Feet Of Clay

When I discuss the Left Blogs' reaction to everything Barack Obama, I am past the point of pointing what I perceive as aspects of his political style that I find lacking. I am no longer pointing out Obama's feet of clay. I am pointing to the feet of clay of the Left blogs. Now Matt Stoller writes about Obama on Fox:

I think lost in all this nonsense is just how weakened we [the Left blogs] have become in all this. When we accept lies from our leaders and openly dismissive knocks from them, it destroys our core argument that Democrats need to have integrity and to stand up for themselves. No they don't. We don't stand up for ourselves and we let them lie to us without consequence.


< My Reform For The Nomination Process | Justice Scalia on "60 Minutes" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    i hope (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    he reads his own posts.

    You go, Turk! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by magnetics on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:03:54 PM EST
    I love your posts at leftcoaster, but never comment because I really dislike the gatekeeping system over there.

    But that doesn't stop me from enjoying (in Mencken's words) your "high toned and illuminating stuff."

    As you might expect, I long ago dropped out of Big Orange.  


    Heh (5.00 / 15) (#39)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:11:05 PM EST
    It's amazing that all these alleged smart political analysts are just now realizing that if you ask for nothing in return for your support, nothing is what you'll get.  Well, duh.

    The part I loved was even as he's upset with Obama, he still couldn't resist mentioning Hillary and Bosnia (I guess that wasn't a "distraction" at the ABC debate, that's serious business).   And, yes, Matt, Hillary's private, over-edited statement about Move-On is the same as going on Fox and throwing Kos under the bus.  Except, of course, when Clinton's spokesman went on Fox it was to defend Kos and Clinton voted against sanctioning Move On.  Not that that has done her a bit of good with the blogosphere.


    as John Adams said (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    (or at least the HBO John Adams):

    a mob is still a mob, even if they're with you.


    (yes I cannot get in to comment there either) (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    really infuriating me yesterday: paradox has it WRONG in the post about Gores endorsement that 80% by 2050 is too late.

    Look, all the Senate plans include a % per year drops and how to enact that to make it happenstarting with passage.

    Boxer/Sanders is the best and Kerry/Snowe and McCain/Lieberman/Obama are the worst:
    Comparisons links lead to NYT graph

    2050 is the end not the beginning marker.


    Shocking! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    Maybe now that they know he is human they can return to some more objective place.  We shall see.

    don't count on it (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:03:20 PM EST
    first the "top librul, A-list bloggers" were blinded by their self-infatuated fantasies of what Obama was, even though there was no evidence (other than some flowery speeches) that he was anything like what they imagined (but there was and is substantial evidence he isn't what they dreamed he was.)

    now, having invested pretty much everything in Obama: their reputations, their credibility, their standing, the Obamamania bloggers are highly unlikely to be able to say 'oopsie, maybe we weren't so good to be going all wingnut over Obama'. In fact just like the wingnuts invested in the righteousness of the Iraq invasion, the Obama bloggers will never be able to admit they were wrong in their extremism.


    If They Had An Ounce Of Integrity, They Would (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:22:39 PM EST
    admit the mistake.  

    it was my understanding that KOS was paid (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:28:37 PM EST
    to put up a front for Obama to bash  Clinton .

    Obama bloggers seemed more like juvenile pranksters who should have their computers taken away from the grownups. Maybe this will be a lesson in the school of hard knocks for them.

    Will Kos address this? I can't wait.


    Where did get your understanding (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00:52 PM EST
    of such an arrangement between Kos and Obama? I have not heard anything of it. Kos has done paid work for campaigns but as far as I know he always disclosed those relationships.

    I Can't Speak To That, But Kos Is Really (none / 0) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:44 PM EST
    working the "I'm for Obama" express.  There is no denying that.  He might as well get paid for it.

    Let me bring something up: (none / 0) (#134)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:57 AM EST
    I recall that kos talked A LOT about the coming vast left-wing conspiracy, including his repeated referals to a new, publishing company (whose name unfortunately escapes me).

    He doesn't talk about it anymore.  Now, the vast, right-wing conspiracy had all those in it coordinating their responses, and Markos's argument was that the left should do the same.

    This makes me very, very suspicious that the original nucleus of the left-wing conspiracy was there, and it went for Obama, as a result of a few panderings by Obama people (buying their alliance with a song, as they say, and No, Hillary couldn't do that transaction.)  

    Markos had similar attitudes backing Edwards at the beginning and bashing Hillary and Obama (much more Hillary than Obama), until it became clear that Edwards wasn't going to make it, and Obama was the 'insurgent' horse to back.  Then, Markos did a 180 and started critisizing Edwards.

    What do you expect of a guy with a political blog, in a time of two wars, collasping economy and home foreclosures, monumental deficits, etc. etc. ... who said he voted for Obama b/c... (drum roll, please) "I can't stand Terry McAuliffe"?


    KOS and the Rove playbook (none / 0) (#144)
    by BGP on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:16:15 AM EST
    Yes, I think KOS was one of the Left Bloggers who wanted to use the Rove playbook. I think he also wants to destroy the DLC but to replace it with what?

    I was naive enough to think the stuff about turning the tables on Rove was just talk. We're the "good guys" after all. What do you have if you don't have your principles?

    But to turn Rove tactics on one of our own seems unforgivable to me. It's behavior I don't want to condone in any way. So that's why I'll have trouble voting for Obama. I understand the argument that you can't blame the candidate for his supporters but I haven't seen him do anything to try to tone them down. In fact, his post-debate behavior seemed to egg them on.

    Anyway, this last Fox interview is the last straw. Why NOT vote for McCain if I'll be getting Bush III whichever way I go?


    Now I understand (none / 0) (#138)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:21 AM EST
    Kos is not being paid.  He WILL GET PAID.  He has finished a book, and what better marketing angle for the book than to say, Markos was instrumental in Obama's victory?  That would be the start of every TV segment on which he appears to sell his book.  

    reaction of Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:14:43 PM EST
    Good analysis.  We all know from experience that it can be more than difficult to admit error in these kinds of situations.

    the bigger the mistake (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:19:34 AM EST
    the harder it is to admit it.

    It's a new variation of, "the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe it."


    Maybe the luster is going away from both of (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:36:00 PM EST
    our candidates....I hope so...We need to see the entire picture while it isn't too late...It might already be too late....:-(

    now he gets it? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:36:47 PM EST
    better late then never I guess.

    I just saw the interview (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    and read Greg Sargent's post about it.

    Obama isn't going to piss off the establishment.

    Hillary will take them on.

    I'm with her.

    What you mean "we" Stoller? (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST

    To expand on this point (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:54:43 PM EST
    I was in one of the first categories to be thrown under the bus by Obama under the guise of his supposedly "reaching out to people who disagree with him." So you know, I don't have any sympathy for people who didn't recognize this until now. (I don't actually mean Stoller, but there are others who have no right to be upset about this.).

    I exclude from consideration those who think this is doubleplusgood.


    Omigod (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    I was in one of the first categories to be thrown under the bus by Obama

    You're a mime?!


    Same here (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28:25 PM EST
    and the experience was an eye opener for me. I quickly realized that my rights are expendable if they come into conflict with Obama's desire to get the nomination. There are some issues where there is no room for compromise. It kept me from drinking from the communal cup of koolaid.

    If I can remember correctly (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:08 AM EST
    The discussion went something like this:

    Yes, McClurkin was offensive.
    Yes, Obama should have offered a specific apology.
    Yes, GLBTs have a right to be offended.
    BUT it really doesn't matter.
    BUT people really shouldn't be offended.
    BUT Obama talks about gays in his speeches so that makes it all okay.
    GLBTs shouldn't hold McClurkin against Obama after all.

    Tres charmant.  I wonder how many others have found their concerns addressed thusly.  


    I think I hear Thus Spake Zarathustra (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    thundering through the blogosphere. Hey! What's that tall silver thing over there? Hmmmm.......

    does this mean... (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    that the Kool-Aid effect wears off over time?

    Obama is weak and afraid to take on Fox...who knew?

    Obama doesn't strike me as capable of beating McCain but hey, what do I know...I drink Coke®

    His feet of clay are one thing but I am totally bothered by his careful, stilting speech pattern.

    Hillary has proven to be the tougher candidate...does anyone actually doubt that?

    Oh, please. (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    We don't stand up for ourselves and we let them lie to us without consequence.

    You've stood up plenty.  You wanted it right now and pretended the old people didn't know anything.

    As Groucho said.... (none / 0) (#153)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    "A college widow stood for something in those days. In fact, she stood for plenty..."

    I can't help it. (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:46:56 PM EST
    I'm really enjoying this.  Obama is treating the Obama bloggers like a fan club.  Which is what they are, of course.  He takes them for granted, just like he thought he could take the older women and "Archie Bunkers" for granted.  Karma is so satisfying when it's happening to someone else.

    The department of schadenfreude (none / 0) (#152)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    Predictable and predicted (2008-02-04)

    Obama has no history of fighting for (5.00 / 15) (#11)
    by MMW on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    anything other than himself. What would lead anyone to believe that he would fight now or in the future for liberals or democratic values?

    Past behavior is a pretty good predictor of future behavior. Maybe some of us just aren't old enough to know that.

    Does this remind anyone else of a bad relationship, an abusive one?

    Bingo! (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:48 PM EST
    Obama has no history fighting for anything other than himself

    I think this all one need ever say about Obama.


    Give Obama credit: he fought for the (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    insurance companies when he was in the IL legislator.. and acquitted himself quite well in the fight.

    I especially liked it (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    when I complained that Obama had no substance and someone told me to go to his website.

    If that wasn't a red flag, I don't know what would be.

    I wish I had a nickel (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST
    for everytime someone told me "go to his website."

    You would be so rich. (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Dave Latchaw on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:50:39 PM EST
    I want Obama to go read his website and then tell me about it.

    I loved the recent Krugman op ed (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:11:19 AM EST
    in which he stated, don't tell me to go to the websiteò I have.

    Welcome, Matt (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:54:23 PM EST
    to the ranks of the waffle people, formed by the tire treads of that Obama bus.

    BTW (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    I am done for the night and pretending that a certain preacher does not exist.

    I believe he is a GOP agent now.

    BTD-- (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    you seem really disillusioned today.  I'm sorry, guy.  As my granny used to say: It's hard to keep hope sometimes, but everything always works out in the end--and if it doesn't, then you know it's not really the end.

    Kind of interesting our estimable (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:14:27 AM EST
    poster refuses to watch Wright, who is such a big chink in his candidate's armour.

    And Wright's impact on Obama's electability (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:19 PM EST
    if Wright keeps putting himself before the media, as he is doing daily now and for days ahead -- thoughts on that and your theory, BTD?  Or does the media darling status carry Obama over this yet again, I presume?  

    After all, so far, Obama's Teflon coating makes Reagan's look like tin foil. :-)


    Can't say I blame you, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    Wright sure didn't do Obama any favors tonight. thought GEraldo on Fox and Soledad and Roland Martin on CNN would beg to differ.

    I flipped the channel after he finished speaking (none / 0) (#102)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    on the first loop but caught the 'after' analysis on the second time through and it seemed as though Soledad and Roland were simply bailing water.

    It didn't seem to me that unlike the Moyers interview, that this does Obama any favors at all...the buzz the next few days might be interesting.

    The big problem is that this makes a lot more video clips and him mocking some people is just bad.


    Ha! You may be right. (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    do you mean wright? is he on tv? (none / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    Wright Was On Bill Moyers Friday Night (none / 0) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:26:33 PM EST
    He is speaking to NAACP today and some other place tomorrow....can't remember what it is...something to do with the media I think.

    Wright Speaking tomorrow in DC (none / 0) (#74)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    He's speaking tomorrow at the National Press Club at 9AM ET on C-SPAN.

    Now question (none / 0) (#136)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:20 AM EST
    Wasn't it the case that the President and other big-wigs attended the NAACP's annual dinner (or was it something else)?

    With Wright there, it's probably a sure bet that Bill, Hillary, and Barack won't be there.

    Maybe that was NAACP's brilliant play to stop Hillary from coming.


    Eek (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:00:58 PM EST
    Didn't watch. . .

    Replaying right now on CNN. It's the (none / 0) (#30)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    intro first.

    Oh no! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:01:36 PM EST
    What did I miss? What did he do now?

    Not sure if there is anything new (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    I don't seek Wright, rather I let Wright be thrust upon me.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    And if Obama gets the nomination, you can bet that the GOP will make sure we're all, um, thrusted, until we can't walk straight.

    Wright's NAACP Detroit speech televised (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM EST
    today in full on several cable networks.

    Tomorrow, he's at the National Press Club in D.C., a lot of media, probably will be on tv again . . . and again . . . and again. . . .

    I am so disappointed in Moyers, btw.  What a wussy interview.


    TV also aired a sermon he gave today (none / 0) (#56)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:25:38 PM EST
    He was singing a lot (none / 0) (#66)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    when I was watching.  I don't see what the attraction was.  He doesn't seem like such a great orator.

    What I really want to know is.... (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    what is it about Obama that makes smart men stupid? That entire thread is totally divorced from the reality of who both Clinton and Obama are. Matt's waking up a bit, but he clearly has no objective take on Obama.

    Going Out On A Limb, But Do You Think It (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    is white guilt that has made smart men stupid?  So many people are tiptoeing around race and racism, it clouds issues.

    I think they're tip toeing around it because (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by lorelynn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM EST
    it doesn't serve their purposes to address it. I'm not even sure white guilt exists. We aren't responsible for the problems of race that we have now. It's long since been insitutionalized and is only occasionally curable in a big way by one person changing their actions. If all of us white people behaved perfectly from here on out, because of economic inequality, it would still take generations to fix.

    Hating the Clintons became a way for conservatives to signal how "moral" they were. The more you hated Bill, the more you treasured marriage - that kind of thing. The same thing is now happening in the inverse with progressives. Hating Hillary is now proof that you're genuinely progressive and you get to bond with all of your Hillary hating buddies over just how hate-able Hillary is. Obama who is teh awesome is thus endowed as the anti-Hillary.


    Obama sure threw DailyKos under the bus! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    Oh wait - he's just acting Centrist now. When he gets into the White House he'll be a Progressive.

    I unfortunately read the comments... (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    I just had to laugh at and share this on....

    lambert at correntewire (0.00 / 0)
    has been running a nutsoid vendetta against Obama that has driven several other founders of the blog away and has involved such laughable moments as a claim that the use of the word "cling" by Obama indicated disrespect (eyes roll!). He's about as perspicacious an analyst of this race as Scaife - who wrote an editorial that could easily have run in Correntewire.
    by: rootless2 @ Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 19:19:09 PM CDT
    [ Parent ]

    I like Lambert, he cracks me up.  Can I like him even more now the some delusional Obama supporter has now compared him to Scaife?

    That's funny (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:12:39 PM EST
    I like lambert too - you certainly have my permission to like him even more now!

    One of my biggest disappointments (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    is the complete submission of The Nation to the Obama message; I got my issue yesterday, and the Editor's Note blames Hillary for everything: she is the negative one, she is the divisive one, she played the race card, and so on - I couldn't even get through the whole thing.

    I am cancelling my subscription, and telling them that their total abandonment of objectivity renders the entire content of the magazine suspect.

    I just plain do not trust them.  Propaganda is propaganda - and is not rendered credible just because it comes from someone or some entity on the same end of the political spectrum I'm on.

    Here's the deal with me: just give me information, please.  I am smart enough to take it in, process it, and form an opinion.  The more information you give me, the better.  Don't be afraid to tell me stuff I might not like - I can deal with it.  But when you leave out facts, when it's all opinion, I no longer trust you as a source of info.  When the lefty blogs - and they know who they are - stopped all pretense of objectivity, when they stopped holding all parties to the same standard, they lost me - probably for good.

    Such is life.

    Yep, Katrina Definitely Took A Wrong Turn (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:30:16 PM EST
    And her face looks more pinched than usual when you see her on the tube.

    The Nation (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:45:08 PM EST
    I just started subscribing last year to The Nation.  They have some truly horrid articles about Clinton.  I have gotten several renewal notices that I promptly send back with notes attached (and no postage) informing them of my desire for them to no longer send me their magazine.  They obviously don't read the messaegs I send because I get a letter from them every 2 weeks asking me to renew.

    The first thing I noticed after opening it up (none / 0) (#77)
    by leis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    was the BS editorial that referenced the BS poll that said Hillary was up 19 points in PA and Obama made a HUGE inroad into her lead. Real integrity, use the most outrageous poll to show what a loser Hillary was in the end. Again, I do not understand the willful blindness to his refusal to play with the Liberals.

    Wait a minute? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:40:19 AM EST
    Isn't Katrina vanden Heuvel a Clinton agent? That's what the Obama people say on Kos, after all ...

    I heard what I expected to hear (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    that he belongs to no party exclusively; that he believes in what is best for people (not what they feel is best); that he is not and never was "left";
    that he will be the decider if he believes it is a good thing; that he is a free market kinda guy: that he needs to learn how to talk to people less fortunate than he.

    Stoller is right. HIllary tells you who she is: A little right, a little left, sometimes in the middle.


    And thinks deregulation was great! (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    That was my favorite part.  Why didn't he run for the Republican nomination and get it over with?

    because he knew he'd never stand a (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:21:17 PM EST
    chance running as a repub--hence his need to use and abuse the dem party for his ambitions.

    fooey on Obama bloggers such as Stoller (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:07:52 PM EST
    the wingnut Obama bloggers were and are all about winning - doesn't matter what, they're perfectly happy to beat HRC and lose to mccain. They have NOTHING to do with anything of substances. makes them a perfect fit for Obama.

    Permission to speak frankly? Granted? Thanks. (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by magnetics on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:10:39 PM EST
    Here goes then.  Is it 'sliming' Obama to simply say I've always thought he was a three dollar bill, a media phenomenon, inexperienced, agressive, out for himself, and that his signature move was mounting legal challenges to the ballot credentials of other candidates so that he could run unopposed in his first race for Illinois State Senate?

    Speaking Truth Is Always Welcome (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:20 PM EST
    no but it's off topic... (none / 0) (#71)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    unless it's an open thread (which it's not)

    Funny... (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by Oje on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:14:03 PM EST
    I believe this whole taking "Fox on" on Fox began with Bill Clinton, one+ years ago, when he agreed to an interview at Murdock's request. Clinton was attacked as having a "melt-down" on Fox at the time.

    But, that was a transformational interview, more and more politicos challenged the right-wing media after that. And, I dare say, the blogosphere's widespread call for a boycott of Fox followed Clinton's combative appearance on Fox.

    Once again, it is a Clinton - not an Obama - who exhibit the traits that bloggers love most!

    Another Obama "Me Too" Moment (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    Frankly Kos deserves to be thrown under the bus and then run over several times.  As for Obama going on Fox...wtf...thought he was boycotting them, or was it just until he felt his republican base (cuz that is what he is) needed some reassuring.  I feel sure he received all the questions in advance, otherwise he would have made a complete idiot of himself.  I truly do not trust Obama, or his ratfaced campaign manager...sorry, had to say that.

    it's his... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by dws3665 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:16:38 PM EST
    Sistah Kosjah moment!

    I love the smell of irony in the evening.

    Are they having a moment... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    what with being swiped at by the candidate for our earlier (and correct) skepticism re: his position on Roberts?

    This has continued to be a (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by leis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    headscracher for me.  I don't understand how these blogs got so head over ears for Obama.  It's not as if he's really a liberal.  He doesn't even pretend to be. But I'd understand their adulation more if he weren't constantly running from the label (D).

    LOL, here's another comment (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:25:28 PM EST
    Sorry, I can't help reading the comments over there.  Summary: zzzzzzzzz.   But here's another good one....

    A lot of Hillary's supporters now only watch Fox because they think all the other stations have a pro-Obama bias. They want talk of flag-pins, Rezco, and wright 23/7 so that's where they go.   Go check out the mydd diaries if you don't believe me. Hillary has made multiple appearances on Fox and the station has been much harsher on him than on her.  The reason he went on fox seems obvious.  It's the only way to reach that particular segment of the democratic electorate.

    OK, I have to quit laughing at them, it just seems mean.

    It's HRC's Fault (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by themomcat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST
    Just as I expected. Blame Hillary, it justifies everything that Obama does.

    Need More Laffs...Go To HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    You will have a boatload of laffs over there.

    I saw Arianna on C-Span today (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:19 PM EST
    and someone asked her why she wasn't a Hillary supporter since she has so many of the same characteristics. i.e, intelligence, accomplished, etc.  She said that she admires Hillary's discipline, etc. and holds her up as a role model for her girls, but that in the end Hillary has internalized Rovian political tactics.  I turned it off, but must say i am completely dumfounded by the comparison.  To me Rove represented winning by making up outrageous distortions about others. His lies were the most deceitful and distructive I have ever heard.  I do not believe that Hillary does that, but Obama supporters seem to have no trouble propogating that.

    wright got RAVES on Fox and cnn- BTW (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kenosharick on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    anyone else hear Obama claim credit for singlehandedly enacting ethics reform at the state and national levels?

    Don't tell me... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    No one has ever done more for ethics reform than Barack Obama.

    Raves from whom? (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:35:12 PM EST
    The commentators...Sanchez and Roland (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    Martin and Soledad on CNN. I haven't seen Fox.

    He got raves from sanchez (who is useless) (none / 0) (#84)
    by kenosharick on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    and 2 reporters on the phone- on fox it was Geraldo and several commentators; at least one was a fellow miniter.

    Check this out: (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    a diarist at MYDD claims Wright said the following:

    What he said before, and I assure you we will get a video, was that white kids use the left side of their brains and black kids use the right side of their brains to learn.  The problem with our society is that our education is tailored to left-brain thinking.  YES, HE REALLY USED THIS ARGUMENT.  This is exactly the basis for biological racism, and it is factually inaccurate!  There is more genetic variation within a race than between different racial groups:  that's the biological fact.

    Loathsome, vile, racist creep. This kind of ignorant crap is of a kind with his charge that the US plotted genocide against blacks with AIDS.


    are you f-ing kidding me? (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:20:18 PM EST
    What the heck is wrong with that man?  How does this help Obama?  And how did CNN folk lap this up?  It's preposterous and dangerous rhetoric.

    If you argue that blacks and whites have differently wired brains, then you have to accept the obverse, which is nasty, nasty stuff.

    It's the sort of "science" that you can read about in the Turner Diaries and The History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That sort of brain differentiation crap was the basis for eugenics and forced sterilization in our not so distant past.

    Oh, god, this is so dangerous.  Someone please shut this man up.  This is beyond party politics.  This is viciously destructive.  


    Only one thing to add (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:22:52 PM EST
    On top of this to see a smart, educated man say so many factually incorrect things and be held up as an example by MSM, what does it say to everyone?

    Have we really lost all respect for real knowledge, science and facts?


    Exactly correct. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:24:59 PM EST
    I saw that you commented over at MYDD. (none / 0) (#104)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    Is the diarist accurate in what he wrote?

    I watched the video (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:45 PM EST
    From what I heard the diarist is accurate. The implication was clear, that there are fundamental differences between European Americans and African Americans. But listen, Rev Wright said so many factually incorrect things that I simply lost count. He was talking about how because African tradition is oral storytelling this has somehow created a right brain lean. First, language is language and left brain no matter if oral or written. Secondly it implies a Lamarckian model of biology (not Darwinian).

    I could go on and on, but I'll just shut up instead.


    AA exceptionalism? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:30:54 AM EST
    Whadda load of rubbish.  Any exceptionalism is.

    I watched the video (none / 0) (#108)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:45 PM EST
    From what I heard the diarist is accurate. The implication was clear, that there are fundamental differences between European Americans and African Americans. But listen, Rev Wright said so many factually incorrect things that I simply lost count. He was talking about how because African tradition is oral storytelling this has somehow created a right brain lean. First, language is language and left brain no matter if oral or written. Secondly it implies a Lamarckian model of biology (not Darwinian).

    I could go on and on, but I'll just shut up instead.


    so what, Europeans don't have a (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    tradition of oral storytelling? Then what the h-e-double hockey sticks was Homer doing with the Iliad & the Odyssey? and what about Beowulf? Yes, those sagas were eventually written down, but only after means years of being passed down orally.

    Now you're just being obtuse (none / 0) (#118)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    There's a distinct difference between white and black cultures. Storytelling and oral tradition is much stronger in the black community. Citing Homer and Beowulf is a tad anachronistic, and specious.

    Ok, you keep chattering, so answer this (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00:01 PM EST
    EVEN if we assume you are correct (which I don't agree) about what Rev Wright meant, and EVEN if we assume that there is very different tradition between white and black cultures and storytelling (which again I don't agree) explain this:

    How does oral speech perception cause right brain lean? Language is a mostly left brain function in oral or written form. So stop saying the same incorrect thing, because even if correct its still wrong in its results.

    Also you do realize that the whole left/right brain, creative and logical distinctions have been broken down in the past few years right?


    The larger point he makes (none / 0) (#123)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:09:52 PM EST
    is that black children's early cultural experiences effect their learning style. It's not such a difficult concept to grasp.

    I can't stay and argue with you, and it wouldn't go anywhere anyway. You're happy with the assessments you've made. Obama is a scourge and his pastor is a pestilence.



    Can't or won't (none / 0) (#125)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:14:32 PM EST
    Because you repeated the same point, did not answer my question, and basically, yes I'll say it, ran away.

    Here's the diary. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST
    Crackpot theories from Wright?

    And check this out, from the replies:

    I listened to the speech on sirius.  I am a teacher and, obviously, an Obama supporter, and I though the speech was great.  the Rev. used evidence and conclusions reached by PhD's through years of studies to back up his views on racial differences.

    That's an amazing comment. So PhDs back up Wright's assertions of racial differences?
    Um, interesting.


    Kathy, let me introduce you to the (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:32 PM EST
    simplicity of AYFKM, for the oft-used phrase, "are you f'ing kidding me?"

    I say it/think it so often I have joked about having it tattoed on one palm; the other gets "I just don't get it."



    thanks for the tip! :-) (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    In this case, I think it bears being spelled out because it is just so stupidly wrong.  Notwithstanding that the whole left brain/right brain crap was disproven in the sixties.  It's classic phrenology.

    Further, the oral tradition has southern roots for both black and white.  We were an agrarian society that relied on storytelling--on farms, in churches, in country stores--to spread history and information.  Linguists have studied this for decades, and it is across the board in both black and white communities.

    To give some sort of scientific credence to a biological or genetic difference between the races is extremely dangerous rhetoric.  Every single instance in history where violence and genocide has been committed by one race against another, there has been some sort of "scientific" argument for why the victims deserve such treatment.  

    At some point, someone on the Obama side has to admit that this sort of racist crap is exactly the same sort of crap that Wright says was "taken out of context."  In what context is he speaking now?  This man is toxic.


    Yes, I'm sure that David Duke would (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:38 PM EST
    agree with Wright about the biological differences.

    Chill (none / 0) (#100)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    He didn't say that. Stop hyperventilating.

    He was talking about the oral tradition in black culture, that has a powerful impact on how black children learn. They're brought up in a storytelling culture. It influences their learning style, and how they process the world around them.


    WORM time (none / 0) (#106)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    I saw it -- you may have missed it between the singing and the comedy bits -- but he did say it -- whites are left brained (object learners) & blacks are right brained (subject learners).

    His point was that the culture (1.00 / 2) (#113)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:44 PM EST
    is the mover, not the brain. Growing up in that tradition effects how young children learn. Not the other way around.

    But, I understand you're more inclined to believe he's a repulsive racist. Rave on.


    culture is the mover? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    Are we going to have a nature/nurture conversation out of this?  Oh, too rich.  If only Obama inspired these sorts of dialogues with his motivational speeches rather than trying to justify the words of his completely delusional spiritual mentor.

    And you know, I hope, that phrenology tells us that the right brain is good and the left brain is bad.  The left is more rational and dominant while the right is artistic and prone to emotion.

    Creative class, you might call it.


    That's inaccurate (none / 0) (#90)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:10:12 PM EST
    He was talking about a cultural difference, not a biological one. He referred to the strong oral tradition in the black community, the strong emphasis on storytelling, that has an impact on how black children learn. You can calm down now.

    I'll wait for a transcript, thanks. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:13:03 PM EST
    What you say, and what the MYDD diarist says, are completely different.
    It sounds to me like Wright has some Leonard Jeffries in his viewpoint---Jeffries being another racist black theorist in NYC.

    No, you are innacurate (none / 0) (#111)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:45:09 PM EST
    he did talk about cultural differences, too. But he said white are left-brained learners & black are right-brained learners and the schools in US are geared to left-brained learners.

    As a result of their cultural upbringing (none / 0) (#116)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    not the biological makeup of their brains.

    culteral upbringing (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by echinopsia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    Does not change which side of the brain processes language.

    cultural, d*mmit (none / 0) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:47 PM EST
    Other way around (none / 0) (#130)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    I saw the live CNN broadcast...don't ask me why.  But Wright definitely had my attention when he said that black kids were right-brained and whites were left-brained...and that's why their  learning differed. That is, blacks are creative and intuitive, whites are logical and analytical (which I took, in his context, as deeming whites boring.) He placed the physiological before the cultural.  My attorney husband concurs, because he distinctly remembers throwing a sofa cushion at the TV in response.

    well then, they should include (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    cross co-ordination training in all schools. problem solved  ;)

    so do blck kids in Africa use the right side of their brain or the left? Is this just an American problem? Or global?


    Tort reform? WHAT? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    He voted for tort 'reform?'

    How in hades did I miss THAT along the way?

    What kind of Democrat with a law degree votes for 'tort reform?'

    Progressive?  Liberal?


    Yes indeed! He definitely went over to the Dark (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    Side on that one and others. There's a lot more we need to know about Senator Obama.

    As an old civil rights activist, he is (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by athyrio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:59:22 PM EST
    totally offensive to me....He seems to absolutely hate white people and loves making fun of us...How totally sad...He doesn't get it at all...MLK would be appalled...

    I don't think many people will be fooled (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM EST
    by Wright, no matter how thick the media lays it on.

    I find this all so... delicious. Reading people (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:47:48 PM EST
    on mydd argue about how great deregulation of business is... that's just hilarious.

    Stoller had too many beers tonight (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:06:21 PM EST
    or something.  Here's his quote:

    It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimating her supporters at caucuses.  We should be stuffing ads discussing her Bosnia sniper fire in Indiana.  But we don't believe in standing up for ourselves.

    Could someone please provide me with the W.S.R.M?  He's more convoluted than his once-hereo.

    Mistake to endorse Obama, but Clinton still bad.  Wh would he have endorsed instead?

    I'm sick of lefty blogs and lefty bloggers afresh (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:14:12 AM EST
    today.  Fox News isn't going to go away and in fact can practice journalism at any given time.  There was a time to boycott Fox and Democratic contenders did just that.  And Fox News was priceless when they needed some dressing down and President Clinton gave them just that on the air right to their faces.  Fox has lost viewers as the sitting President lost what was left of his mind and credibility.  If Barack Obama wants to go on Fox and use them for the vehicle that they are after they have had their butts kicked into a reality zone I'm fine with that.  When Clinton wants to do it I'm fine with that too.  This messiah thing though and Barack Obama, and how lefties and blogs and bloggers made him this all by themselves and now how they are so damaged and hurt by this Fox thing..............God give me strength!  They made up this fiction of what Barack Obama is for themselves and now they are pissed at him when their own fictions turn out to be fictions?  And I have always wanted this primary to be about issues, do we get to start having that today or are we going to just get more theatrics and more whining, wailing, and sniffling?  Having all these blogging idiots howling their heads off is likely to make Obama more electable for me in the end if I do have to vote for him.  I can vote for a real person, but I can't vote for a flippin fiction!  What a freakfest the leftosphere is right now!

    And Big Orange Cheetoh has no leverage (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    nor do any of the Obama Fan Base, because they never extracted any policy commitments from Obama. It was all about the Unity Pony and teh awsum. As some of us pointed out at the time, I might add.

    Now, if Obama ends up staggering across the finish line, will liberals -- the word "progressive" is contaminated for me by the misogny of the Boiz -- have any leverage in the general, or after?

    Of course not. Because Obama will tack even farther away from the base.

    Well done, all! No media critique, no leverage....

    I just turned (none / 0) (#31)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    Faux on and off.

    I will not watch it for more than thirty seconds.

    But this after Obama was interviewed.


    Um, (none / 0) (#34)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:08:30 PM EST
    CNN is now showing an angry black man introducing Rev. Wright.

    oh dear g*d (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:10:20 PM EST
    Did he just compare Rev Wright to Nelson Mandela, Dr King and Jesus?

    Wait until you hear Wright . . . (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:19:20 PM EST
    . . . ridicule and mock the way the Kennedys talk, using JFK's "Ask not . . ."  He mocks LBJ as well.  He also does a lot of mocking and ridiculing of Europeans in general, and makes fun of the way white people have no rhythm by clapping "not" in time with music.  Lovely guy, that Jeremiah Wright.

    He also calls out O'Reilly and Hannity again - just begging for more of those sound bytes to be played on Fox.  This guy is supposed to be Obama's friend?


    No he is not Obamas friend (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:20:43 PM EST
    Or the democrats friend. I think my wife just nailed it on the head: he has gotten exactly what he wants. He is the center of attention.

    As Long As He Doesn't Do Any Humping of (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    lecturns, it might not be too bad...lol  It will be bad, just kidding.

    Wright was dancing oddly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    for several minutes, when I surfed by but stopped, transfixed by the spectacle.  He wasn't saying anything then, though.  I have no idea what the heck that was about . . . nor do I want to know what that man is about, after the pulpit-humping.  Since we no doubt will be subjected to clips on cable news, that will be more than enough Rev. Wrong for me.

    angry how? In what context? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:10:32 PM EST
    Anger at the treatment of Wright I think. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    CNN is getting ready to play Wright's speech again. Wright was much calmer than this man.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#46)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    angry-sounding when I turned to CNN.  I only caught the angry-sounding speech and talking about Wright.

    So here's Wright now.


    Shouters and screamers (none / 0) (#82)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    and yelling...

    Gives me a headache.

    Mocking JFK?  Mocking LBJ?  Mocking regional accents to 'defend' the 'language of black Americans'... as only 'different,' not deficient...not 'bad English.'



    And errors galore (none / 0) (#83)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    Not that anyone cares but the whole "oral language is different and right brained" is just wrong. Language is left brain, spoken, written, etc.

    What does it mean that African American brains are different than European Americans? Isn't this a frightening throwback to white racist claims?


    And his knowledge of music (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    Musical history, terms of musical analysis, african music, european music, rhythm and polyrhythm are very very wrong (trust me I know). Nothing he says makes sense.

    Ok, I'll go calm down now.


    who is it? (none / 0) (#48)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:17:39 PM EST
    Rev. Anthony introduced Wright (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:48:08 PM EST
    he is the head of the Detroit chapter of NAACP, which is hosting this event and honoring Wright -- his intro was totally over the top -- Wright is Jesus, Nelson Mandela & MLK all rolled into one; his sermons were taken out of context -- GAH! Wright basically did a comedy routine belittling white people under the guise that "different doesn't mean deficient" CNN lapped it up, calling it a momentous speech that softened the image of Wright. I turned off the channel when the tongue bath began.

    Saddened (none / 0) (#43)
    by downtownted on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    Looking at the world as it exists.

        1.    Impossible for a Republican to win the Presidency.
        2.    No party has ever had a President with such poor favorability numbers and survived to win elections-look at 2006.
        3.    The American people nor longer believe in the Iraq war. That war is an anchor around Republican necks.
        4.    The American people know we won in Afghanistan-and now we are losing.  The Republicans Iraq craziness has snatched defeat in Afghanistan from the jaws of victory.
        5.    The economy is tanking (only question is--is this going to be just a recession or will it be something worse).
        6.    The budget has gone from a surplus to a deficit.
        7.    American money has little value. It has become a laughing stock of the world.

    The Democratic party is thinking of nominating a person who may lose the Presidency. At this level Politics is only about winning. Neither candidate has enough votes to win the nomination. Either wins only if the Democratic party leadership throws its weight behind one or the other. We should remember the vote of each.  If the Republicans should retain the Presidency, we should confront each of them. Each should be forced to resign. We Democrats want to win and victory is there for the taking. Hopefully the Democratic candidate will prevail. Hopefully we will not be demanding new leadership and resignations from those who failed us

    Unfortunately large swaths of middle (none / 0) (#124)
    by hairspray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11:12 PM EST
    America are not seriously affected by many of the items on your list. And they live in states with 2 senators and enough electoral votes to hold the rest of the country hostage.

    On Faux? (none / 0) (#59)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    It's the only way to reach that particular segment of the democratic electorate.

    Hilarious.  KO has disappointed me, but I'm hardly going to watch Fox at night instead.

    This preacher is badddddddddddddd news (none / 0) (#81)
    by athyrio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    for Obama IMO....He made fun of Kennedy's accent, I am sure Teddy is proud of that....Geezzzzzz...I hope it isn't too late to get the nomination for Hillary....

    He said he defended his colleagues (none / 0) (#95)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    not Roberts.

    Yes, defended his colleagues (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:51 PM EST
    who voted FOR Roberts.

    Why on earth would Obama have to go on DK to defend colleagues who voted against Roberts, and why would the kos community attack him for that?

    Hello?  He defended his colleagues for doing something that he, himself, was planning to do until an advisor talked him out of it.


    And the reason he did not vote for Roberts (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    had nothing to do with how SCOTUS would be balanced, it had to do with his own ambitions and how the vote would play to the public. He voted against Roberts because his intended vote might interfere with his own ambitions, not because of he thought having Roberts on SCOTUS would be a bad thing. Obama doesn't seem to have principles of his own that he can stand on and defend, his basis for any decision seem to be will it do him any good in the run for office. Opportunist, narcissist, and unprincipled to boot. Who needs that in the White House?

    Didn't hear a word of Wright (none / 0) (#141)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:31:38 AM EST
    After he said he was taken out of context by all those clips a few weeks ago, I listened to the full sermons and was more horrified overall.

    I refuse to listen to another word by him, he sickens me.

    And I find Obama to be very much like Wright.  His 20 years of listening to that garbage rubbed off on him and they think alike and promote division and their own kind of attack plan.

    Science and truth be dammed, they got a scheme.

    Those interviews will help furnish the new cushy mansion, that's what it is all about.  That and his freaking incredible ego and revolutionism.

    Wright and Obama are dangerous shams and liars, who have caused democrats, christians, race relations and unity to be viewed in a bad light.

    Every time they open their mouths they are further away from healing the mess they made.

    Seems they were caught with their pants down (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    no longer can they pretend Obama was winning the hearts and minds of the base after PA, or that Clinton Dems are real. IMO Kos, Huff, Move On and TPM played and look the fools actually they behaved as the other side has for the last 8 years.  

    Blogs (none / 0) (#154)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:53:44 AM EST
    seem to me to be a form of pure expression.  From snarky replies to swooning arguments for one's beliefs, the blog world offers people an opportunity to write through their ideas and thoughts.

    I have thoroughly enjoyed this year's primary precisely because blogs offered an outlet for my own thinking.  And I've changed my mind on more than a few ideas.  I definitely have outgrown some old thinking along the way.

    The rigidity of the idealist bloggers seems to me to be expected.  

    The deterioration of some blog sites from a clever Drudge-like format into sheer bad information site seems inevitable.

    And the emergence of blog sites which stay on message and value open debate while keeping an eye on true trolling seem to me to be the way of the future.

    The issue brought up in this post has been noticeable to me from Day 1 about Obama supporters.  It wasn't too far away from the truth to call them kool-aid drinkers.  There were a huge number of very young and idealistic bloggers who honestly didn't know he was a real politician.  :)

    So they have had to go through a steep learning curve.

    It will be interesting to see where they end up.  I'm older.  I change by itty bitty steps.  Big giant leaps never work for me.  But younger people sometimes do reversals and land just fine.