obama Did Teach Constitutional Law (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by AdrianLesher on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:32:07 PM EST
    at University of Chicago. The whole pedantic controversy arises from the fact that his official title at University of Chicago was "lecturer."

    The University of Chicago still posts this laudatory article about his teaching abilities. The article indicates that his students routinely referred to him as "professor," and indeed notes that Obama could have been a full-time professor at the elite University of Chicago had he so wished:

    "Those are tremendous ratings, especially for someone who had a day job," Professor Cass Sunstein said. "We wanted him to join the faculty full-time at various different junctures. That's not a trivial fact. . . . If we want to hire someone, the faculty has to think they're tremendous. But he liked political life."

    Amusingly, the Conservapedia can't quite make up its mind whether to attack Obama on this matter of semantics, stating that "Obama has been accused of falsely calling himself a constitutional law professor, though there are documents to back up his statement."

    His mentor at Harvard Law school, Laurence Tribe, has, incidentally, said the following about Obama:

    On a more personal note, Tribe called Obama the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." He recalled Obama's ability to turn an abstract theoretical paper into language lawyers typically use "so people don't think you're a pointy-headed conehead."

    Anyone who wishes to see Obama's website at the University of Chicago may do so via the archives at the Wayback Machine.

    Shorter version (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:37 PM EST
    "He was exaggerating when he said he was a professor"

    Isn't that much easier to read and more accurate besides?

    Not that I think there's much significance to it, or the to the Hillary stuff either.


    he was not a law professor (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:26:17 AM EST
    he was a senior lecturer. Maybe he could have been a professor, but he wasn't.  And he had to know it. Spin it how you want, and I agree it's no big deal, but you can't change the facts. He exaggerated.

    Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:53:48 AM EST
    ...have you ever taught at a university?  When you do, whether as an adjunct, lecturer, or tenured faculty, you are called, by your students and colleagues, "professor."  That's just what happens.  

    This is a non-issue.  He is not embellishing anything.  He is using the title his students and colleagues and university used when referring to him.


    Yeah, you're right (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:56:44 AM EST
    I'm a lecturer' at U of C because they contract hire me to teach a single course in my specialty area each year (at least that's my title on the contract paperwork). I'm also a tenured faculty member at another institution (my full-time job). In both cases, students call me either 'professor x' or 'dr. x'.

    I guess it's a matter of whether we are talking in academia-speak about him or not. Some think he's trying to embellish his status as a full-time member of the department.

    Non-issue I guess.


    Jeralyn has (none / 0) (#165)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    and she described it early in the thread in detail.

    This is not a big deal (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:41:10 PM EST
    I just watched the CNN segment. She visited eighty countries and met with leaders in these countries. She was a highly successful ambassador. It's not a big deal to exaggerate or embellish her highly successful mission in Bosnia because Obama claimed her foreign policy experience involved tea with dignitaries.

    It's like the kindergarten episode in which he FIRST said she wanted to be President decades earlier.

    BOTH WERE RESPONSES TO HIS ATTACKS ON HER. As usual, the media and blogs take the biased, sexist approach and Obama's side.

    If anything, the videos could help her--maybe (none / 0) (#54)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:45:47 PM EST
    Seeing the video of her (including the CBS news footage) reminded me that she actually did do a lot of work.  So much so that even the CBS news clip said something to the effect that she was being criticized for seeming presidential.

    Obama was against the war... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:53:24 PM EST
    Well, speaking of intentional exaggerations.  Obama's speech against the war.  I bet 75% of the random Obama voters think he was in the Senate and voted against the war.  This was an intentional exaggeration.  Is it a lie?  no, but the average Obama voter will not check it.  They don't know the difference between the State and Federal Senate.  

    Re Obama's speech against (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    the war:  I read somewhere the original recording of the speech wasn't all that clear so he later gave the speech again, just for the purposes of getting a better recording.  

    Telling characteristic of Obama followers (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:40:02 AM EST
    Obama followers don't debate do they.
    Mostly they drop a 2 second sound bite they think is a zinger, then disappear.
    It's a symptom of a person who has made an emotional commitment, but his brain didn't go there with him.
    I am very disillusioned. I thought we progressives had more courage. It takes courage to listen to opposing positions and formulate an argument supporting yours, while remaining calm, civil and articulate.

    Obama supporters (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    would probably debate more if it weren't for two circumstances:

    (1) A lot of Clinton supporters like to ignore facts, change the subject or throw around ad hominems when things aren't going their way.

    (2) If Obama supporters talk back too much (offer more than 20 dissenting comments per day), they are subject to banishment.  Clinton supporters have much more leeway to say whatever their little hearts desire (Like repeating a demonstrably incorrect fact on several occasions, in print and in the face of refutation isn't lying).


    Not evolved? (none / 0) (#116)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:44:43 AM EST
    I'd think Obama would think you are too low on the evolutionary chain to accept as a supporter.
    Leaving you in the "follower" category.
    You have just used circular thinking and projection to counter my assertion. Back to college. Suggest classes in English and logic. Philosophy wouldn't hurt.

    Thanks, Nell (none / 0) (#124)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:36:04 AM EST
    You make me feel welcome to dissent in this discussion.  I wish people like you ran our country.

    Actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:54:35 AM EST
    its a symptom of the rules at this site.  Obama supporters who engage in conversation would go over their alloted posts.

    Then, of course, there was ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:59:16 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton telling Keith Olbermann that she "opposed the pre-emptive war with Iraq." Yet, she had, in fact, voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq.

    Eventually, a tipping point is reached.  

    tortmaster (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:05 AM EST
    you're not going to convince those of us commenting on this thread.

    Jeralyn, I'm now positive ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:00:22 AM EST
    ... that you do not sleep. They have either cloned you or sent a bunch of cyborg you's from the future. I admire your advocacy!  

    But, even a little Irish yarn wouldn't convince anyone? Here is the Washington Post's infamous ...

    Pinocchio Test
    Hillary Clinton seems to be overstating her significance as a catalyst in the Northern Ireland peace process, which was more symbolic than substantive. On the other hand, she did play a helpful role at the margins, by encouraging organizations like Vital Voices, a women's group that takes a stand against extremism. One Pinocchio for exaggeration.

    The one that really got my goat was HRC claiming that Obama was a plagiarist during the Texas debate. It was reported back in April 2007 by the Boston Globe that Barack Obama and Deval Patrick were sharing the  "just words" speech. A superb lawyer like HRC knows what constitutes plagiarism, and that wasn't it.    


    Obama attacked Clinton on false plagiarism charge (none / 0) (#119)
    by Davidson on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:01:01 AM EST
    First, when did Clinton claim that Obama plagiarized Patrick?  I'm not saying she didn't, but I don't have the link so I'm just curious.  I know others made that claim.  However, let's assume she did make that claim, it'd be her noting that Obama is not as authentic as he appeared--not bringing a lawsuit against him.

    Second, if you want to be outraged, I suggest blasting Obama who Obama camp attacked Clinton for ending the TX debate with, "Whatever happens, we'll be fine," as plagiarizing Bill Clinton when it's a quite common phrase.


    Correction (none / 0) (#121)
    by Davidson on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:02:09 AM EST
    Although the Obama camp did attack her for use of that common phrase, the link I have is yet of another instance the Obama camp attacked her for plagiarism (this time stealing from Obama) for using common phrases.

    Read her speech given with that vote (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:23:11 AM EST
    and then engage as an informed commenter or go away.  

    Link to speech herehttp://clinton.senate.gov/speec (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:13 AM EST

    "This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

    And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

    My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

    Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

    And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

    Thank you, Mr. President. "


    sorry for the title goof! n/t (none / 0) (#107)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:34:38 AM EST
    At least this the only time Hillary's lied (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:11:37 AM EST
    in the past 12 years.  And it's not like she's perceived as untrustworthy.  I mean, it's not like she's decided to line up with the right-wing conspiracy to attack the likely Dem candidate.  Ok, maybe she's just like a highly motivated Olympic athlete that's just trying her hardest to win this thing.

    Dear God (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Davidson on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:06:17 AM EST
    Well, according to your rationale, Obama shouldn't be chosen either because he has been proven to "exaggerate" on occasion (Hell, he's even released health care ads that cite his camp or college newspapers as references or "experts") and there's perception of him that is not positive (e.g., Muslim rumor, which in itself feeds on Islamophobia).  And let's not even get started on the whole Wright fiasco!*

    And it's not right-wing to campaign.  Clinton is being demonized for campaigning for crying out loud.

    *Wright is wrong and the left shouldn't universally defend his rhetoric.


    who in their right mind... (none / 0) (#113)
    by jor on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:34:22 AM EST
    ... would ever say something like "... first time in 12 years". Really, its amazing. The size of the ego and entitlement -- completely glossed over here, because she is our female in arms candidate.

    Come on People Stop lying to yourselves (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by letsbehonest on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    Folks, its time to wake up. forget the media. and the fact that they are not trying to tell us the truth. but are more or less making news for the sake of making news. if its bad news, thats even better. But lets put that aside. Lets also put aside who we're going to vote for. and think rationally.

    anyone trying to come with reasoning for Hil's mispeak. is doing it for fun and games. or they have a problem recognizing when someone is LYING to them.

    forget obama and mccain for a moment. There are two reasons you exaggerate a story.
    1.To make people believe you are bigger, better, more knowledgeable, or have more experience then you really are, or have.

    2. Some people Lie because they are Habitual liars. They lie and dont even know they are lying, because they do it so often.

    now I'm not going to call hil #2, but I will call her #1.  She OVER EXAGGERATED the facts for 1 reason only. to make it SEEM as if she went into a super danergous situation. to support her claim of EXPERIENCE.   this is why this is not a NON STORY, or a Blip on the radar. this is MAJOR. this is also not the only thing she has Over Exaggerated or Lied about when talking about her foreign experience.  I know we've all heard about the treaty she supposedly help get signed.   Come to find out she got their a day later then the treaty was actually signed.    
    Now you're trying to FOOL me. now you're trying to insult my intelligence. You thought I wouldn't notice a little detail like "you came in on the 14th and the thing was signed on the 13th". you figured as long as you made mention of the treaty and that you had something to do with it. and the fact that its on record you were in town AROUND that time. that i would by whatever you were selling.   Folks DOOOOOO NOTTTT FALL FOR IT.  now if you want to vote for Hil regardless. thats your business and you have your reasons. But please, pretty please. Do not make any attempts at trying to call these things as something else but a out and out LIE.   If your child came up to you an exaggerated a specific event so he/she would not get caught in doing something he/she had no business doing. You would call them a lie now wouldn't you? YES you would. therefore dont let a candidate do this to you just because you like her.  or dislike the other candidates. again this has NOTHING to do with mccain or obama. i dont care if they are liars. we're talking about Hil right now. not pastor wright.

    first is was a mispeak. now its a "i was tired". Get outta here with that nonsense. You're not fooling any sane individual. you lied, admit it and lets move on.   but we can't move on. because you keep takling about this experience that you do not have. Hil has No experience. mccain has no experience(other then being in a war himself, and growing up in a family that knows nothing else but the armed forces/war), but at least mccain has never lied about having some kind of 3am experience. Obama has no experience(atleast he never lied about having some kind of 3am experience).  these two may have lied about other things and or exaggerated about other things. But neither have based their entire campaign on this lie.  

    Mccain says he may have us in Iraq for 100 years. mccain talking war, is what mccain is good at.    Obama says change, and he will work across party lines/bring people together. Something he's good at.  

    Hil is talking about experience. something she has been caught LYING about. she got caught red handed. do not sugar coat this.

    The sniping (none / 0) (#1)
    by Coldblue on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:26:30 PM EST
    is tiresome.

    Yeah, I do get caught up in it and I'm about to go all Howard Beale.

    No sniping! (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    I am amused by the great many (none / 0) (#5)
    by white n az on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    who seemingly get caught up on the minutiae and adopt it personally.

    I actually got home this evening, looked at the various Wright/Clinton diaries and passed on them...I don't want to read them, I don't want to comment on them and I can't believe that this discourse is really going to change anything at all.

    Unfortunately for the process and the participants, the main stream media cannot navigate a role for themselves other than to feed the beast of controversy because they are afraid that people will tune out if they don't find sensational items to cover...it's the same whether it's papparazzi crawling all over Brittany or the daily belch by the campaign organizations...they're all waiting for the next commando shot.

    Good thing that I got home in time to see Jamal, Lanny and Joke Line on CNN...    ;-)

    The thing that makes me think it will be possible (none / 0) (#6)
    by jpete on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    to get through the election is this blog and a very few other sources.  When thoughtfulness prevails, and people are actually trying to figure out what's important, etc,you can still feel some hope.

    Thanks, you all.  You are my daily sanity fix.

    Rise Above (none / 0) (#41)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:37:11 PM EST
    Hillary's in desperation mode so I can understand the flailing by her campaign.   But as the front runner Obama is foolish to cede the high ground to McCain.   Not good for November.

    In my opinion, Clinton campaign is (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:41:29 PM EST
    not flailing so much as being flailed.  See today's accusations by Obama campaign that Clinton pushed the Wright story today, even though Obama talked about Wright in a radio interview today.  This really frosts me!

    heh... (none / 0) (#53)
    by jor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:44:44 PM EST
    ... yea clinton just talked it about it with a right-wing outlet dejour (A Scaife pub). No trying to tout it there.

    As I'm sure you know, she was responding (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:49:18 PM EST
    to questions.

    Have you seen the Obama campaign? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Davidson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:43:38 PM EST
    I don't know what your definition of "desperation" is but when one camp is calling someone McCarthy after distorting their comment and bringing up the dreaded "blue dress," it's not exactly a measure of confidence.

    Clinton's camp, if anything, has largely been out of the headlines for the past week or so.  While Obama has come as rather wobbly (to put it mildly), Clinton's camp has come off as (relatively) solid.  How that qualifies as "flailing" is beyond me.


    If they were confident (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:48:13 AM EST
    they would have taken Carville's $15 million offer and beaten Hillary like a gong in FL and MI. They didn't. Instead, they lawyer up and and push the vote theft 50/50 deal. No sale on Obama being confident.

    there is a tone deaf quality (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    to suggesting a 50/50 split on delegates when you didn't get a single vote (reason is entirely besides the point).

    It's as if FL in 2000 didn't happen at all.

    It's as if OH in 2004 didn't happen at all.

    Beyond that...when you are a candidate, running for the highest office in the country and are professing to bring solutions to the 'major problems' that this country faces, you have an obligation to bring reasonable solutions to the 'lesser problems' that are impediments to discovering the people's will (i.e. - their votes).

    Obama has disappointed - but summarized this disappointment by claiming the plan in MI was 'too complicated' in a way that made Dick Cheney's 'SO' comment appear to be reasonable.


    Really? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    It made the "So?" comment seem reasonable to you?  I hope that's just sniping.

    Yeah I do (none / 0) (#177)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:03:39 PM EST
    Cheney answer 'So' in response to a question about the fact that most people in this country do not support the war.

    I see little difference between this attitude expressed by Cheney and Obama's attitude about feeling entitled to 50% of the delegates in Michigan, even though he wasn't on the ballot.

    Indifference to the voters/citizens is not peculiar to Dick Cheney...he just does it with panache.


    So (none / 0) (#180)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    Supporting a terrible War + Discounting the deaths of thousands of American Soldiers (not to mention god knows how many Iraqis) + Constantly lying to the American people + Discounting the fact that the American people have caught on to this = Obama making a political calculation that disenfranchises voters in a primary state?  You really see "little difference" in that?

    It's not a big deal (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:43:18 PM EST
    because she visited eighty countries as First Lady so surely sometimes you forget what happened where. And it's true they were warned of snipers on the ground.

    Jeralyn and other lawyer types (none / 0) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    About the Harvard Law Review.  Did he do anything of significance?  Are there articles?  What was his unique contribution?  Is it legitimate to leave a mark as a Law Review editor?  How many terms was he the editor?  

    From what I saw of his work in my field, affordable housing and community organizing, the work was mediocre but mostly sort of a blur about what his contribution was.  

    His voter registration drive is the one thing that I found of significance.

    Becoming Editor of Harvard Law (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:42 AM EST
    Review is a very big deal.  At my law school, one became eligible for law review by having really high grades or by submitting an article.  Not sure how one becomes The Editor, but it is a huge honor.  Also not sure how much work The Editor does at a school like Harvard on the actual publications.  But, since the editor is at the top of the masthead, it is in the editor's best interest to make sure the publications and accurate and a credit to the Law Review.  

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    I share your feelings of frustration-- sometimes I just wanna throw in the towel cause I cannot stand all the negative emotional energy and just go back to my little world.  

    I really need to back off from this (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:12:21 AM EST
    primary season.  

    Injustice (none / 0) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:17:40 AM EST
    The core frustration is a sense of injustice that drives make me angry and unreasonable ( speaking for me).  

    Speaking for me only, I totally agree. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:19:11 AM EST
    Have you noticed (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM EST
    an increase in not Obama supporters, but rather the aggressive pushing certain issues comments here lately?  or am I imagining things?  

    Today yes--in the Rev. Wright threads. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28:40 AM EST
    Chelsea (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:34:05 AM EST
    Did you see Chelsea respond to the question at Butler College about the Lewinsky events?  CNN video

    I read about the question, her (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:38:54 AM EST
    response, and the audience reaction.  She turned out well, no?

    She handled it well, imo. (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:45:03 AM EST
    damn, can't believe someone would ask her that, but I have noticed the Monica issue sorta popping up lately. Thankfully, many feel it's not appropriate to bring up and squash it.

    he beat out several other candidates for the (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:01:44 AM EST
    position, including one or two other African Americans and I  think some women. There were something like 9 finalists. I read a long article from the Boston Globe or Herald dated 1990 a few days ago I found on Lexis. It was very pretty interesting. I don't recall reading any articles about what he did while law review editor, only several about his being chosen. One guy that lost to Obama was very gracious and said he hugged and congratulated him because he deserved it. (Again, relying on memory here.) The same article appeared in several papers, including one in California.

    "only several about his being chosen" (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:27:26 AM EST
    lol!~ sorry, that just cracked me up!!

    who me, jaded?!  ;-D


    I asked somebody to look for HLR material (none / 0) (#148)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:50:01 AM EST
    ... and they couldn't find any actual articles.

    But that's not necessarily a problem, because notes are not signed.

    This one would take witness testimony. Is there any?


    Obama advocated on behalf of (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:01:18 AM EST
    Palestinian causes before he announced his candidacy for President.  Of course, that doesn't equate to anti-Semitism.  He has reassured people supporting Israel that he will do so as President.  

    Tuzla, Bosnia is just the start ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:39:28 AM EST
    ... and although confusing butterfly kisses and poetry from an eight-year-old Bosnian schoolgirl with enemy "sniper fire" might seem ridiculous, there is much more.  

    NAFTA-gate is starting to pick up steam as well. The video showing HRC (1) claiming she was an early opponent to NAFTA juxtaposed next to (2) videos showing her schedule, which included meetings to get NAFTA approved by Congress are catching fire.

    Also, don't forget PLANT-gate, in which the Clinton campaign planted candidate-friendly questions with audience members during stump speeches. That made a mockery of the supposed open forum. Here is a CNN report about that fiasco.  

    If you think these are non-stories, imagine a McCain campaign ad juxtaposing HRC's Bosnian claims and the Bosnian reality with the video of McCain as a POW.

    McCain wouldn't even have to say "Where's the Beef?"  

    Obama isn't looking too consistent (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:50:10 AM EST
    on NAFTA, so he'd best drop that meme.

    And wasn't there some footage of the fainting young women at his rallies and him saying the same line at each rally after the faintings?


    Oooh! Scary (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:57:30 AM EST
    But I've already imagined McCain using mugshots of early Obama supporters Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers and video of Rev Wright saying "God damn America!" contrasted with McCain as a POW.

    I think that's must-see TV.

    The Hillary ad you imagine isn't going to impress anyone except people who already hate her (and neither will your other points).


    let's have some fun here :) (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:57:56 AM EST
    NAFTA-gate. Just because she was in a mtg, doesn't mean she was pushing it. Yes, when it became certain it was a done deal, she publicly promoted it. But more than David G have said that she was opposed. And if you look at that video, one of the pieces of 'evidence' on the schedule says "NAFTA mtg drop by". WTF? How is that proof she was pushing for NAFTA? From what we know of Hillary, she likes to be informed. At least she shows up.

    Plants, I guess you forgot about the casual coffee clutch Obama had. The report on how it went and questions asked was released to the press BEFORE the coffee clutch happened. OOPS!  ;) And really, watch Axelrod in action, tell me he's not a player . . . the Obama campaign is using the same strategy as the Clinton campaign. They just have the mantra they aren't.

    McCain vs Clinton. Yes, he uses his POW and military/Armed Services experience. She uses her FL experience, Armed Services Committee experience, her 25+ Military Brass support, and her other FP experience (it's not all about Armed Services). What does Obama use?


    Hey, I'm just the messenger ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:15:34 AM EST
    It is now conventional wisdom that HRC supported NAFTA and helped to get it passed through Congress. Moreover, you are minimizing the number of meetings. She may have "dropped by" one of them, but what did she do at the other three? Are you suggesting that she had no influence, and she just stopped by to have coffee and a danish? Did Bill hold a gun to her head until she supported NAFTA? As I said, I'm just the bearer of bad news, perhaps you should take this up with the New York Times.

    As for the differences between McCain/Clinton and Obama/McCain on this particular issue, it is quite simple:

    1. Obama didn't make the crucial error of basing his candidacy on the "experience" meme; and

    2. Obama wasn't caught with his pants down on the issue of foreign policy "experience."


    Bad News?! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:18 AM EST
    That article is he said/she said between campaigns.

    What makes it conventional wisdom? Because his campaign said so? That worked well in Ohio. And if you look at many of her 'pro-NAFTA' statements, there's wiggle room ;)

    "Obama didn't make the crucial error of basing his candidacy on the "experience" meme; and

    Obama wasn't caught with his pants down on the issue of foreign policy "experience.""

    No, but he may just get caught on a lot more . . .


    Just because Obama (none / 0) (#152)
    by kayla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    says that NAFTA is a horrible Clinton mistake, doesn't mean that it was.  It actually did some good for the economy, and Clinton has already said that it needs renegotiating.

    ignoring of course (none / 0) (#178)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    the fact that David Gergen specifically agrees with her (that she was against NAFTA) and that she ultimately put on a public face in support of her husband's administration.

    Not that any Obama supporter is going to believe it.

    NAFTA was controversial to be certain in the 90's and simply rhetoric in this campaign.

    Obama's economic advisors are all free-traders, much like WJC's were (and in fact, some of WJC's economic advisors are now on Obama's team).

    The whole subject of NAFTA has been a sham...none of the 3 candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain) are likely to do a thing to change it and I think that people who buy into the politicking on the issue are suckers for a feint.


    Obama is innocent (none / 0) (#117)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:49:13 AM EST
    Obama is innocent of  being a politician?
    No, he is a master of it.
    Manipulation anyone? Yes, feels good. I'll take it.
    Oh and that ol' time religion. He has that down pat too.  I like the guy. But I don't much like his followers. I believe in separation of church and state.

    why I hate Hillary (none / 0) (#120)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:01:04 AM EST
    I might go over my limit. Hope not
    Do a google on 'why I hate Hillary'.
    It's a hoot!
    This one is funny (and tongue in cheek)

    But look long enough and you'll find HRC is personally responsible for global warming!
    She's murdered, she's spied, she done everything a good traitor is expected to do! If not for her, Iraq might never have existed! Taxes would be painless if not for her.

    It's a hoot!

    I don't know (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:06:03 AM EST
    how this plays to the voters, but I'm tired of the media attacking democrats for everything, and giving John and any republican a pass on everything.

    There is a difference between covering something, and attacking someone for something.  I think the latter is the case with both this and Rev. Wright.

    the tragedy is - Obama followers (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:02:56 AM EST
    seem to think Obama can "cured cancer, solved global warming, and fed all the poor people in America" --- if only Hillary would bow out!


    Here we go again (none / 0) (#142)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:13:14 AM EST
    Much Ado About Nothing. Media picks one story, not much of a story at that and plays it over and over and ramps up the rhetoric and then sits back and watches all the little Dems rip into all the other little Dems. What fun! For them. I'm gonna go take a break from this nonsense for a while. I think it's causing cognitive dissonance. Or maybe just blatherbloat. Whatever.