home

Pols Are Pols

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:38:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is pretty funny from someone who joined the League of Outraged Bloggers Against Hillary Clinton:

. . . [W]e're right now in the middle of a major presidential campaign. The campaign, as campaigns tend to be, is waged by big league politicians. And I've heard Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest all try to mislead the voters on a whole variety of subjects over the course of the months. Nobody finds this particularly shocking. Indeed, anyone who doesn't recognize that there's a lot of BS and hocus pocus out there on the campaign trail would be dismissed as a naive child.

(Emphasis supplied.) Best check the archives of the A-List Obama blogs for the past 6 months. Seems like there were a lot of naive children blogging out there.

Speaking for me only

< The Veep "Stakes" | Gen. Clark: McCain "Untested And Untried" On National Security" >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pols Are Pols | 189 comments (189 topical)
    The Obama bloggers were not naive children... (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    they were lying, IMHO.

    Big difference.

    please name names (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    and cite specific examples.  I will send on your behalf to each of the bloggers you believe intentionally misled or lied outright to see if and how they will respond. I am not a fan of blanket statements and would like to know who lied and how as I don't read other blogs but am curious.

    [ Parent ]
    Try Doing A Search On DKos (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:54 AM EST
    for Kos' FP post on Clinton wants Lieberman to maintain his committee chairmanship. Look at the video that goes along with his statement. At no time did Clinton advocate for Lieberman to keep his committees.  

    [ Parent ]
    One oft repeated lie was that Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    agreed that the FL and MI primaries should not count. She did no such thing.

    [ Parent ]
    on kos or who (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:21:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why don't you go find out, then come back. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:23:41 AM EST
    I can't think of any earthly reason I'd want to do something for you. I'm hoping you'll go away, since no one here will do your bidding.

    [ Parent ]
    How about Kos - (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    - who initially said that Michigan should count and Obama was wrong to remove his name as it wasn't required by the four-state pledge, and caucuses were bad and disenfranchising, then did a 180 on the subject?

    How about the insane levels of Hillary-bashing reached after the interview (60 minutes, I believe it was) in which she was asked whether Obama was a Christian.  See Media Matters on the subject.

    How about the deliberate misinterpretation (i.e. lying) regarding Clinton's remarks about Bobby Kennedy?  See the Daily Howler on the subject.

    All lies; and the lying liers who told them just don't care.  There is something absolutely sick about a so-called progressive culture that not simply allows but encourages that level of mendacious vitriol.

    [ Parent ]

    kos (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:11:31 AM EST
    Come on...in Jan, he called Clinton a fighter for staying on the ballot in MI. A month and a half later, he's seemingly buried deep in the midst of the faux outrage known as CDS.

    If he wasn't prevaricating, he certainly turned into a naive child almost overnight.

    [ Parent ]

    Tactically Dynamic (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST
    That's the euphemism you were tooking for.

    [ Parent ]
    ::snort:: (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:38:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps you prefer the term (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:29:32 AM EST
    "deeply dishonest" instead of lying as Matt Yglesias uses in his article?  His article discusses the editorial by Fred Hiatt that castigates people for accusing Bush of lying us into the Iraq War.  And I think part of Matt's point is that it's hard to isolate one statement out of thousands and say that that is a lie.  You have to look at what was said and what was left unsaid, how facts in isolation were used to support inferences when other facts would demolish the support or allowing misstatements of fact to stand.  Sins of omission as well as commission, as we of the pre Joshua Generation might say.

    So maybe instead of using the term 'lying' we ought to just say that many of the "progressive" blogs were deeply dishonest.

    [ Parent ]

    This has been exhaustively discussed (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    And can easily be accessed by tags on the subject.

    [ Parent ]
    I never use tags (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    I think it is a terrible system.

    So certainly you can not use tags to find my material on the subject.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh :) (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    I just google Big Mouth Dem and there you are (snark).

    [ Parent ]
    Big 'Ead Dem (none / 0) (#111)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:30:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of course we don't remember (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    how Kos accused the Clinton campaign of darkening and widening a video of Obama.

    Or how all the Obama blogs (starting with Kos) took Drudge's word that the Clinton camp was spreading the photo of Obama dressed in ceremonial mufti.

    That's not naivete, that's just plain lying.

    [ Parent ]

    You can add Aravosis to the (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    list on both counts.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd add the RFK remark uproar (5.00 / 9) (#40)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:34 AM EST
    to that list. The sustained howls across the blogosphere were ridiculous, especially since they didn't go after McCain for remarking recently that JFK was assassinated before he could participate in the 64 debates. And he was talking specifically about debating Obama this summer and not repeating a remark he'd made before. Basically the exact same thing, why is history only evil when Hillary mentions it?

    [ Parent ]
    specificity (1.80 / 5) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    lots of generalizations with no specifics, again I would be happy to email the other blogs and ask for their interpretation and at least two posts here seem to be outright "lies" but 2 does not seem like a lot to me, considering one could argue that each of the candidates have committed more than 2 stretches of the truth in this primary.  

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps you should read the other blogs then (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    It's counter-intuitive and silly to come to TalkLeft and demand

    (a) research when you're unwilling even to scroll BTD's posts on the subject and

    (b) read other blogs -- as you claim not to do --and report to you their content.

    I suggest you do that rather than tell ME to take my keyboard and post elsewhere, as I've stayed on topic and directly addressed your post.

    I believe that you're simply here to clutter and troll.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks (3.66 / 3) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    specificity is nice.  So we have Kos following up on a Drudge story which is not technically lying seeing that how Drudge is right sometimes.  I will email Kos and ask if they lied on these two topics.

    [ Parent ]
    Kos was mentioned on the darkening issue (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:53:26 AM EST
    not the Drudge issue, which was a more general issue.

    As long as you are going to ask questions.

    [ Parent ]

    ok thanks (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's how you do your research? (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:53:28 AM EST
    Email the liars and ask if they lied?

    LOL!

    [ Parent ]

    I bet the Bush Administration would be (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    more than happy to provide Jlvngstn with an employment opportunity. Maybe there are openings at the Justice Department.

    [ Parent ]
    Literal LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    Thanks for the much-needed laugh this morning! :-)

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    can i use you as a reference?

    [ Parent ]
    Press sec'y. Big publishing opportunity. (none / 0) (#172)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly!!! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    You took the words right out of my mouth. Are you folks kidding?  No offense, but that is soooo naieve.

    [ Parent ]
    ROFL (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:53:53 AM EST
    Drudge is right sometimes


    [ Parent ]
    This is what credible blogging (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    has devolved to this primary season.

    [ Parent ]
    so is a stopped clock (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sigh... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    You're chasing your own tail.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh! Okay, then! (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Emma on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    As long as it's not "technically" lying!  I feel better already.

    [ Parent ]
    jlivingston....possibly you should go find the (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:55:26 AM EST
    links...sounds like you don't trust anyone on here.  And it appears that you have made it your duty to try to upset the apple cart here.  

    [ Parent ]
    Another quote from Yglesias (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Burned on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    The reason a lot of people seem reluctant to admit that this is what happened is that they were in on the scam.


    [ Parent ]
    If you're genuine about looking into this ... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    You'll post the content of your letter to dKos and summarize (or post with permission) the content of the reply.

    I look forward to seeing both, as I'd hate to see you pegged as a liar or behave as one.

    That is 100% true.

    [ Parent ]

    of course i would (2.60 / 5) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    even though I am certain that the reply will be a denial of a lie, but the blanket statement at the start of this thread once again proves the histrionics of post.  so far 2 lies with specifics have been posted with specifics.   the rest are broad accusations about other blogs.  Why not start a thread with every lie with every link.  that is more honest and powerful than a blanket "they're a bunch of liars" statement.  I don't know if there are a "bunch of liars" in the other blogs, I like and trust BTD so I read him, but it would seem to me the best way to address it is to have a running stream of the lies and the liars who tell them to make a real and traceable statement.  

    [ Parent ]
    Where's that letter to dKos and the reply? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    Before you demand research from others, why are you still doing it instead of immediately doing what you said you would do?

    You're more intent on clutter and trolling then on seeking answers or you'd be investigating dKos now or on checking the links given to you.

    [ Parent ]

    Since When Is (2.33 / 3) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:10:58 AM EST
    Challenging blanket statements that are at best gross exaggerations considered trolling? Just because you are still in the tank for Hillary, and despise Obama doesn't mean that comments that challenge that opinion are troll comments.

    [ Parent ]
    Since being given cites s/he won't check ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    ... but prefers to insult not only those who have provided numerous sources and not even minimally be inclined to accept or refute what s/he's been given.

    That is trolling.

    Challenging arguments directly is not trolling.

    Deflecting supports to the arguments, and changing the goalposts, and attributing statements no one made as a fraudulent "case" against others -- instead of accepting or refuting what s/he was offered -- is trolling.

    I'm not in the tank for Hillary. I've given her the same scrutiny as I have Obama. She made it through on merit, record and character. He did not.

    [ Parent ]

    so name names and cite examples (2.14 / 7) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    it shouldn't be hard for you.  Why not, right here right now, name the liars and their lies.  Be specific.  

    [ Parent ]
    how 'bout... (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    Josh Marshall at TPM on the David Shuster issue?

    That was thoroughly discussed here.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes it was (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I tend to think the fighting (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:29:33 AM EST
    was superficial (morbidly funny too) and i'm a person who forgives easily, so it's a strange moment.  People are still on their high horses about every little sleight.  It can't really go on and be taken too seriously.

    Obama does have to realize that he can't turn the convention into a megachurch extravaganza.  it will not innoculate him form the coming the swiftvirus.

    [ Parent ]

    Josh Marshall isn't a politician (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:55:58 AM EST
    And neither is David Schuster. So how does this apply to your blanket statement?

    More important, why do you continue to stir this pot? I thought you were going to be all about unity now.

    [ Parent ]

    Unity with whom? (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    I am a strong Obama support and this post is not about Obama at all, except to the extent that he is a pol, and they do what they do. Unless you are part of the "naive children" brigade.

    As for stopping stirring the pot, I will NEVER do that. I will ALWAYS stir the pot. I wrote a post about it. I titled it "What Now?" If you want to know what I will be doing in terms of my blogging, read it.

    [ Parent ]

    Keep stirring, please (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    (Not that you need me to tell you what to do!)

    People who think that this is just making trouble: BTD has been promoting Obama as the nominee since way back, with full awareness of his weaknesses as well as his strengths. This, and not some kind of sweep-iy-under-the-rug, blinders-on, drink-the-koolaid "Unity" pony ride, is going to be the only thing that makes me and other Clinton supporters like me become reconciled to voting for him (if in fact we do).

    I'm not just going to wake up tomorrow and forget all the things that ticked me off during this campaign. They need to be dealt with, and every time I hear "get over it" I dig my heels in a little more.

    I didn't agree with BTD about Obama, but it has been the fact that he (BTD) has his eyes open and no illusions that keeps me listening to him. And he is still supporting Obama, I believe.

    [ Parent ]

    I said stir "this" pot (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    This pot is afnning the flames for the disgruntled Clinton supporters who remain here. Also, do you not consider yourself an A list blogger anymore?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not "disgruntled" (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    I actually come here to see how the switch from the primary to the GE mode is going. Although I have made no secret of my unwillingness to vote for Obama, I only post to policy issues since Hillary conceded or make an occasional snarky remark. I find the discussions about choosing a VP on either side of the aisle interesting. I don't leave all worked up about anything.  I am in complete harmony with my political world. I have moved on to working on down ticket races - including supporting Kerry's challenger in the September primary.  If you think that the way to garner support for Obama from former Clinton advocates is to not allow for constructive criticism of Obama, then you don't understand her supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    If McCain is elected because of attitudes such as (none / 0) (#176)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    yours, how many more soldiers will be killed, maimed, or suffer PTSD than would under an Obama administration? Is that all right with you? How many more Iraqis will be killed? How soon will the US wage war against Iran? How many Iranians will be killed? How much more quickly will climate change ruin our planet?

    Your principles, whatever they are, outweigh this reality of human and planetary suffering?

    [ Parent ]

    The truth is, you or I don't know the (none / 0) (#178)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    answer to that question.
    I fear very much that Obama will behave recklessly with the military, drawing us into war with Pakistan for example.


    [ Parent ]
    Keep telling yourself that if it makes (none / 0) (#187)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST
    you feel better about your unwillingness to support Obama. For myself, I prefer reality-based decisions. There are clear differences between McCain and Obama on Iraq. McCain recently said that there's no reason to bring soldiers out of Iraq because we have them in, for example, Germany and South Korea. However, the soldiers in Germany and South Korea aren't being killed at the rate of one per day for this month, are they?

    This debate isn't about splitting metaphysical hairs about the nature of knowledge. There are real consequences to this November's election, consequences perhaps larger than any I've known in my lifetime.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, and the consequences of Obama (none / 0) (#189)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    drawing the US into a war with Pakistan would be FAR worse than anything Bush wrought.


    [ Parent ]
    Riiiiiight (none / 0) (#192)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    And yoru basis for fearing that is . . . ?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's repeated promise to use troops in (none / 0) (#195)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    Pakistan, as well as increase troop strength in Afghanistan. Gosh, that was easy.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's put his statement in context, shall we? (none / 0) (#199)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:14:44 PM EST
    Surely you can find a link that explains the connection between troops, terrorists, and Pakistan's failure to do anything about them.

    [ Parent ]
    National security and foreign policy (none / 0) (#190)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    are not convincing arguments against McCain.
    Look at Reagan. There are a lot of things about his Presidency I strongly disagree with, but he  left office without fighting a major war, and oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    Would McCain do as credibly as Reagan? Possibly not, but what you fail to grasp, in my opinion, is that tough talk as a candidate does not guarantee a bellicose Presidency.


    [ Parent ]
    So you fear Obama drawing us into war (none / 0) (#194)
    by digdugboy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    with Pakistan because Reagan didn't fight a major war? Do I understand your argument correctly?

    [ Parent ]
    I was comparing McCain and Reagan. (none / 0) (#196)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    I  know that Obama considers himself to be Ronnie Jr., but I don't see the similarity.

    [ Parent ]
    digdug...while you were uprating jlivingston (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    you neglected to read he was asking about bloggers.  

    [ Parent ]
    Greg Seargant's sudden (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    inability to read that HRC letter re: Schuster and his Chelsea gaff.

    [ Parent ]
    And how did he lie? (1.80 / 5) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    the only thing i can find is the "false" representation of an email.  I will continue to look though, the archives aren't that easy to navigate

    [ Parent ]
    This (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:58:30 AM EST
    the "false" representation of an email

    isn't lying?

    [ Parent ]

    that is what it was called here (1.80 / 5) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:02:21 AM EST
    If i say that your accusation is a false representation of his explanation, does that make you a liar?  Silly argument

    [ Parent ]
    By that standard (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    the word "lie" should be retired from the language.

    [ Parent ]
    You've been running into that standard forever (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:05:44 AM EST
    Because calling people liars is mean. And, you know, it isn't okay to be mean to the super progressive A listers.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM EST
    But I speak for me only. Not for Talk Left.

    [ Parent ]
    i havent been there today (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    but try americablog.  in my recent experience the was you tell if Aravosis is lying is if he is typing.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's one. (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    Update [2008-2-9 22:10:28 by Big Tent Democrat]: After its egregious journalism on this story, TPM NOW compounds it by simply lying. Yes, I am calling TPM liars. Their LATEST headline Says "Clinton Backs Off Firing Demand." They NEVER demanded it. ONLY TPM said FALSELY they demanded it. Shame on TPM. Shame on Josh Marshall. Disgraceful work.

    [ Parent ]
    that was his interpretation (3.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    of the wording, I didn't agree with it but calling him a liar might be a stretch.  How about lacking in objectivity and allowing his personal beliefs to impede in comprehending a simple statement?  

    [ Parent ]
    I stand by my characterization (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    This is tiresome.

    [ Parent ]
    wurman....we need to learn to ignore those (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    who just come on here to be a PITA...if this person was truly interested in knowing what bloggers lied, which didn't, it/he/she would do their own investigating.

    [ Parent ]
    how 'bout (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    naive child?

    Only...he isn't naive...

    [ Parent ]

    ummmm, that'll work! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:20:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? Do your own homework, address actual (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    ... arguments.

    I'm not going to be falsely niched into supporting an argument I didn't make or search the site as you are apparently too lazy to do.

    [ Parent ]

    So, Obama bloggers were "lying" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:11:40 AM EST
    but all the Hillary bloggers were 100% the truth?

    That doesn't quite sound grounded in reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Very true (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    But I feel able to point to every post I have made at this site and defy anyone to point to where I deliberately told a falsehood or did not correct an error as soon as I discovered it.

    But there certainly were Hillary supporting blogs that were the mirror image of the A-List Obama blogs. The difference being that, like TalkLeft, they were not A-List blogs.  

    [ Parent ]

    Please (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    name an instance of a warped hideous lie that any Hillary blogger ever passed on that matched:

    The RFK incident
    The Drudge/Muslim garb incident
    The Mickey Kantor incident
    The WVWV voter supporession incident

    I'm waiting.

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    You know there were some. Don't become that you can not abide.

    [ Parent ]
    Then (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    feel free to name them.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    Any time someone didn't accept WORM, they were lying!  Those are the rules.

    In reality, while I mostly agree with BTD, the way it works in politics is that it's natural to presume bad faith on the part of the opposing candidate.  So when they commit a gaffe and outrage ensues, it's hard to separate the people who are genuinely outraged because they gravitated to the most offensive interpretation from those who understand what was intended but are just pretending to be outraged to score a point.

    [ Parent ]

    Great point: (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:42:06 AM EST
    "it's natural to presume bad faith on the part of the opposing candidate"

    I have been arguing, literally since 1970, that it's not a good strategy to attribute bad faith to the people you disagree with (if you ever intend to change their minds or even work with them again).

    But it's true, this is a kind of knee-jerk reaction that is easy to fall into.

    [ Parent ]

    but the sane part of your mind (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    must remember that it's superficial.

    [ Parent ]
    You think what the Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MarkL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    and bloggers engaged in was superficial?
    I'd have to disagree with you on that score.

    [ Parent ]
    well in a way it is the most superficial political (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    organization on the planet.

    the damage they may have done to the middle term prospects of the party are proabably incalculable.

    [ Parent ]

    More lies (none / 0) (#179)
    by zebedee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    Of course it depends on what you "lie" means. Topically, was it a lie when they falseley smeared Hillary as being somehow linked to the Countrywide scandals?

    Another common "lie" was that she called for FL to be counted only because she won it. She called for this BEFORE the vote with Obama on the ballot and even some advantage thru the cable ads.

    Th efrequent repetition of Bill calling Obama's campaign a fairy tale is such an obvious distortion to count as a lie.

    And the most effective "lie" may be that she launched a negative campaign against Obama though I believe the negative stuff started with the "drivers' license" debate when they started piling on Clinton. I don't recall anything negative she said about him before that.

    [ Parent ]

    No one said that except you (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    The fraud is entirely on you and of your own making: you are demanding that people defend an outrageous position attributed to them BY YOU.

    It would be more efficient for you not to attempt this deflection and instead to address specific statements or positions.

    [ Parent ]

    Two words (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Ovah on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM EST

    sniper fire

    [ Parent ]

    You mean the Obama bloggers (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    were pretending to care about that? Yup.

    Heck, you'd think HIllary claimed to invent the internet or something.

    [ Parent ]

    Two more words. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    Austin Goolsbee.

    Three more words:

    Harry and Louise.

    Hey!  I can play that game too!

    [ Parent ]

    sniper fire (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:08:08 AM EST

    damn the torpedoes

    [ Parent ]

    the only outright lie (none / 0) (#167)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    from Clinton that I am aware of is the "sniper fire" comment.  And, at the time, I was still reading HuffPo.  The same article from the WashPost that discussed her Bosnia lie (titled something about politicians penchant for embellishing their records) also discussed the FACT that Obama lied twice by taking public credit for two senate bills that he had nothing to do with.  But, all the uproar was about Hillary lying about her Bosnia record.  But, where was the uproar about Obama lying about his senate accomplishments to his constituents?  Which is worse, Clinton lying about the ground conditions upon her arrival in Bosnia as First Lady or Obama lying about his accomplishments as a Senator?  And the only reasons I can think of for the minimal amount of coverage of Obama's lies is because they didn't come with video footage or the media was covering for him.

    All of this lopsided coverage meant that many people actually believe that Clinton LIED about SCHIP, N. Ireland, her personal opposition to NAFTA and they use the Bosnia story as proof of the others even though she provided substantiation of her version of events for all the others from different third parties.  But, these other events were always widely cited as proof that Clinton is a liar.

    [ Parent ]

    so, I will submit (none / 0) (#182)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    that ANY blog that claimed:

    Clinton lied about her role in N. Ireland was lying because her version of her role was supported by fmr Sen G. Mithcell who led the talks and his opinion should trump anyone else's.

    Clinton lied about her role in SCHIP was lying because factcheck.org said she was telling the truth and Sen Kennedy was quoted, at the time, saying that SCHIP would never had passed into law without the work she did.  These trump any other opinions.

    Clinton lied about her "personal" opposition to NAFTA was lying.  Several other members of the Clinton admin backed her up on this.  And, it is completely logical to have been personally opposed to NAFTA but once the admin decides to go with it then she as a member of the admin had to support it.  That doesn't negate her stated personal opposition.  

    She also said that she started speaking against NAFTA when she became a Senator.  The Obama campaign and blogs lied about that as well saying she didn't start to speak out against NAFTA until after starting her run for president.  But, when confronted with earlier quotes from her about NAFTA, then the LIARS would just claim she statred running for president as soon as she became a senator and not when she officially announced.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    it was within the context of a family fight. Many of the A listers honestly didn't believe that any Democrat could support Hillary Clinton. So it wasn't about pols being pols, it was about us being us.

    I have a headache today (5.00 / 17) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    with all this Joshua generation B.S.  It sickens me.  I was always about the issues but none of the A list Obama bloggers were.  For them it was about the cult of personality and making certain to dismantle their perceived Clinton power structure within the party without regard to what would take its place.  Now something is taking its place and IMHO it is sickening.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:44:11 AM EST

    making certain to dismantle their perceived Clinton power structure within the party without regard to what would take its place.


    [ Parent ]
    Joshua generation (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by kelsweet on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    and the Matthew (project?)   the first ever dem religious PAC.....  from one of last night's posts. Disturbing indeed.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course Joshua (none / 0) (#132)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    was a sort of Inspector General of the forerunner fo the IDF.

    some light infantry here, slingers there, swordsman on the middle, sappers hanging around waiting for sieges, no cavalry though.  Or Chariots.   The Israelites must have been mountain warfare specialists.  They seemed to do okay against Phalanxes of bronze age heavy infantry which was quite an unusual accomplishment for the time).

     

    [ Parent ]

    Horns blaring. (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good thing, then (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Emma on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    I understand the difference between chosen family and family of origin.  This is not the family I choose.

    [ Parent ]
    Me either! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    And Grandma Vera is rolling over in her crypt.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:49:03 AM EST
    Ain't politics wonderful?

    The unity pony is shocked I tell you shocked!
    And the children, oh the children - tantrum and rage - bring us that elusive dream and reality be d**mned.

    romper room (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    has been oranger.

    hate to keep picking on that, but then i hate that it devolved into something so easy to pick on. quantity over quality, and it's all good...

    Wait - Yglesias now says (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:59:42 AM EST
    Obama was dishonest, just like the rest of them. Did he ever point this out before?

    Not that I recall (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Had to read the quote a couple times (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    before that sunk in. And he writes for the Atlantic Monthly!

    Honestly, I met him once he's a nice guy, but other than going to Harvard I don't see what separates him from the rest, other than he's young.

    [ Parent ]

    CYA mode (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    starting a little early?

    [ Parent ]
    magisterludi....you ain't seen nothing yet! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They can't stop insulting Hillary, even when (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    she has endorsed Obama willingly.  She's listed along with all the Republicans.

    I'm coming around to agree that these bloggers want to chase off the Clinton wing, or at least bully those who voted for her into silence.

    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    They don't know when to stop.

    [ Parent ]
    well, some are offering ponies (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    to those who stayed and put up with lies and abuse "with grace"...

    [ Parent ]
    ponies (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    they're awfully expensive to keep.

    [ Parent ]
    i learned long ago (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    that when it comes to lies and abuse, don't look for ponies, look for a door.

    [ Parent ]
    butbutbut...They're all for that 50 state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    At least nominally.

    I hear that Obama will be the first candidate in a generation to have campaign offices in all 50 states.

    Wow....

    Who was the last? McGovern?

    [ Parent ]

    kos is setting expectations way beyond (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    where they should be:

    heavy African American populations in Mississippi and Georgia can put those states within reach, while continued strong Latino participation in Texas could likewise throw the Lone Star State into contention,  forcing the McCain campaign to play even wider defense than this map would suggest.

    Know how many of those states will flip? 0, that's how many. And any reasonable person knows it.

    And I apologize for drifting off topic.

    [ Parent ]

    wow BIG claims. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    If there was a centrist third party I could believe the claim.

    [ Parent ]
    The OT drift is my fault. And I agree. :-) (none / 0) (#101)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why Is Obama Ignoring The Other (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    7 states? <snark>

    [ Parent ]
    Those 7 are the Appalachian ones... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by tree on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    (I'll see your snark and raise you one.)

    [ Parent ]
    LOL Good Raise n/t (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:03:02 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Insulting Obama Too (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM EST
    Look...there's his name on that list that leads off with a bunch of Republicans and also names Clinton.

    Except HIS name is listed before hers, closer to the Republicans'. Does that make it more of a slight to him implying he is more Republican? Or more of a slight to her because his name is first?

    C'mon!

    [ Parent ]

    You're quite right. I glossed right over that (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    when reading.  I put it to carb withdawal.  Day 2 of South Beach.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:15:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I can't believe they can't let it go. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by eleanora on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:16:50 AM EST
    The media and big liberal blogs can't seem to accept that they've won, FFS. They're still talking endlessly about what an evil witch Hillary is and how much she and everyone who voted for her sucks, sprinkled with nasty ageist comments against McCain.

    I'm starting to think that they're uncomfortable about how this worked out, especially with the endless refrain that Obama "beat her fair and square." Constantly repeating that makes them sound like the Republicans after Bush v. Gore was handed down. I want to hand them all pacifiers and blankies and tell them to go take a nap until they feel better.

    [ Parent ]

    The Leno-ization of the political world (5.00 / 1) (