Craig Crawford on Obama & Substance
By SusanUnPC on February 18, 2008 at 9:21 PM in Barack Obama
In “Yes We Can WHAT?,” Craig Crawford writes at his CQPolitics blog today:
The news media’s long-awaited scrubbing of Barack Obama’s concrete plans for governing has begun and, not surprisingly, it doesn’t take long. The Democratic presidential contender’s famously inspirational speeches offer little sustenance for wonks. [...]
Obama’s supporters and advisers refer pesky policy inquiries to the campaign web site, but it is difficult to connect the dots between this internet data dump and a candidate whose public comments reveal little evidence that he has read it himself. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, an Obama fan, concluded after examining the web site, “I’m still puzzled about where to locate Obama on this policy map.” [...]
[O]n the stump he provides little guidance to the occasional voter who might be curious about exactly what he would do as president.
Politically speaking, it is probably true that Obama does not need to sweat the policy details. He has so far made it to the brink of success in the Democratic race without specifics. Instead, his admiring crowds appear content to chant “Yes We Can” without bothering to finish the sentence.
Poor Craig Crawford. He hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid.
In “Fresh Target for Wingnuts,” Taylor Marsh has much more on Obama’s various, um, discrepancies and borrowings — and how often he appropriated John Edwards’ phrases and policies, even invoking the ire of Elizabeth Edwards:
Edwards said Obama was using stolen ideas:
Edwards’s campaign also blasted Obama for parroting the former senator in a foreign policy speech he gave Tuesday in which he said he wanted to work towards ending nuclear proliferation. They said the senator has followed Edwards on a number of issues this campaign year, including healthcare, poverty and now nuclear proliferation.
“If you need any more proof that John Edwards is shaping the race for the Democratic nomination, you don’t need to look any further than Senator Obama, who has followed Edwards’s lead on healthcare, poverty and, today, eliminating nuclear weapons,” Murray said in an e-mail to The Hill. “Next thing you know, he’ll be rooting for the Tar Heels.”
Obama copies line from Edwards 2003 announcement speech. “For months, Obama has been telling crowds, ‘I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.’ Edwards gave a similar spin to his short political resume when he announced his candidacy in September 2003, declaring, ‘I haven’t spent most of my life in politics, but I’ve spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change it.’”
Obama borrows from Edwards (That’s a link to the Boston Herald’s important work on Obama’s use of other politicians’ words and ideas.)
Elizabeth Edwards on Obama (via the National Journal):
In the Aug. issue of Progressive magazine Elizabeth Edwards goes so far as to call Obama an outright copycat, accusing him of “lifting her husband’s best lines.” E. Edwards: “You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John’s 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John’s mantra as well as anybody could know it. They’ve moved from ‘hope is on the way’ to ‘the audacity of hope.’ I’m constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.”
… … Edwards: “We are not the party of Washington insiders. We are the party of the people, and so from this day forward we say no — no forever to the money from Washington lobbyists.”
The only difference — Obama beat him to it that day, towing the same anti-lobbyist line at an earlier event that day in central Iowa. Obama: “We’ve got to have a president in the White House who sets bold targets and sets broad goals and isn’t intimidated by the barriers and the roadblocks and isn’t driven by those who already have an investment in the status quo - somebody who can overcome the lobby-driven, divisive politics that characterizes this issue.”
Meanwhile, back at the labor forum, Obama used another token Edwardian statement: “We need a president…who is not afraid to mention unions.”
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
That’s true, Obama did copy a lot of Edwards lines…but Clinton copied a lot of Edwards’s health care plan as well
That being said, Clinton (being the policy wonk that she is) does win the “where do you stand on the issues” contest between herself and Obama.
Hi grannyhelen!
So cool seeing familar names here…
What will Obama copy from in the fall if he wins the nomination. He won’t have other democratic candidates to steal from and besides he will have scraped the democrats clean of all their great lines. He’ll be forced to start taking from the Republicans. Ronald Reagan comes to mind. Much like Patrick, Reagan is someone he considers to be guilty of great thought and methods. Of course Axelrod didn’t run Reagans campaign, but that is not an absolute requirement for using someone elses material. What if we find out that if you take words away from Obama, there is no there there? It’s not like there isn’t anything that could clue you into that now.
Well, shit, given that William Jefferson Clinton stole his two terms of domestic policy initiatives from Ronald Reagan, I suppose it shouldn’t be too much of an issue if Obama borrows-without-asking an applause line or two.
Yeah, that raising taxes was straight from Reagan. Also increasing the earned income tax credit for the poor.
Hey, NRO said the O man is lifting from Romney in regards to the his talk to automobile workers.
Wow. So the MSM is picking that up. Obama, on Saturday night at the Wisconsin dinner, bragged that he’d told the auto workers that they have to change.
Today, I saw Hillary on C-Span speaking at a Wisconsin rally. The faces behind her — the most ordinary, blue-collar-type Americans. It thrilled me. No latte liberals in the bunch, best I could discern.
It’s a little off topic, but I wanted to call your attention to this…
I believe this makes it official: apparently Markos ‘jumped the shark’ today, February 18, 2008 at 1755 Pacific time.
—begin—
Question
by kos
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:44:50 PM PST
My memory is hazy. Was the Dean campaign as pathetic during its “implosion” stage as the Clinton campaign has behaved the last week or two?
I’m trying to figure out if this is normal behavior for a desperate campaign or if the Clintons are reaching new heights of idiocy.”
— end —
I think that snarky comment regarding the Dean for America campaign takes him over the top. Sad.
I think Kos should refer to the number of rec’d diaries on his own blog that lament the current state of affairs at Big Orange if he wants to know what things look like during their “implosion” stage…
…I know feelings on this subject probably run high here, and I don’t want to get into a whole rant on the subject. I actually still like the concept of Daily Kos. Just wish it would return to “the good old days”, if you know what I mean.
I think Kos should take his ill-earned millions, stuff them into numbered accounts in the Caymans, and get the hell out of America for his (undeserved) early retirement on the Mayan Riviera.
At least I wish he would get out, not that I’d wish him on Quintana Roo.
Unbelievable - he says the purpose of his site is to get more Democrats elected. Well after backing Dean, then Lamont, he’s probably shitting in his pants for backing Obama and possibly being 0 for 3.
So he throws a committed Democrat, a liberal, under the bus?
Compare and contrast with the number of Hillary supporters on this web site who have already explicitly declared that they will vote for McCain if Hillary does not get the nomination. Susan and Larry refuse to answer the repeated question put to them: will they support Obama if he gets the nomination? The answer is: no. They’ll vote for McCain themselves.
Talk about throwing liberals IN GENERAL under a bus!
kos, who says his site is to “elect Democrats”, calling one Democrat an idiot, is nowhere even close to your comments, among hundreds, not getting a response.
Here’s something kos should talk about: one of Bush’s judicial nominees was just arrested for a DUI - and the guy was wearing fishnets. This is a guy Bush was threatening to appoint during recess. But no, it’s more important to bash a Democrat.
Actually, Larry answered. He said he could support neither McCain nor Obama since he believes neither is qualified for the job of president.
Damnit! Why do you guys got to keep hitting him with facts and records? So cruel you are with your truth setting! You’ll rue the day!
Dailkos, MoveOn, etc. are all one issue Democrats. The only issue they care about is the war.
Count me in as one of the Democrats who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. I’ll probably write in a vote for myself in that case.
The thing is when it became clear that the three frontrunners were going to be Senators Clinton and Obama and former Senator Edwards, I was actually torn over who to vote for since I thought they were all great candidates although I had reservations about them too. But I fully intended to support whoever our nominee was enthusiastically. But then Obama had to play the race card. By the way, I think he did it not just to solidify the African-American vote but also to get the vote of white liberals, many of whom were actually more skeptical about the Clintons’ commitment to civil rights and minorities than African-Americans were. And that’s where he lost me. The fact that his campaign seems to be about destroying the Clinton legacy which while not perfect was still pretty good was another major dealbreaker.
This is over the top. See what this campaign thinks about red state voters?
How does Hillary plan to win this again?
Joel Ferguson. The Co-Chair of Hillary’s Michigan Campaign and superdelegate if Michigan is seated had this to say:
”Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,” Ferguson said. “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.”
So I guess you’re perfectly happy with Republicans crossing over to fuck up our nomination process?
Badger,
I’ve crossed over into theirs. This is about getting the best candidate and I said before that I felt that McCain was better than Bush when I crossed over then.
Too bad other people didn’t see it. Now Obama is picking up those angry, disillusioned Republicans. Independent too.
Good for the country. The Clinton campaign dismisses them at their peril.
The potential for chaos here is enormous, I see people who do this, and I think “what fucking idiots, you’re opening a crack.”
Meaning your cross over vote can have unintended consequences, when used as a form of gaming, you’re actually contributing to the defeat of your chosen candidate, if the other side plays it right.
In primaries?
I guess what I was trying to say is when you engage in this type of poorly thought out tactic, you’re engaging in internecine warfare, and no one wins, you simply further denigrate the electoral process.
And it’s because poor choices are made, poor reasoning skills exhibited, this method is adapted. If I were an enemy of America, I would encourage you to use this tactic, this amateur gaming, to destroy the integrity of elections, faith in the electoral process. But the Republicans didn’t care, and they’re suffering for it, Bush, and Cheney, go on a short leash, and Obama, too.
The idea is to play smarter, make people understand it is not in their best interests, in the best interests of the US, to vote disingenously.
Things haven’t really worked out for the group that chooses to game an election using the Rovian tactics, the cheat.
They’re not very bright, and it shows in every single thing they have attempted, and failed.
They can’t stand up to competition.
They don’t even understand the definition of critical reasoning, how the hell can they run a country, against Putin, say?
They can’t.
They can’t outPutin a Soviet master.
If I were a foreign national, I would look at the weakest candidate, in this case Obama, and I would pour money into the PACS of those wishing to elect him, the cheaters, achieving two aims, denigrating the American electoral process, and electing another stupid American president, one I felt I could manipulate.
And you know, China and Russia have only the best intentions toward America, really.
Come on, Susan. “Plagiarism” won’t hunt. No legs.
Does the Hillary campaign plan to address Obama seriously and maturely, or this sideshow act all we get?
This is just like Bush v. McCain wen Rove’s people started arranging to have leaflets circulated around at the ground level implying that McCain had a bastard half-black child. It’s really disappointing to see the Clintons wallowing the mud. For one thing, he’s an ex-President and is supposed to have some gravitas. Second, Democrats are supposed to be high-minded and better than this.
Coming soon, in the lead-up to Texas: Susan and Larry are here with oppo from the Hillary Campaign amounting to a re-play of Willie Horton. Escaped black male criminal goes on rampage. News at 11. PS - did you know how soft on crime Obama has been as a Senator? Can a black man really enforce the laws in a nation with so much black male crime? PERFECT for the Texas election! No class whatsoever, but, hey, who cares, its win at all costs, right?
Huh?
Where does pointing out the fact that Obama lifted some lines from a whole lotta folks even come close to the Bush “black baby” smear against McCain…?
…speaking of jumping the shark and all.
It’s a cheap non-issue smear tactic designed to rile people up just before an election. What worked for Bush v. McCain was the race card. Hillary doesn’t want to play the race card if she can help it, until Texas, because states prior to Texas might be determined in part by high turnout in the black community. But in the lead-up to Texas, without a doubt, will get something amounting to a replay of Willie Horton.
But your answer to “how does it come close” is that it is cheap mudslinging right before an election.
Hey - if you find this equitable and you can actually explain that to yourself in your mind’s eye, geh’ gesund.
I think it’s bizarre. But that’s me.
And to be 100% clear Susan when I address you as “the Hillary Campaign” I am coming from a position of certainty that you are taking oppo from them and putting into trial balloons on your web site, which means that, despite your status as a mere surrogate, you are a part of the Hillary Campaign.
Ooh, a little testy aren’t ya, Banquo?
Got anything to substantiate that?
And why aren’t you defending Michelle over at Breitbart, she’s really getting pounded by alot of really nasty folks.
Taters,
Banquo can defend her here like I had to a few days ago.
Are opposing views no longer welcome here?
Officially they are quite welcome and Susan and Larry have done good by themselves for maintaining a no-censorship rule.
Unofficially, prepare to be treated like shit, insulted, abused, berated, and ignored if you don’t agree that the Clintons should receive the nomination.
Banguo’s Ghost…
You Clearly WIN the Nomination for the Very First “OBAMA BOBBLE HEAD AWARD” handed out here..
Please Step Foward and be recognized so this distinction can be added to your Resume
when you apply for Tony Snow’s old Job..
Would that make it a “SNOW JOB..?”
“The” Clintons aren’t running. Hillary Clinton is. Her spouse is campaigning for her and supporting her, just as Obama’s spouse is doing. Even those of us that are deemed so intellectually inferior to BG by BG know that.
Banquo,
I’ve been dealing with this for several months now. I’m over it.
Stick around for when we get back to talking about foreign policy.
Also, prepare to be frustrated if you are looking for a mature or serious environment. These people around you are sucking up headlines like “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. Obama-Haters, you could describe many of them, if it were remotely appropriate to throw any more divisive names and categorizers around.
Cee:
Banquo can defend her here like I had to a few days ago.
I honestly attached no gender to the handle
“Banquo’s Ghost”.
Must have missed something.
Teak,
Her meaning Ms. Obama. I don’t know the gender of Banquo.
Thank you Cee…
I haven’t been to “Breitbart”. I don’t normally go to food fight web sites. I gave up Daily Creep years and years ago. That was enough food fight web sites for me.
I wish! I’d love to earn those big bucks. I’m a volunteer. Friends send me links, but that’s all. And I do a LOT of hunting. I found Craig Crawford today — gasp — ALL on my very own! Nobody I know had mentioned it to me.
And I wandered over to Taylor’s blog, and saw her great quotes, and borrowed them — wish I could claim them as my own, but I’m such a square i linked back to Taylor.
I didn’t SAY you were paid. Campaigns rely on many volunteer surrogates.
So, I guess you’re Obama’s shill and oppo? Sure quacks like a duck to me.
I should have been more clear: I am an UNSOLICITED volunteer. I just do my thing, and hope it helps. I’ve never even been linked at the spot at Hillary’s site that links blog posts sometimes. It doesn’t matter — I just feel very strongly that she’d be the very best president.
I love that. I love calling congress and getting, “and you are with?”, “I’m a citizen.”, “you’re with The Citizen?”
I’ve had titles to give them, when I used to be in organizations or work as a reporter, but now that I do it because I find it important to be involved, its a much more rewarding venture.
But Susan, some folks cannot help but make grouping fallacies. its as old as “us” and “them” I guess. If you look like “them” then you are “them” and should the sociopolitical sphere need, you will be come “us” again.
I’m not a volunteer for Hillary Clinton in any way. I am a citizen who has been through a few campaign seasons now and see some of the same old “soft hit” games being played by Obama and his supporters against Clinton, while accusing her of attacks.
This is called, Drawing the Punch.
Do we need to have a full discussion on how to draw a punch?
Susan I hope this post finds you better than yesterday where it is rumored you were 2 of 11,000…mmm (close?) and got punked by DKos.
It’s great being a “UNSOLICITED volunteer”, it is like being your own “527″ minus the funding…which by the way, describes an “American citizen” to the tee.
Your burning up my eye balls! Knock it off!
No you didn’t SAY it, you implied it. Surely someone of your implied intellectual superiority knows that.
Perhaps, though, Obama is simply a corrupt candidate.
Then what, how is your reality affected?
Do you really believe the garbage you write, you are so obtuse to the social and other, cues around you?
I mean, the idea of creating your own reality was a joke, a joke on Bush, and Cheney, and the rest.
Like the Cheers episode, where they took Frasier hunting for Snipe?
Seems everybody knows but the neocons, and Bush.
Great! I’m proud of Susan and the hard work she’d doing too!
Groooannnn…. so every time Obama is questioned, caught doing something stupid, etc. it’s going to be “oh there go the CLINTONS AGAIN,” huh? What on earth do you plan to do if and when Obama wins the nomination and gets REAL mud thrown at him- and by REAL, I mean “not based on facts,” like the mild stuff he’s getting now? Are you going to demand that John McCain and the GOP back off and stop asking Obama to answer questions about his character and campaign methods? Do you plan on publishing some sort of manual- “Ok, GOP, here’s what’s in bounds- basically, nothing- and here’s what’s out of bounds- basically, everything?” Or are you going to pretend that Obama is still running against Hillary and just blame everything on the Clintons, straight through to the crushing defeat in November? (that’s my prediction- Obama loses in November, and it’s the Clintons’s fault. Somehow.)
This is really getting tiresome. “Shoot the messenger” is SO BUSH– instead of circling the wagons around Obama and yelling “DESPERATE CLINTON TACTICS” every couple of minutes, why not take a look at what’s actually being said about Obama? This guy’s entire campaign is based on his alleged ability to inspire and uplift and provide hope, etc. and now it turns out that his words aren’t even his own. Well, what else is there, then?
Oh wait, I forgot- Hillary voted against the war, and she hasn’t apologized! Bill is a racist! They dissed MLKjr! Quick, start the smoke machine!
Great post but you’re wasting your time trying to talk sense, John. Many of the “Obama for God” crowd are the same folks who still swear that Ralph Nader’s hubris in 2000 had nothing to do with the election of George Bush. The truly committed are the truly committed, after all. And the truly committed of 2008 will now blithely follow The Messiah even unto death - kind of like the loonies who oh so obediently drank that really gnarly grape koolaid to please Jim Jones in Guyana 20 or so years ago. Only in this case The Messiah will lead us Democrats to a massive election loss in November instead of an eternal cyanide induced slumber. And after the debacle they’ll blame it on everybody but themselves.
Fed Up,
Funny you make a great point then engage in “folks who still that Ralph Nader’s hubris in 2000 had nothing to do with the election of George Bush.”
The framing of this places emphasis on Nader or his supporters, and the issue in 2000 was that Gore’s campaign (not the candidate) spent too much time slamming Nader instead of Bush.
Nader has every right to run, so to hit him for anything about being in the race, instead of something more substantive is to say Elections are simply Elitist Games for Two Parties, and that is exactly what Nader says the are.
The issue of 2000 was no different than now. If you didn’t go with Gore, you got smeared, insulted, and that cost him voters because his Campaign engaged in some real dickweed behavior towards Nader or potential Bush voters.
I know at least 2 dozen folks who specifically voted for Bush because of Gore supporters and voted for Kerry the next time with huge regret. They ignored the nitwits in 2004 and just voted and went home. They avoided the wonkish campaign shit. Smart!
I didn’t vote for Nader to keep from voting for Gore, but Gore didn’t earn my vote. I knew my vote was a drop in a small bucket, but I vote my principles. Add all of Nader’s votes to Gore’s in Texas and he still lost the state. In fact, Gore didn’t even contest Texas. Many felt left out down here.
I will agree that Gore’s campaign, “after the debacle they’ll blame it on everybody but themselves.”
Is Obama going to make the same mistake?
Chris, election decisions have consequences. Nader and those who voted for him never took that into account.
I idolized Ralph Nader as a teenager. The first activism in my life was getting involved in a Ralph Nader sponsored environmental cause called the Connecticut Earth Action Group (CEAG, early 1970’s or so). Around the same time I campaigned for George McGovern. I continued to have the highest respect for Ralph Nader for years and years afterwards. But over the years I also became less idealistic (while still remaining strongly progressive in my views) and more and more practical as I saw the damage that Republican administration after Republican administration had caused.
I learned two major lessons from all those years: 1) Republicans will do anything, slime anyone and do anything required to win an election. Their party and its sleaze merchants like Lee Atwater (long gone but still probably the lowest of the low), Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Mellon Scaife and Carl Rove are the undisputed world’s champion masters of sleaze. Their tactics are despicable but unfortunately effective because most voters in this country don’t vote based upon issues - they vote based upon gut feelings. And gut feeling are much easier to influence with negative messages than with facts or ephemeral feel good messages like “hope”. They use blatantly racist and divisive ads like the one’s they used to re-elect Jesse Helms and defeat Harold Ford. They swift boated John Kerry. And speaking personally, as an Army veteran the one that will always bother me most is the way that they portrayed a truly great American hero like Max Cleland as a supporter of Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. I could list many, many more but you get the point.
2) As I said above, the other major lesson I learned from all those years is that elections have consequences. I would have a very tough time finding agreement with Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. But there is one thing that he’s said that I find profound. In trying to persuade the right to support him in this election he kept saying, “Please remember that an 80% friend is not a 20% enemy”. Supposedly that’s a quote from Saint Ronald Reagan. I’ve called that the 80/20 Rule ever since hearing it.
In other words, Giuliani was saying to the doctrinaire right to remember that “we agree on a lot more than we disagree on”. Ralph Nader never learned that lesson. Yes, I agree with him that there are problems with the Democratic Party - I also don’t like the undue influence of lobbyists and corporate money, for instance. But despite all the evidence of the past 7 years he continues to say that there is “no differences” between Democrats and Republicans? Would Al Gore have invaded Iraq? If nothing else, there are 4,000 grieving families of dead young American hero’s who might disagree with Mr. Nader on his comparison of the two parties.
Ralph Nader (as well as most of the doctrinaire “my-way or the highway” left and right) apparently can’t stomach the 80/20 Rule. Remember that Ralph Nader promised not to campaign in close states. Had he kept that promise, Al Gore would have won New Hampshire and Florida and thus the presidency in 2000. And George Bush would have spent the last seven years engaged in one of the very few things he’s actually good at: Cutting brush on his ranch in Crawford.
That’s why I now loathe the same Mr. Nader that I once idolized. And his continuing apologists are simply laughable.
Nope. Doing that would using the man who claims to have sex and drugs with Obama, which Johnson has roundly rejected (on the grounds that he does not find it credible).
So I guess this was disclosed a while back, in his book, but I didn’t know it until today.
From an Amazon review of Dreams of My Father:
Yup. And the very long bio in the Chicago — oh god — Tribune or Sun-Times — painstakingly tried to verify his various accounts from his childhood and youth in his books. They found many “stories” that were denied by others, or were just factually untrue.
His story, some of it, is clearly invented.
This never got national play? I saw the NYTimes investigating his “admitted” drug use and finding very little, but that didn’t mean much.
I will go look it up and give you some quotes. I did quote it here a couple months ago, so can find the link.
Obama supporters just got of taste of it today what is suppose to be coming there way if he is the democratic nominee. They need to make more friends and not enemies. You are going to need us the Clinton supporters if Obama is the nominee..
This all just goes to demolish the Obama’s claim of ‘change’ in my mind.
How can they be for or claim to be change agents if they are recycling mantra’s from other people?
Change means new, different from the existing.
Again, all politicians use speechwriters. But the BO should have been more careful about pushing their ‘change’ meme while using old phrases. This is more than semantics, it goes to the core of their campaign.
So, what new great ideas does he have? Slogans don’t heal children.
Did someone say “John Edwards”?
Guess who worked on Edward’s Presidential campaign back in 2004?
David Axelrod, the guy pulling the strings for Obama and formerly for Deval Patrick.
No wonder these candidates all sound the same. They’re all reading David Axelrod’s writings.
That’s why I think Edwards endorsement is in the bag for Obama.
OxyCon -
Why can’t Edwards get that blinking under control? Wouldn’t it be great to play poker against him? It’s hard to believe that he’s a successful attorney though because he really sucked debating Cheney. I was soooo disappointed.
Mike he fell into the trap of cordiality. The Democrats are terrible, profoundly terrible at slapping the shit out of their opponent where as a Republican can shoot a lawyer in the face and not even report it.
You are right on the money about that. That is why Dem leaders don’t come out fighting when their guy gets attacked.
Holy Joe Lieberman was the worst about this. He was so above-the-fray with Cheney it made me sick. Funny how nasty he can be when he’s being attacked, though.
I don’t know how much Edwards would view where David Axelrod’s hands have been of late as positive. What would Mudcat tell Edwards, who is on record as not being so hot on Hillary. His concerns ?about how to win the south aside.
I keep seeing the Obama supporters characterizing this as a cheap tactic, a non-issue. Total honesty here: would that be your position if the roles were reversed? If it was Clinton being accused of passing off her speeches as totally the creation of her campaign?
What Obama has done, with or without the permission of Deval Patrick, is to deceive the thousands of people who thought they were hearing from the man who was different, who was not about politics as usual. He vested everything in his ability to inspire, and people believed this was an authentic human being.
To hold Obama accountable for his words is no cheaper than us wanting to hold the current president and so many within his administration accountable for their words. We’ve been saying for years that these people had to take responsibility for what they say, and what they do.
Is that a position we are abandoning? Are we applying a different standard to Obama, and if so, why? Why would we not want the man who wants to be president to meet the standards we have begged and pleaded for the current president to meet?
Listen, we are all free to support the candidate of our choice, and we are all entitled to our own reasons. If hating Hillary Clinton is the reason some people are supporting Obama, so be it - but don’t pretend that your hate or dislike or whatever it is entitles your candidate to be exempt from scrutiny, and not to be accountable for his words or his actions.
Lord knows that every time Hillary twitches she is held to account - we’re not asking for a different standard for her as much as we believe that both candidates should be held to the same standard: it’s the only way we can be reasonably sure that when this thing is over, we have the best candidate, that both went through the same fire and one emerged as the nominee. There simply is nothing to be gained by giving Obama the kid gloves treatment now, only to watch as the GOP goes after him with all it has.
My position is that if the Obama campaign started floating horse puckey like “Plagiarism!” or “Hillary’s Ties to Terrorists” I’d be completely shocked and alienated.
How about holding Hillary accountable for something yourself? Like perhaps her promise prior to the onset of the election to not campaign in or seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan?
And as far as Hillary being “held to account” everytime she twitches, if you scroll down a little ways, you can see a little of Larry’s doing: a poster is trying to claim that Obama outed Valerie Plame. That was shortly before Larry put up a post called “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. Now it’s “Plagiarism!”
It is beyond comprehension how the cheap shots here are not visible to you.
Obama was the first candidate to say he would seat the Florida delegates ..before the ink was dry on the sanctions..and he was the first to break the pledge he signed.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
But i wouldn’t expect the Obama supporters to know the facts, or hold the Messiah Obama to the same accountability as the other candidates.
Funny about that; after Floridian’s vote. Obama’s camp said the votes were “meaningless”
OT: Voting and Florida is like some nightmare. what is that about? 8 years and counting the whole state gets jammed up. I heard a lady on the am dial describing her and her husbands ordeal voting in the Florida primaries. It was so bad she said she and her husband were leaving the state ASAP.
Sad.
Soon there will be “grapes of wrath” voter migration, not sour mind you but very bitter, going from state to state until their vote counts.
“By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 30, 2007
TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he’s the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he’ll seat a Florida delegation at the party’s national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.”
“And as far as Hillary being “held to account” everytime she twitches, if you scroll down a little ways, you can see a little of Larry’s doing: a poster is trying to claim that Obama outed Valerie Plame. That was shortly before Larry put up a post called “Obama’s Ties to Terrorists”. Now it’s “Plagiarism!””
What the hell are you talking about? I get confusing when I write apparently, but this really impresses me for not making sense.
What did Larry do wrong now about “Obama outed Valerie Plame”?
Whose child did he he piss on?
Banquo’s Ghost -
Thanks for being the hall monitor!
In grade school that position was always performed by a major loser/whiner/jerk too.
If you hate Susan and Larry so much why are you tattletelling on them here? Better run and find your homeroom teacher!
I see people at MyDD think the Rezko story is over today, but wait until the story about Obama outing Valerie Plame comes out. It’s long overdue. Obama and his mentor Lieberman will do whatever they can to keep this quiet, but their Rethuglican friendships and greed won’t keep this story down. It’s going to blow wide open!
Not only did he out Valerie Plame, but he shot JFK, too. Didn’t you know that? It turns out that Obama is a genetically redesigned alien from Planet Zeeborg who is here to prepare humanity for colonization. Zeeborgians live for 1000 years (just ask the Scientologists; they’re on to Obama!) and Obama has been here for several hundred years, influencing human history. Before having his skin darkened, he was Adolph Hitler (and Joseph Stalin!). After shooting JFK, he went on to organize the Iranian revolution and secretly masterminded the hostage crisis from Tehran. During the 80’s he worked with Hez’b'allah and was behind the Marine Corps barracks bombing in Beirut. He taught bin Laden AND Saddam Hussein everything they ever knew.
The Truth Is Out There, Edith. Just keep looking.
.
You forgot to mention parallel time lines, it must be a fake.
Edith,
work on your humor technique. the joke is not that funny.
for the record, neither lieberman nor obama had anything to do with valerie. obama would have had trouble finding the CIA in 2003 when Valerie was outed.
Please get a life.
Truth left Town in the 60’s and We all said By By Miss American Pie…
Start the draft and let everyone Die..
Elvis Is dead…so tell him Goodby..
This is the Age of The Great BIG LIE..
and everyone started getting High..
and everyone Started getting High..
Sky Pilot..
Sky Pilot..
Sky Pilot..
The Ghosts are Still getting High..
Truth left Town in the 60’s and We all said By By Miss American Pie…
Start the draft and let everyone Die..
Elvis Is dead…so tell him Goodby..
This is the Age of The Great BIG LIE..
and everyone started getting High..
and everyone Started getting High..
Sky Pilot..Don’t let them all Die..
The Ghosts are Still getting High..
I dream of Bozo with the big red hair.
Oh wait, worng thread, sorry.
Since Obama was accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarizing Deval Patrick’s speeches and seems to be duplicating his entire campaign of 2006 in MA, I think that all of the Obama supporters should take a look at Patrick’s current poll numbers here: http://www.statehousenews.com/...
I think that the reason Hillary won the MA primaries so handily, in spite of the big Kennedy “machine,” is that the people of MA bought Patrick’s “change” campaign two years ago and now have a big case of buyer’s remorse. Complaints abound about how he can’t get things done in the legislature, and has not made good on any of the major promises he made during his campaign.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! Do we want another repeat of this disaster on the national level?????
That URL address is:
http://www.statehousenews.com/public/poll/ESumm.htm
Um…you’re kidding right…
About Obama following Edwards on Non-Proliferation and stealing the idea from him? Please tell me that this is just a spoof.
Obama campaigned on non-proliferation back in 2004 and co-authored the Lugar-Obama initiative back in 2005. This really takes no effort at all to research and fact check. But I suppose it is easier to simply parrot falsehoods that belittle your candidate’s opponent.
Unfortunately in the end it only undermines your credibility.
[...] Craig Crawford on Obama & Substance [...]
IxdHdI mypoolcqdnwj, [url=http://dbghiraqwdzf.com/]dbghiraqwdzf[/url], [link=http://hnddukmaznrk.com/]hnddukmaznrk[/link], http://nkfkyyuuuhct.com/