PDA

View Full Version : The Final Day?


Bloggingheads
06-03-2008, 04:35 PM

graz
06-03-2008, 06:12 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11589?in=00:03:17&out=00:03:19
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11589?in=00:09:28&out=00:09:37

Debra and Michelle are a pleasure to listen to. I hope they have an opportunity to continue this conversation. I am sorry that Debra had to go get the kids, but it is a refreshing reminder that the participants are people too. It is easy to take their comments out of context - as my dingalinks suggest - and attach meaning or project too much.
From the dingalinks you might assume that Michelle is a Muslim or that Debra kisses up to "Whitey." It is never so simple. The fact is that all these hot button issues: racism, sexism, voter rights, will not be resolved or fully aligned with the eventuality of November 5, 2008. But the election isn't everything. Even on this forum it seems that we rarely are able to plumb the depths of these issues. We often stake out positions and attack or defend as necessary.
That's why this diavlog was a welcome respite from pure partisanship for me.
Is that fair, even if they both tipped their hand regarding candidate preference? This type of diavlog allows for eavesdropping - like what you might overhear in a coffee shop. But unlike the usual cafe fare, which inspires me to brew at home instead, this calls for a second cup.
I second Debra's request to hear more about Michelle's impressions from abroad. And I recommend Debra's books as well.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 06:23 PM
graz:

Nice post. I share your reaction to this diavlog -- a good one, which I really hope to hear continued.

You said:

Is that fair, even if they both tipped their hand regarding candidate preference?

I think so. In fact, I'd add that one of the things that I found most helpful about this diavlog was to hear two women talk about the overemphasis that has been placed on sexism by Clinton and her supporters. It has been a factor, to be sure, but it has also become, at times, a blanket excuse.

It's also disturbing how much this overemphasis has permeated the consciousness of the more hardcore Clinton supporters and has morphed into hatred of Obama. Looking at the comments on NoQuarter or Taylor Marsh or CorrentWire or TalkLeft can be alarming -- some of those posting really seem to have lost all perspective. The amount of stuff that's being made up about Obama, the conspiracy theories being floated, the complete recasting of history, etc., are just jaw-dropping. Worse still is how quickly others chime in to agree and to profess their complete acceptance of such nonsense as gospel.

Granted, we're talking a small sample size, but even so ...

graz
06-03-2008, 06:48 PM
I think so. In fact, I'd add that one of the things that I found most helpful about this diavlog was to hear two women talk about the overemphasis that has been placed on sexism by Clinton and her supporters. It has been a factor, to be sure, but it has also become, at times, a blanket excuse.

And you just offered "fightin' words" to a percentage(?) of her supporters, who would reflexively offer counter examples.
I think that the samples you offered are undermining the potential for valuable discourse and coalition building. But I'm not a Democratic Party operative - just a lone poster who shares Michelle's and Debra's concern for the importance of Party change in 2009. I have no clue, what the impact of an unresolved Clinton concession will be. Her 2008 track record leaves open the possibility that she will foster and perpetuate a rift in the D. Party. May she prove me wrong.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 07:08 PM
graz:

And you just offered "fightin' words" to a percentage(?) of her supporters ...

Perhaps so. However, I would say that I have been extra careful to avoid criticizing Clinton and her supporters for more than a month now, but it's gotten to the point where I feel it necessary to speak out. The amount and degree of craziness are such that rebutting and plain speaking are required, just as in the case of dealing with Big Lie memes that come from the GOP.

Wonderment
06-03-2008, 07:31 PM
I'd add that one of the things that I found most helpful about this diavlog was to hear two women talk about the overemphasis that has been placed on sexism by Clinton and her supporters. It has been a factor, to be sure, but it has also become, at times, a blanket excuse.


I'm not so sure it's overemphasized. I think the emphasis may be on the wrong issues. Obama calling a journalist "sweetie," McCain tolerating a "bitch" comment or some lunatics chanting "iron my shirts" are offensive incidents but could have been predicted.

Worse were the personal appearance comments about her pantsuits and cleavage and frumpiness. But also predictable.

What surprised me and where I see the most sexism is in the view that "The Clintons" are running for president. Hillary has always been viewed as a package deal, and she hasn't got enough credit for being her own person. This was especially apparent as her candidacy changed (for the better, in my view). She defined herself as a champion of the working poor and universal healthcare (filling the Edwards niche.) Little notice was taken by the media of her shift, and they kept talking about the Clintons, the Clintons and the Clintons.

This was especially ironic, given the fact that Bill was a tremendous liability to her and made a complete asshole of himself at every turn. What the press missed, I think, is that people liked Hillary for her own self and her own views, and they liked her a lot more than they liked her sleazebag husband. Chelsea was right. Hillary would have made a far greater president than Bill.

Unfortunately for her, she failed the nation and the world with her immoral Iraq vote. That was Obama's opportunity, and the rest is history.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 07:43 PM
Relevant thoughts from Amanda Marcotte and Katha Pollitt here (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-marcotte-pollitt2-2008jun02,0,2946985.story).

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 07:49 PM
Wonderment:

What surprised me and where I see the most sexism is in the view that "The Clintons" are running for president. Hillary has always been viewed as a package deal, and she hasn't got enough credit for being her own person.

There is something to this, to be sure.

On the other hand, though, let's not forget that it's reasonable to believe that HRC would never have been in the position to be a leading candidate for the presidency without having been married to Bill. Let's also not forget that a big part of what HRC ran on was "experience," most of which came from being First Lady.

Let's also not forget that a lot of her support, particularly from working-class people, comes from fond memories of the better economic times in the 1990s. A big part of what she offered at the beginning of the campaign, by implication at least, was a return to those times, plus the same sales pitch of two for the price of one; i.e., we'd be getting the invaluable benefit of all that extra experience in the Oval Office.

I'd also add that spouses are almost always a factor. It's not so much of a unique burden for HRC. Look at how the anti-Obama crowd is trying to make this all about Michelle, lately, for example. Fact of life in American politics.

David Thomson
06-03-2008, 07:53 PM
White voters would not be the least bit hesitant in voting for a Colin Powell or someone advancing the views of Thomas Sowell. Barack "Barry" Obama is another George McGovern leftist---and this is the number one reason why he is being rejected. The color of his skin is not a relevant factor. As matter of fact, far too people were cutting slack on behalf of Obama merely to prove that they are enlightened and progressive individuals. There is no way that a purely white candidate possessing a similar thin resume would ever be considered for the highest office in the United States. It is therefore very fair to describe Obama as something of an affirmative action presidential candidate.

bjkeefe
06-03-2008, 08:10 PM
DT:

There is no way that a purely white candidate possessing a similar thin resume would ever be considered for the highest office in the United States.

"Purely" white?

Maybe you think Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush were mulattoes?

piscivorous
06-03-2008, 08:12 PM
In the end the finale analysis will show he Senator Obama ran a much better organized and competent campaign than Senator Clinton. She organized for and ran a campaign that was calculated to give her greater appeal in the general election and didn't retool fast enough for a closely contested primary campaign. whats the old adage "she got caught with her pants down" and could never catch up.

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 08:15 PM
In the end the finale analysis will show he Senator Obama ran a much better organized and competent campaign than Senator Clinton. She organized for and ran a campaign that was calculated to give her greater appeal in the general election and didn't retool fast enough for a closely contested primary campaign. whats the old adage "she got caught with her pants down" and could never catch up.

Economically phrased and exactly right. Well said, Pisc.

ohcomeon
06-03-2008, 08:50 PM
I really enjoyed it. Nothing new here, just everything I feel inside. It is the "No, we can't argument." Exactly!

Wonderment
06-03-2008, 08:54 PM
I think all four of us agree that Obama ran a better campaign and that Hillary made several blunders that cost her the nomination.

As a pacifist, I would love to think that her fate was sealed with her war authorization vote (and her failure to apologize for it as Edwards did), and as someone who has always disliked Bill I don't mind pointing out bad he looked throughout the campaign.

But at the end of the day, he won it more than she lost it. He won the money game, he won the influential backer game, he won the MSM and net roots game, and he tied the voting game.

AemJeff
06-03-2008, 09:05 PM
What surprised me and where I see the most sexism is in the view that "The Clintons" are running for president. Hillary has always been viewed as a package deal, and she hasn't got enough credit for being her own person.


I actually don't disagree with most of the post that Pisc was responding to - with the exception of the above. I think that being the spouse of a former president, regardless of gender, is enough to explain the effect you're describing. That's not something I'd call sexism.

osmium
06-04-2008, 12:21 AM
part of a comment by debra. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11589?in=00:23:24&out=00:23:34)

the sentiment is all right, but let's all agree to avoid the trains running on time metaphor. no one in america makes the trains run on time.

regarding the part a bit later about telling unpleasant truths to the american people: as an obama supporter, i think that kind of approach is good, and for any candidate. however, attention needs to be paid that no one try to tell the american people there is a malaise on the land. that kind of thing doesn't get anyone anywhere.

not that debra was suggesting there is a malaise on the land. but the part about the tail between the legs made me feel kind of funny that way.

brucds
06-04-2008, 02:36 AM
The ever-entertaining buffoon David Thomson: "White voters would not be the least bit hesitant in voting for...someone advancing the views of Thomas Sowell." Yeah. Like President Alan Keyes.

Say hello to President Obama, DT. (And when you sober up, consider that most white voters wouldn't vote for a white guy advancing the views of Thomas Sowell.)

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 04:33 AM
The ever-entertaining buffoon David Thomson: "White voters would not be the least bit hesitant in voting for...someone advancing the views of Thomas Sowell." Yeah. Like President Alan Keyes.

On a related note, I came across this thought from a conservative blogger (one of the good ones):

And it´s also important to recognize that if Obama were a Republican and a conservative he´d be fawned over and slobbered on as the True Second Coming of Reagan.
-- James Poulos (http://americasfuture.org/jamespoulos/2008/06/it%c2%b4s-obama/)

Tom Wittmann
06-05-2008, 12:12 AM
Debra & Michelle are good. Worth listening to.

PaulL
06-05-2008, 10:39 AM
From this post it looks like Debra Dickerson believes that "Something Happened" in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax (http://backtojackson.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-comments-from-last-plantation.html).
But I can not find anything on her blog about the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax. The link from the post is missing.
I wonder did she remove any posts about the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax that may prove to be embarrassing.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 01:55 PM
PaulL:

Looks like she deleted all posts from her old blog.

That's an interesting debate in itself -- should a blogger be allowed to scrub his or her past work, or is there an obligation to let past words stand?

Obviously, there are all sorts of pragmatic professional arguments in favor of the first point of view. I think it's also fair for someone to say, in essence, "I no longer believe that," or "I no longer wish to associate myself with that position."

There is a part of me that wishes that people would just let things stand in perpetuity, especially public figures. However, I'm thinking of this from a historian's point of view, and I quite understand the dangers of living in a "gotcha"-driven culture.

rigger
06-05-2008, 02:04 PM
Debbie had a great point at the end about doing the difficult thing. It was easier for Bill Clinton to co-opt the Republican ideas and get them passed, just as it was easier for George Bush to adopt a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude, making it easy for him to lay the blame for laws not passing at the feet of the Democrats. Much harder is reaching across the aisle and getting things accomplished with both parties involved. Or LBJ standing before Congress on March 15, 1965 admitting, as a Southerner, he knew "how agonizing racial feelings are..." but still asking the House to pass civil rights regulations. What this takes is addressing issues, having discussions, and moving to a place where these ideas can be considered areas of legitimate controversy, rather than just yelling points. This does not mean consensus, agreement, or even appeasement. It just means talking. (Stole that idea from communications professor Daniel Hallin--I highly recommend his writings, even if they predate the blogosphere)
Excellent discussion between these two writers--please bring them back!

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 02:11 PM
It is so convent to forget that JFK/LBJ's civil right act is not all that much different than the one proposed by President Eisenhower in the late 50s. One could actually say that the Democrats stole that issue too.

graz
06-05-2008, 02:43 PM
It is so convent to forget that JFK/LBJ's civil right act is not all that much different than the one proposed by President Eisenhower in the late 50s. One could actually say that the Democrats stole that issue too.

O.K... lets have the list of all the stolen property.

graz
06-05-2008, 02:56 PM
PaulL:

Looks like she deleted all posts from her old blog.

That's an interesting debate in itself -- should a blogger be allowed to scrub his or her past work, or is there an obligation to let past words stand?

Obviously, there are all sorts of pragmatic professional arguments in favor of the first point of view. I think it's also fair for someone to say, in essence, "I no longer believe that," or "I no longer wish to associate myself with that position."

There is a part of me that wishes that people would just let things stand in perpetuity, especially public figures. However, I'm thinking of this from a historian's point of view, and I quite understand the dangers of living in a "gotcha"-driven culture.

I seems almost obsolete to try to delete or sanitize the record - public or private. Public figures will even have to contend with denying what was never rightfully attributed to them.
This Michelle Obama "Whitey" thing comes to mind. What if an original recording, by virtue of transfer is "changed" to reflect something other than original intent?
I say let it all stand. But I respect anyones right to edit as they see fit. Which seems to be an expression of free speech.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 03:27 PM
It is so convent to forget that JFK/LBJ's civil right act is not all that much different than the one proposed by President Eisenhower in the late 50s. One could actually say that the Democrats stole that issue too.

One could also say the GOP abdicated, or punted on the issue. Or, more politely, that they decided the issue wasn't for them as they evolved their core principle away from DDE. The decision by LBJ to move so aggressively on civil rights, knowing that he would be alienating a chunk of his party so much that they'd leave, shows how a party can change in this sense. Party platforms and stances on particular issues aren't cast in stone.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 03:29 PM
I say let it all stand. But I respect anyones right to edit as they see fit. Which seems to be an expression of free speech.

That's a good way of putting it, and pretty much how I see it. Still, my inner amateur historian wishes there could be a mechanism for preserving all writing, even if just to see how someone's mind changed over time.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 03:45 PM
I thes figures are a sign of abdication then I really don't understand the word.
By party

The original House version:[6]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[6]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[6]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 04:23 PM
pisc:

You're supporting my point; i.e., that if one way to spin things is to say the Dems "stole" an issue, then another is to say the Reps gave it to them. You're showing a historical record of the Reps being better on an issue in the past than they are in the present. So, isn't it fair to say that they own the responsibility for changing how they tend to vote or work on this issue?

Note that I say "better on an issue" since by implication, you feel something has been taken away, so I surmise that you'd prefer to be on that old side.

Maybe this is all just you trying to maintain the fiction that Republicans were, are, and always will be the superior party?

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 04:54 PM
I think Senator Obama needs to vet his VP selection members some. Should Obama "Dump" FANNIE MAE's Jim Johnson for SEARCH TEAM FOR VP? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6276799) For those that feel the need for a more detailed look at Mr Johnson's FANNIE MAE legacy (http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF)

It seems that Eric Holder may have a skeleton or two himself. Holder's reputation dinged by Marc Rich pardon (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004457941_apholderobama.html?syndication=rss)

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 05:09 PM
Obama In Heated Conversation With Lieberman. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/lieberman-carries-mccains_n_105179.html)... Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation... Didn't he do something similar while a member of the Illinois Senate? I believe I linked to that some diavlogs ago.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 05:28 PM
Obama In Heated Conversation With Lieberman. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/lieberman-carries-mccains_n_105179.html) Didn't he do something similar while a member of the Illinois Senate? I believe I linked to that some diavlogs ago.

It never fails to amuse me that you guys on the right love to harsh on Democrats for being "weak," and then every time any of them do anything that shows a little steel, your panties get instantly bunched.

The entire leftosphere has been cheering about this story since it broke, if you didn't already know.

look
06-05-2008, 05:39 PM
Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation. That sounds odd.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 05:47 PM
It is one thing to cheer and then try to make an issue out of Senator McCain's temper. What is good for the goose is good for the gander no?

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 05:56 PM
It is one thing to cheer and then try to make an issue out of Senator McCain's temper. What is good for the goose is good for the gander no?

There is no evidence to suggest that Obama lost his temper in this instance. I can't get past Roll Call's pay wall, but the excerpts I've seen on other blogs indicates to me that this was a calm, considered show of force and determination. This is exactly what one would want in a president.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 05:57 PM
That sounds odd.

No. It sounds like you've found another cherry to pick in your ongoing campaign to find fault in everything Obama.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Just what you would expect from the your preferred reading list.

graz
06-05-2008, 06:16 PM
Just what you would expect from the your preferred reading list.

Forget the sources, which on balance do not suggest anything untoward.
The point is that as the new leader of the party, Obama had to do what weak-kneed Harry Reid has failed to do and put Uncle Joe in place. Lieberman caucuses with the Dems while undermining them with his slurping of McCain and misrepresenting of Obama's positions.
Hmmm... What to do?

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 06:23 PM
Actually if you look around you will see that Senator Reid has not been shy about saying he has had conversations with Senator Lieberman along the same lines; none of which has been overly productive. I guess Senator Liberman might feel a little more need to cowtow if the Democrats had not tried to screw him in the first place. And as an aside "weak-kneed Harry Reid" doesn't sound much like effective leadership on the Democratic side. Will he grow some balls under Senator Obama? Doubtful at best.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 06:24 PM
Just what you would expect from the your preferred reading list.

That's an asinine thing to say. Those on my so-called preferred reading list all quoted the same Roll Call article, as did the link that you supplied. The only difference among them was which parts of the Roll Call article were excerpted. Taking the various pieces in the aggregate, I see no reason to believe that Obama was showing a loss of temper here.

And once again, I can only shake my head at your instinct to insist that everything I read is biased, and everything you read is the truth. You're carrying partisanship beyond reason.

I do have to say that if you're going to spend the next five months trying to ameliorate McCain's shortcomings by searching out tenuous examples of Obama doing "the same thing," you're just going to look increasingly silly.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 06:28 PM
Your like a top you can spin and spin but sooner or latter the kinetic energy will be dissipated by friction.

AnnaB
06-05-2008, 06:31 PM
Of course i would vote for a qualified African American person....but not for NObama. Not only is he less experienced than my candidate of choice, i do believe the muslim terrorists are dancing in the streets at his candidacy. i do not trust a man who is totally unpatriotic, who does have great muslim sympathy, and who has smoked crack and performed fellatio and who has a wife who hates the USA also. I'm sorry, but this is not my idea of presidential material.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 06:37 PM
Canned answer (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/06/04/canned-answer/)

April 29, Obama: “I’ve known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.”

June 4, Obama: “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.”

graz
06-05-2008, 06:38 PM
Of course i would vote for a qualified African American person....but not for NObama. Not only is he less experienced than my candidate of choice, i do believe the muslim terrorists are dancing in the streets at his candidacy. i do not trust a man who is totally unpatriotic, who does have great muslim sympathy, and who has smoked crack and performed fellatio and who has a wife who hates the USA also. I'm sorry, but this is not my idea of presidential material.

And I don't trust your reasoning capabilities. But I would like to introduce you to DT and in the event of progeny, maybe some of the defective genes can mutate towards survival.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 06:44 PM
Your like a top you can spin and spin but sooner or latter the kinetic energy will be dissipated by friction.

Once again you don't address my points, but instead retreat to empty clichés.

At least you're consistent, I guess, but would it really kill you to acknowledge, every once in a while, that someone who doesn't share your outlook makes a solid case? Maybe it doesn't need to be said, or maybe it does -- such an action does not decrease others' respect for you. It only increases it.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 06:47 PM
AnnaB:

I presume your candidate of choice was Hillary? If so, would you have a problem with her having performed fellatio?

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 06:50 PM
That's an asinine thing to say. Those on my so-called preferred reading list all quoted the same Roll Call article, as did the link that you supplied. The only difference among them was which parts of the Roll Call article were excerpted. Taking the various pieces in the aggregate, I see no reason to believe that Obama was showing a loss of temper here.

And once again, I can only shake my head at your instinct to insist that everything I read is biased, and everything you read is the truth. You're carrying partisanship beyond reason.

I do have to say that if you're going to spend the next five months trying to ameliorate McCain's shortcomings by searching out tenuous examples of Obama doing "the same thing," you're just going to look increasingly silly.And what point did you actually make that we have different reading preferences! Or that I should adopt you point of view so that I would be more likable? In fact you made no satiable point that can be addressed other than to complain.

graz
06-05-2008, 07:02 PM
Actually if you look around you will see that Senator Reid has not been shy about saying he has had conversations with Senator Lieberman along the same lines; none of which has been overly productive. I guess Senator Liberman might feel a little more need to cowtow if the Democrats had not tried to screw him in the first place. And as an aside "weak-kneed Harry Reid" doesn't sound much like effective leadership on the Democratic side. Will he grow some balls under Senator Obama? Doubtful at best.

Its all politics right? Lieberman is still able to play both sides against the middle... those days are numbered.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 07:06 PM
In fact you made no satiable point that can be addressed other than to complain.

Here are the two points that I made that you didn't address:

1. Since the story about Obama and Lieberman was reported by one source (hard to access) and everything that has been said elsewhere about it amounts to quoting that one source, it does not matter where one read the quoted material.

2. There is no evidence that Obama showed a loss of temper in any of this quoted material.

Wonderment
06-05-2008, 07:17 PM
I certainly hope Obama had the good sense to read Lieberman the riot act. If "Change" means anything, it's not tolerating pro-Iraq War neo-con hawks within the Obama wing of the party. Put a bow on Lieberman and send him to Crawford, Texas where he can reminisce about the Iraq holocaust with W, Rummie and Dick Cheney.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 07:21 PM
Really. A 6' something 46 year old man backs a 5'8" ish 66 year old man up against the wall and it was all just good fun. Yep nothing to see here folks just move along.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 07:25 PM
Really. A 6' something 46 year old man backs a 5'8" ish 66 year old man up against the wall and it was all just good fun. Yep nothing to see here folks just move along.

So, you're changing your tune to "threatened?" Does this mean you acknowledge that it was not a "loss of temper?"

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 07:28 PM
I certainly hope Obama had the good sense to read Lieberman the riot act. If "Change" means anything, it's not tolerating pro-Iraq War neo-con hawks within the Obama wing of the party. Put a bow on Lieberman and send him to Crawford, Texas where he can reminisce about the Iraq holocaust with W, Rummie and Dick Cheney.

Indeed. And here's another reason (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15778.html) to read Holy Joe the riot act. Or, to my way of thinking, to give him the final boot, right in his sanctimonious ass.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 08:22 PM
As no one overheard the conversation it is speculation either way but from the "aggressive" hand gestures, to "intimidating" stance and backed up against the wall my speculation is that there was plenty of emotion involved and it wasn't hug and kisses.

handle
06-05-2008, 08:47 PM
As no one overheard the conversation it is speculation either way but from the "aggressive" hand gestures, to "intimidating" stance and backed up against the wall my speculation is that there was plenty of emotion involved and it wasn't hug and kisses.

Sweeeet

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 08:50 PM
As no one overheard the conversation it is speculation either way but from the "aggressive" hand gestures, to "intimidating" stance and backed up against the wall my speculation is that there was plenty of emotion involved and it wasn't hug and kisses.

I know you've made it your mission to bring the world into your mindless hatred for Obama, but stick to the facts, please.

From your own source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/lieberman-carries-mccains_n_105179.html) (my emphasis added):

... his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures ...

The word "aggressive" does not appear anywhere in that post, and certainly not in the quoted material.

And again, you duck the question: was this evidence of Obama losing his temper? Or is it more likely that he was in control, and simply showing some steel?

handle
06-05-2008, 08:54 PM
And I don't trust your reasoning capabilities. But I would like to introduce you to DT and in the event of progeny, maybe some of the defective genes can mutate towards survival.

Damn it Graz, you beat me to the punch, I had her paired up with DT in Passion of the blog before I saw this!

graz
06-05-2008, 09:02 PM
Damn it Graz, you beat me to the punch, I had her paired up with DT in Passion of the blog before I saw this!

I stand united with you. I know what they say about ... minds thinking alike.

handle
06-05-2008, 09:05 PM
I know you've made it your mission to bring the world into your mindless hatred for Obama, but stick to the facts, please.

From your own source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/lieberman-carries-mccains_n_105179.html) (my emphasis added):



The word "aggressive" does not appear anywhere in that post, and certainly not in the quoted material.

And again, you duck the question: was this evidence of Obama losing his temper? Or is it more likely that he was in control, and simply showing some steel?

Either way, I'm liking Obama now!
I wish I could have been a fly on the wall, or where was that ambush journalist that got Clinton on tape?

Wonderment
06-05-2008, 09:06 PM
"aggressive" hand gestures, to "intimidating" stance....

Tall Negro. Who wouldn't be terrified? 99% probability he's a white-hating homicidal psychopath and rapist. Don't be fooled by the suit and tie.

handle
06-05-2008, 09:07 PM
I stand united with you. I know what they say about ... minds thinking alike.

uhhh... "great'?

handle
06-05-2008, 09:10 PM
AnnaB:

I presume your candidate of choice was Hillary? If so, would you have a problem with her having performed fellatio?

Jeez B,
Get your "facts" straight! Performing fellatio, on crack, in the back seat, with strangers from a party! Not the elephant party, I hope...

handle
06-05-2008, 09:24 PM
Tall Negro. Who wouldn't be terrified? 99% probability he's a white-hating homicidal psychopath and rapist. Don't be fooled by the suit and tie.

And from the South side of Chicago! Maybe one of those Union bosses or thugs!
Maybe smokin' Joe can stab him with his flag pin..

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 09:26 PM
Maybe smokin' Joe can stab him with his flag pin..

ROFLMAO

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 09:28 PM
Jeez B,
Get your "facts" straight! Performing fellatio, on crack, in the back seat, with strangers from a party! Not the elephant party, I hope...

Since the original accusation was

... and who has smoked crack and performed fellatio ...

I probably also should have asked if this happened at the same time. No wonder so many Obama-haters feel burned.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 09:42 PM
You really like that word(s) hate/hatred/hateful don't you? I've noticed that you throw it around frequently. Just because I don't happen to think that Senator Obama is Presidential material and present that point of view doesn't mean I hate him; except in your rather unipolar world.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 09:49 PM
You really like that word(s) hate/hatred/hateful don't you? I've noticed that you throw it around frequently. Just because I don't happen to think that Senator Obama is Presidential material and present that point of view doesn't mean I hate him; except in your rather unipolar world.

Considering the number of posts that you put up that attempt to portray Obama in an unflattering light, and considering all the disparaging things that you've said about him, and considering the way you're so willing to assume the worst, stretch the truth, fan the flames, pass along gossip, treat speculation as fact, keep memes alive, exaggerate trivialities, and never ever say anything to acknowledge his good points, I do not think it goes too far to characterize your emotion as such.

But thank you for not calling me bipolar.

piscivorous
06-05-2008, 09:53 PM
Like I have said before you are free to analyze me as much as you want just don't send me a bill for your projection.

look
06-06-2008, 12:46 AM
"Old Mr. B! Riddle-me-ree!
Hitty Pitty within the wall,
Hitty Pitty without the wall;
If you touch Hitty Pitty,
Hitty Pitty will bite you!"
(http://www.online-literature.com/beatrix-potter/great-big-treasury-of-beatrix-/3/)

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 02:30 PM
Just a little follow up. Has anyone seen the email Senator Lieberman sent out yesterday. it starts out Today, I asked Senator McCain if I could create and chair a new grassroots organization, "Citizens for McCain... I guess that friendly chat had an effect on Senator Lieberman, just perhaps not the desired one.

graz
06-06-2008, 02:35 PM
Just a little follow up. Has anyone seen the email Senator Lieberman sent out yesterday. it starts out I guess that friendly chat had an effect on Senator Lieberman, just perhaps not the desired one.
You know how the game is played. The Dems know that Lieberman is a lost cause, but how would it look if the New Leader didn't mark his territory. No one should believe that "hope and change" could succeed without streetfightin'.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 02:43 PM
Yes I understand it will be a confrontational election and there will be some defections from both camps. But Senator Lieberman actively soliciting, with his considerable roledex and his status as a respected member of the Jewish community, is probably not a defection that Senator Obama is liking, given the Senator's questionable standing in what is a generally favorable demographic for the Democrats. I personally hope he backs a couple more old men against the wall to "mark his territory."

graz
06-06-2008, 02:50 PM
Yes I understand it will be a confrontational election and there will be some defections from both camps. But Senator Lieberman actively soliciting, with his considerable roledex and his status as a respected member of the Jewish community, is probably not a defection that Senator Obama is liking, given the Senator's questionable standing in what is a generally favorable demographic for the Democrats. I personally hope he backs a couple more old men against the wall to "mark his territory."

Now that's just gloating. What always escapes me are the real numbers that a Lieberman delivers in votes. Florida looks more than dicey for the Dems. But it seems Conecticut won't be impacted by Lieberman either way. Where else?

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Not to be bigoted about it but there are probably a small fraction of Jewish voters that will weigh what senator Lieberman says with some seriousness (dollars). But then again not being Jewish I can't be sure.

P.S. Just do do a little more "gloating" Obama clarifies united J'lem comment (ww.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). What else will he have to clarify?

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 03:27 PM
pisc:

I guess that friendly chat had an effect on Senator Lieberman, just perhaps not the desired one.

Please. Lieberman has been an outspoken supporter of McCain for months. To think that his creation of this Astroturf group is a response to getting talked to by Obama is nonsense.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 03:38 PM
Strange timing I guess. He gets lectured one day and the next he starts a 527 to support Senator McCain. I hope Senator Obama has better luck and timing when he talks to Amadenajad.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 03:42 PM
Strange timing I guess. He gets lectured one day and the next he starts a 527 to support Senator McCain.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A&q=Post+hoc+ergo+propter+hoc)? Et tu, Piscivorous?

I thought you were a better analyst than that.

graz
06-06-2008, 03:45 PM
Not to be bigoted about it but there are probably a small fraction of Jewish voters that will weigh what senator Lieberman says with some seriousness (dollars). But then again not being Jewish I can't be sure.

P.S. Just do do a little more "gloating" Obama clarifies united J'lem comment (ww.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). What else will he have to clarify?

Yes, not being much of a dancer myself, I have no advice for him. But I recognize that the dance has a lot of tricky moves and requires coordination
skills. There is hope.

Wonderment
06-06-2008, 03:48 PM
Not to be bigoted about it but there are probably a small fraction of Jewish voters that will weigh what senator Lieberman says with some seriousness (dollars). But then again not being Jewish I can't be sure.

Being Jewish, I can assure you that Obama will overwhelmingly carry the Jewish vote and the Jewish donations. The last Republican presidential candidate to win a plurality among Jewish voters was Warren Harding in 1920. Even George McGovern won the Jewish vote handily.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Like I said strange timing? It is one thing to make speech from the floor of the Senate anther to actually act. But you are correct I have seen stranger things, in life, than a deliberate act of committing political suicide in the party one had supported throughout his political life.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 03:51 PM
You being the unbiased paragon of impartiality; I feel sooo assured.

Wonderment
06-06-2008, 03:58 PM
Perhaps you can find some of those Jews who voted for Warren Harding in 1920 to join the McCain campaign. Let's see, you had to be 21 to vote back then, so they'd be about 109-115 years old now.

There may be enough of them in Florida to tilt the election in McCain's favor.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 04:02 PM
You being the unbiased paragon of impartiality; I feel sooo assured.

Well, then, have some data:

Jewish voters made up about 3% of the electorate in 2004 ...

Although Jewish voters have traditionally voted Democratic, Republicans have tried recently to make inroads. President Bush received 24% of the Jewish vote in 2004.

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., cited a Gallup Poll last month giving McCain 32% of the Jewish vote in a matchup against Obama. The Illinois senator garners 61% of the Jewish vote.

(source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-04-jewish-voters_N.htm))


And:

According to CBS News Polls conducted from February to May, both Obama and Clinton would win among Jewish voters nationally by a comfortable margin.

If the candidates were Obama and McCain, the polls show Obama would get 65 percent of the vote of Jewish registered voters to 28 percent for McCain.

(source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/02/politics/main4146919.shtml))


See also (http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/what_jewish_problem_separating_faction_for_fiction _with_obama_20080530/).

Bottom line: Obama is virtually certain to win a large majority of the Jewish vote. Jews voting against him, even in the most pessimistic scenario, will amount to less than 1% of the population, and given that what counts is electoral votes, this anti-Obama group's effect will likely be further diluted.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 04:06 PM
The accuracy of pols and pundits have such a remarkable track record (http://www.printsandphotos.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Category_Code=Harry%2BTruman&Product_Code=3265).

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 04:19 PM
The accuracy of pols and pundits have such a remarkable track record (http://www.printsandphotos.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Category_Code=Harry%2BTruman&Product_Code=3265).

Heh.

I won't get into the methodological flaws that led to that headline, since I'd bet that you're already well aware of them, and I'm guessing you're just making a joke.

If I'm wrong about this, then you might keep what you said in mind the next time you offer polling data to back up an argument.

piscivorous
06-06-2008, 04:28 PM
Yea it is pretty much just a mild elbow to the gut. But you will never see me reference poling data without a caveat, as I just don't believe it to be accurate. I have more faith in the trend lines, of well established poles, than any one particular pole. But even that is tenuous at best.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 05:15 PM
Pisc:

But you will never see me reference poling data without a caveat ...

Yes. Now that you say that, I am reminded that you are quite consistent in this regard.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 05:16 PM
Perhaps you can find some of those Jews who voted for Warren Harding in 1920 to join the McCain campaign. Let's see, you had to be 21 to vote back then, so they'd be about 109-115 years old now.

Which would make them still younger than McCain, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist.