home

Won't Back Down Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My fanboy video for General Clark:

This is an Open Thread

< General Clark On the Verdict | Police Killer's Death in Cell Ruled Homicide >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Won't Back Down Open Thread | 166 comments (166 topical)
    Can I add this... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    Dixie Chicks vid...from a fan grrrl?

    "i'll never apologize" is a (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    hoot on there.

    Parent
    The Chicks Rock (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:58:55 PM EST
    Right after the uproar with the Dixie Chicks I was able to get tickets for a concert at Madison Square Garden on the cheap through Ebay when people thought they were awful. I thought the Chicks were right then and in time that has proven to be the case. Can't wait to have a chance to see them again in the future.

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    I've been at work all day and missed all the brou-ha-ha-ha-ha...

    Wes Clark stands tough. Obama bobbles the ball. Hmm.

    So MoveOn is now officially under the bus? I will not say I told you so. I will not.

    Dang, I hate being right about these things. I keep hoping I'll be wrong. I think I'll change my name to Cassandra. Or, wait, that one from Norse mythology who saw the future but it was too awful, so he wouldn't tell anyone what he saw. Odin?

    Love the video, BTW.

    I missed it too (4.20 / 5) (#39)
    by angie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    and the problem for me with Clark's comment is that it was flippant. Everyone knows that it isn't getting "shot down" that qualifies you for President, it is serving your country -- and putting your life on the line in the US Military is the ultimate service to your country. Yes, Clark's point that it isn't the only thing you need to qualify to be President is right, but the way he said it was just plain crass. Does it help that Obama rejected the comment? No, it doesn't -- it just draws more attention to it -- Clark should have just said his phrasing was wrong. Backing down when you are wrong is a good thing, imo.  

    Parent
    Flippant? Crass? Wes Clark? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    You have got to be kidding.  Those adjectives just do not apply to the guy.

    Parent
    Anyone can have a bad day (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by angie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST
    and despite BTD's insistent otherwise, Clark goofed with his response -- acknowledging that isn't "attacking" Clark or being a "tool for the republicans" -- Clark said it and he was being flip to say it that way.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:40:57 PM EST
    If it's a case of saying the right thing the wrong way, but we agree it's right and truthful, then we can disagree on how it was said.

    I think he said it just fine.

    Obama people spent 98% of their time falsely accusing Clinton of things based on false readings of what her or her campaign said.

    I think this is a good chance for me to be consistent in my rejection of that kind of thing.

    No matter who does it all.

    Parent

    yes, the right thing the wrong way (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by angie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:52:21 PM EST
    as I said in my original post -- everyone knows it isn't "getting shot down" that people are talking about when they talk about McCain's military service. I think Clark saying it the way he did was  wrong because it comes off, to me, as flip and therefor lends itself to a "false reading." He is the one "talking for Obama" not Schieffer, and I don't think the Dems can afford to be seen as being flip about McCain's military service.  

    Parent
    Do you think what Bill said (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:53:29 PM EST
    In South Carolina lent itself to a "false reading."?

    Parent
    Obviously it did (none / 0) (#136)
    by angie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:02:51 AM EST
    because it was read falsely -- I knew what Bill was saying, the same way I know what Clark was saying. But that doesn't change the fact that I think Clark's comment will do for McCain the same thing that Bill's did for Obama.

    Parent
    I think there are ugly people in this world (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:09:25 AM EST
    Who will read whatever they want into whatever anyone says, and you have to take a stand, and reject their attempts to do so.

    You have to say "No more.  It stops here," or you end up hiding in a corner, staying totally silent out of constant worry that your words will be taken to mean something you did not intend them to mean.

    That's no way to live life.

    Parent

    It may not be a way to live life (none / 0) (#166)
    by angie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:32:43 AM EST
    but it is the political reality -- the "sound bite" from Clark sounds flip -- not a good line of attack on McCain imo. Jeez -- in this political atmosphere McCain is so easy to attack on his policies -- why in the hell are the Dems insisting on attacking him on his military service -- his least vulnerable point in comparison to Obama?

    Parent
    Even if the Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:35:01 AM EST
    Isn't interested in changing this Political Reality, I am.


    Parent
    Hear, hear! n/t (none / 0) (#172)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Why did MoveOn (none / 0) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    get under the bussed?

    Parent
    Cause it wasn't crowded enough already what with (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:00:17 PM EST
    the reverend, et al under there.  Needed more folks.  

    Parent
    Heh. Cosy now. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    They were implicitly under-bused when Obama "stood up to them" per some writer(s) I've forgotten,on the FISA bill.

    But apparently today in his Patriotism speech, Obama felt the need to refer to the "Betray-us" ad, in a negative way.

    I won't say "I told you so." But I did. Tell them so, I mean.

    Parent

    Heh. I guess (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    this is the change they were waiting for.  

    Parent
    You've heard of (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    Art for art's sake?


    Parent
    Heh. Is that why he (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:22:25 PM EST
    threw me under the bus again?

    [Catching up with old posts from earlier today:

    Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

    I wish he would cut this out. I know he said "some', and "in extreme cases", but he has no repect at all for what we did as activists back then, never talks about the good, which was a lot more. Grr. Obama, no one will ever mistake you for a DFH, so just. shut. up.]

    Parent

    Will Tom Hayden rebut this? (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM EST


    Parent
    he's thinking about it. first he has to (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    wash the egg off his face.

    Parent
    Hah, good song choice ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:39:22 PM EST
    Not sure about the Norse mythology -- paging Valhalla ... Valhalla to the white courtesy phone -- but Proud Liberals, actual ones as opposed to these Fauxgressive shape-shifters -- have been prophets in our own time, cursed with the gift of prophecy and mass vilification.

    As a proud Cassandra Liberal (yictp) like her and my proud sistren and brethren, right 100% of the time since 2000, yet every political faction's favorite go-to straw (wo)man to whup'n'blame when anything goes sour, or just to prove they're righteous about [whatever].

    Parent

    Odin was given (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:59:19 AM EST
    knowledge of the future, including the destruction of the gods at Ragnarök.  Once he acquired his knowledge of the future (by trading one of his eyes to the keeper of the wisdom well), he never smiled again.

    They were a happy bunch, those Norse gods.

    Parent

    Proof that Krugman reads BTD (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    He used the phrase "media darling" wrt Obama.

    I dunno if I agree that the Media has turned (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:05:34 PM EST
    Ripping Clark is not ripping Obama.

    After all, Obama has been a good little soldier for the Village so far.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM EST
    I'm just focusing on the phrase.

    Parent
    The full phrase, of course, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    from the studies of media theory and history about how fast such fandom can shift is:

    Media darling, media bum.

    Maybe it's worth remembering laws of gravity and all that.  What goes up, must come down.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:41:25 PM EST
    The only other google reference I find for that phrase is from you.

    My experience is that the association of "media darling" with Obama is a BTD speciality.

    Parent

    Huh. I've heard it and used it (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:00:51 PM EST
    for years.  I'll try to find a reference, but it's been so long now.  An example I used in class was the media treatment of Frank Lloyd Wright, for one famous murky murder case. . . .

    Parent
    Turn. Turn. Turn. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:42:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Query: is "media darling" a phrase (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:08:11 PM EST
    one could have copyrighted and retired to Tahiti on?

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:08:55 PM EST
    Who wants to live in Tahiti?

    Parent
    Not moi! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:19:17 PM EST
    Vermont-4-Evah!

    Parent
    Rural one! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:24:21 PM EST
    I need a city.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:09:52 PM EST
    No. Or I would be sipping Mai Tais right now.

    Parent
    So would I if shorting paid off on stupid ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:31:15 AM EST
    ... copyright attempts, eg

    (1) "Let's roll" (crass/emotive 9/11 exploitation attempt to copyright an everyday piece of slang)

    (2) ThreePeat cf dynastic Laker coach Pat Riley (liked his coaching style but on his attempt to copyright this, What. A. D!ck.)

    Meh. I got a blender and I can make Mai Tais anytime.

    Parent

    I could have copyrighted "blogclogger" (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:10:02 AM EST
    but I gave it to the world.:-)  And I've got a jug of premixed margaritas ready and waiting, too.  And the salt, the lime, and even the fancy glasses.  Some chips, some pico de gallo and shrimp ceviche, and who needs Tahiti?  It's summer in my garden!

    Parent
    Oh, and Tahiti doesn't have s'mores (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    but I do -- good, Midwestern-invented graham crackers plus chocolate squares and marshmallows, all set to toast over a new backyard fire pit.  

    It's a lot easier than trying to toast marshmallows on tiki torches.  (We tried; don't ask.  Messy, messy.:-)

    Parent

    Dammit, you deserve some love for your brilliance! (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:35:01 AM EST
    So here's what I got on my surfin' mini drive:

    Midwestern soul:

    Billy Stewart doing Summertime
    Wilmer & The Dukes doing Give Me One More Chance

    My uncle (Soul Brother No. 2) had these. My fave's not at YouToob but I'll find one and if it's not online, upload or email it. (Betcha can't guess what it is but the Song. Kicks. Feckin'. @ss.)

    And since I still can't wrap my mind around the image of kleenex on a bouffant as a display of religious piety that came up during the local comparative study of Catholic schools, I had to double check my understanding of the bouffant.

    Enjoy the blogclogging!

    Parent

    But wasn't it just yesterday you spoke (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:15:40 AM EST
    of mosquitos?

    Parent
    ONly the pro-Obama bloggers are (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:07:10 PM EST
    turning so far.

    Parent
    Hello from roasting Washington state (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:11:34 PM EST
    I just read (okay skimmed) the very fawning article in Rolling Stone; guess who is a completely new and different political figure???

    (I'm rolling my eyes, Rolling Stone.)

    Seriously, there is not a single skeptical word in the entire many-paged piece.  Everyone who works for Obama is a selfless genius.  They have tiny little unpretentious offices.  They want no credit or even public acknowledgement.  It is now official that Obama's purity and excellence are unsurpassed, but we also learn that his team has the same qualities.

    Jann Wenner should take a cold shower; I need me some Matt Taibbi for balance and grit.

    Have you ever wondered (none / 0) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST
    why the media treats Obama so well?  It's not like he goes out of his way to get all cozy with them.  If anything he is dismissive of them.

    Yet they seem to love the guy.

    Why is that?  

    I'm sure the responses to that questions will be priceless.

    Parent

    My gut honest answer (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    Is unprintable.

    Although it's not just that, it's intermixed with a narrative that all media folks love, that all politicians suck and what we really need is a politician who pretends he's not a politician.

    And with a healthy dose of CDS, you have the toxic stew.

    A perfect storm of media love.

    Parent

    they don't (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:11:21 AM EST
    love him. He's one of their class.

    It's their nature. Clinton's were essentially vulgar.  

    They will eat his liver soon enough though. McCain is from an Imperial Family.  Obama merely went to the right school.

    Parent

    Insightful (none / 0) (#152)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM EST


    Parent
    The answer is obvious (none / 0) (#48)
    by angie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:30:40 PM EST
    He's "not Clinton" -- the ultimate (and apparently only) qualification needed to win the msm's undying love.

    Parent
    It is an interesting question (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    First, there's the issue of the cable outlets and the need to compete with FOX.  I suspect that explains MSNBC, and maybe CNN.  

    Second, there's the narrative.  It is a great story.  An insurgent campaign knocks off the preordained candidate.  Also, the Clintons have always had a media problem.

    Third, attacking Obama is difficult.  He's got an unusual name and he's the product of a mixed race marriage.  You must be very careful about critiques of Obama, or, as FOX discovered, bad things will happen.    

    Fourth, Obama is a stunning politician with public speaking skills that put other candidates to shame.  Clark's description of his meteoric rise was spot on.  They're simply not accustomed to dealing with someone like Obama.

     Fifth, the Obama campaign understood the primary strategy as well as the new media reality.  Did they ever allow something like this?  Absolutely not.  

     There are many other reasons.  It is a nexus of circumstances, really.  


    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:54:30 PM EST
    About why it's hard to attack Obama.


    Parent
    Here are five reasons.. (none / 0) (#77)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:00:05 PM EST
    (And I think that there are many other factors that helped him become a media-darling.)

    1. The main reason is probably that the media loved the way he attacked the Clintons.

    2. Some columnists said that he shouldn't be criticized in some ways because he's black.

    3. Russert loved that he made social security (Russert's pet issue) an issue in the campaign and called it a crisis, even though it wassn't a crisis.

    4. There are many Obama fans, that send hundreds of anrgy e-mails and letters, whenever they feel the media is unfair to Obama.

    5. Many journalists liked that he was the only Dem candidate to be pushing the "unity" post-partisan rhetoric.


    Parent
    Eh...those are... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:20:56 PM EST
    ...anti-Obama partisan feelings about his media status.  

     Corporate media outlets are driven by profit margins, not Clinton hate or angry letters from Obama partisans.  If Clinton hate sells, they push it.  If it doesn't, they don't.

     What columnists are you talking about?

    Parent

    John Judis for one.. (none / 0) (#116)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:36:23 PM EST
    He basically said that members of the media threw their support behind Obama when Hillary treated him like another politician.

    "Obama, too, was, and is, history--the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different... And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him."

    And are you seriously saying that people in the beltway media didn't care that he was attacking the Clinton's, making SS an issue, and calling for post-partisanship?

    You do have a good point in that they care about what sells, and I think that was another factor that helped Obama. He made the race a story, and was the best candidate with the advertising demographic.

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#123)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:49:11 PM EST
    And are you seriously saying that people in the beltway media didn't care that he was attacking the Clinton's, making SS an issue, and calling for post-partisanship?

     No, but he gamed them if that was their concern.  

     His own attacks on the Clintons were really rather mild.  And rather vague.  But if the beltway media thought that a Democrat was going to flip on something like SS they're incompetent.

     Don't read Judis, so I'll take your word for it.  

    Parent

    Well, didn't Judis prove himself (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
    to be a total fool, for so many reasons.  What an embarrassment it must be to have that paragraph follow him for all posterity.

    Parent
    but their profit margins (none / 0) (#168)
    by sancho on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:37:36 AM EST
    dont necessarily come from their tv ratings. their profit margins come from their other business ventures that are enabled by making sure their media outlets compress the political choices so that they win, regardless of who gets elected. this means that tv ratings are secondary to the narrative they want repeated so many times until it seems "true."

    Parent
    Taibbi (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:26:10 PM EST
    drank the Kool-Aid a while ago:

    So maybe it's OK to let the grandiose things that an Obama presidency could represent overwhelm the less-stirring reality -- i.e., Obama as more or less a typical middle-of-the-road Democrat with a lot of money and a well-run campaign. Maybe it's OK because it's not always about the candidates; sometimes it's about us, what we want and what we want to believe. And if Barack Obama can carry that burden for us, why not let him? Seriously, why not? The happy ending doesn't always have to ring false.

    Link.

    Almost fell off my chair when I read that. Then I wept a little. :-)

    Parent

    "Fairy tale" (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:27:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, but there was also this: (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:31:52 PM EST
    Obama has raised $80 million, and it would be a grievous mistake to describe his candidacy as a grass-roots affair, particularly when he counts among his bundlers many of the lobbyists and political-finance pros who buttress the Clinton run... Worse still, Obama's financial backing is reflected in some of his Senate votes and campaign positions, including most notably his support for expanding NAFTA to Peru, limiting the ability of injured workers and consumers to sue for damages, and pouring federal funds into E85 corn-based EthanOl, an alternative fuel for which the market is dominated by the Illinois-based [Archer Daniels Midland] Company. More than once I heard Obama give stirring speeches, only to mar them with plugs for ethanol.

    As quoted here

    I depend on people like Taibbi to keep enough perspective to make reading them interesting.  The Wenner piece is pure gushy schoolgirl crushy . . . I don't think Taibbi could mainline enough koolaid to write this pap.

    Parent

    I have a new hobby (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:11:20 PM EST
    On father's day... I got an off-road motorcycle.  The family spent the day riding in the mountains on some old logging roads.  Riding in the shade, crunching the pine needles... ahhhh!  There were some leaves that smelled like a cross between madrone and bay leaf, wonderful stuff.  Although I never got over third gear, I didn't wreck.

    Friday, went to a private ride on some timber land.  Tried to stay out of the way and didn't ride much.  It was for professional single track riders.

    Today, I went and rode at a river.  It was sand mixed with tan dust and very rocky.  The bike stuck in the sand until I worked my way close to the river, then I slid around in the rocks.  Interesting how differently the bike handles.  It takes a little work to get all of the grit out of the mouth.  Fun stuff.

    Just a friendly reminder (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
    Fun for you, not so much fun for people trying to take a quiet walk in the woods and enjoy the sounds of nature, look for birds, critters, etc.

    Parent
    Completely separate (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
    land use areas.  We take our dog only where dogs are allowed, mountain bike only on marked trails and now motorcycle in only motorcycle designated areas.  I live in Northern CA and land use (beaches, river bars, forest land) is very regulated.  

    Parent
    Paul Begala: A real fighting Dem (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ajain on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:29:49 PM EST
    This is some pretty amusing Republican/Democrat mud-slinging.


    Link

    "The Bush Republicans questioned the courage of a hero like Max Cleland. They besmirched the war heroism of John Kerry. They smeared Bill Clinton, savaged Hillary, attacked Sen. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Howard Dean," he said. "But when I call their fat-cat funders 'dirtbags,' they cry like babies. They are wimpy, whiny wussies."

    He added, "They are going to take their beating and like it, because this Democrat believes in fighting back."

    "The Bush Republicans questioned the courage of a hero like Max Cleland. They besmirched the war heroism of John Kerry. They smeared Bill Clinton, savaged Hillary, attacked Sen. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Howard Dean," he said. "But when I call their fat-cat funders 'dirtbags,' they cry like babies. They are wimpy, whiny wussies."

    He added, "They are going to take their beating and like it, because this Democrat believes in fighting back."
    LOVE IT! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:35:36 PM EST
    I've been laughing until it hurts at this. Thanks for the link!

    Oh, if only we had more like this...

    Parent

    10 minutes later (none / 0) (#129)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:54:26 PM EST
    I just have to look at "wimpy, whiny wussies" and I'm convulsed in laughter again.

    But I think the cherry on top of the sundae is the final paragraph:

    Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the DCCC, said, "It is understandable that House Republicans would be embarrassed about their lavish celebration of George Bush's record of high gas prices and their coziness to Big Oil special interests, but facts are facts. Clearly, the truth hurts."
     

    The truth hurts. indeed. Hee hee.

    Parent

    Truly Sad (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by cdalygo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:51:26 PM EST
    After a long day at work I come home to see that you are still pushing a ridiculous argument.

    Neither McCain nor Obama has "executive" experience. In the absence of any empiric proof, folks look to potential. A good measure of that potential is performance under duress. McCain wins that argument hands down. Obama can point to no other triumph or struggle in life outside of the psychodrama involving his father. That does not even begin to compare.  

    Frankly, it's a character study in and of itself to watch Obama toss Clark under the bus for it. Although some folks "admire" his ruthlessness, it is not trait that endears loyalty. Sooner or later everyone will catch up on that only Obama rides up top.

    Clark blew it on a number of levels these past two days. He won't make vice-president because Obama now finds him too uncontrollable. He cemented his unpopularity among other folks in the military -- to both his credit and detriment he's always been the truly smartest guy in the room. He also helped highlight a major weakness prior to Obama's big speech.    

    Thank you Bob Schieffer (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:12:22 AM EST
    Swallowing the Beltway line hook, line and sinker.

    Steny hoyer must love you.

    Parent

    McCain as far as it goes (none / 0) (#151)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:20:01 AM EST
    on decisions of National Security pushed a losing war on the public.

    It's evidence that he doesn't understand the military limitations of American power.  McCain still thinks that Vietnam was lost because of American public softness on the commies.

    He's willing to fight losing wars (very expensive losing wars)

    Parent

    This was a good argument (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:06:09 AM EST
    nonetheless.  I think it forced all of us to look at the transcript closer.  

    Kudos to both of you.  

    Scheiffer's comment was: (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by wurman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:26:59 AM EST
    A. an interruption of Gen. Clark
    B. an insistence by Schieffer to make HIS point
    C. his point was that Sen. Obama is not qualified.

    Gen. Clark turned the insistent, interruption and its negative description of Obama's apparent failure to learn how to drive a fighter jet & get shot out of it into a nice rhetorical slam back at the smart-a55 interviewer.

    Clark's technique is known as the "hoist on his own petard" & Schieffer's "Really!" was the stunned recognition that his gambit failed.

    Gen. Clark's apparent difficulty is that too many people aren't bright enough to recognize that turning the hosts idiotic rhetorice back onto him is a "good thing" for terminating an idiotic line of argument.

    And in other fun news... (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:30:52 AM EST
    Black politicians are being targeted in their re-election campaigns for having supported Hillary in the primary.

    Surprise, surprise.

    Ugh. (none / 0) (#206)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:56:56 AM EST
    I have to wonder if any of the districts have benefited from her earmarks etc. I know Harlem has. Also, NY pulled together as one unit and supported her and all switched to Obama together iirc.

    Parent
    I can't sleep (5.00 / 14) (#208)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:45:27 AM EST
    The thread is full, so I get to just say what I want and trust it won't be read.

    I don't care what Clark said. I don't care what BTD said. I don't care what happens in the world today.

    My youngest sister died very unexpectedly this afternoon. Her husband found her floating in their pool, but she was clothed and her lunch plate was dropped and broken next to the pool. We believe she was already gone when she hit the water. Her 45th birthday is this coming Tuesday.

    Can't watch the video from here. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:53:50 PM EST
    But I thought the next BTD post would be about Kos's sudden revelation.  

    50p says he's working on it (none / 0) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:54:33 PM EST
    as we type...

    Parent
    Probably correct. Let's see. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:55:34 PM EST


    Parent
    No need (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:03:59 PM EST
    It speaks for itself.

    You know he is my good friend right? I am not kidding about that.

    Parent

    Well, we know you had dinner once. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:04:42 PM EST
    But, aren't you surprised?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:08:50 PM EST
    I am not surprised. I talk to my friends.

    Parent
    this thread made me go to dailykos (none / 0) (#27)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    for the first time since early this year.  Wow!  I think BTD is rubbing off on his friend over there.  Integrity really is everything, and so it should be!

    Parent
    Integrity?! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:35:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I figured after Kos remained silent on (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    Obama's statement on FISA, Obama could do or say anything and maintain his support.  Not so, apparently.  

    Parent
    Not surprising (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:10:41 PM EST
    The blogosphere will get plenty upset with Obama for a while I suspect, including the pro-Obama crowd.

    They will get filled with anger and bitterness because they will feel that Obama is not standing up to them.  They will wonder why they backed him.

    And the the Republican Party will come to the rescue of Obama.  They will remind them exactly why they backed Obama.  They will take ridiculous shots at Obama and Liberals.  And they will rally around him.  

    Obama isn't going to magically change America, although I think he could be a great agent of progressive change in this country albeit at a pace that will infuriate the Left.  300 Million people don't change overnight.

    Parent

    Could you please explain this for me? (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    Won't go to DKos but I'm curious as all get out on what revelation?

    Parent
    It's worth a read. He was distressed (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:16:09 PM EST
    Obama dissed MoveOn and didn't stand up to McCain on the Clark issue.  Sd. he hasn't donated to Obama's campaign before, was ready to now, but didn't.  

    Parent
    For your ever-lasting enjoyment (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    the last sentence from Markos is worth the wading through.  It is this:

    "If you want sycophancy, this isn't your place."


    Parent
    I liked this one better: (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:45:18 PM EST
    Now that the primary is over, he can turn his back on the people that brought him.


    Parent
    Some who brung still think he's dancing with em (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:20:38 PM EST
    Back turned on them? Dusting his shoulder as they pass? Workin' that under the bus toss?

    Way kewl political moves that only insider super-get, according to deluded apologists Jonathan Alter and Randi Rhodes, here doing some pop'n'lock on FISA.

    (These are the loyalists who still think Obie's playing it cool till he gets elected by the stoopids, then do everything Club Obama wants.)

    The excuse-making is dizzying even allowing for the influence of the Creative Class's favorite Absolut & Koolaid cocktail.

    And for anyone who can't bear to listen all the way through, the closing flourish to the argument is: CLINTON!!!. (Bill).

    Parent

    One thing I was ALWAYS sure about w/ Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:23:46 PM EST
    was that she was going to "dance with the ones who brung her."

    I guess that's "old politics," but it was in her case reassuring.

    Parent

    HA HA HA HA HA!!! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:16:44 PM EST
    (gasp, wheeze) (snorting bourbon all over my keyboard)

    You have GOT to be kidding!

    Parent

    I could not make that up. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:29:15 PM EST
    And I actually checked to see if the link was to a mock-DKos site.  But nope.  Markos wrote that.

    And he has not yet been, to my knowledge, smote down for it.  If I were him, though, I'd keep an eye on the roiling heavens above.

    Parent

    Every sentence is a (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    lol, gasping, tears rolling down your face fest:

    When Republicans lost Congress in 2006, Rush Limbaugh bleated that he was happy, that he no longer needed to "carry water" for the GOP. Me, I'll never carry water for our team. I'll reward good behavior, and trash bad behavior.

    Double points for citing Rush.

    Parent

    I cured my Cheetoh addiction even before CDS ... (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:50:59 AM EST
    ... and studiously avoid the links, but this one I gotta see. :-)

    :: snapping on the protective anti-cheese dust latex gloves and magic helmet with goggles* ::

    (* I retrofitted an old bike helmet with Anti Brain-Softening tinfoil, wrote Cootie Protection on the side and added a monitor-protecting prescription sneeze guard with inside wiper blades.)

    Parent

    Oh oh, you haven't reported back (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:17:25 AM EST
    and we begin to be worried.  Ellie, Ellie>  Have you survived your descent into the inanity?  Ellie?  Tell us you haven't succumbed to an orange-tinged epiphany. . . .

    Parent
    Sweet mother of gawd, is this the end of Cheetoh? (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:45:39 AM EST
    "1081 comments"

    I love the ones that insist SenObie's being mystically clever on this and who are we to question his brilliance.

    WE ARE NOT A CULT ... WE ARE NOT A CULT ...

    Parent

    Honest question: did you expect him to cave? (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    I was about 50/50 on that.

    General Clark? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:03:06 PM EST
    Never. Ever.

    I am fanboy for only the best and the bravest.

    Parent

    But is he a pol? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:03:51 PM EST


    Parent
    4 stars... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:05:56 PM EST
    You do not get to be a 4 star without playing the Game.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM EST
    Not really. I guess that's why he'll never be President.

    Parent
    That's only because he'd have tl win a Dem primary (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:16:57 AM EST
    If he'd declared himself a GOP stalwart he'd have been their candidate in 2000.

    Parent
    I didn't expect him to cave (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:17:17 PM EST
    but I didn't expect him to be almost gleeful holding his ground.  He really does love a fight.

    Another honest question: do you think the whole thing was orchestrated by Obama? I don't.

    Parent

    Nope, not orchestrated (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:21:53 PM EST
    but it might work out for him anyway.

    And yes, the glee that Clark had in all of this proves that he's ready to campaign form something difficult. Happy campaigners add 5 points. That's andgarden's 2nd rule of politics ;-)

    Parent

    It all depends on how the media plays (none / 0) (#130)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:56:06 PM EST
    the original statement and Clark's followup.  

    They totally miss being able to generate ratings by attacking Clinton, and Obama attacking McCain's military service could be a good faux outrage tale for them.

    Glancing through the headlines over at Google news, the story sure isn't being spun the way BTD would spin it.

    This, eg, isn't such a great headline, for Obama or Clark:

    Clark Questions the Value of McCain's Service

    and the first paras:


    To this day, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., can't raise his arms above his shoulders because of injuries he suffered serving his country.
    Republican nominee fires back at attacks on his Vietnam War record.

    Shot down on a combat mission in Vietnam, McCain was badly injured and tortured relentlessly for five and a half years in a POW camp. That experience shaped the core of his character. Had he not been through it, he might not be a candidate for president.



    Parent
    Sure, the spin is bad (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:00:19 AM EST
    But I think the spin for the swift boat veterans was pretty bad too.

    Now the question is out there: is McCain qualified to be President. Unfortunately, the next question: is Obama more qualified, is also out there.

    Parent

    might as well hit it head on. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:24:18 AM EST
    It's a comparison that needs to be made. Mccain whined about Kosovo which was a winning proposition.  And he pushed a war that was a losing proposition.

    Parent
    Then let's talk about the (none / 0) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:21:14 AM EST
    pushing of the losing proposition.

    I agree, McCain is attached to the Iraq war in a bad way.  So go after that.  Argue he's not fit to be CiC because of a glaringly bad judgment on his part, yes.  Everyone agrees that the war is bad and we need to end it.  Or, most of the country agrees.

    But comments about his military service just open the Dems up to criticism on possibly their weakest point -- that they do not respect the troops and our servicepeople.  It's a false stereotype, yes, but a strong and longstanding one.  For pity's sake, why does Obama run away from his strongest arguments (eg the economy) but foxtrot all around the tripwire of his weakest?

    Parent

    Clark is qualified to say that McCain would (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:54:43 AM EST
    be a dangerous CinC.

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    Clark attacks McCain's military resume the day before Obama gives a speech on patriotism?  Clark is ready the same night to fire back clearly and cogently?

    They should have had a playbill for it.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:31:06 PM EST
    Obama loves having his big major speeches stepped on.

    Parent
    I heard lots on McCain (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:42:46 PM EST
    Clark/Obama drama.... Speech? what speech.

    This reminded me of how Obama would come out with a new endorsement etc. to knock Clinton out of the media for primary wins.

    If this was planned, what possessed them to knock out coverage of their own speech?

    Parent

    If there is a plan, (none / 0) (#68)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:46:20 PM EST
    perhaps this too is part of the plan,
    as when the subway turns on a switch,
    the wheels screeching
    against the rails,
    & the lights go out;
    but are on again in a moment.

    (Charles Reznikoff)

    [I've been saving this up for just such a moment.]
     

    Parent

    Major speech? (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    Who would have listened or read this speech today with the Clark "gaffe"?

    This is a dead time in the race.  Giving a great speech will do nothing for you if no one is listening.  

    This speech would have been just another July 4th rah rah speech with no impact whatsoever.  Instead he got to speak about how much he loves America and the military.

    What is the downside for Obama here? None.  What is the downside for Clark?  Assuming that this was a planned move, none.  

    Parent

    Oh, please (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:25:23 PM EST
    We're talking about Obama here.  The MSM gives major fawning coverage of his every utterance.  OF COURSE the patriotism speech would have gotten a lot of attention.

    Parent
    In late June? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:30:44 PM EST
    Even Obama can't work that miracle.  Media coverage and analysis is quiet right now.  A jump is to be expected after both conventions, and then the debates.

     

    Parent

    Really (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:17:51 PM EST


    Parent
    So the rejection of Clark (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    Was all part of the act?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:37:51 PM EST
    A one liner from a spokesman is hardly a blistering condemnation.  

    Parent
    So should we be better off (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:47:20 PM EST
    Realizing that Obama actually agrees with Clark's statement?

    Parent
    The spokesman's one liner (none / 0) (#159)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:29:15 AM EST
    isn't getting much play.  It doesn't appear that the Media wants to let up much yet...  

    Parent
    I just watched the Abrams spot (none / 0) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:32:03 AM EST
    It was repeated several times there in an effort to provide a gotcha moment on Clark.


    Parent
    Next honest question: did (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    BTD backtrack at all after last night's comments in response to tx?  

    Parent
    tx? (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:00:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:45:32 PM EST
    Tx was talking Bs about Clark. As were you I might say.

    Parent
    Guess that answers my question. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:52:25 PM EST


    Parent
    By the way, if you care to answer, (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:20:19 PM EST
    has anyone in your immediate family been in the U.S. military or reserves?  

    Parent
    I do not care to answer (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:24:20 PM EST
    I find the question offensive in its implication.

    Here;s a question for you, do you think General Clark was in the military? Was in Vietnam? Was shot by the enemy leading his platoon? Stayed on the battlefield to make sure his people were safe?

    Do you REALLY want to imply he has no standing to discuss this?

    Parent

    I think General Clark has all the cred (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:30:27 PM EST
    in the world to discuss how the military works, his opinion of the the significance of the positions McCain held in the military as related to his opinion of McCain's judgment.   I don't think you were correct in criticizing tx for stating how his relatives, who had been or were in the U.S. military, reacted to Clark's critique of McCain's military background and whether it served as a good foundation to be President of the U.S.  You also accused tx of hiding behind his family.  Where did that come from?

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:36:15 PM EST
    I did not criticize TX for stating the views of his relatives who were vets - I criticized THE VIEWS of his relative vets.

    Or do you, like McCain think that being a vet means you are beyond reproach and your views on such subjects are the final word? That was your implication and it is an offensive one.

    there are no sacred cows. Your views can be ripped and so can mine. For gawd's sake, you think someone's relative's view can't be? ridiculous. Absurd.

    Parent

    You eventually sd. what you sd. above, (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:02:21 AM EST
    but not initially.  

    But as to your second paragraph, no I do not "like McCain think that being a vet means you are beyond reproach and your views on such subjects are the final word"?  I was merely trying to point out that, in my experience, which does not include being in the military, people who have been in the military are proud of that fact and tend to take offense when their service or that of others is impugned.  Of course, being in the military does not make one's opinion the be all and end all.  And, if I insulted you, please accept my apology.  It is none of my business whether your family members have a military background.    

    Parent

    Oh, and FYI (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:10:08 PM EST
    the dimensions on that youtube embed aren't right. The aspect ratio is off.

    New ATT Ad (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:16:12 PM EST
    Warrantless Wiretapping Joke

    That's infuriating, and, since they (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    took over Cingular, I'm on their plan!  

    Parent
    yup me too including cell and internet. (none / 0) (#60)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    they'll find me quite boring i'm sure.

    Parent
    I just watched some of today's Hardball (none / 0) (#72)
    by ajain on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:54:07 PM EST
    And I think a growing conventional wisdom seems to be that  Barack doesn't need Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton.

    Which I think is great for both Hillary and Barack.

    If Barack Obama wins he can claim his own victory and if he loses it will be his own defeat.

    But I think its a stupid strategy that Obama will be smart not to follow but seeing that he has been listening to the bloviators by tacking to the "center", I think this is what he will most likely do. Ignore the Clintons as much as humanly possible.

    But Matthews, FWIW (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:20:31 PM EST
    agrees with BTD that Obama really has to pick Hillary.

    Parent
    his guests were arguing otherwise (none / 0) (#137)
    by ajain on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Since you are incapable of clicking a link (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08:52 PM EST
    or understanding what an ellipse is here is the full exchange:

    SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these
    are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're
    talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest
    squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years.
    How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?

    Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of
    understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held
    accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his
    service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others
    in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services
    Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That
    large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't
    know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'

    SCHIEFFER: Well...

    Gen. CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob. So...

    SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe--could I just
    interrupt you?

    Gen. CLARK: Sure.

    SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he
    ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

    Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification
    to be president.

    SCHIEFFER: Really?

    Sheesh.

    Evidence that Democrats are looking (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    at a Congressional landslide:

    SUSA sez that the Dem and the Rep are essentially tied in an R+13 KY open seat.

    The Dem composition looks inflated, I know, but it's consistent with previous polls of Kentucky, which has lots of "Democrats."

    I'm going to bet that they'll win the WS.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:12:08 PM EST
    They actually did a segment on ESPN asking if their success was due to them dropping the word "Devil" from their name.

    Sigh. (none / 0) (#112)
    by A little night musing on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:32:30 PM EST
    At least my boys put up a little show in the ninth inning.

    (I do find the Rays pretty exciting this season, but not so much for the next few days, I hope you'll understand. ;-> )

    WOW! (none / 0) (#132)
    by talex on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    dKos Armando is BACK!!!!!!!!

    I'm reporting you to the teacher for saying such things to a poster. Isn't that kind of attitude and language what got you tossed from dKos?

    Or were you writing to yourself? Perhaps a personal journal entry? ;)

    You are permamnetly suspended from my threads (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:14:46 AM EST
    You now bepolong to Jeralyn and TChris.

    I' ll be deleting your comments from this and all my threads.

    Parent

    Alas poor Talex, we knew him well (none / 0) (#162)
    by wurman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:30:56 AM EST
    A sorry & tormented soul, long to be missed from the threads of intelligent discourse.

    May that wit & wisdom find a new home amongst the dry, moronic threads at Little Green Footballs or, better yet, the MSNBC & Huffington "comments" sections.

    Sayonara

    Parent

    Clark is saying that Mccain (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    is out of his intellectual depth with the presidency.

    There are lots of good Lts, Captains, Majors, colonels etc who should never get beyond those ranks. Maybe Mccainis one of those guys who is not suited to command at the highest level.  Case 1) Wrong on Iraq. 2) Wrong on Vietnam for many years.  3) Incompetent with the economy [the economy is the sinew of war] 4) Near bottom of his class.

    Not that Obama can make these aguments because his resume is so thin.
     Clark can say these things and be taken very seriously. Clark was a briliant politcio/logistics commander who'd have rivaled Eisenhower in his day.   He's not being crass he's making a command judgemenrt about a man who may have risen above his station.

    Clark is making good arguments (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST
    but, unfortunately, Clark isn't our candidate for president.  Obama is.  

    Obama can't make most of these arguments because he has a "thin resume."  Having surrogates make the argument doesn't really do it either.  Obama needs to speak out and he appears to be incapable of doing that.  

    I see President McCain in the fall whether or not anyone else cares to admit it.  The only chance we had of beating McCain was Hillary and the DNC didn't seem to like her.  

    Of course, with a McCain presidency, Nancy and the rest of them will be able to keep their seats for more years since people rarely get angry enough to vote their congressperson out.  

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:27:27 AM EST
    The Salo Manifesto states that:

    1. Democratic Primaries do not produce Optimal Candidates.

    2. Democrtaic candidates that are produced by the primaries do not know how to make winning arguments. Either because they i. can't make them with a straight face or because they ii. contradict themselves within a sentence or two of making a good point.


    Parent
    Oh, and Tom Schaller (none / 0) (#138)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    has the goods on Obama's fake new "southern strategy". Whistle past Georgia, I say.

    Obama's new shift in position (none / 0) (#149)
    by ajain on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:16:51 AM EST
    Welfare Reform is the newest of them all.

    Link

    The most ironic quote:

    During a 1996 interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Obama could not conceal his disappointment in his fellow Democrat. "Bill Clinton? Well, his campaign's fascinating to a student of politics. It's disturbing to someone who cares about certain issues. But politically, it seems to be working," said Obama.

    I just think that Obama's tact isn't even working.

    lol!~ didya catch this in the (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:52:07 AM EST
    comments at the link?

    They call him Flipper.

    I now have that damn song stuck in my head!

    Parent

    Well that really (none / 0) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:15:51 AM EST
    Grinds my gears.


    Parent
    Welfare reform, school vouchers (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:24:45 AM EST
    -- yikes, people, Obama is Tommy Thompson.  Remember him, the most doofus of candidates in the debates?

    Those programs started in Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, under Tommy.  And there are longitudinal studies now (although Obama says there aren't) that show the devastation of such programs on this city.  Btw, the school vouchers program turns out to have been initiated with funding from Bill Ayers' foundation, when Obama chaired it.  

    Do not let this happen to the rest of the country.  Please.  It's too late at night to do my rundown again on the impacts of these programs here, where they began, but you can look up the poverty levels, the declining school scores, etc.  It's awful.  

    Parent

    Don't diss Patton (none / 0) (#153)
    by angie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:23:48 AM EST
    I love Patton -- I've seen that movie about 25 times! John McCain is no Patton, my friend! ;-)

    I'm not praising McCain -- I'm just not willing to excuse what I see as a flip comment about anyone's military service, especially one coming from someone who is speaking for the Democrats -- I can see that the new meme from the Dem camp seems to be to attack McCain's service as not "being all that" and I think that is the wrong road to travel.

    he could never have run a theatre. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:29:53 AM EST
    He would have been out of his Depth in Eisenhower's role.  He was a good Cavalry officer, just as Rommal was a good Panzer Commander.  They were not capable of understanding the next level of command though.

    Parent
    Eisenhower was superior officer. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:40:41 AM EST
    A vastly superior intellect and commander of men.  Patton was better at the Cavalry charge stuff though. You can evern get into the Grant Sherman dichotomy. There's no comparison between the two at the higher levels of decision making.

    There's just no comparison. It's exactly why we needed someone with sharp Clark's intellect in 2004.

    Parent

    I haven't pd. close attention (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:46:15 AM EST
    to the complete ouevre.  Just got my hackles up regarding a single comment and the responses thereto.

    All you need to do... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:49:39 AM EST
    ...is visit his site.  If you do not find that objectionable well....whatever.  

     BTD's objections were the least of his crimes...which is saying something.  He is horrible.

    Parent

    Well, I rather like him (none / 0) (#185)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:11:11 AM EST
    He's always been quite careful to warn anyone going to his own site that it's no holds barred, and quite different from how he expressed himself here.

    He just didn't agree with you much, that I can recall.

    Whatever, folks can look up his comments to make their own opinions.

    Parent

    His... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:19:30 AM EST
    ...is discourse fit for dogs.

     I find it hilarious that such a specimen could complain about media treatment of Senator Clinton.

     It is more than disagreement with him.  It is about very fundamental values and character.

    Parent

    Please leave the dogs out of it! (none / 0) (#201)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:43:09 AM EST
    They've really been getting the bum deal this election season and I'm just not going to stand for it anymore!

    {grin}

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#203)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:47:06 AM EST
    Tx is beneath dogs.  I would need to attack something microbial for it to stick.

    Parent
    From Bud Day: (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:05:04 AM EST
    Colonel Bud Day, a fellow P.O.W. in Hanoi: "This backhanded slap is one of the more surprising insults in my military history. Again, I'm astounded that a person who represents a presidential candidate would be involved in this kind of political shenanigans against a man of John McCain's character."
     [NYT:  The Caucus]

    Isn't this the chief swiftboater of John Kerry?

    Good choice, oculus (none / 0) (#181)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:05:53 AM EST
    I went, out of curiosity. Ugh. Well, I was warned.

    Wow, Angie, I don't think you're getting this. (none / 0) (#207)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:27:16 AM EST
    They both said it.

    SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he
    ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...
    Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

    Schieffer said it because it's a GOP talking point and some people actually get tricked into thinking it makes McCain more qualified to lead.  

    Clark repeated it in order to say it's patently false.  In fact, iMO, McCain is more likely to be less qualified to be President after suffering as a POW.

    JavaCityPal, I am so sorry for your loss. I will (none / 0) (#209)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:58:46 AM EST
    hold you close in my thoughts. I offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences to you and your family.

    Deborah

    Won't Back Down Open Thread | 166 comments (166 topical)