Late Night: Candy Everybody Wants

Natalie Merchant and Michael Stipe. You'll need to turn up the volume --I took this off an old VHS tape I had lying around of the 1993 MTV Inaugural Ball for Bill Clinton and Al Gore and put it on You Tube but I couldn't get it louder.

I always thought the song was called "Give them what they want." It's "Candy Everybody Wants."

This is an open thread, but new commenters, as always, are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

< Thursday Evening Open Thread | The "Fairy Tale" Comes Home To Roost >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have a confession (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    I hope Obama wins (this is not the confession part).  And I think he probably will win.  I respect, of course, those who disagree on either score.

    But IF Obama is going to lose, I want the reason to be that the American people simply get turned off by all these bogus accusations of racism, and decide they want nothing to do with that style of politics.  It would at least be a silver lining if we could put an end to those divisive tactics once and for all.

    It's not just about payback for the primary, although that wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's about killing off a type of politics that is absolutely toxic for everyone concerned.  And who knows, maybe liberals in general would learn along the way that there really is a downside to crying wolf constantly.

    Let me ask you this Steve (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:50:48 PM EST
    If Hillary were the Democratic nominee and the McCain made this exact same ad but with Hillary being the target, do you think that some people would find it sexist and rightfully so?

    Whether the McCain campaign willfully used white women as some sort of dog whistle, I have no idea. It doesn't really bother me one way or the other if they did.  

    However the add was demeaning.  It was inappropriate as well.  Comparing Obama to a pair of 20-something life wasters is completely uncalled for.  

    As for Obama's comment I simply don't understand how people here can on the one hand defend McCain against charges of dog whistle race-baiting and then accuse Obama of race-baiting simply because he said that the Republicans will try to use fear and the fact that he doesn't look like past presidents to defeat him.  The Republicans ALWAYS use fear.  It is their modus operandi.  

    Regardless why is one divisive but not the other?  

    And racial politics will disappear when racism is no longer pervasive throughout our society.


    If the Republicans ALWAYS use fear (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:57:44 PM EST
    and thus use it against whites as well, then how is it racist when used against Obama?

    Where did I say it was racism? (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    I don't play the outrage! game.  It is counter-productive.

    Even if it were racist it wouldn't make any difference to me, other than the political mileage Obama could get out of it.

    Personally I have a much bigger problem with McCain blatantly lying in his ads.


    Okay, I think I now have diagrammed (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    your long sentence to see what I think was really meant.  Or not.  Maybe it needs commas or something.  Or maybe I need to get new glasses.

    Anyway -- okay.


    What is this "diagramming" of which (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:42 PM EST
    you speak?

    Ah, you must be too young (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    to have had to diagram sentences.  That's to figure out long sentences as to which modifying phrase modifies which noun, or in this case, to figure out what is meant when a verb is far from an object, etc.

    Diagramming sentences is almost requisite in reading Faulkner.  :-)


    But not Hemingway. (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:14:44 AM EST
    Or Scott Fitzgerald.

    I forgot the snark label, as I certainly (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    struggled with the diagramming of sentences and didn't really get it until I took Latin.

    Oh, lordy, then you're as old as I am (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:40:39 PM EST
    in the last generation that, in any numbers, took Latin.  Yes, it certainly helps with writing -- in English, anyway.  I don't remember a lot of Latin, though.

    Except "Vero Possumus."  I never shall forget that!:-)


    I Never Got It (none / 0) (#133)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:33:27 AM EST
    until my children came to me for help with their homework.  Then I really HAD to knuckle down and learn it :)

    I was a star at diagramming sentences (none / 0) (#99)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:56:48 PM EST
    The nuns loved to do that and maybe because I was good at logic and math, it was a snap to walk up to the blackboard and slash, line up, slash, line down, etc. Wish I was as good on other subjects. Heh.

    Ooo Ooo (none / 0) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:59:37 PM EST
    I was a big grammar & diagramming geek as well.  Sigh.  Such deep satisfaction once a sticky and complex sentence was conquered.

    Try going back to college (none / 0) (#110)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:04:52 AM EST
    in your late 40s like I did. The kidz not only never learned to diagram sentences, they don't know Latin and Greek roots and they can't even identify parts of speech.

    I thought I would be at a disadvantage having been out of school for so long. Not so.


    LOL (none / 0) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    try complaining on a blog that commenters don't know the difference between there, their and they're or when to use then vs than and see what kind of reaction you get.  Most people under 40 don't care about it.  They will just say that you knew what they meant, so what are you worrying about?

    Here's one to diagram (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    This sentence no verb.

    Sher, quit it with your sh*t here (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:19:14 AM EST
    Speak up and say what you don't like about a comment.  Jeesh, you remind me of the nasty little creeps in school who always ran to the teacher to tell on kids but never dealt with the kids herself.

    I didn't see the McCain ad as racist (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:59:45 PM EST
    It simply called BO a news item not because of content, like Spears, but because of media interest and hype.  It's politics and BO is not going against HRC anymore.  She couldn't use those kind of ads.

    Saying that it's politics (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    doesn't make it appropriate.

    You guys can defend the ad if you like but I found it petty and demeaning and I wouldn't want Obama to make that sort of ad against McCain.


    everyone who has defended the ad (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:37 PM EST
    has been defending it against the charges of racism that have been leveled against McCain.  Maybe not by you specifically, but by the Obama camp and his supporters.

    How long have you been (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    following politics?  Serious question because this ad is incredibly mild by comparison to, oh, let's say the Willie Horton ad, and a whole lot of others over the years.

    If you're going to get outraged so easily, you're going to have a very, very long next three months.


    Poor answer (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    Just because there was once a Willie Horton ad or a Daisy ad doesn't make this ad less inappropriate.

    I'm not outraged but I do want the campaign to hit McCain on this.  McCain promises to not engage in the politics of personal destruction and then says he is "proud" of this ad?  WTF?


    "poor answer"? (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:29:32 AM EST
    It's not an answer, it's a comment.

    I repeat, this is a very mild ad compared to normal, so you would do well not to hyperventilate over it.


    Demeaning? (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:22:35 PM EST
    This conversation is ridiculous.  He's a grown man running for President.  He and his campaign and his supporters need to grow a thicker skin and lay off the "demeaning" meme.  He's running for President, not Prom King.  Grow. Up.

    Shouldn't you be writing (1.33 / 3) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    one of your hate screeds about Obama right now?

    Unlike you, I don't let emotions dictate my politics.


    Obama the delicate little flower (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:00 PM EST
    who's demeaned every time somebody gets a little rough.  If Obama wins, you'll have plenty to do "protecting" him for the next four years.

    This stuff is just completely over the top.  When did Obama turn into spun glass?  Geez, let's see the guy mix it up a little bit instead of whining about it.


    Oh, yes, you do (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:32:55 AM EST
    You most certainly do.  So do all of us, for that matter, to one extent or another.  Your absurd overreaction to this ad shows it quite clearly.

    Perhaps the emotion dictates your (none / 0) (#169)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM EST
    fact-checking abilities, from time to time.

    Duh.... (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:13:59 AM EST
    Of course it's petty and demeaning.

    That is the whole point.

    If you support Obama, no doubt you'd be offended at his being compared to publicity-seeking celebrities who are famous for being famous and not for any achievements for which you would reward them with employment as ... oh, say, Leader of the Free World.

    No way is it racist.  As someone pointed out in another thread, it might have been even better if the ad had featured someone like Fabio instead of two white girls, which seems to have raised that issue following the horrendous Harold Ford ad.

    The message was a simple one:

    So you're famous and the media loves you.  What else ya got?

    Yeah.  I think it's fair.  

    Mean.  But fair.


    I think there's a bit misunderstanding about (4.83 / 6) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:37:59 PM EST
    what the word 'demeaning' means.

    There seems to be a riff floating around the internet (I've seen this other places, and I don't think it's a mistake but a deliberate conflation) that 'demeaning' is 'any critical statement.'

    Let's take, say, JFK as an example.  If JFK gave a bad speech -- poorly phrased or meandering or without substance -- and I said 'that was a bad speech', I am being critical.  My statement is criticism.  It is not demeaning.  I haven't degrades JFK, or asserted that he is inferior, or dehumanized him in any way, or taken away from his actual talents or accomplishments.

    Demeaning would be 'JFK can't give a good speech because he is a Kennedy and everyone knows Kennedy Sr. bought all his boys their political positions rather than they're being able to earn them on their talents.'

    The Paris ad is a criticism.  Like many political ads, it engages in some hyperbole.  (Even I acknowledge that Obama has more actual accomplishments than Paris Hilton).  It is saying he has no substance, as Paris does not.  Famous for being famous.

    The accusations of racism in response to criticism follow the same conflation, but are, as said above, much more toxic because of the existence of real racism.

    There were other words similarly manipulated during the campaign, eg 'attacks'.  Any criticism by Clinton of Obama was always, always headlined as an attack by the MSM.

    The expansion of straightforward words beyond their meanings such as with 'demean' or 'belittle' plays into the stereotype of Democrats as perpetual, whining victims.  Which could very result in some serious backfiring from undecideds and indies.


    I completely disagree (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:44:03 PM EST
    when Wes Clark said that being able to get shot down does not qualify someone to be President he was crucified by the McCain campaign for "demeaning" his time in service.

    An add that attempts to equate a United States Senator, former University of Chicago ConLaw lecturer, and aspiring President with a 25 year old most well known for partying and making sex tapes and another 25 year most well know for being a white trash mother is most certainly demeaning.  

    I don't care what the point of the ad was.  The method used was demeaning.

    If McCain wants to say he is an empty suit or has no substance that's fine.  It is a pretty lame argument but that's fine.  

    But just because you agree with the point doesn't mean that means to make the point are legitimate.


    Now, demeaning would have been (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:22 AM EST
    McCain saying Obama's name, and then brushing off his shoulder -- y'know, like the tune "Dirt Off My Shoulder" -- and then acting as if he had to wipe dogsh*t off his shoe, too.

    Oh, and scratching his face with the finger . . . or two, to keep it real kewl . . . now, that would be demeaning.

    But no decent man would do a thing like that.


    I hear you (none / 0) (#125)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:25:23 AM EST
    but unfortunately these type of ads work

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:02:43 PM EST
    Well, let's take these things in order.

    First, your analogy doesn't make sense to me.  An ad that gratuitously compared Hillary to Paris and Britney would be like, I dunno, an ad that gratuitously compared Obama to Tupac and 50 Cent.  I mean, I don't think there would be much debate about that one.

    The dog whistle thing, I won't ask you to defend the argument if you don't believe in it yourself, but I'm honestly amazed so many people see no difference between this ad and the infamous Harold Ford ad.  Frankly, I think it's gotten to the point where people figure, if you can plausibly (or even implausibly) charge racism, just do it.  Why not?  There's no downside.

    Was the ad cheap and classless?  Absolutely so.  And I think sticking to that line of defense would work marvelously, because this ad is definitely beneath what people expect to see from Brand McCain.  But why anyone would choose to bring race into it and muddle the whole thing up, I have no idea.

    Finally, the comment about past presidents had nothing to do with race.  Robert Gibbs said so himself.  You must not have gotten the memo :)


    My analogy was purposefully (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    over the top.  You agree that the imagery could be considered sexist.  You don't agree that it could be racist.   Certainly there are differences between this and the Harold Ford but also remember that the Republicans crossed their hearts and swore that there was no race baiting going on there either.

    The Obama campaign isn't bringing up race with regards to the ad.   Bloggers and pundits are.  And bloggers and pundits are always looking for the big story or the outrageous angle to a story.

    Well the Obama campaign is in a tough situation because they can't really bring up race without having a big hullabaloo being made about it.

    But his race certainly is a factor that he must deal with.  Seems like he is constantly required to apologize for the actions of all sorts of other black people, the most recent case being Ludacris.  


    the Obama camp certainly is bringing up race (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:21 PM EST
    with regard to this ad.  They started accusing McCain of racism several weeks ago in Florida.  Another post on this thread has the quotes from the FL speech where Obama specifically said they will say "he's black".

    And where you say it is bloggers and pundits bringing up race...  who do you think the people here are defending the ad to?  BLOGGERS who are calling it racist.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM EST
    He did not accuse McCain of racism.  He said there are people that will attack him because he is black.  Do you think this is an untrue statement?  

    Who are these "they" (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
    that he was speaking of?

    The campaign said that "they" are Washington insiders. But arguably, the candidate is, himself, a Washington insider.

    I've found, after spending a good deal of time listening to CT radio, that "they" is an amorphous group of people without any real defining features...except that you need to be wary of "them" and remember that "they" are out there...whoever "they" are.

    Generally, the "they" trope underscores a sense of paranoia and mistrust...possibly even fear as a rhetorical strategy.


    Sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST
    the use of They is a common rhetorical sleight of hand intended to launch an attack without pointing at anyone specifically.

    Obama certainly didn't invent it although he seems pretty good at using it.


    Not really... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:42:58 PM EST
    The problem with using it is that when you point out that "they" are gonna do X, Y, and Z, you start putting yourself into the role of attack victim before you're even attacked.

    Plus you set up an "old politics" form of us/them dichotomy that undermines your "new politics" aura.

    So not only have you made yourself the apparent victim in a "cry wolf" scenario...but you've undercut your own argument of a "New Form of Unity Politics."


    and, (none / 0) (#74)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
    isn't attacking someone based on their race the very defintion of racism?

    no, commenters are not bloggers (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    I have not called the ad racist. I haven't seen it. Please don't confuse commenters at blogs with bloggers.

    sorry to lump (none / 0) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    bloggers and blog commenters together,  But, there are bloggers out there who are calling this racist.  I didn't mean to imply that you are one of them.  But, since I didn't actually  use your name specifically, I guess the Obama defense of "I never said that" works and you can't say  that I did.   LOL

    I don't get it (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:23:08 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that I'm more sensitive to sexism than racism or something?  Comparing Hillary to two airheads would simply be... a different analogy than comparing Obama to them.  I think I offered a much more appropriate analogy, if you want to make that point.

    It's kinda like how it would be racist to call Obama lazy and shiftless, but it wouldn't be sexist to call Hillary lazy and shiftless.  See my point?

    As for Ludacris, you seriously cannot believe that the reason Obama was asked to comment on that song was because Ludacris is black.  Can you?  It's because it was a song that was directly about Obama, and trashed his rivals in highly inappropriate ways.

    Now, as for whether the Obama campaign is bringing up race in regards to the ad, well.  What they're doing is that at the exact same time they're responding to this ad from McCain, they're also making the old "he doesn't look like those other presidents" argument, the one that Robert Gibbs absurdly claims has nothing to do with race.  Is it a direct response, who knows, but it's clear the McCain campaign is not just going to sit there and let Obama accuse them of race-baiting even if it's a completely generic accusation, which I'm not sure it was in this case.

    I also think bloggers need to realize that they have a certain responsibility, and that if they want to make vicious accusations just because nobody minds within the confines of the echo chamber, those accusations do get reported on by the MSM and they do become part of the zeitgeist.  I really wish people, and this includes you, would just cool it on the racism accusations until something comes along that actually deserves them.  It was appalling enough to have to go through this in the primary.


    fair enough (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    First off I wasn't suggesting you are more sensitive to sexism.  I was speaking generally. I can list at least 5 instances of sexism accusations that were taken as absolute fact here that were far more tenuous than this accusation.

    Singers have been politically involved for decades often saying all sorts of inappropriate things.  This is the first time that I can remember in which the politician is expected to apologize or even address that sort of thing.

    Let me ask you this, Steve.  Who do you think stands to gain more by making this election about race, Obama or McCain?  

    I don't think you will ever see me accuse someone of racism unless it is very clear.  There are people on this site that VERY questionable things.  Perhaps it is driven by bigotry and perhaps it is driven by simple hatred of all things Obama.  But either way their comments are not acceptable to me.  This really only applies to about 2 or 3 regular posters here.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    First of all, just like you're not really the guy who goes overboard with the racism accusations (although, uh, you kinda did go to town on Edgar08 in the last thread), I'm not necessarily a subscriber to every paragraph of the sexism narrative.  Let's just leave it at that.

    This Ludacris thing is an example of an issue where I end up feeling like we come from different planets or something.  I mean, a famous artist writes a song that is like "Obama is awesome, Hillary is a b*tch, and McCain is senile" (to loosely paraphrase) and you honestly believe the only reason Obama got asked what he thought about that song is that they're both black.  I mean, I just can't comprehend where that argument comes from.

    And somehow, over the course of this campaign, no matter how hard I've tried in my life to fight racism and all those other isms, I just feel this vast gulf opening up between myself and the sort of liberal who spots an example of racism every 5 minutes.  It's kinda weird for me.


    You are right (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    that I went after Edgar.  But I don't care much for the "He's just a whiny black guy" meme.  I hear that from Conservatives I know an awful lot.  I find Edgar's comments on Obama to be mostly irrational and they have been for some time.  I'll leave it at that.

    The Ludacris thing taken on its own would be one thing.  But it seems to me that this is a common trend.  Bernie Mac, Ludacris, Obama having Kanye West on his Ipod.  It seems so petty to me.

    For some the Obama campaign is very emotional and they allow that emotion to cloud their views.  I think that bogus accusations of racism are counter-productive and help perpetuate real examples of racism by desensitizing people.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    When they asked Obama what he thought about Harry Belafonte's anti-Bush comments that was bizarre and quite obviously had something to do with race, because there's no other connection between Obama and Harry Belafonte.

    But the reason Obama got asked to apologize for Bernie Mac is that Bernie Mac made offensive comments right there at an Obama event!

    And the reason Obama got asked for a comment on Ludacris is because the offensive song Ludacris wrote was actually a song about Obama!

    This is similar to the logic where I point out that what was racist about the Harold Ford ad was not that it had an image of a white woman in it. Rather, what was racist is that it suggested Harold Ford was a playboy who liked to party with white women.  By the same token, what was racial about the Harry Belafonte episode was not simply that Belafonte is black, it's that Belafonte had made comments that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:04:42 AM EST
    Reasonable points.  As I said it is more than it seems to be a recurring theme for Obama than any specific episode.

    But you make some good points.


    Oh, me me me, I know the answer. (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:53:03 PM EST
    Who do you think stands to gain more by making this election about race, Obama or McCain?

    Obama. No question.

    What did I win?


    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
    Who are the voters that are currently not already certain to vote for Obama that would be convinced to vote for him based on a campaign about race?

    Those who would be bothered by racism are already voting for him, other than the Hillary supporters.  

    So the only people who may be influenced by a lot of racism talk are those who would get turned off by it.  I'll assume the actual racists were never voting for Obama in the first place.


    Obama benefits (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    because it tends to stop a lot of future criticism against Obama.  People and/or the media are afraid to criticze him for fear of beingcalled racist.  Or at least it worked that way in the dem primary.  I'm not so sure it will have the desired effect on republicans.

    As for the other charges from Obama (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:04:07 PM EST
    that the Republicans will use race-baiting, the problem is the future tense.

    It would be like me writing a comment here that you will use race-baiting.  Or that you will engage in BTD-baiting, which is a lot more fun. :-)

    It reminds me of a rather over-the-edge nun in grade school.  She gave rulers -- hard-edged rulers -- to the girls and assigned each one to a boy.  This was one of my brothers' classes, and he got assigned to a mean girl.  The girls were assigned to whup the boys if they sinned in -- this is the Catholic phraseology -- "thought, word, or deed."

    The mean girl decided that my brother was thinking lots of sinful thoughts and bruised him often.

    Or she was a bully.

    So is Obama thinking that McCain will, in the future, sin in thought, word, or deed?  

    Or is Obama being a bully?

    Or maybe just a mind-reader, with superpowers heretofore unseen?  Wow, that would be really helpful to have a president who could predict the future.  Kewl.


    Whoa! I thought some of the nuns ... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by santarita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:03:23 AM EST
    at my school were nasty.  

    That ad with Hillary would make (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    no sense. Hillary isn't known for rockstar rallies and being a personality that hasn't accomplished much beyond being popular that goes on Access Hollywood.

    As for Obama's comment I simply don't understand how people here can on the one hand defend McCain against charges of dog whistle race-baiting and then accuse Obama of race-baiting simply because he said that the Republicans will try to use fear and the fact that he doesn't look like past presidents to defeat him.  The Republicans ALWAYS use fear.  It is their modus operandi

    The comments weren't just about "fear" Obama said they would make people be fearful because he has a "funny name" and because he doesn't look like any of the guys on our currency. Be honest with yourself.

    And this isn't the first time the campaign has gone there...

    The Kansas Democrat, often mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama, said those were all "code words" to try to make voters "uncomfortable."

    "I don't think anybody's going to go directly at the race issue, but that's going to be an underlying theme," she said in an interview this week.

    Obama said much the same thing to an audience in Florida last week.

    "They're going to try to make you afraid of me," the presumptive Democratic nominee said. `"He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?""

    Kansas governor, Obama ally, warns GOP will play race card


    The ad was senseless (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:16:42 PM EST
    as it was.  Just because people use the term rock star to describe Obama doesn't make him an ACTUAL rock star.  When you go negative, accuracy is unimportant.

    The comments weren't just about "fear" Obama said they would make people be fearful because he has a "funny name" and because he doesn't look like any of the guys on our currency. Be honest with yourself.

    I still lots of people that like to call him B. Hussein Obama.  You telling me they do that because they love his name?  

    Or maybe it's because of people like this

    We recently discussed Obama, and while I did not expect her to be willing to vote Democratic, the reason she gave was a little surprising to me: she can't see supporting him because of his close association with Muslims. He went to school with Muslims, his step-father was a Muslim, and she just doesn't feel comfortable. She has no problem with a black President (again, her children wouldn't be god-parents to mine if she had racial issues). But the Muslim thing worries her

    So tell me again that his look and name aren't used against him.


    which of your examples (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:21:00 PM EST
    is McCain responsible for?  NONE.  So, why does Obama keep going out there and saying the McCain campaign is or will be doing this?

    Please provide (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:23:40 PM EST
    a quote from the Obama campaign accusing the McCain campaign of doing this?

    No implied quotes where Obama speaks in generalities and you assume he is referring to the McCain campaign.  Specific quotes please.


    Read Jake Tapper today (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:45 PM EST
    (linked in previous thread).  He parses it perfectly.  

    Not sure (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:37:35 PM EST
    which blog entry you are referring to.  Perhaps this Tapper entry that has a quote from the Obama campaign...

    This is a race about big challenges--a slumping economy, a broken foreign policy, and an energy crisis for everyone but the oil companies.  Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they're using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he'll continue to talk about.

    I don't think he can be any clearer than that.


    It's in post #21 (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:49:11 PM EST
    "They're going to try to make you afraid of me.....and he's black"

    Who do you they "They" are?  Obama's opponents, the McCain campaign and McCain supporters and surrogates.


    You just covered (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:54:06 PM EST
    tens of millions of people.  

    I asked for an example of the Obama campaign accusing the McCain campaign of racism and you provide a quote referencing a vague "they" and then admit that the "they" could cover Obama's opponents, the McCain campaign and those who support McCain?

    Not very compelling.


    like i said in an earlier post (none / 0) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:05:37 AM EST
    Obama supporters are very wiling to accuse non Obama suporters by "implication" when NOTHING is said directly, but are completely unwilling of ever seeing the "implications" of what Obama says.  But, it doesn't surprise me.  It's the defense that Obama supporters have been using sinse the start of the primary campaign.  His campaign "implies" things and the supporters defend with "he didn't say that".  Or, his campaign sends out a surrogate to say something and then the supporters say "Obama didn't say it, he can't be held responsible for what someone else says".

    So we have now moved on to (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:06:48 AM EST
    Obama supporters.  That's always an easy target.  Much easier than defending your original point I might add.

    15+ To 1 (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    Quite a pileup. Not much support for Obama here.

    well i would have said you (none / 0) (#129)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:30:01 AM EST
    specifically, but you have claimed you never charged racism.  Although if you look in another one of your posts you also make the claim that you never charge racism unless it is clear.  And, in that same post you charge this ad is easier to defend as racism than 5 examples of sexism charges you could think of.

    Yeh, that's all you got out of Tapper? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:48:50 AM EST
    You're simply not worth discussion.  I'm done with you.

    the Florida speech is already posted here (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    where Obama says they'll say I'm black in order to scare you.

    But, the more curious part of your post is that you deny me the opportunity to use implications made by Obama or his campaign.  Because, those implications are ALL that Obama supporters EVER use when they charge others with race-baiting.  It's always "code words" etc.  Tonight we have seen the perfect example when the claims are made that arrogant actually means "uppity n-word".


    you have answered your own question (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    by saying the ad was demeaning.  Maybe it was demeaning.  But, it wasn't racist.  And, Obama accused McCain of race-baiting.  No one would have had any complaint at all if the comapliners had said the ad was stupid, or silly or demeaning.  Bu, they have been claiming the ad is racist and it clearly is NOT.  That is waht this is all about.  The Obama camp's constant complaints of racism where there isn't.  The last thread was full of commenters who now claim the word arrogant is racist.  Black men can be arrogant and it isn't racist to call a black man racist.  It is a matter of opinion.  Some people think he is arrogant and they are entitled to their opinion without be called racists.

    In the previous thread I said the ad used against Harold Ford was race-baiting because the blond bimbo in that ad actually asked Ford to call her.  The implication was actually in that ad.  The next commenter after that still insisted that the Paris Hilton ad somehow implied that Paris and Britney were "romantically" interested inObama.  The ad has NO SUCH implication in it.  The ad only means to equate the undeserved fame and adulation of Paris and Britney with what Obama's opponents feel is the undeserved FAME and adulation of Obama.

    You don't agree that Obama's fame is undeserving.  And, your opinon is that itis demeaning.  But, there is nothing racist about it at all.

    Now to your Hillary question.  When Obama campaigned against Hillary by calling her Annie Oakley, brushing her off his shoulder, scraping her off his shoes, he was acting in a demeaning manner towards her.  But, it wasn't sexist IMO.  It was just demeaning to another senator.

    So, if you call McCain's ad demeaning, you won't get an argument from me.  But, you can't seriously call it racist.


    Inappropriate and demeaning... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:38 PM EST
    Agreed.  But this is what Republicans do (and sometimes Democrats).  And in this election, they don't have much in the way of positive to brag about.  So they say nasty, untrue, mudslinging things and hope some of it sticks in people's minds.  They are not interested in discussing points of view on issues.  

    I'd like to see all of the negative, personal attacks go away.  It's wrong to be racist, sexist, ageist, classist, bigoted, etc.  It's wrong to appeal to people's fears instead of their rational side.  

    But this is what you get in modern American campaigns.  And candidates know it and better be prepared to deal effectively with it.  Calling attention to examples of the negativity is good but dwelling on the examples is probably not effective as a tactic.


    here's an option (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    If Obama feels McCain has no issues to talk about, then why is he afraid to agree to McCain's request to have some town hall meetings to discuss the issues that real people want to talk about?

    Nice McCain talking points (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:18:05 AM EST
    Do you guys really want McCain to win that badly?  

    Do you guys really want a president (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:25:52 AM EST
    who likes to talk and talk but not listen?  To talk and talk but not debate issues?  Do you really?  Why?

    I want Obama to win (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:32:18 AM EST
    You apparently do not....and seek to undermine at every turn.

    So, if you get your wish, I'll be a lot more comfortable under another 4 years of Republican rule than many here, who are more liberal than I.....


    I will point out to you (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    They were depicting her in a dominatrix outfit on the cover of spy magazine as far back as 1993 and never once did she ever whine about sexism the way Obama has whined about racism.  The first time I actually ever remember her bringing it up is during this primary.  And everyone pointed out it was a restrained moment.

    Now you know.  Racism isn't something to whine about.  It actually exists.  But the outrage we see from his campaign, and in the media has no real impact an AA trying to find a job.  Just so you know.  It only exists to help Obama be president.

    In the end, I'm sorry, Obama is using fear, too.

    He has the entire nation afraid they'll be called racist.

    And I'm not being hyperbolic.   Everyone has to be on egg shells around the guy.

    One false move.  One wrong word.  One moment of criticism.  

    And we know what's going to happen.

    I think it's pathetic and despicable.


    And I will also point out (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:49:55 PM EST
    The second someone depicts him on a magazine in a bright floppy hat and bell bottom trousers (which is the equivalent of Clinton being depicting as a dominatrix), THEN the campaign can hit back as hard as they want.  

    That would be real.

    But now Jeralyn will have to delete my comment because someone's going to play their little game and pretend I was serious about depicting Obama in a floppy hat and bell bottom trousers.

    I'm not.  I'm talking about what it would be like if Obama actually was treated the same way Clinton was treated.

    And I really think you really have no idea.  You don't see it.

    So I have to ILLUSTRATE for you what it would be like if Obama was treated the same way Clinton was treated.

    Any chance you get that?


    I have to disagree with you on this: (none / 0) (#208)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:07:08 AM EST
    Comparing Obama to a pair of 20-something life wasters is completely uncalled for.  

    If Britney and Paris are such "life wasters," why are they worth far more money than the Obamas are?  

    Say what you like about Paris Hilton, but she didn't inherit a ton of money.  She has taken what she has (good looks, intelligence, etc.) and she has actually turned herself into a brand.  That's really hard to do.  Yeah, she had a famous name to start off with but look at how many "famous names" actually have turned into "life wasters."  I don't begrudge her a dime that she's made because she's actually been pretty savvy about it.  (And she does work hard.  Don't fool yourself.  She's got a clothing line, a perfume, she makes money for appearances.  She's really not the "shallowness" she makes herself out to be.  You'll never catch her out with no makeup wearing ugly clothes because that would hurt her brand.)  

    Britney made her money on vapid music.  So do a lot of musicians.  She's been very successful with this music thing so she's earned her money.  It's not like she's out robbing banks to get it.  

    I find it very demeaning how you look at Paris and Britney -- two girls who have never said a thing about you.  

    Obama has been compared to two hard working celebrities and he's complaining about it.  I think he's a whiner.  Seriously.  What does race have to do with it?  He could make "Barack Obama" a brand just like Paris Hilton but he's chosen to play in the mud with politicians instead.  That's not anyone's fault but his own.      


    This and other reasons (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    The other reasons I have are connected to the primary, but not as revenge (although that'd be cool with me too).

    I don't hope Obama wins.  It's really very little to do with him -- the rock star stuff and empty suitedness bothers me a lot but it's not decisive -- but with the direction of the DNC and the actions they were willing to take to achieve it.

    This big, exciting, competitive primary was a clash of the Titans.  The Titans are not Obama or Clinton as people, but rather what each represents as to the fundamental principles upon which the party rests.  If the Democratic Party is not the party that champions the rights and interests of those not powerful enough to stand up for themselves, if it's not the party of FDR in which government's role is to advances the economic security and well-being of all people, but instead it's the party that exploits the very people and things they should be championing, then it's not my party.  

    The Dems no longer want the burden of fighting for people, or the hard work that goes with leadership in creating a cohesive party of common interests, they just want the power that goes with winning.

    Race-baiting is just a part of the overall strategic direction.  It goes beyond just 'anything-to-win'.  It exploits the better selves of the millions of genuinely well-intentioned people who sadly buy into it as well as destroys the chances of those who have truly suffered from racism (or sexism, or any kind of bigotry) for attaining real redress for themselves and others like them.

    So many of the strategems in the DNC's campaign this year were other attempts to shed the inconvenient and pesky responsibilities they would have to a real Democratic Party.  If the sexism and misogyny had succeeded in shutting up women and their pesky demands for choice, for equal pay, for better family leave, for equal treatment, etc., then all to the good.  If they can win without the old base, esp the working class, then they never have to concern themselves with working for the economic interests of anyone but themselves.

    If they can win the election with vague speeches on change and hope and race-baiting, then they never need to actually live up to a mandate or do the work to respond to their legitimate critics on the issues.

    I see the 'grievance campaign' strategy (catfish!) as the most recent in a long line of tactics fitting in with that overall strategy.  The risks of gamble playing the crying wolf game is one they are willing to take, because the payoff is potentially huge.


    Bravo! (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    There are of course many (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:08:12 AM EST
    who will not vote for Obama because they wrongly believe he is Muslim and because his middle name is Hussein.  That is a significant hurdle....

    Wonderful memory-Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM EST
    10,000 Maniacs. I have a tear in my eye just remembering this performance 15 years ago. I remember when Bill got elected, everything started turning around with people really having confidence in him that all would be ok. It was a wonderful time. He was a good President. Do you have Hillary and Tipper holding their arms and swinging their bobs back and forth? What a team Bill and Al made.

    Here's a clip (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    of Bill and Hillary coming out to greet the crowd. Wow, do they look different.

    Yes, I have Al Gore and the whole concert. I'll see if I can find Hillary and Tipper together when I have some time to watch it. If I do, I'll post it on you tube.


    That was great!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    I was wishing it was right now again. The one with Hillary and Tipper I believe is on the final night at the convention when they were up on stage together. It was not at the January events.

    What a great night that was! (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:30:21 PM EST
    So much excitement, and (dare I say it) hope.  I thought it was just thrilling.

    I had a friend at the time who was a photog for one of the major newsmagazines, and at one point, Hillary caught sight of him, lit up with a huge smile and bent over to talk to him.  He wasn't a particularly friendly guy to politicians, had that pro journalist cynicism and wasn't fond of any of the pols he covered regularly, including the Clintons, so I knew her reaction wasn't because of any particular warmth from my friend, just her total exuberance and feeling for that moment pretty much in love with the world.  It was really nice to watch.


    Wow. The Clintons really (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    aged nicely. Like a fine wine. It's kinda funny looking at Pres Clinton on that night and reflecting on where he is now with his Global Initiatives. Sen Clinton was a strong example back then and look at her now. And Chelsea, the future is hers. Kudos to them. May we have more :)

    I could not find the video on YouTube. (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:13:03 PM EST
    I did find this Google image and this might have been the night. They sure were happy here. I could not post the too long link. She is wearing blue and Tipper is wearing pink. It is worth a look. Under Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore. 3rd row down on the right.

    McCain charges Obama is playing the race card (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    from the bottom deck.  I guess the Republicans are not afraid to call Obama's play the way they see it.  it will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds.

    I say the campaign is about to devolve into (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:34:12 PM EST
    a bunch of bizarre 'racism' accusations just like it did in January.

    I think it cost Obama votes after February 19 (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    when his campaign peaked, and I think it will be even more unwise to try it now against McCain.  For many reasons, but for one thing, he has a daughter of color.  Try to convince voters he's a racist.

    But it looks like that's just what the Obama campaign is doing.  And so I think that's panicking about the polls.  And panic is a step toward disaster.


    I was very surprised (none / 0) (#123)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM EST
    to read Obama made the remarks he did in Springfield, Rolla and Union Missouri.  These are pretty conservative areas that probably won't appreciate the suggestion that McCain's ad was racist.  In fact, I'd say these are the very sort of people who might be turned off by it instead.    

    Remember when Josh Marshall was all (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    sensitive about Bill Clinton trying to make Obama into the "black candidate" (whatever the f*xk that  means). Seems like Obama is not letting anyone forget he is the "black candidate" now.

    No they weren't. They were a few weeks back. (none / 0) (#131)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST
    They were made Wednesday (none / 0) (#150)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:08:05 AM EST
    July 30 and they were in response to the recent attacks from McCain, including the ad.  See the WaPo or Jake Tapper.

    And Obama said the same things (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:39:30 AM EST
    weeks back, too.  There were complaints from the McCain camp then, but that got little traction then.

    So Obama goes and says it again, and says it several times.  But this time, the McCain camp's complaint is getting major media traction.

    That might suggest a shift in the media, growing since the criticisms of the trip to Europe.


    Sorry, but if the first day's (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    commentary holds true, they will defend Obama vigorously against McCain and insist that the ad is racist.

    I don't know about that (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST
    on Campbell brown's show Roland Martin was hosting with a repub AA woman named Tara who really dislikes Obama. Gloria Borger was there as well as some Obama apologist.

    My partner and I sat there with our mouths open as Roland Martin said that Obama implying McCain's ad was racist was a mistake and they needed to back off on it. I was stunned.


    she was a former Republican Strategist (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    not a journalist. She and Roland were co-hosting because Campbell wasn't there. I just happened to see that part and after she made her first two ridiculously anti-Obama statements I shut it down. One example, she asked why he couldn't "show leadership" and agree to off shore drilling. She was pitiful.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    she was ridiculous but we were watching during dinner so I didn't change it. At least there was someone on there who was not carrying Obama's water.

    Either way I found Roland taking Obama to task surprising. They all agreed the ad was not racists and neither is McCain. Roland simply said that Obama made a mistake in implying otherwise, that if he meant bloggers he should have said bloggers.

    it was something I never expected to hear come out of Roland's mouth.


    forgot to add (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:01 PM EST
    she introduced herself as a former Republican strategist.

    Later Roland Martin AND (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:50:35 PM EST
    David Gergen both said it was a big mistake for Obama to tie the racial comments "out there" directly to McCain and his campaign because it was NOT true.


    Small crack in the universal Obamafest on CNN.


    I'm glad I didn't see the part with (none / 0) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:53:07 PM EST
    Gergen and Martin. I might have fainted.

    This can'tbe good for Obama if the people who have fawned over him the most lately have no problem pointing out the mistake when his own campaign won't.


    it should read "the bottom of the deck" (none / 0) (#4)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST
    Is the Obama campaign staff stoooopid? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by wurman on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    I think McCain's ad comparing Sen. Obama, in some ways, to Paris Hilton & Britney Spears is foolish & of little use or merit.

    But "racism?"  Not.  Not at all.

    When did the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:53:39 PM EST
    claim that the ad was racist?  

    Obama's response to the ad was spot on.  He said "This is the best they can do?"  

    The McCain Campaign is utterly incompetent and mostly incoherent.  Clearly they want to make this a mud slinging contest.  That is the only way they can hope to win.  But it isn't going to work because the Obama campaign won't get its hands dirty.


    The campaign is pretty good (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:13:27 PM EST
    at the implied argument...nothing sticks when you don't have an explicit statement to hang your hat on.

    Course the problem is...you wind up saying a whole lot of nothing if you stick with the implied. So no one really "gets" what your talking about...and everyone interprets what you just said in number of different ways.

    Case in point the comments by kidnap victim, Josh Marshall.


    Yes, I can see your point (none / 0) (#137)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    Obama didn't claim the ad was racist.  He just made a couple of "inartful" comments that everyone has taken out of context but we know that is not what Obama really meant when he said:

    "John McCain right now, he's spending an awful lot of time talking about me," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said today in Rolla, Mo. "You notice that? I haven't seen an ad yet where he talks about what he's gonna do.
    So what they're saying is, `Well, we know we're not very good but you can't risk electing Obama. You know, he's new, he's... doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he's got a, he's got a funny name.'

    Or this:

    "But, since they don't have any new ideas the only strategy they've got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They're going to try to say that I'm a risky guy, they're going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he's got a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they're going to send out nasty emails.

    "And, you know, the latest one they've got me in an ad with Paris Hilton," Obama said, referring to a McCain campaign ad launched today. "You know, never met the woman. But, but, you know, what they're gonna try to argue is that somehow I'm too risky.

    I'll give Obama this much, he is consistent.



    Y'know, he says it enough and (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:50:50 AM EST
    he's gonna plant that "risky" word right up there in everyone's mind.  The power of repetition and all that. . . .

    Habits are difficult to give up (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    BO's may think it worked for him before, and when one uses a weapon that works, it's difficult to see it's usefulness is past.  I find the way BO's camp is defending itself is not very bright.  People are not dumb.

    People are not dumb? (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:52:56 PM EST
    Since when?

    GWB.  Twice.

    I rest my case.

    Five cents, please.


    The Axlerod, Obama, Patrick M.O. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by OxyCon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:32:19 AM EST
    ...is to do their best to characterize their opponent as a despicable human being. That's what Obama was up to when he threw his latest race card out there...trying to cast McCain as despicable.
    Look what Deval Patrick did to his opponent Kerry Healy. He accused her of downright murder because of the Big Dig tunnel failure. By the time that election was over, almost the entire state hated Kerry Healy with a passion.
    Look what Obama did to both Hillary and President Clinton. He portrayed them as despicable racists and now you have rappers and most of the liberal blogs trashing them both.
    Trust me on this. I have these people pretty well figured out.
    I sure hope that this comment doesn't get deleted, because it holds alot of truth. When a set pattern develops it is real easy to figure out what comes next.
    I predicted months ago that Obama would play the race card the same way he did against the Clintons, on McCain. And I also predicted that it would be Marshall, Avarosis and the HuffPo who push the charges.

    There seems to be a bunch (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:06:01 PM EST
    of new folks...and for some reason or other the vibe feels really odd.

    Is that just me? Or is there a weirdness factor going on?

    there is a wierdness factor (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    there are new commenters who are the same as banned ones but using different ip addresses so I can't quite prove it yet. They are doing drive bys. Best bet is to ignore them.

    New commenters are limited to 10 comments a day. That's to prevent chattering, drive-bys and blogcloggers. (Thanks Cream City.)

    On the other hand, regular readers are reverting back to personal and character attacks on each other and the candidates and that is not allowed here.

    I am trying to maintain this site as a place where all commenters feel welcome to share their views. Once they cross the line into incivility or rudeness, engage in name-calling -- whether it's of a candidate or his/her supporters, they will be zapped. The primaries are over, I have a day job and I no longer can afford to spend the time reading through 200 comments per thread. WaldenPond helps out tremendously with the moderating but we all miss some.

    I do respond to emails, so feel free to email me the user name and which thread if you spot a violator.

    TalkLeft is not the Government. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right.


    okay... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:10:18 AM EST
    So it's not just me. Good to know...

    Picked up a book called The Writing Class, and I have to admit...it's also been giving me a pretty odd vibe. I get that it's witty and all, but I'm also teaching an evening writing class...so maybe the unknown murder who just happens to be a  student is hitting a bit close to home :-}


    Seems like we've had some (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    snipers over the past few days, after not having many for a while.  I've seen something similar on a few sites recently, I think maybe the real fanatics in the Netrootz have started to notice they are only talking to each other and are trying to branch out.  Imo, fwiw.

    oh noes...not again... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:19:19 PM EST
    What stage are we in again? Heh (none / 0) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:15:49 PM EST
    Everyone has been pretty quiet lately but today, whoa boy. Back to the fun days for sure.

    Dear Waldenpond, I'm sorry I opened my (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:07:23 PM EST
    big fat mouth about the results of SYTYCD tonight.  I keep forgetting that unlike most "live" sporting contest. Dance isn't shown live on the West Coast.  As I say to my brother in CA. over the phone, "Hey don't blame me for living 3 hours in the future."

    Well Angie got kicked off (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:17:57 PM EST
    Big Brother 10 instead of Jesse and Aaron won the Food Network Show competition. Worst summer  tv season ever, but it still beats the cable news shows. (I do miss the Bachelorette though. At least she picked the guy who was my favorite.)

    Hey! I like Aaron! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:47:27 PM EST
    I'm hoping to get some good spice easy cooking ideas from him. And the promo with shots of what I think is his son (darn cute) are needed. I hope they show his kids in the kitchen as they don't have that now and it will help influence families through the visuals.

    I thought you weren't into food shows?

    *dislaimer: Food nut here!


    I'm not into food shows (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:14:04 AM EST
    I saw the episode before the finale by accident -- and then caught a repeat of the finale tonight. I really never do watch food shows. Or Big Brother, but like I said, this has been the worst tv season ever -- between the poor quality of the political pundits and news shows to the reality shows. Like Springsteen said, 57 channels and nothings on.

    Since I don't have cable and don't miss it, (none / 0) (#79)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:39:32 PM EST
    SYTYCDance and Hells' Kitchen are the two reality shows I usually follow.  Truthfully, Big Brother just doesn't have the excitement or sheer joy that SYTYCDance has.  It always feels fake or ersatz so I just can't get into it.  Now a good, or wicked,  romance novel and I'm set for hours, and who cares about bickering housemates.

    I really enjoy SYTYCD (none / 0) (#203)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:34:45 AM EST
    but I missed tonight's episode.  I just rushed home and looked to see who was kicked off.  Amazingly enough, it was who I thought would be leaving.  (I say "amazing" because I'm usually wrong.)  Final four looks like it will be fun because Twitch and Josh probably will do something really interesting (they've never had two hip hop guys in the final four).  The girls should be good too.  

    Can't wait until next Wednesday!!  :)

    I actually enjoy this show more than the singing shows!  



    U suk (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:13 PM EST
    Ha!  I'm sort of watching it right now.  (I spend a lot of time running from commercials)

    Who got voted off Last Comic Standing?
    Who did it on CSI?
    How do the patients do on Hopkins?
    What was Kathy Griffins best joke of the night?

    You mention Burn Notice and I'm reaching through the screen and and unplugging your keyboard.


    Hey don't blame us for living in the Future (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:44:26 PM EST
    yay (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:11:30 PM EST
    after a year of being underemployed and zero responses from state/fed agencies, i am now 3 for 3 for interviews of the applications i filed back in feb/march.

    this whole process really is insane for someone trying to transition from the private sector and actually feed themselves. i am simultaneously excited and saddened, because i know this process cannot produce, on average, much better than mediocrity.

    have been trying to do that (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST
    myself. I've sent out a whole lot of applications...without a whole lot of response.

    Right now I'm doing freelance...and it's okay for the moment. The agency I'm working through even has an insurance plan.


    Good for you (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    and good luck.

    I worked for quite a few years after college for state and city government in Mass., and I was deeply impressed by the altruism and dedication of most of the public sector employees I encountered.  Not to say they were all competent, or that some weren't just there for the civil service protection.  But by and large, these folks all worked hard for little pay and got treated like garbage by most of the public in return.


    I hope none of those job offers involve (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    the State of California, as today the Governor ordained all state employees will be pd. the minimum wage.  What a guy.

    I've been applying to non-profits (none / 0) (#151)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:08:31 AM EST
    for months. Have had interviews, second interviews, even a third interview at one place, but no luck getting the jobs. They make you jump through hoops for $30,000 a year. Insane.

    Good luck. Hopefully, one of us hits the bigtime.


    Thank you for that video. (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Jake Left on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:15:40 PM EST
    Merchant and Stipe. So cool. Sigh. Great memories.

    How can I become a (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST
    political strategist or operative?

    Back on June 3rd I said this:

    Next I suspect he'll label Obama as an ungrateful and disloyal Democrat who can't be trusted by the American people because he has stabbed the last successful Dem president in the back.

    Today I read this;

    Remarkably, in fact, Schmidt sees a sort of political soul mate in Bill Clinton. "Say whatever you want about Bill Clinton," Schmidt said, "but it's deeply unfair to suggest his criticism of Obama was race-based. President Clinton was a force for unity in this country on this subject. Every American should be proud of his record as both a governor and president. But we knew it was coming in our direction because they did it against a President of the United State of their own party."

    via Ben Smith

    So here's another take on the ad (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    that really is reaching, I think.  But I was told this tonight by a usually reasonable person.

    He says that the McCain ad with Hilton, Spears, et al., is not racist for the reasons I've heard here -- that it links Obama with white women and such stuff (which I certainly didn't notice in it until I read that here).

    Nope, he says that the ad is racist because the pro-Obama crowd's chant of "Obama, Obama" reminds viewers of the candidate's unusual name.  And that's racist.

    That's racist?  If anything, advertising theory says that naming the opposition is helping the opposition.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:49:49 PM EST
    That's even a step beyond the ridiculous "they're trying to remind people Obama is black" argument that I always roll my eyes at.

    I mean, if I'm running for school board against a black guy and there's a bunch of racists in my community, maybe I want to subtly make sure they all find out he's black.

    But even though everyone on the planet knows Barack Obama is black, somehow bloggers just can't see the difference between him and that guy running for school board.  "They're trying to remind people that Obama is black!"  So ridiculous.


    See, that's the problem with excessive (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
    commenting on blogs, which causes people to forget everything not on a blog.  Obama's black?  

    maybe (none / 0) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:52:26 PM EST
    you should have suggested he change his name back to Barry.

    His name was always Barack (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:05:47 AM EST
    Oi (none / 0) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:51:15 AM EST
    just when you think it can't get more ridiculous...

    But it shows the tpm hotline is still working, straight from the campaign memos to the fans.


    That's even worse than (none / 0) (#206)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:44:03 AM EST
    the person I read who decided that Hillary's "Ready to go to work on Day One" was racist because it implied that Obama was lazy and that's a racist stereotype of black men.

    In Case You Haven't Noticed Yet (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:30:32 AM EST
    billmon is back.  Great piece on the history of McSame.  I have missed him.

    Billmon is awesome (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:39:55 AM EST
    I still dunno if it's possible to make a dent in the fortress that is Brand McCain, but damn, that's a great diary!

    Bah. I'm so over Billmon. He always needed (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:42:03 AM EST
    an editor---way too prolix.
    And what is the real content of the article?
    Not much, just a character attack on McCain.
    What is he really saying? Just that McCain is a typical pol, only one who isn't thought of that way.

    No Worries (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:46:03 AM EST
    You have no quarter. lol.

    At least there is some original material (none / 0) (#141)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:47:48 AM EST
    there. Billmon is a sad retread of his earlier, better self---and coming back to the blogosphere via DK shows exquisitely bad taste.. it makes me want to darken my monitor in protest.

    To Each His Own (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:48:43 AM EST
    Obama has dropped several points (1.00 / 0) (#122)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:19:47 AM EST
    on intrade in the last few days.
    I want to put a plug in for NoQuarter. It's nadir was a few weeks ago. These days I find the articles of better quality, generally.

    NoQuarter balances out (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:50:45 AM EST

    If one agrees with the tactics used on DailyKos then one simply can't be taken seriously if they disagree with the tactics on NoQuarter.

    That would only reveal that one agrees with tactics when they are used against other people but not when they are used against Obama.

    That's a nice way of calling such an imaginary person a hypocrite.


    Not at all similar (3.00 / 2) (#207)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:54:21 AM EST
    They are delusional and overcome by hate....Truly unreal.....And not just the commentators--those who post articles, if you can call them that, on a daily basis.

    The proprietor of that site is a total clown.....


    Nice try...sort of. The poster didn't mention Kos (none / 0) (#147)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:55:59 AM EST
    so your comment may be worse than absurd. BTW, Kos IS the equal of NoQuarter. Follow now?

    Of course not (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:02:35 AM EST
    But I did mention dailykos.

    You say they are equals.  That was my point.

    Yet you say I'm absurd.

    Are you calling yourself absurd?


    My earlier comment got deleted for some (none / 0) (#152)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:09:26 AM EST
    unknown reason so I'm afraid I can't play your game anymore. And my comment was obviously in response your attempt at calling hypocrisy when there was none. So no, you aren't absurd, but your comment still was. :(

    Of course there is none (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:10:51 AM EST
    It was an imaginary person I was describing.

    No one could possibly be that dumb and hypocritical.


    Nope. If that person existed, they wouldn't be (none / 0) (#156)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:19:22 AM EST
    smart enough to stoop to the level of childish attacks on someone they can't see, you know ala Larry Johnson.

    And Markos (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:23:37 AM EST
    Too of course and all of those Crashing the Gaters still enthralled with themselves on his site.  The equals previously discussed by us intelligent unhypocritical witnesses of childish attacks.

    I like you. I REALLY like you Ed. I knew there was (none / 0) (#168)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:33:13 AM EST
    something about you. I look forward to having more discussions later when I'm less sleepy. Sweet dreams!  :)

    Terrible site (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:10:40 AM EST
    I've seen articles making fun of Michelle Obama's appearance when compared to Cindy McCain, articles stating Obama is a Muslim.

    Terrible looney tunes and truly hateful people....


    Went and peeked (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:31:05 AM EST
    I see the over the top person is still over the top, but yeah some new writers seem to have a more tempered approach.  Larry has decent pieces.  How are the comments?  Less venting more on topic discussion yet?  There is a certain topic that needs to be given a break.

    are you talking about the birth certificate? (4.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    This reminds me ... re No Quarter (none / 0) (#146)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:55:02 AM EST
    I was looking for the No Quarter link this afternoon but couldn't find it. Has it been deleted, do I need glasses, or was it never here on TL?

    Call me confused ;-)


    It was deleted n/t (none / 0) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:03:07 AM EST
    thanks ... haven't visited NQ lately but it (none / 0) (#154)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:11:18 AM EST
    was convenient to use the link here while it lasted. Too bad it is gone.

    It deserves to be deleted (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:22:16 AM EST
    IMO. NQ went over the top with vileness and race-baiting months ago. And I don't just mean the commenters.

    YOu should see the race baiting (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:24:36 AM EST
    The exploitation of race issues for political gain that goes on Obama blogs.

    Edgar, I guess the difference is (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:43 AM EST
    that I have never had an interest in the Obama blogs. But as recently as last year I still respected NoQ. Now... yuck. It's as if they all started taking the same viciousness-inducing meds at the same time on the same day. It's beyond irrational. And the front pagers have encouraged it. I was even accused of sock-puppeting as a Syrian living in N. Calif!

    It's Lord of the Flies of the blogs.

    Anyway, I'm sure this comment will be deleted for personal attackery but I needed to get that off my mind.

    And now, to bed.


    well you can take my word for it then (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:41:08 AM EST
    it's no worse than Obama blogs.

    Funny ,  the lord of the flies connection occured to me too.

    Markos has the conch.


    Ooo me me me call on me! (none / 0) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:53:57 AM EST
    I was having Lord of the Flies flashes yesterday.

    Hmmm, possibly some massive TL mind meld?  Transformative, or just downright creepy?


    Natalie Merchant (none / 0) (#106)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    I saw Natalie Merchant in concert back then.  Her dancing was as mesmerizing as her voice.  Not so much in this video, perhaps, but she's quite a talent.  Thanks.

    Pocket Trash? (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:05:03 AM EST
    The policies state that officers may "detain" laptops "for a reasonable period of time" to "review and analyze information." This may take place "absent individualized suspicion."

    The policies cover "any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form," including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes. They also cover "all papers and other written documentation," including books, pamphlets and "written materials commonly referred to as 'pocket trash' or 'pocket litter.' "

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote in an opinion piece published last month in USA Today that "the most dangerous contraband is often contained in laptop computers or other electronic devices." Searches have uncovered "violent jihadist materials" as well as images of child pornography, he wrote.


    No way (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:10:47 AM EST
    They can have my pocket lint when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

    Jerome Corsi (none / 0) (#161)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:25:43 AM EST
    My comment quoting Jerome Corsi's swiftboating of Barack Obama with racial undertones on Hannity tonight was deleted.  (I presume because of the provocative nature of my subject line.  It's a provocative topic, hard to avoid that.)  Anyway, the point is that Repubs and McCain surrogates have been trying to sew seeds of doubt about Barack Obama for quite some time, email campaigns, radical black Muslim fear mongering, and now this despicable Jerome Corsi, the swiftboater of Kerry, with his new book, Obama Nation.

    This kind of stuff is what has motivated Obama to play the so-called race card, not McCain's recent bimbo ad.  Obama is right to bring this snivley racial subtext out in the open.

    But Obama has been doing this for months. (none / 0) (#162)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:27:08 AM EST
    Precisely my point (none / 0) (#164)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:30:32 AM EST
    Therefore it's not directed against the recent bimbo ad.  Jerome Corsi is only the most recent example of the kind of racial subtext attacks against Obama.  If you don't believe it's there, listen to some Obama haters.  Read some of the emails.

    I don't think you understand my point. (none / 0) (#165)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:59 AM EST
    Obama has been throwing charges of racism for months, unrelated to any actual events.

    I understand your point (none / 0) (#173)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:40:38 AM EST
    ... but I don't agree.  There is latent racism being manipulated in this campaign.  I'm not taking about Bill & Hillary, 'though perhaps you are.  I was a Hillary supporter.  Yet I didn't particularly like Bill's attempt to lump Obama with JJJr as a black candidate who can win in Carolina.  Nor did I like Hillary's reference to hard working white people.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about racial undertones that are indeed there, all the attempts to align Obama with Black Muslims, African dress, Islamic terrorist bombers, Malcolm X, Blue-eyed devils, etc.  Obama is right to address this directly and he's sophisticated enough to do it with some real humor.  But it's not true that it's unrelated to any actual events.

    I see no humor in Obama constantly (none / 0) (#175)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:42:32 AM EST
    reminding audiences that he looks different.
    That is NOT the way to get over the issue of race.

    That's not all he's done (none / 0) (#176)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:44:04 AM EST
    He's also addressed racism in this country very profoundly in his address about Rev Wright.  But he can also use humor effectively.

    What he did in his address on Wright (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:40 AM EST
    was deflect attention from his inconsistent statements on Wright, and the problem of listening to Wright's vile sermons with no objection.
    He did this by changing the topic to race. He knows this makes people uncomfortable, thereby stifling discussion of the actual issues.
    In addition, he insulted his own grandmother in unforgiveable fashion.
    I missed the "great" speech Obama gave on Wright.
    I saw a cop-out.

    Maybe you also missed the fact that (none / 0) (#181)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:48:58 AM EST
    Wright's sermons were already about race.

    Maybe you missed the sermons about (none / 0) (#182)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:52:16 AM EST
    the Clintons. Remember that in the end, Obama totally denounced Wright. Yet in the speech you praise, he did not.
    Which Obama position is the "great" one?

    No I didn't miss that. (none / 0) (#185)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:57:55 AM EST
    I never said Obama is the great one.  He's a politician trying to win an election just like all the rest.  But I do think Obama was initially courageous not to totally denounce Wright, although he did denounce his statements, he also tried to raise the level of debate, I think.  It was Wright's subsequent grandstanding that required Obama the politician to completely distance himself.  What was so bad about what Obama said about his grandmother?  Maybe I missed that.  All I remember is his honest admission that he cringed at some of her racial fear or attitudes.  Something like that.

    How did he raise the level of debate (1.00 / 0) (#187)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:01:02 AM EST
    by equating his grandmother's private statments with Wright's noxious, public racism?
    He did nothing of the sort. Don't forget that he also compared the domestic terrorist, William Ayers, to a sitting Senator.
    Obama was trying to dirty the playing field.

    Choose between Hannity and Obama (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:08:21 AM EST
    I don't know that he equated his grandmother to Wright, but I think he tried to show how there's racial fear and distrust on both sides.  Some only see Wright as vile and hateful, but there's a larger and deeper context.  Racism creates deep wounds all around that warp attitudes on both sides.  To me, that was a higher level of debate than I was hearing on FOX and CNN and MSNBC constantly airing soundbytes of Wright's sermons.  You prefer Hannity's level of debate?

    I prefer an honest debate, not (none / 0) (#191)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:10:20 AM EST
    one in which Obama pretends that he never heard Wright's racism before.

    That sounds like the perspective of honesty (none / 0) (#195)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:18:28 AM EST
    from one side of the racial divide.  I think he'd said that he certainly disagreed with and been angered by some things Wright had said before.  I don't know how frequently Obama goes to church, but I got the impression that he wasn't there every Sunday.  Who knows what exactly he'd heard before.  Who cares?  Preachers say ridiculous things all the time.  It's the nature of the business.  Like every other politician, I'm sure Obama probably rolled his eyes and used religion just like every other politician.  Sort of like WC Fields, I'm not sure I'd want to join any church that would accept me as a member.  Some preachers believe in the death penalty for people who pick up sticks on Sunday.  Therefore should a Jewish believer not be elected president.  Do we need an honest debate about Yahweh and the death penalty for homosexuals?

    All I'm saying is that Obama is right to address racism in whatever way he can effectively as a politician.


    How was Wright talking about Bill (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:56:51 AM EST
    Clinton and dry-humping the pulpit about race?

    This answer oughta be good. . . .


    Huh? (none / 0) (#186)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:58:27 AM EST
    Huh, you really don't know much about (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:31:36 AM EST
    what you're trying to talk about authoritatively here.  Go look up the Wright videos.  Go look up the Obama response when he called his grandmother a "typical white person" -- you know, someone not up to speed with the times and the issues . . . just like some commenters here.

    Speaking authoritatively? (none / 0) (#205)
    by robrecht on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:42:52 AM EST
    Just sharing my opinion.  Why don't you tell me what I'm supposed to learn from the Wright videos.  Obama's grandmother was probably a typical white person, at least one of his grandmothers anyway.

    Jeralyn, I got my 4th Amendment bag yesterday. (none / 0) (#209)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:41:43 AM EST
    It's been the subject of a few discussions already. I carried some books, etc. over to one of the libraries at Duke and several people asked where I got it.

    And, it holds a lot of stuff!