Put away your sword Don't you know that it's all over? It was nice, but now it's gone. Why are you obsessed with fighting? Stick to fishing from now on.
Here it is, and it's pretty awesome: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kica8hmSdAM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kica8hmSdAM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> The guy behind the camera is trying _so_hard_ to bait the kid, interrupting him constantly, throwing him off... and the kid is patient, collected, states his case clearly and convincingly, extremely knowledgeable- and never treats his interviewer like an opponent even though his intent is obvious. Even though he essentially shut down and turned around a man who obviously came out to humiliate an Obama supporter, he instead keeps a smile, a positive attitude and a consumates it with friendship at the end. In actuality, the same qualities that people like about Obama... except the kid is a FAR better debater! If Obama could give answers like that off the cusp, he would have won every debate... he should take notes on how to give the specifics behind the inspiration.
Here you're being an example of what bugs me. You're bothered by ordinary, run of the mill politics. It doesn't bother me at all. The last sentence in my post you referenced in this thread was a call to rally around what is best for the party, nominating Obama (it is implied, in case you didn't "get it.") No, I don't think Bill and Hillary have done anything in this campaign that deserves the vilification they're getting. They have, aside from Bill's personal pants zipping problem and his fumbling attempt to keep a lid on it (something that only became an issue because of a vicious campaign by the GOP, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, to find something, anything on him, his wife, or both), been terrific Democrats. Do I agree with all their takes on the issues? No, but they were a hell of a lot better than the alternative, which has been on display these last 7 years. I haven't the least problem supporting Bill and think Hillary would be an excellent President. I just believe Barack has a much better shot at getting elected. Believe me, if I thought Hillary had more of a chance to win, I'd support her and wouldn't blink an eye. You vote for whoever you wish, but I'll never let the GOP have another right-wing hardcase in the White House appointing lifetime Federal judges if there is anything I can personally do to prevent it. Whoever gets the nomination will get my money and my vote. Impeach Bush.
The Hillary supporter didn't not do as well... <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/htD8v2t81h4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/htD8v2t81h4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
That's cool, Deckard. I'm obviously glad that you agree that Obama would be the best nominee. I'm sorry to hear my post bugged you. Yours bugged me too. We don't have to agree. That's fine. And we don't. On a really, truly, very substantial thing. I don't want to win bad enough to rally behind someone that lies about his or her opponent. I don't want it that bad. I might wind up holding my nose and voting for one liar over another. But I won't work, I won't donate and frankly I might not even vote for the lesser of evils again. I agree that Clinton was a net positive president. I think he was basically good for the country and compared to Bush he looks amazing (but so does Bush I by that metric). I disagree with you though that the Clintons have been good Democrats. I believe their DLC-driven triangulation set the core principles of the party back for years -- much like GWB did for real conservatives and like McCain is set to do as well, on foreign policy at least. I think Don't Ask Don't Tell was horrible for gays, horrible for the military and horrible for America. I think NAFTA was great for corporate America and downright horrible for American workers, not to mention its supplementary bad effect on the environment. And I think Clinton's welfare reform bill was as draconian and heartless a piece of legislation as we'll ever see from any Democrat ever. But, worse, I think the Clinton machine's approach to politics has contributed greatly to the cynicism of Americans -- especially young Americans -- toward our political system such that no politician is ever to be trusted ever; such that even a good Democrat like yourself just accepts that 'everyone does it.' That sucks, man. And it's not true. I said in the other thread that the Clintons were just practicing old style politics, but I want to correct that. Kerry didn't do what the Clintons are doing now -- not to the other Democrats in that race nor to Bush. Neither did Gore. Neither did Dukakis. And, frankly, neither did any Democrat to my recollection (certainly not to this extent) who ran in primaries in any race I remember. (I'm 38 and I didn't really start following this stuff until I was 18 in '88.) The Republicans have always done it. True. But on our side only the Clintons have actively and without a hint of shame done the same. You would be right to say, they're the only ones that have won too. And that would be a point well made. But, like I said, I don't want to win that bad. I don't want to win badly enough to join the Republicans in the nasty, cynic-making game of lying about our opponents. I am a Democrat. I've been one all my life. But I never voted for the Clintons and I'm proud of that. We are different in this way and I don't mind that I can't change your mind if you don't mind that you can't change mine. But every time that you say the Clintons are enduring unfair criticism I will post the same things I've been posting over the last couple days. And every time I will ask you again to clarify your statements in the "What Happens Next" thread (you still haven't). The Clintons have willfully attempted to trick Democratic voters about Obama's health care plan, saying again and again that it excludes people from coverage. That is a lie and an egregious one. The Clintons have willfully attempted to trick Democratic voters about Obama's commitment to a woman's reproductive rights, saying again and again that strategic "present" votes -- a common practice in the IL legislature and one endorsed and favored by IL abortion rights groups -- suggests he lacks political courage and a firm commitment to a woman's right to privacy. That is a lie and an egregious one. The Clintons have willfully attempted to trick Democratic voters about Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq, saying again and again that he supported the war as much as Hillary did and that he flip flopped as soon as he was elected. That is a lie and an egregious one. Equally appalling, Bill Clinton had the gall to say that he and Hillary had opposed the war from the beginning. They did not. And thousands of Americans and Iraqis died because they and others didn't show the spine to stand up when it was unpopular to do so -- when Barack did. Lying about this is disgusting. Characterizing his political bravery on this as a fairy tale when they lacked the spine to do the same is disgusting. The Clintons have willfully attempted to trick Democratic voters about Obama's party loyalty, suggesting repeatedly that he supported Reagan's policies and pushing the BS that they were quoting him as saying "only the Republicans had good ideas." That is a lie and an egregious one. And they know it. They know full well they're lying when they repeat these things. And you know it too. Worse, you insist that Obama does the same (only more subtly) and as evidence you present one quote from him calling HRC's MLK comments "unfortunate" -- a full week after virtually everyone in political life did the same. I have asked you to clarify this many times. I don't know if you've missed those posts or just choose not to respond. I like you and I appreciate your commitment to Democratic party principles. In most ways we are of a common mind on that, as is the majority of the country. But every time you say the Clintons -- with their repeated, egregiously dishonest statements (in the interest of defeating not a Republican but a fellow Democrat) -- are being unfairly maligned, I will hit them harder for what they're doing. Because it is not okay. I don't care if Rove/Atwater politics work. I am repulsed by that sort of politics and I don't want it in my party. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination this way, it will be a damn shame. And though it will be a damn shame, the likelihood is that I will vote for her because there is so much at stake. If so, that will be a shame too. I won't be happy if she wins this way, only relieved if McCain doesn't. But until this primary race is over I will shout from the mountaintops that she and Bill are wrong, wrong, wrong to do what they're doing. If that bugs you, so be it.
ive never mentioned black helicopters, but since you asked, yes i would be into that! down with the un! it is the clintons who are the dishonest slimers.
I made an email out of this and sent it to everyone who sent me "Obama is a Muslim". I hope it goes around the world a million times. ( I parsed it with the actual picture way at the bottom, though it probably would have been a better joke if I sent it with a straight face)
I've been very busy, but I was finally able to devote a little time to your question about Obama's "benign" comment about what Ms. Clinton said comparing MLK and LBJ and her complaints about the Obama campaign distorting it, which you strongly deny. Some stuff I found... Here's Ben Smith of Politico on Jan. 7th. - January 07, 2008 Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King Clinton rejoined the running argument over hope and "false hope" in an interview in Dover this afternoon, reminding Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed. Hillary was asked about Obama's rejoinder that there's something vaguely un-American about dismissing hopes as false, and that it doesn't jibe with the careers of figures like like John F. Kennedy and King. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done." Clinton didn't explicitly compare herself to Johnson, or Obama to King. But it seems an odd example for the argument between rhetoric and action, as there's little doubt which figure's place in history and the American imagination is more secure. "The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president" capable of action, Clinton said. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_and_Obama_Johnson_and_King.html And here is a response from Josh Marshall - Bad Call 01.07.08 -- 7:57PM By Josh Marshall There's been a lot of rough news for Hillary Clinton in the last 72 hours. And a lot of unforced errors. But I think on this MLK and Lyndon Johnson remark, the edited quote that's circulating from The Politico is misleading. The Politico quote is ... "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done." But I think the full quote reads differently. You can see the video here. The exchange starts at 3:40 in. Fox's Major Garrett reads Clinton a quote from a speech Obama gave earlier in the day. Here's the Obama quote he reads ... "False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hope, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us." He then asks if she would respond and she says ... "I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in peoples lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished." It's an ambiguous statement. But her reference is to different presidents -- Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, one of whom inspired but did relatively little legislatively and Johnson who did a lot legislatively, though he was rather less than inspiring. Quite apart from the merits of Obama and Clinton, it's not a bad point about Kennedy and LBJ. Now I know in writing this I'm going to get tons of emails saying I'm defending an indefensible statement, making excuses for her, etc. I'm not. It's poorly worded, and easy to misunderstand. And it will be misunderstood. Her 'false hopes' line from the debate was one of the worst of the campaign. And you can read her realization of the dream point as putting a lot of focus on legislation and sort of discounting activism. But when I look at the actual words in this statement it just doesn't match up with the line that's circulating -- that she was saying Obama's King and she's LBJ. The Politico quote at a minimum distorts what she said. And I thought I should say so. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063023.php Josh points out only one instance of Ms. Clinton's words being distorted. Here's another... Sat, Jan 12, 2008 7:52pm ET NY Times repeatedly truncated Clinton civil rights comments Summary: A January 11 New York Times article marked at least the third time that a Times article, editorial, or blog post truncated Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights. Each of the articles quoted Clinton's statement that "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done" but omitted Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. Clinton had also said that passing a civil rights bill was "something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried." As blogger and media critic Greg Sargent noted, a January 11 New York Times article by Carl Hulse truncated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's January 7 comments about civil rights, omitting Clinton's reference to former President John F. Kennedy. A January 9 New York Times editorial, as well as a January 7 blog post by Sarah Wheaton on the Times' politics blog, The Caucus, and a January 7 blog post titled "Clinton and Obama, Johnson and King" by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, also omitted the reference to Kennedy. Each of these pieces quoted Clinton saying that "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and that "it took a president to get it done." But each of them omitted the middle portion of Clinton's full quote, which was: "I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done" [emphasis added]. http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003 Edwards weighed in, continuing taking Ms. Clinton's remarks out of context... January 13, 2008 12:19 PM ABC News' Raelyn Johnson Reports: At a campaign stop at Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Sumter, South Carolina, former Sen. John Edwards used the pulpit to address controversial comments New York Senator Hillary Clinton made about Martin Luther King - suggesting that he needed a president's help to make significant strides in the civil rights movement. "I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician," said Edwards in front of a congregation of nearly 300 people. "I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairytale." Edward was speaking about a recent interview Sen. Clinton recently gave Fox News where she said, "Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done." Clinton continued," That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives, because we had a president who said ‘we’re going to do it,’ and actually got it done." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/edward-defends.html And here's Paul Krugman, with an opinion that does a better job with what I've been trying to say... February 11, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist Hate Springs Eternal By PAUL KRUGMAN In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.” The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred. And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland. The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters. Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod. Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again. What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent. The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption. During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King. And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network. I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws. For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November. For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do. But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable. One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage. I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/o...em&ex=1202965200&en=2dbd245441378ac1&ei=5087 I hope that helps, at least a little, to show where I'm coming from. Ms. Clinton's feeling that she was being attacked unfairly has some basis in fact, in my opinion. Several Obama supporters, bloggers, and media outlets either said she was somehow insulting Dr. King or repeated truncated versions of her remarks that might cause one to think that. (not me, but some people obviously got that impression) Before Barack's "unfortunate" comment, there was a deluge of opinion about her MLK/LBJ/yada-yada remark, much of it overblown and taken out of context. I'm not at all surprised that she thought some of it was orchestrated by the Obama campaign. It's not impossible that some of it was. When Obama weighed in, he didn't do it in a vacuum. Impeach Bush.
And again I ask you... When you say that Obama is practicing cynical politics just like HRC, just in a subtler way, is his quote about her comment being unfortunate truly all you've got? I really wish you'd answer that. Because I really want to understand how in holy hell you could continue to say that the Clintons are being unfairly maligned when they have repeatedly pushed such incredible fallacies about Obama on the major issues of the day. Is this really all you've got to support that? Obama saying the comments were "unfortunate?" My problem with the Clintons is that each line of attack they've chosen has been based on an untruth, from Iraq to health care to choice and on and on. Are you saying Obama was being untruthful here? I really don't see how you could think that, but even if you did, are you seriously saying these things are equal? If so, we can keep parsing her statement and his. I think it's kind of lame that you keep pushing the meme that she's being unfairly attacked while ignoring my point that Obama saying her comment was unfortunate in no way compares to the willful and repeated misrepresentation of his positions and record on the major issues of the day -- not by the media or bloggers but by the candidate and the former president themselves. In fact, not only does it not compare or meet the standard to support your position that they're both doing the same thing with the only difference being his subtlety, but I still don't see your argument that he engaged anywhere in this in dishonest politics. No number of articles stating that she was taken out of context will do it either. I want to see where he or his campaign attempted to mislead voters on ANYTHING. And if you're going to say they're the same, I want to see evidence of deceptive practices by the candidate or campaign itself on more than this. I keep mentioning Iran, health care, choice and party loyalty. I could easily add Pakistan and Iran to the list before moving on to suggestions that Obama won't work for change, is raising false hopes, is not ready to be president. Every one of these arguments is worse by itself than Obama's comment; when you put them together and factor in the idea that each of these arguments has been made daily for weeks and sometimes months, it is ludicrous to offer "the statement was unfortunate" as "the same but more subtle." I really don't know why you won't either back off your position that they're engaged in the same game or actually provide support for your argument. But since you're so obsessed with the MLK thing, I'll tell you another thing about HRC's comments that rubbed me wrong -- and, in fact, I found more troubling than anything she said about MLK himself. When she says "it took a president" what is her point exactly? Is she a president? No, she isn't. She is a senator with roughly the same body of experience plus some years as a first lady. So what is her point? I read it as there are speechmakers and there are people who are actually capable of getting things done. As in all her silly "ready on day one" comments, she is implying here that -- although there is nothing distinguishable between her record and his to support it -- the American people should see her as a president but not him. That's ****ed.
Had I known this image was to enter world wide electronic circumnavigation I would have spent more than 10 minutes on the 'forensics'.
