home

Obama's Other Nine Exaggerations

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:17:35 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Law Professor Ann Althouse examines the enduring flap over whether Barack Obama really was a law professor. (More on that at the end of this post.)

She makes a more important point-- that we shouldn't forget the other 9 exaggerations raised by the Clinton campaign.

1. Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed.
2. Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma.
3. Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
4. Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "
5. Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'
6. 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.'
7. Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force.
8. 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform.
9. Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.

More...

Back to the law professor flap. After initially concluding it was an exaggeration, I revised my opinion based on Friday's statement on the law school's website -- and more significantly, on this page on the website w hich predated the current flap, showing that all the Senior Lecturers in Law were listed as Professors while the Lecturers in Law were listed in separate category under the professors.

Ann correctly notes that this statement by the Clinton campaign is incorrect:

In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Not all professors have tenure. Most are hired without it -- they may be on the tenure track, where they can work towards tenure, but they don't start with it. (An exception may be lateral hires of tenured profs from other schools who might be tenured from day one at the new school.)

Ann writes,

Some law schools use the term "Adjunct Professor" instead of lecturer. It's a very common term used to dignify the role of the outside lecturer. Outside lecturers contribute a lot to the law school and do it for comparatively very low pay, so the honor is important. To withhold the title "adjunct professor" and use only the title "lecturer" is, I think, show-offy of the school: Association with us is such an honor that we don't need to puff it up the way they do at those lesser schools.

As I noted previously from my own experience of being a "lecturer in law", the Denver University Law School has both Adjuncts and Lecturers in Law. So at least at Denver's law school, there is a difference between Adjunct and Lecturer in Law, with Adjuncts being higher on the totem pole. A lowly lecturer in law (like I was) decidedly was not a professor.

So every school is probably different. Again, the key page for me is this one, showing the Senior Lecturers as profs. But, there's one more thing. Friday's statement begins with:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.
Obama was a regular, not senior lecturer in law from 1992 until 1996. That's not a professor. Also consider that Obama didn't graduate from law school until 1991. But as to the time period he was a senior lecturer in law, I think he was considered to be a professor.

Again, as Ann says, this whole professor thing is a distraction from the other 9 embellishments, misstatements and exaggerations. My post on his Selma, AL misstatement is here.

< The Credentials Committee Contest | Late Night: Shine a Light >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Other Nine Exaggerations | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Much Ado About Nothing? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    I'm not sure you can ever blame someone for telling a falsehood about their parents that occurred before birth. Sometimes you just repeat what you have been told. The majority of these look to me to be much ado about nothing.

    I'd rather stick with what I like about both candidates and choose based on that approach. Constantly harping on minor negatives is self-defeating to the party.

    Of course... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:49:40 PM EST
    ...it's much ado about nothing.  Just like 'Bosnia-gate' and the Obama campaign's random nonsense in peddling the 'Hillary as pathological liar' smear...

    The biggest whopper is, of course, his 'my health care plan covers everyone' statement.  Followed by 'all the Rezko money has been disclosed'

    Parent

    Obama must have known the Selma (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:57:28 PM EST
    story was, uh, an untruth because MLK's Selma march was in 1965 and Obama was born August 4 1961.  It's not even close.  I can understand Hillary making a mistake about sniper because she might have been told that they were flying into an area where snipers were common.  But Obama's story is like Mitt's story about his father marching with MLK.

    Parent
    Whats worse... (none / 0) (#157)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    If he knew the story wasn't true, that indicates that he willingly lies to make a story true. If he doesn't, that indicates a lack of historical knowledge that is a bit scary. I didn't know the date of the Selma march (although I know what it was and something of what it meant). But then, it's not a significant part of my history.

    So...is he a liar or ignorant of civil rights history? Not a very good choice, is it?

    Parent

    But it is is a Pattern ...and it goes to the core (none / 0) (#152)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    of what anti Obama voters view as a record that has been a manufactured myth more than substantive.

    Parent
    not a good pattern (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST
    It's one thing to pad a bit and have a bit of exaggeration (what, don't look at me that way), but when you don't have much of any experience, this is a bit more embarrassing.

    You know come to think of it, why doesn't he have substantial accomplishments. I mean, he is 47. Shouldn't he have major legislation, major community projects (he created and headed), etc? I mean, he's not at all young actually. And given that, he is a bit of an empty suit as Dowd has said. He seems smart, he did the editing bit, and practiced law a bit, then rocked through politics to this point without really doing much it seems. Is that really Dan Quale in an Obama suit? Snark.

    In 1996... (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:54:46 PM EST
    ...Obama hadn't even served out his first year as a State Senator.

    Meanwhile, Clinton is landing in war zones with or without sniper fire.  That he hammers on such nonsense is clearly an effort to distract from his total lack of consequence a mere decade ago.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:32:21 PM EST
    In 1996, First Lady Clinton is visiting Bosnia months after the Dayton Agreement had ended the war.  That was kind of the point: they were visiting because the war was over.

     So your point is that in 1996 now-senator Clinton was visiting Bosnia after the peace accord while now-senator Obama was serving as a member of the Illinois legislature?  And we're talking about experience?

    Parent

    Ummm... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    ...that is exactly my point.  Obama was 35 years old spending his first year in political office representing his Chicago neighborhood to the Illinois state legislature.

    Clinton was acting as First Lady of the nation and traveling the world to visit global hot spots.

    Sound like the same league to you?


    Parent

    Not at all... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:38:31 AM EST
    ...it sounds like one of them has built a career running on coattails.  I'll leave it to you to decide which one.

     Hint: One of the candidates claimed to survive Bosnian sniper fire.  That one didn't build a career on coattails.  

    Parent

    Thanks for my first laugh of the day (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    It never ceases to amaze me how people can ignore Hillary's career BEFORE becoming involved with Bill, their decision to concentrate on his career first. And this is all ignoring the elephant in the room: Hillary was such a huge influence on Bill's administration that they called them 'Billary' for the whole time they were there. It was a perjorative, but it supported the knowledge everyone had that she was a big part of his process in the White House. And now everyone wants to think she was just baking cookies.

    What a joke. Thanks for the laugh.

    Parent

    Endemic Sexism (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    This is the aspect of the election that has been so painful to second generation feminists like me. I know that sexism exists. I've experienced it, quite directly, but on rare occasions. But this election has really highlighted the ways in which sexism brings down women of power.

    A man who is successful and has a successful wife is deemed to have done it all himself, and it is presumed to have been harder since he didn't have a wife at home to take care of his personal life. A woman who succeeds and has a successful husband is presumed to have been successful at least in part becasue of his work.

    A man who shows emotions is sensitive. A woman who shows emotions is manipulative. A man who get's irritated is a bit tempermental, which is understandable, given the pressure he is under. A woman who gets impatient is unreasonably moody because of hormonal issues.

    Racial insults will destroy careers, but calling a woman a "b**ch" is acceptable. You can wear t-shirts saying "Iron my shirt" at a Clinton rally without much comment. What would happen if somebody wore t-shirts saying "Shine my shoes" at an Obama rally?

    Women who are smart and capable are sort of looked down on, not quite trusted, as if they are trying too hard.

    Clinton "Nutcrackers". Find one equivalence on the Obama side of the aisle. Good luck.

    Often it's subtle. There is also subtle racism, but the racism is countered by anti-racist tendencies among most thinking people, while the sexism goes unchallenged. We hate racism and are quite comfortable pointing it out and opposing it. I am as guilty as the next. I won't hesitate to reprimand somebody who uses racist language or expresses racist ideas in my presence. But I rarely point out sexist thinking or language. It's too widespread. It's not even considered worth commenting on. Until recently, black people experienced the same thing - it simply never occurred to anybody that it was wrong to not let black people ride on the front of the bus. We were doing them a favor letting them ride with us at all, right? Well, women are still metaphorically in the back of the bus. We are equal, but not completely. It's okay to deny us basic rights - membership in certain clubs, certain job opportunities.

    Parent

    Sexism... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    ...is compounded by the fact that women constitute half the population.  Also, there are other "open" biases that make me cringe: homophobia, islamophobia, anti-semitism (largely outside of the US), etc.  Sexism is not the only one that thrives in the open, and it is even parodied and used by Clinton supporters (i.e., Tina Fey on SNL).

     But no, I have not "ignored" Senator Clinton's work before she met Bill.  Instead I have focused on his own administration as a guide: the controversies that surrounded the Clintons, their willingness to drop any and every progressive position, etc.  This is sexist how?  He promised us two for the price of one, right?  If we can expect anything similar to the 1990s, no thanks.  I remember the 1990s as the ascent of the right wing movement and a sell-out Democratic presidency surrounded by scandal.  It is that, coupled with the Iraq war vote, that cost Senator Clinton many votes in the progressive community.

     Somehow, though, I suspect we will still be labeled sexist by the true believers...

    Parent

    Coattails or Lies? (none / 0) (#127)
    by clapclappointpoint on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:52:37 AM EST
    I'd choose coattails.  

    Parent
    I mistyped I think... (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:00:15 AM EST
    ...the one who did claim to survive Bosnian sniper fire did build their career on coattails, and not much else.

     Good god I'm tired.

    Parent

    If She Was Visiting Because The War Was Over (none / 0) (#161)
    by flashman on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    Then why where there military outposts that she visited?  Certainly, there was still danger and hostility present; otherwise there would have been no need to retain soldiers on the field.  Of course, no president or first lady is going to tour an active war zone, that's just foolishness.  The whole point is the region was still active and dangerous, not unlike the Bagdad markets visited by US officials, who have to take real percautions during their tours.  Even the fmr. Sec of the Army tells us it was a "hot zone"

    After all, the Iraq war has been "over" for 5 years now.  Would you call Iraq a safe place?

    Parent

    Pointless... (none / 0) (#174)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    ...to heap logic on the guy.  His subtext is clear - Hillary is just some woman who happened to marry a President.  

    Parent
    This is fascinating... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    ...because Senator Clinton failed the DC bar and hid that fact from her friends for 30 years.  It was undoubtedly a factor in her decision to move to Arkansas and marry Bill.  Other revelations in Bernstein's book are even more illuminating.  

     No, my friend, I know that Senator Clinton is not just "some woman" who is running for president because she was First Lady.  If you cannot see why we're not all jumping on the Clinton bandwagon, and assume that sexism is behind it all, you weren't paying attention over the last, oh, sixteen years.  

    Parent

    But 47 is so young, you know. (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:03:00 AM EST
    He's just a kid, apparently. I'm just a few years older and apparently I'm an old lady. ;-)

    Parent
    This is an interesting article (none / 0) (#178)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:57:07 PM EST
    from AP via CNN on Obama's Ill. legislation. Emil Jones had more to do with Obama's "accomplishments" than Obama did. Also the other legislators are a bit miffed about it.
    State Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago, laughingly accuses Jones of a little "bill-jacking" -- taking issues that other senators had been working on and giving them to Obama. Trotter, for instance, said he had hoped to be named chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee but the job went to Obama instead.

    Obama's own work wasn't enough, you see

    "He needed someone who could give him credibility,"

    What happened to earning credibility rather than being given credibility?

    To be fair, the article does mention his negotiating skills when assigned to draft ethics legislation. Lucky for him he got that job, it provided him with his entire presidential campaign platform.

    And the person who gave it to him isn't exactly squeaky clean himself..

    In an e-mail, Obama described Jones "a powerful advocate for those who need a voice" and someone with "passion for public service."

    Critics offer a different picture.

    When Jones married a state employee, she suddenly got a 60 percent raise. His son got a state job that wasn't advertised to the public. A nephew and stepson got computer consulting jobs from a college that received a $4.5 million grant for computing needs.

    He has blocked bills sponsored by legislators who challenge him, and dug up an obscure Senate rule to reverse the passage of a consumer-friendly measure opposed by electric companies that had donated to his campaign.

    The article also says that Obama was voting in lock-step with the old Cook County machine, not speaking out against the corrupt practices of same. So, the old style politics was fine as long as it could give him a leg up the ladder, but now he disdains and disowns it because he is all of a sudden pure and noble, and too ethical to engage in that sort of dirty politics.

    What this article says is that basically Obama's legislative record in Ill. was a gift from his political mentor, Emil Jones. What other "accomplishments" are a gift? Which are earned and which are not?? We do have a right to know.

    Parent

    Rove: 'Instructor, not Professor" (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    {blush} Ok I admit it, I was listening to a Rove Q&A tonight. Flippin' the channels and came across it, so I watched what was left with one ear. And at some point in an answer, he was speaking and said professor and corrected and said he was an instructor. So, of course that caught my ear. Now, I think C-Span does re-runs, so if you look at tonights sched, you can prob figure out if there are more replays of it. Or they may have a transcript available on-site, whcih I should look for. It was from a Friday Q&A.
    interesting window into repubs (none / 0) (#12)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:53:06 PM EST
    Even thought the professor issue was corrected, it won't stop the repubs from adding that to the pile of "exaggerations" from Obama. And I'll wager they'll repeat until baked. Of course they'll do all this to whoever is the candidate. But handy to have a preview in this case.

    Parent
    BO's Top Ten is documented by MSM (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:33:44 PM EST
    DandyTIger, look at the list again, the items were not cooked up by the GOP or the Clinton Campaign. All of the items were previously exposed as exaggerations in the regular media.

    Also, the "professor" exaggeration has not been discounted.

    U of C places "Senior Lecturers" under the category of "Professors" (Obama was that from 1996-04).

    However: as Jeralyn says above: "Obama was a regular, not senior lecturer in law from 1992 until 1996. That's not a professor." (At U of C, "Lecturers" are placed in a separate category, namely "Lecturers in Law".)

    Parent

    What?a (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by clapclappointpoint on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:36:15 AM EST
    If he said that he was a "professor", it doesn't mean he was a professor his entire life.  It doesn't matter if he had a lesser title for some early part of his work.  He was a "professor" for 8 years (and I guess is currently on leave or something like that) and only needs to be one for a day to be able to claim the title.  If we logically follow your thinking, Jeralyn isn't a lawyer because she wasn't born one.

    Meanwhile, Hillary is dodging sniper fire, using a 7th grade class as human shields and running to safety of her car after taking the "stuff" of an 8 year-old girl.

    Parent

    He never was (none / 0) (#136)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:43:56 AM EST

    He never was a professor.  Period.  He was a lecturer.  Lecturers do some (not all) things that a professor does.  But that does not make him a professor any more than me bandaging my daughter's skinned knee makes me a doctor.

    Parent
    over.. (none / 0) (#139)
    by VicAjax on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:06:19 AM EST
    the U of C already said he had the title of professor. issue over. the fact that it's still even being discussed stinks of desperation.

    Parent
    pssssssssst (none / 0) (#168)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    thats the sound of all the air going out of this thread, lol. however, it will rise from the dead in another thread somewhere here.

    'but but but he isn't a prof.' and the echo chamber will reverberate once again with thunderous agreement here.

    Parent

    Once again, with feeling (none / 0) (#184)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:07:53 PM EST
    As Jeralyn says, on Friday the U of C issued an official statement which clarified, and corrected, the previous statement that was released on Thursday. Jeralyn's column contains a bunch of links as does her prior post on the subject.

    HERE'S THE LINK THAT SUMS IT UP: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor, Chicago Sun Times, 3/28/08.

    Read the article closely if you want to get straight on this issue.

    Let's not forget to move on to the other nine items on the list of Obama's exaggerations.

    Parent

    Echo chamber, or someone in the know. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:12:20 AM EST

    "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago


    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#170)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    the original smear that he was not a prof at all is no longer in vogue, show me where the goalposts are now...oh I get it, the devils in the details now, gotcha....next it'll be that he didn't wear his flag pin on his lapel while lecturing....you see where this all goes?  

    Parent
    Rove was interesting to watch (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    It's really hard not to believe some of what he says. That literally seemed like a natural. Damn, I wish I could remember why he said it, but I was doing my one ear distracted mode (aka: multi tasking) But it sure didn't sound like a set up with my one ear.  And that could be the key.

    He also had interesting (to me) answers to the McCain smear when he was running previously. I'll admit, I generally run from anything he says, but now he's worth listening to, imo. You start with the general (to us) opinion of him, but he's a pretty good speaker.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST
    Jeralyn.

    I don't mind that the media went after Clinton for the Bosnia exaggeration/misstatement, but I mind A LOT when they fail to cover Obama's exaggerations and misstatements. In particular, the fact that he told Iowans he passed a bill he never passed...it really makes you wonder...he also was caught by the Chicago Tribune vastly overstating the work he did for health care in Illinois...I believe he claimed he passed universal health care, which is, of course, impossible because IL does not have universal health care.

    Also, they have yet to point out his constantly evolving story about Wright.

    It's just hard to like a guy when you recognize that he gets a free ride...

    yah (none / 0) (#171)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    its not like they didn't fixate on the Wright issue for days on end, so unfair!! huurrmph.

    Parent
    That's funny... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:14:18 PM EST
    ...when we are talking about his accomplishments.  He has responses to these charges on his website: http://factcheck.barackobama.com.  Of course, I wouldn't expect hardened Clinton supporters to bother visiting the site.  Not that they can really point to outstanding achievements of Senator Clinton, apart from surviving the conservative onslaught in the 90s and getting elected in a liberal state with virtually no opposition.

     The fact is, there's not much there.  The media paid attention to this information well before any of us did, with stories dating back to 2006.  

     Also, this lobbyist nonsense...if you want a snapshot of the establishment candidates, go to www.opensecrets.org and check the donor profiles.  Additionally, I cannot help but notice that Senator Clinton cosponsored the nuclear bill and voted for the ethics bill, which she now apparently thinks is meaningless.  

     Nothing here equivalent to claiming responsibility for Irish peace or surviving sniper fire.  

    No You're Funny (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by cdalygo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign has shown that she helped greatly with the Irish peace process. All that's left for the Obama folks is to rely on words of right-wing activist in Ireland.

    The same really goes for the landing in sniper fire in Bosnia. Despite that, Hillary still apologized for it. [The real point obviously is that he has never gone anywhere that dangerous nor done anything remotely relevant. Hence his need to jump up and down about her "supposed lies."]

    What's key to these exaggerations is the pattern they display of his untrustworthy behavior. That's what Republicans will roast him with in the GE. It's also dovetails with the condescending arrogance many of us perceive about him and his campaign. What worked for W in 2000 won't happen again in 2008 because the press loves McCain more.

    By the way we can point - and have pointed - to any number Hillary's actual accomplishments. From health care to kids to foster care to programs for upstate NY (you know, the NON-LIBERAL) portion of the state. Amazing what you can show with an actual record as opposed to leapfrogging jobs your entire career and taking credit for others' work.

    Parent

    I always find it hilarious... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:33:40 PM EST
    ...when the rebuttal to criticism of Obama's policies or commentary is a link to his website "fact check" lol...

    ...followed by disbelief that more people aren't visiting it to get their 'facts'

    Parent

    but Clinton supporters... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:41:01 PM EST
    ...clearly expect us to visit her site to see her talking points on it. Jeralyn posted a link to her site, after all.

    Parent
    I don't think... (4.00 / 1) (#66)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:50:20 PM EST
    ...there's any expectation you visit the site.  It's just good practice to provide links to the origin of your citation.

    Parent
    I care less about his "status" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    in academe...than I do in his not doing his oversight job as committee chair re: Afghanistan.

    my real problem? (none / 0) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    Since I'm not in either of the two candidates' camps, my problem is with the more extreme supporters.

    They are the reason I am taking a break from dkos...in part because, to me, hate and hope don't mix.

    Parent

    Amen To That (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    I agree whole heartedly. There is nothing worse during a primary than over the top partisan supporters of one candidate that are willing to sink the ship if their choice isn't the captain the ship.

    Parent
    All of the above (none / 0) (#77)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST


    Parent
    yet (none / 0) (#173)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    you are here at a site that is obviously partisan for Hillary?? Yes the pot and kettle theory is entirely applicable here...and to you too, yah you the post below me.

    Parent
    10. In the Ohio debate Barack said (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:19:42 PM EST
    he gave his famous anti-war speech in the middle of a heavily contested US Senate Race.

    and while I think this is a little petty to nitpick over; he gave an interview with a sports mag where he said he was "raining threes" when he was 16. He should add inventing the three point line to his resume because his recollection of his athletic abilities predates the invention of the 3 point line.

    Jeralyn, I know I said I wouldn't post any more but I can't help myself.

    Anti-War Commentary (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by cdalygo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:34:33 PM EST
    He addressed a small meeting in one of the most liberal sections of the State.Then he lived on that speech for months in this campaign. (Of course, he conveniently forgets the interviews he gave in 2006 admitting that he probably would have voted the same as Kerry/Hillary if he had been in the Senate.)

    As for heavily contested, come on. He knocked off his democratic opponents with technicalities on their signature gathering. Republicans were reeling under a sex scandal. As a result they nominated Alan Keyes as his opponent.

    Parent

    don't hold your breath... (none / 0) (#34)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    ...I picked up the 'in the middle of a Senate race' gaffe immediately.  Um, a 2002 speech and the election was at the end of '04?  Miiiighty long campaign there Senator...

    Parent
    Not Quite (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:46:12 PM EST
    Too much silliness for me and I'm not even an Obama supporter. Actually the 3 point like was used in the ABA in the late 60's, Obama being born in the early 60's...he could have been raining 3's at 16.

    Parent
    He could have, but was he? (none / 0) (#69)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:57:45 PM EST
    UPDATE: High school basketball veterans for truth! A reader points out that Obama's basketball days seem to predate the three-point line, which was introduced in the NBA in 1979 and college ball in 1980, thought it had been floating around some marginal leagues before that. Obama was 16 in 1977. And no three-point line in this excellent video, which I hadn't seen before, of him (#23) playing high school ball. Pending a contemporary picture of his Hawaii court, though, the jury is going to remain out on this particular item of trivia. As long as his claim to have thrown away his trophies in an anti-war protest proves out ...

    UPDATE: A reader notes: "Whether there was three-point line or not, he could school 95 percent of the journos who cover him."

    UPDATE: Dr. J. (though not Obama) was playing in the ABA, where they had 3-pointers.

    Ben Smith

    Parent

    Schoolyard Hoops Junkies for Truth (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:11:41 AM EST
    Can't believe I'm carrying this further. The ABA was far from a marginal league as they had Artis Gilmore, Dr J, Moses Malone and the Iceman. And I never saw a 3 point line on the schoolyard where we played either, but above the key was always a 3 after the ABA came into play...and we played with the red white and blue ball too.

    As for politics, we are now questioning anyone that is employed at the University of Chicago and every kid's imaginary three point line...Pogo was right.

    Parent

    Way before my time but (none / 0) (#93)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:24:20 AM EST
    was the ABA in Hawaii during that time? Did they televise games during that time that Barack could have seen? If you follow the link Ben Smith has a video of Barack playing H.S BB and in that video there is no three-point line.

    Not that it really matters to me and like I said it is kinda petty but funny when you take into account how his memories of his youth don't match up with reality.  

    Parent

    oh this is rich ! he a serial embellisher ! (none / 0) (#72)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:01:06 AM EST
    figures!

    Parent
    LV, why did you say you wouldn't post any more? (none / 0) (#118)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:37:38 AM EST


    Parent
    WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. (none / 0) (#180)
    by EdwardTap on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    Latino Voter -

    You're flat out wrong.  The three-point line was part of the ABA, which goes back to the late 1960's. I am about Obama's age, and I was "raining threes" long before the NBA (in 1979) or the NCAA (in 1981) added it to their games.

    Obama was, in fact, telling the truth when he said he was "raining threes" when he was 16.

    So you owe everyone an apology for your erroneous comment.

    Parent

    I imagine it... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:23:54 PM EST
    ...just as easily as I imagine someone claiming they were for Clinton until 'that whole Bosnia thing'

    Now - ask yourself - which side is pushing this nonsense harder?

    wonder why (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    they didn't list the pretend stuff, like the seven years obama spent in the IL legislature without getting much of anything done, and then taking the credit for all the bills that others did the hard work on? That's probably closer to fraud than embellishment.

    according to Jones, the leader of (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    the Senate, he put Obama in the position to take the credit for the bills others introduced and worked hard to get passed.  When the Dems. had the majority, Jones became the Senate leader and substituted Obama's name on the bills for those who had done the work.  So I'd fault Jones, who was in the business of making a king, and charge Obama as going along with it for his own benefit.  

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:02:09 AM EST
    he certainly gets points for that (going along.)

    Still, I think people don't like that kind of thing much, when they are "looking for a new kinda politics", or maybe even just some basic reality.

    Parent

    a bench warmer. Some could call him (none / 0) (#89)
    by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:19:28 AM EST
    a slacker and it would fit him nicely.

    What bothers me is that he was groomed for the senate to bring home the pork.

    If Obama was on the tenure track as a senator,I find the line between quid pro quo very blurry. The Univ. of Chicago was the beneficiary of pork. It seems too much coincidence that his place of employment   would benefit from his new career as senator.

    Parent

    I'd say more an opportunist than (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:56:58 AM EST
    a bench warmer.

    Parent
    Not to mention the earmark (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    for the hospital group that employs his wife. Who amazingly got a raise more than doubling her salary about the same time as the Senator gave out his first earmarks to the hospital group she works for. A million taxpayer dollars so his wife could get a $121,910 to $316,962 raise. At least that's how it looks. The thing about Obama is that his timing on so many things is suspiciously self-serving. The hospital says, of course, that Michelle Obama was not part of the lobbying effort to get the bookmark. Well, that's one lobby that we know he listened to. Not saying that hospitals shouldn't get funding, but come on..this really smells.

    Parent
    Question for Bob Johnson, (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:38:34 PM EST
    do you anticipate again posting humorous diaries at DK after the Democrats have selected a Presidential nominee?

    I'm well aware of that, but I used to (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:28:48 AM EST
    enjoy your humorous diaries at DK, including the infamous one on saving words by citing your why I don't support Hillary Clinton numbering system.  What happened?

    Parent
    ah, the "obama can do no wrong" nics (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:39:35 PM EST
    visiting. nice to have you with us.

    let me clarify for you: it doesn't matter what sen. obama's "truthiness" site says, no one's going to visit it during the GE. that's when all this will land on him like the proverbial ton of bricks.

    the republican/right-wingnut smear machine will have a field day with all of it, plus rezko & wright, and truth is always the first casualty of political campaigns.

    so, you can sit there all smug, and telling us just how petty we clinton supporters are, it makes no difference whatever in the GE. when that time comes, sen. obama, should he be the dem. nominee, will get led like a lamb to slaughter. he'll be lucky if his own grandmother votes for him.

    winning the nomination isn't the end of the game, merely the beginning. the GE is the ultimate goal, sen. obama has already lost that.

    i'll bet money on it.

    lamb to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    slaughter; thats a good visual!

    Parent
    And you honestly believe... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:48:41 PM EST
    ...that the press and voters would ignore her questionable statements in the GE?  I spent half of my time (in 2006 and 2007, when I was planning on voting for her) trying to ignore her war vote.  Her decision to unleash President Clinton relieved me of that burden in time for Super Tuesday.  

    Parent
    , we've shot ourselves in the foot. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by amde on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:55:16 PM EST
    dont think that looking up all "misspeaks" is taking the high road. its just petty. petty and childish. though id like to point out that we had an opportunity to stop all of this in the beginning. Democrats could have stuck together to stand up to this media witch hunt, but we didnt. Dean didn't. Obama didn't. Hillary didnt. We only have ourselves to blame for not sticking up for each other.

    obviously cant get anywhere doing this kind of stuff.

    Possibly you are right... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:53:49 AM EST
    ..but I have to laugh a bit at you including Hillary in that list. Don't you think if she had issued a statement calling for an end to the "witch hunt" that she would have been mocked for it and called self-serving? That's the one thing about this campaign that has me enraged more than anything. The Clinton's have been put into a corner, everyone else makes the roolz, and then every now and again someone pops up and blames them for not speaking out when others are subjected to the same treatment they get on a daily basis.

    Parent
    I'm not Armando... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:59:39 PM EST
    and as someone who supports Clinton and has little enthusiasm for Obama, I have little use for this but assume this is an outgrowth of the stupid coverage over the Tuzla junk.

    I have found the recent influx of Obama supporters trying to make hay of that story likewise disconcerting.

    Neither coverage has any relevance except with supporters who are easily distracted.

    Not every partisan is invested in this type of nonsense, whether they support Obama or Clinton.

    That said, this will be my one and only comment on this subject.

    9 exaggerations on my resume (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:12:40 AM EST
    Office manager, office managed only had 150 employees, not 200 as stated on my resume.

    Mail Room Supervisor, real title was "team lead", not Supervisor.

    Not "well versed" in Adobe Illustrator, only opened it a couple times and converted some files.

    60 words per minute?  Are you kidding?  lucky if it's 40.  

    Project Management.  Actually, Implementation co-ordinator.

    Application building.  Nope.  order entry.

    Account Management.  LOL.  That's customer service.

    Barista.  Um.  Yeah.  Barista.

    CEO multi-national corportation.  Sold something on Ebay once to someone in France.

    None of this really matters, of course.  At least I didn't think it should until Obama supporters picked up the sword.

    And if you live by it, you may one day find yourself on the other end.  I'm not ready to say Obama has a credibility problem, ... yet.

    I'm still worried about Obama's doesn't-know-what-he's-doing problem.

    About Ann Althouse (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:29:45 AM EST
    I usually won't visit her site because of a series of columns she ran in 2006 accusing a young woman for appearing in a photo with President Clinton.

    Althouse excoriated both the female blogger and Bill Clinton.

    Although I assume she is CURRENTLY backing Hillary over Obama, in Septemeber of 2006 Althouse said:

    "First, I am writing from a feminist perspective, even though I am criticizing a feminist. Second, the "breasts" referred to in the heading are the drawings and photographs of breasts that a feminist blogger sees fit to decorate her blog with. I don't like that. Third, the real target of this post is Bill Clinton. I think Clinton betrayed feminism (and I hate the way many feminists have given him a pass)..." Althouse 9/16/06

    Althouse is some ally.

    It's hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:44:14 AM EST
    Seeing the embellishments embellished by supporters on both sides to make them more compelling.

    I'm not so invested in proving that HRC really misspoke, and did not lie about the trip to Bosnia to actually invest 3 bucks. I think all the parsing of words to find fault with either candidate is not constructive.

    Instead let us all urge both candidates to go after McCain. Starting now.  If they'd do that we'd have a real measure of who could beat him in November. The SDs would too.

    Anyway here is an article costing $3 to pull out of the archives that might back up HRC's claim... sort of.
    " Hillary Clinton thanks troops The first lady visits the peacekeepers in Bosnia as part of her goodwill tour.
    RON FOURNIER The Associated Press  
    MARKOVICI, Bosnia-Herzegovina - Protected by sharpshooters, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by helicopter Monday to deliver a personal ``thank you, thank you, thank you'' to U.S. troops. ``They're making a difference,'' she said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia.

    Clinton became the first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an extensive trip into what can be... "
    http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=KC&p_theme=kc&p_action=search&p_m axdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAF42F46054F8A9&p_field_direct-0=document_id& p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

    Yesy, yes, yes (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by A little night musing on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    To this:

    Instead let us all urge both candidates to go after McCain. Starting now.  If they'd do that we'd have a real measure of who could beat him in November. The

    All the rest of this is distraction. I'm disappointed to see it even being discussed. This is now we end up shooting ourselves in the foot, every time around (as one commenter put it). Let's not get sucked into it this time.

    Parent

    And this one is the weakest of all ... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:54:49 AM EST
    9. Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.

    Even Fox News reported this as a slip of the tongue, a gaffe, and nothing else. Fox News wrote the following:

    As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe. "There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say "at least 10," instead of 10,000.

    A slip of the tongue, a mere verbal gaffe, should never become the basis to stain a candidate's character. Obama didn't claim he fought the tornado or that he cleaned up after the devastation. He just misspoke.

    After reviewing Althouse's blog, the Clinton list on her official website, and the source materials, it appears to me that the HRC list contains exaggerations, misstatements and overblown innuendo.  

     

    Didn't the Declaration of (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:55:51 AM EST
    Independence free us from having to worry about what the Brits think of us?

    You can't tell it from the Anglophilia (none / 0) (#154)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    in this country.

    I posted this article because Jerilyn has at least two times posted slime from Murdoch's Times of London about Obama. They're basically Fox News or New York Post pieces in a tuxedo.

    I castigated Jerilyn earlier for using right wing talking points (which is what she's doing by quoting Altmouse), but since quoting right-wing sources appears de riguer here, I went ahead and did they same.

    Parent

    you can't reprint articles in full (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:09:07 AM EST
    you can quote a paragraph or two and provide a link. There are copyright issues, not to mention bandwidth issues.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:25:00 AM EST
    Ha.  Well, I have been involved in Democratic politics since I was twelve.  Now 25, I feel better than ever about my vote.  I will vote for whoever wins the primary, as will most Obama supporters.  It is a shame that HRC supporters have been pushed into a corner because their candidate did not win, but it does not excuse their behavior.

    I've been involved in Democratic Politics for a very long time and voted in my first presidential election in 1968. I held my nose and voted for Humphrey. And for the most part I've been holding my nose and voting for some lousy Democratic candidate ever since.

    But that stopped when I held my nose and voted for John Kerry, who I loathed, and then he did not fight for every vote in Ohio.  

    Four votes in my life time were "for" votes as opposed to "against" votes and two of those were for Bill Clinton. The other two were for Jimmy Carter.

    Now I have become an Independent, thanks to a corrupt, ineffectual and mostly supine Democratic Party. And I will not hold my nose and vote for Barack Obama. I don't like him. I find him glib, arrogant, and underwhelming.

    I find Clinton hard-working, smart and pragmatic. Not much glitter and glam there but quite a bit of substance if you bother to look deeper than attacks on her from the left, right and media.

    I support Hillary Clinton, knowing she's a politician and that she will at all times do her utmost to portray herself in the best possible light. That's what politicians do. That's what Obama does.

    But any candidate that attacks the only successful Democratic President in 40 years will never get my vote. And don't bother with the but, but the Republicans are worse crap, I've been getting hit over the head with that for 40 years. And I'm no longer sure it's true.


    backwards (none / 0) (#150)
    by charlie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    First of all, Bill isn't on he ticket. Secondly it is HRC that has run a campaign that is primarily negative, not Obama. I'm spaking of the campaignhere: the andidates, their surrogates, their staffers, NOT their commenters on websites. Negativity has been HRC's central mssage. With Obama it has been only intermittent and periferal

    No politician is so worthy of adoration as to render any critic unfit to vote for.  my objection to Bill ( who seems to be who you think you are voing for) is that his big state strategy neds to be dunped because it doens't work.  Dean and Obama re right--all fifty states matter.  Thisis just a practical matter of party building and winning.

    Also the objection to corruption is odd. There really isn't much corruption in the Dem party, at leasst mnot ompared o the R's. I don't think that either HRC or Obama qualfies as corrupt but if a distinction on this attribute must be made, pleases consider the  HRC camapign's propensity for balckmail and dependence on a cirlcle f weathy supporters who care more about their personla link to power than te Dem pary. Remember the letter to Pelosi and the HRC backers in FL that tred to get their monwy back from the DNC? As I said, that really isn't corruption but it is closer than anything that can be pinned on Obma.

    Parent

    You're joking when you say that Hillary (none / 0) (#159)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    has been the most negative, right?

    Obama's use of character assassination began over the summer of 2007, and his brutal attacks on her character have continued unabated since.

    But it seems that the myth of his "goodness" and "postpartisan politics" is too hard to shake.

    Parent

    Sorry, but this list of exaggeration is weak sauce (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:18:06 AM EST
    It makes the Clinton campaign like petty quibblers. Meanwhile, in the alternate universe where the good Clinton campaign presides, they are ripping Obama to shreds with these:

    1. Obama claims to have been raised by a single mother, but his mother was only "single" from the time he was two until age four and spent age 10 to 18 living with his Grandparents.

    2. Obama claims to have been raised in poverty, but his step father was a wealthy oil executive and his grand parents were, at least, upper middle income owners of a furniture store.

    3. Obama claims a long list of legislative accomplishements, but the truth is that in the last ten years he's been in almost constant campaign mode in campaigns for the State Senate, U.S House, U.S. Senate and the presidency.

    4)Obama claims that he did not benefit from Rezko's 1/2 million dollar vacant yard that sits next to Obama's home and can only be accessed from Obama's property. Yet, since 2005, Obama has paid to have this yard mowed, trimmed, and landscaped. Usually you don't mow somebody elses yard, every week for three year.

    5)Obama claims on The View that he would quit the Church if Rev. Wright did not acknowledge and change his ways. Why didn't you ever confront reverend Wright and ask him to change his ways  during the 20 years you sat in the pews, when you said he you heard him make similar statements. Also, Obama's church recently gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farakhan, said he "epitomized greatness," and frequently collobarates and promotes Farrakhan.  Mr. Farrakhan leads an organization that has been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, and other organizations as a hate group. Further, Mr. Farrakhan himself has repeatedly referred to whites and Jews as "devils" or "satanic." With this in mind, will Obama quit the church if they do agree to stop collobarating and promoting Louis Farrakhan and his organization? In addition, Obama has condemned specific statements by Farrakhan, but never the man or his overall organization, why?

    2much credit for being a New Kind of Politician (4.75 / 4) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    Taking too much credit for Nafta, aka Naftagate
    Taking too much credit for bringing troops home with deadlines (but we know from Samntha!)

    Taking too much credit for being a "New Kind of Politician"

    The number one question is going to be how long (4.75 / 4) (#9)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST
    the MSM will continue to protect Obama, and not report this stuff....It is pitiful how this candidate is being stuffed down our throats...Thanks Jeralyn for another honest post...Hillary08!!!! Our country needs her desperately!!!!

    I found it... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:39:12 PM EST
    ...interesting that on this week's "Real Time", Bill Maher chose to spoof only Clinton and McCain with mock video game titles... Obama conspicuously absent.  Apparently SNL is the only show with the cojones to satire him...

    Parent
    It will be depressingly interesting (4.66 / 3) (#2)
    by jpete on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    to see how the McCain's supporters package these 'errors', supposing Obama gets the nomination.

    Obama's various ties to the University of Chicago (4.25 / 4) (#1)
    by reality based on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    are surely interesting.  I would like to know more about them.  The economic theories that emanate from there are certainly not those usually associated with the Democratic Party.  

    Because Barack Obama ... (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Tortmaster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:29:42 PM EST
    ... taught at the University of Chicago, do you believe he should bear responsibility for each of the professors at the school? All 2,168 of them?

    Seriously, you're not suggesting that because somebody in another department on the University of Chicago campus teaches something, that that something should be attributable to Barack Obama?

    On another note, how is "on a path to" so different from "set up a task force" that you need to disparage a Democratic candidate's character?

    Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force.

    It is almost as bad as claiming Obama puffed his resume about being a professor at the law school when the University of Chicago Law School actually referred to him as a professor.  

     

    Parent

    Aren't some of Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:35:27 PM EST
    consultant advisors in his present campaign assoc. with the Univ. of Chicago?  

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM EST
    ...goolsbee is probably the best known... mostly for 'NAFTA-gate' which seemed to also escape the Obama whopper list...

    Parent
    And after being wrong about ... (4.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Tortmaster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:36:56 PM EST
    the whole "law professor" thing, why would you take a right-wing blogger's statement to be true that contained the following:

    'Obama ... seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform.

    "Seemed to" seems like a ridiculous standard for besmirching another person's character, especially when the person who "seems" to think it was an exaggeration is a right-wing blogger.

    Parent

    Tortmaster, what "right wing bloggers" (none / 0) (#67)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    are you talking about?

    Also the "whole law professor thing" was not "wrong". It was only half wrong. Read Jeralyn's summation below the fold, or see my post below.

    Parent

    Professor Althouse ... (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:03:21 AM EST
    ... is who I'm talking about. TL cut and pasted Professor Althouse's slash and burn from the HRC campaign site. Which reminds me ....

    3. Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

    When you go to the HRC campaign website and review their short discussion of this issue, you'll note that their only complaint -- and remember that they are hardly impartial observers -- is that Barack Obama should have ALSO given credit to others for community organizing on the asbestos issue.

    Seems impossibly flimsy to base an attempt to stain a Democratic candidate's reputation.

    As for your second assertion, FoxholeAtheist, the University of Chicago, his employer at the time -- a bunch of super smart eggheads -- called him a professor.  


    Parent

    Tortmaster, again (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:37:23 AM EST
    all 10 of these exaggerations were exposed by major news organizations BEFORE they were compiled into a list by the Clinton Campaign. Clinton didn't make them up, nor did Althouse, or Talk Left, or any other nefarious anti-Obama entity.

    Your ongoing statements clearly indicate that you aren't keeping up with the readings attached to this story. So, good night friend.

    Parent

    Crazy Talk (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Faust on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:12:21 AM EST
    I detect no crazy right wing business on Althouse's site.

    In any case her piece is hardly "slash and burn."


    Parent

    Compare the length of ... (1.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:36:52 AM EST
    ... the Althouse snippets to the actual HRC campaign blurbs.

    When you're writing about another person's reputation, I just think that rolling all of the ideas that one must convey into one sentence or sentence frag is tantamount to a "slash and burn" tactic.

    Parent

    well... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:17:12 AM EST
    ...maybe her piece isn't... ;-)

    Parent
    And maybe... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:15:12 AM EST
    ...if these partisans ever crossed over to the right wing law blogs (i.e., volokh.com) they would realize that Senator Obama is certainly not the dream candidate of the Richard Posners of this world.
     Incidentally, I believe Martha Nussbaum also supports Senator Obama.  She is one of my favorite American philosophers and has been a strong advocate for women, the poor, the GLBT community, etc.  She is also a professor at UofC, albeit outside the law and economics norms of its more public image.

    Parent
    It is actually pretty depressing ... (3.66 / 3) (#90)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:21:46 AM EST
    ... when you take the time to read the actual "charges" on the Clinton for President website. Here's another one:

    Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "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... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

    (emphasis added) Notice the interplay of the words "won't" and "could" in the HRC material. A fair interpretation might be that lobbyists could work in the WH but Obama won't let them. If Penn and Wolfson are coming up with this weak stuff, they need to be axed immediately. This is why HRC is at 37% unfavorable and sinking.

    It also looks like a transparent attempt to divert attention from Bosnia-gate. Don't Penn and Wolfson realize that if the media reports this Obama stuff there will be two or three paragraphs rehashing the Tuzla affair?    

    Bosnia-gate? (none / 0) (#130)
    by magisterludi on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:51:06 AM EST
    Are you serious? For every Clinton-gate there is a corresponding Obama-gate. I can think of several "gates" for Obama- Rezko is one. I note you don't mention flamethrower Wright, either.

     BTW-For a candidate who has been proclaimed the teller of "the unvarnished truth", Obama sure uses a lot of literary license.

    Parent

    Hillarys Lies (none / 0) (#7)
    by cdelarge on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:44:54 PM EST
    are far more serious than Obamas. Ducking sniper fire - come on - The Republicans will use loop after loop of that one - not to mention - bringing Peace to Ireland - oh such whoppers - I can go on because there are plenty.  

    Actually, she has some press to counter (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:56:03 PM EST
    those situations that McCain can't match. And Obama certainly can't even hit the playing field with. Unless, of course, we are just supposed to "trust his word". {rolls eyes}

    Parent
    Hillary landed in an area where sniper (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:00:44 PM EST
    was common.  I can understand her mistake if she was told that the area was prone to sniper fire, and she also knew that Bill Clinton did not go there because it was too dangerous for him.  But how can Obama say he was conceived in 1965 in Selma, when he was born in 1961?

    Parent
    It's a miracle! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:32:10 PM EST


    Parent
    by immaculate misconception (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:26:53 AM EST


    Parent
    He didn't say he was conceived in Selma... (none / 0) (#38)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:28:47 PM EST
    He was saying that because of what happened there, he was conceived.  It was a stretch, but it was mostly symbolic.  He was generally talking about the civil rights movement and the ability of his parents to end up together.  

    As to the "sniper fire" give me a break.  It is not as drastic a stretch as some make it out to be, but it's way more intense (and easily made in to an ad) than anything Obama has got.

    I don't blame you Clinton supporters though.  This is what Obama supporters did with the Wright thing.  I just wish we could focus on ol' McSame.

    Parent

    So, he was conceived (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:41:02 AM EST
    because of something that happened 4 years after he was born?

    He's creating a myth about his life, and sanding down the edges to make it fit.

    I'm concerned about the first one, the nuclear leak one, because the company concerned made large donations to his campaign.

    The others..... he's creating a myth. Shows a bit about his inner processes.

    Parent

    I thought Obama was conceived on a bridge in Selma (none / 0) (#119)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:45:56 AM EST


    Parent
    The speech about the bridge? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:52:37 AM EST
    What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, "You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites." So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

    This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

    I'm here because somebody marched. I'm here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I thank the Moses generation; but we've got to remember, now, that Joshua still had a job to do.

     There are obviously points to criticize, but you are not doing yourself any favors by overselling your case.  

    Parent

    please don't go on (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:04:43 PM EST
    because so far you're put out campaign spin instead of truth.  highly unhelpful to anyone.

    Parent
    Not a good argument (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:06:10 PM EST
    to justify one persons lies as "more serious" as another.

    What is "more serious" to who?  the media? or to the voter? or to Obama supporters?

    Exagerations, mishaps happen... but when the candidate is running on a "Higher Ground" campaign... that campaign better hold to its own measuring stick.

    Parent

    The diff: HRC is SOP, BO fails His Own standard (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM EST
    This should be getting more play but is being buried in TeamO's tantrums.

    Obama has made the promise for a non-partisan style of politics. But not a day goes by when he and his inner circle fail even to come close.

    HRC has only said that she can win with the system already in place that went after fmr. Pres Clinton, then Sen Clinton full force. She has proven herself on that account.

    What TeamO tries to do is hold HRC to their own ridiculous measure for "new" politics ... when they don't hold their own guy to it at all.

    They laud him for reaching out and "uniting" with hard right jerks but vilify HRC even for being seen with them and not doing frankly infantile stuff like BO's turning his back on her when she greeted him, and refusing to shake her hand.

    Nice. Who's on higher ground here anyway?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#86)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:14:08 AM EST
    you need to read my statement again. I'm saying the same thing you are without getting into the "who did what" argument.

    Parent
    Just adding to your point, because ... (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:44:37 AM EST
    ... the distinction of who set, and failed, that particular standard gets blurred so often it's as if Obama's explicit and repeated promise was never made at all, nor failed on such a regular basis.

    I do think it's important to bring that back to recalibrate Obama's positions and actions.

    I wasn't keeping score before, as in the spirit of "let's all rise above this" I really thought that with two strong candidates who brought different skills to the race, doing so was petty.

    But the level of viciousness from the new unity brigade has simply stunned me. It's at the level of ugliness Repugs have been bringing to races for decades with a dismal twist: unity with the RW attack squadrons to do TeamO's dirty work.

    I just don't like that strategy.

    Parent

    Ellie (none / 0) (#147)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    Thanks for the expansion of the idea .....
    "level of viciousness" makes me cautious... sometimes to much so!

    Parent
    Northern Ireland... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:43:15 PM EST
    the Republic of Ireland has been at peace for quite some time.

    As for her part in it, she (and the foundation that she helped found) were involved in encouraging the creation of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition...a serious participant in the Stormont Peace Talks that happened after the election of the negotiating parties.

    While Mitchell, Clinton, Ahern, Blair, Adams, Trimble, and Hume were major players with regards to the talks, her involvement was helpful in getting women's voices to that table.

    Parent

    Her autobiography (none / 0) (#162)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    accurately describes the trip to Bosnia, and she has accurately referenced it before. One off-the-cuff gaffe that can easily be countered can hardly constitute serious fodder against Hillary.

    Besides, it would be quite dangerous to practice such campaigns because McCain has given us extensive, more serious material to work with: Iran is training al Qaeda, etc.

    Parent

    There are several (none / 0) (#16)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    others that we have discussed here... that are not on the list.

    Being from Illinois....
    2006 On the January 22nd edition of "Meet the Press," Tim Russert and Obama had the following exchange:

    Russert: "When we talked back in November of '04 after your election, I said, 'There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?'"
    Obama: "I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed."
    Russert: "So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?"
    Obama: "I will not."

    I beleive there was also a discussion about...
    Barack Obama in 2003, talking to the AFL/CIO...

    "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That's what I'd like to see."

    In January, 2008, Obama claimed in a nationally televised debate....

    "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer."


    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by nell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:01:44 PM EST
    And the Clinton campaign released a video clip of him saying he wanted single payer and then in the debate saying that it never happened...

    He was asked about it by Meredith Viera on GMA, but he pretended he couldn't hear her...it was BS...he just overstepped the issue by acting like he didn't know what she was asking and she of course let him play dumb.

    He has so many contradictions and exaggerations...he didn't know what the meaning of decriminalize was is another good one for his flip-flopping the decriminalization of drugs...

    Parent

    It is the first nine (none / 0) (#19)
    by Coldblue on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:01:04 PM EST
    that are more relevant to Obama's 'get what you need to know' rhetoric.

    Professor-gate...meaningless

    well... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:01:54 PM EST
    Sen. Obama is getting a string of endorsements in the coming week (or so says the WSJ). I don't think any of this matters anymore.

    The GE is different thing.

    "The GE is different thing." (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:20:33 PM EST
    That it is. OY.
     

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#36)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:28:32 PM EST
    sorry for the terrible english.
    half asleep.


    Parent
    Shoot! it had nothing to do with your (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
    English! I didn't even notice! Me half asleep too!  :)

    Parent
    J, nice to have you back at the helm. (none / 0) (#22)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    When I first started hearing about the Clinton Campaign's list of 10 Obama exaggerations, I didn't realize that all 10 of the 10 items had been previously exposed as exaggerations by major news organizations (NYTimes, LA Times, Chicago Trib, etc.)

    It's unfortunate that none of those news organizations didn't perform the public service of compiling that list and releasing it themselves.

    Instead that responsibility fell upon the Clinton Campaign, and now the MSM assumes the safe position of reporting on the list; while giving the casual observer the impression that it was all ginned up by the Clinton Campaign.

    At least it's out there.

    Repeating my post from earlier re: academic ranks (none / 0) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    As an adjunct at a local community college (I have a PhD), I am referred to as "professor" or "Doctor."

    Were I to be on a tenure track at some place like GW, I would start out as an Assistant Professor and work my way up through the ranks. I'd get tenure just as I gained the title of Associate Professor. [Addition: I wouldn't become a full professor for a few years after being an Associate Professor.]

    When I taught at a research, I university as a full time Instructor, I was not on a tenure track...but was still referred to as "professor" though the more correct moniker would be "Doctor."

    I've noticed that some disciplines have a lot of adjunct professors and the p/t status thing isn't a stigma.

    The pain in the arse part about it is the lack of benefits, salary, and job security.

    I've met some other Adjunct Professors at International Studies/Political Science conferences.

    Kredwyn, I replied to this (none / 0) (#76)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:04:42 AM EST
    the first time you posted it. You're confusing the issue again as you did the first time. I won't repeat/rehash my reply again, but here's the link.

    Parent
    I don't think I'm confused... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:09:14 AM EST
    I get what the uproar was about. I agree with Jeralyn and think that this is an issue that's a hair splitter and tends to be university and discipline specific.

    Parent
    You don't have to be confused to be confusing. (none / 0) (#106)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:43:22 AM EST


    Parent
    It seems to me... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:47:03 AM EST
    that large chunks of academe thrive on being confusing. I spent a good deal of doctor school scratching my head at the ins and outs of departmental politics... :)

    Parent
    Hat tip to Stellaa for (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:26:58 PM EST
    Obama campaign's "what Obama meant" when he spoke Friday on The View:

    HINDSIGHT

    3 point line (none / 0) (#41)
    by edinmissouri on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
    The ABA introduced the 3 point line in 1967.  The ABA was popular in the 70's and he like I were raining threes and dribbling those funky balls

    These are not winning issues for Hillary (none / 0) (#57)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:42:37 PM EST
    That is my opinion anyway.

    Most voters would not be able to tell what the Professor Flap is even all about. Does Obama even mention this?

    25% of anti-Obama voters think he is a Muslim. And the voters will make distinctions about all these subtle complaints? And THEN swing around to Senator Clinton?

    I just don't see it. Shouldn't supporters of Hillary ask "What will throw the race back in Hillary Clinton's favor?"

    Do any of you really think this list that Ann Althouse made will put Hillary back in the lead?

    If you already hate Obama, this will strengthen your hate. If a voter is neutral or even sees him as this nice  young man, how do THESE issues equal  "Vote Hillary"?
     

    Since I'm a (none / 0) (#58)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:42:54 PM EST
    transplant from myDD I've already seen this list a long time ago.  Over at myDD it's popular to cut and paste directly from the HillaryHub website.

    I'm a little surprised to see that done here, although I'm new so I don't know what's typical.  People should know that some of the stuff provided by HHub ends up being discredited.  I can point to examples if people care.  

    This list taken at face value isn't very meaningful, to my thinking.  It looks like over-hyped gaffes, very old family stories, and bluster posing as outrage.  I don't feel like taking it apart, I've been doing that stuff at myDD for too long, I'm here for a break.  

    Also, if anyone doubts I can come up with a much tougher list of HRC exagerations, you can check out some of my old posts at myDD.  It was not long ago I thought this kind of "battling" was fun.

    Here is something nice.

    People, read the original NEWS SOURCES (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:02:34 AM EST
    which first exposed the issues that ended up on the List of Obama's Ten Exaggerations.

    These specific criticisms of Obama's credibility didn't originate with Clinton.

    The Clinton Campaign compiled the list after the questions were already in the public domain.

    A lot of the comments seem to entirely miss, or misrepresent, that fact.  

    Parent

    That's the problem... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:23:39 AM EST
    ...we have read them, including the NY Times pieces before Super Tuesday, and we have found them wanting.

     Look, at least on this site Senator Obama's supporters are confronted with the following:

     Empty suit
     Will vote for McCain instead of Obama
     Sexist
     Race baiter
     Will vote for Nader
     Liar
     Media darling
     10 misstatements
     Cult of personality
     Kool Aid
     Rev. Wright
     Rezko
     Fairy tale

     etc. By contrast, I have not seen many Obama supporters delve into the more explosive aspects of the Clinton legacy.  That is true self-restraint.

     For me, the Clinton legacy is itself a fairy tale.  You want us to believe they were true Democrats despite all evidence to the contrary.  And, on top of that, you want us to believe that Senator Obama is a) not electable, b) lying, and c) inexperienced.  As opposed to Senator Clinton. Oh, and more than a few HRC supporters here also suggest they will either a) vote for McCain or b) sit out the GE.  

     Ha.  Well, I have been involved in Democratic politics since I was twelve.  Now 25, I feel better than ever about my vote.  I will vote for whoever wins the primary, as will most Obama supporters.  It is a shame that HRC supporters have been pushed into a corner because their candidate did not win, but it does not excuse their behavior.
       

    Parent

    So you compare negatives to negatives? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:48:59 AM EST
    Wow.  Lousy sales job.

    You should be comparing Hillary's negatives to Obama's positives.  And please, no Unity, Post Partisanship, Change, Transformative Politics or anything else that can't be substantiated.

    Parent

    Wow! 13 years (none / 0) (#140)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:07:31 AM EST
    of involvement in politics!  Thanks for the good work!  And for staying with the Dems thru the Clinton era....

    from someone who came into the world less than a month before FDR's election.  Personally, I got involved at age 7 (on the wrong side, seduced by Wilkie's peace speeches, I seem to recall.)

    Parent

    Excuse you? (none / 0) (#166)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:51:40 AM EST
    Take a look at any of the other Left blogs, and you could easily compile a similar list of terms describing Hillary and her supporters. Although, I would argue that mentioning Rezko is not without merit, since he was a fundraiser for the Obama campaign and has had extensive financial ties to Obama.

    Last I checked, nearly 20% of Obama supporters were willing to vote for McCain or sit out the General, if Hillary received the nomination.

    And to clarify, we aren't bitter losers like you characterize. First, this race isn't over contrary to the spin and disenfranchisement you're peddling. Second, we've been pushed into the corner NOT by some mythical loss but by the incessant hatred from the Media and crazed Obama supporters. The "movement" is alienating and supported so much by an anti-Hillary attitude.

    Parent

    P.S. for Jeralyn (none / 0) (#63)
    by dem08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:44:54 PM EST
    I have seen you often argue eloquently on television about prosecutors. Isn't THIS Althouse list "Overcharging the defendant"? Don't juries, i.e., the voters, shut down when issues are so esoteric and seem redundant?

    I've noticed that you spend (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08:49 AM EST
    a great deal of time over here now Bob.  If you don't like the content of this site, why do you come here?

    Me too... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:19:43 AM EST
    ;-P

    Parent
    What Ann Althouse actually said (none / 0) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:26:45 AM EST
    I just read the Ann Althouse column. As Jeralyn suggested, it seems Althouse thinks the focus on the 'law professor flap' is a deliberate diversion to keep us from looking more closely at Obama's other nine exaggerations.

    That puts it in a different perspective altogether. Now I'm somewhat sorry I ever made an issue of it, although I still feel like that fig-leaf needed to be stripped off as well.

    Althouse says: "See what's going on? It was a list of 10 things, intended to show a pattern of puffery (and to balance the Bosnian sniper idiocy), and people are focusing on one item (admittedly, the first item), which is a distraction from the list as a whole. That's an okay rhetorical move, but excuse me if I see right through it."

    Now I see it too.

    Altmouse (none / 0) (#158)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    http://altmouse.blogspot.com/

    Parent
    gee bob johnson, (none / 0) (#135)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:36:21 AM EST
    is that what you call it?

    I'm just a poster at a variety of blogs, not a proprietor of a so-called prominent progressive blog.

    i just thought you suffered from "blog tourette's syndrome" not that you actually thought about what you were posting.

    sorry, clearly my mistake! :)

    here's the rub, with respect to those 9 (or 10, or 11, etc.) exaggerations:

    yes, these have all been previously mentioned by the MSM. this is what happened to gore and kerry: the republican/right-wingnut smear machine didn't create the falshoods and distortions, the supposedly liberal MSM did that for them. they merely allowed that to continue and created commercials etc., constantly pounding those themes into the consciousness of the voters.

    it was the MSM that came up with they myth of "gore claimed to have invented the internet", not karl rove. it was the MSM that made windsurfing by kerry an issue, not karl rove. notice a pattern here? rove didn't have to do anything, the MSM pretty much did it all for him.

    this is the significance of those exaggerations; they will be turned into constant commercials, etc. by the 527's and mccain campaign.

    in truth, few of these exaggerations really matter all that much individually, they just don't. collectively, they provide the framework for the assault which will most assuredly come in the fall, should sen. obama be the dem. nominee.

    unlike sen. clinton, who has nearly two decades worth of experience dealing with this, sen. obama is a rank amatuer. he, and by extension, his campaign, won't know what hit him.

    Personal wake up call (none / 0) (#137)
    by Munibond on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:48:41 AM EST
    This discussion reminds me that obsessing over whether Obama or Clinton wins the nomination is one of the less constructive things that I could be doing with my time.  The list is lame.  Clinton and Obama have like all politicians embellished their resumes and personal experiences, and if they get caught and need to strike back they would be better served, as would their supporters, by pointing out McCain slipups, of which I am sure there are many.  

    So what in the world is the point of this? (none / 0) (#146)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:00:54 AM EST
    All I can imagine is it is some desperate attempt to say "Look! Obama exaggerated too! Clinton is not that bad!!" I missed the exaggeration where he claimed to have landed under sniper fire somewhere in the world.

    Umm... (none / 0) (#175)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    ...that is exactly the point.  Clinton gets hammered 24/7 by every news outlet for doing something that Obama himself has frequently done

    That is the point.  Period.  Exclamation Point.

    Parent

    MEDIA BIAS (none / 0) (#149)
    by Neesa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    Hi all' as an Irish supporter of Hillary, I am devastated at the injustice of the media,
    so i have a suggestion, post to BRITISH RAG MAG'S
    DAILY MAIL, THE SUN, THE STAR,they would love the
    ODINGA story ,Sky pick's it up,it's all over
    EUROPE,try you never know what might happen,
    Good LUCK.
    Neesa.

    Instead of insulting... (none / 0) (#164)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    ...why not counter it. This isn't Daily Kos. People don't usually just write a short insult comment and move on. That's why some of us are here - becaue intelligent discourse is encouraged. If you don't like the post, then challenge it, but don't just insult it. And don't be afraid of having an intelligent retort ignored or removed. If you keep the language clean and don't insult other poster's, then you will get intelligent replies in turn.

    Embelishments/Exagerations (none / 0) (#165)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    Psych 101

    The way people talk about past events can affect the way they remember them (Tversky & Marsh, 2000).

    Social context will shape the stories people tell.

    They will change stories for different audiences... they will exaggerate to entertain and simplify to inform.

    The tendency is to embelishment/exageration about ones SELF.

    So, basically, the post provides everyone with the HUMAN side of Sen Obama. LOL!! No walking on water!

    And we all know that Sen Clinton IS HUMAN. We see and hear it every day in the attacks by the media.

    Obama takes questions in PA gas station.. what is (none / 0) (#181)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    What is he talking or bumbling ???
    I cannot make any sense? We have troops in France, Great Britain to take care of our embassies and other personnels!

    Obama how good ?

    If they press/media starting grilling him with just 10% intensity that they do to Sen Clinton.. this guys would be go "puff" in a second!! He cannot really talk anything else from his rehearsed talking points!! Watch the video and I cannot make any difference if the face was replaced with George Bush's !!

    Think Obama is articulate..?? watch the above clip (none / 0) (#182)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    A must see for Obama Supporters!!
    He is articulate unless for those moments when the speech is not written by someone else!!

    Parent
    Obama's Other Nine Exaggerations | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment