Netroots Rally Behind Obama-Biden and Go After Fournier

-

fournier.gifI have already commented about AP Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier’s edgy attack on the Obama-Biden ticket. I’m not going to add more at this point from my end.
But from others a lot is stirring.
Fournier’s article has helped Biden get an instant embrace from the netroots community who are lined up to defend him and call foul on Fournier who allegedly sought a position in the McCain campaign operation.
One of the biggest headaches Fournier may now face is a possible conflict of interest in having a booking agent for speeches for which he may charge between $5-10k and an Associated Press ethics guideline statement that such booking relationships are prohibited.
Lindsay Beyerstein pushed over that rock, and we’ll be watching to see what implications this revelation has.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

170 comments on “Netroots Rally Behind Obama-Biden and Go After Fournier

  1. Paul Norheim says:

    “one of their teachings is “Never complete a circle”….”
    Kathleen, I liked that one. And no, I don`t consider your
    arguments regarding the two party system “unimportant and
    esoteric”.

    Reply

  2. George in PA says:

    WigWag,
    Jeez, how the hell do you get from what we are discussing to that I am on Obamas team? I read over and over again what I said and can’t get any sense that I could come across that way. You’re messing with me, right?
    And for the record, when he was saying Yes We Can, what came instantly to my mind was “Who do you mean by “We” youngblood?”
    Heck, maybe it’s me that’s got you wrong, but reading your passages above, I don’t think so. You are talking about how I’m thinking although in a more high minded way that appeals to Lefties so they will better listen to your thoughts. I hear ya too, and your alright in my book, I’m just a regular guy maybe you just want to keep your distance because your trying to cajole our natural political opponents. I understand.
    If you don’t want me hanging around, so you can better get in with them to yank their cranks then I’ll just standby and watch how you get to them and not a peep will I utter again and let you have at it.
    By the way, you are as entertaining as Rush sometimes, and I can hear his voice through your words, which makes you tops in my book.
    Thanks, and I’ll try the keep quiet and leave you to go to work on them, and God Bless America!

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Wigwag…well Mccain is pretty scarey to me, so in the end it might work to do the boogey man thing, but telling me to just shut up and get in line will have the opposite effect….

    Reply

  4. Tahoe Editor says:

    THE CREEPY PLAGIARISM OF JOE BIDEN
    Biden plagiarized because, like most plagiarists, he was unsatisfied with his own, honest material and decided that the payoff was worth the risk.
    If you give Biden the benefit of the doubt—and I don’t—you’d expect that such a calamitous “mistake” from his youth would have seared into his mind the importance of keeping his mitts off of other people’s words. That it didn’t speaks terabytes about his character.
    If Biden lies with fluidity about the fundamentals of his life, other discoveries must await. But all will not be lost if the Obama-Biden ticket is victorious: Every administration needs a few good liars.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2198597/pagenum/all/#page_start
    WHY OBAMA LOOKS VULNERABLE
    A horrible truth is beginning to dawn on the Democrats. Barack Obama is not the “once in a generation” political genius they thought they had discovered. On the contrary, he is a weak candidate for the presidency.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc529668-729e-11dd-983b-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1
    THE RACISM EXCUSE
    In case Barack Obama loses the Presidency, an excuse is all ready to go: America’s too racist to elect a black man. Vote for Barack, or America is as irredeemable as many foreigners believe.
    But Mr. Obama’s descent from his Icarusian heights earlier this spring reflects a shift in this race that has nothing to do with race. A skin-deep Obamamania had energized the country. Now that’s giving way to serious consideration of credentials and policy substance.
    Many Americans look at the junior Senator from Illinois and worry, as his running mate pointed out last year, that he isn’t “ready” for the job. Does this mean that anyone who agrees with Joe Biden’s previous assessment is a racist? Do Democrats really think so little of their fellow Americans?
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121970808612971117.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

    Reply

  5. WigWag says:

    Kathleen, with all due respect, I think you’re missing the point here. Senator Obama’s advisors have a very well thought out strategy for winning. Their theory, as practiced by many Obama supporters at the Washington Note, is to insult and demean voters who are on the fence about Senator Obama as much as possible. It may seem paradoxical to you and me, but remember that brilliant political strategists working for Obama have developed this theory, so you know it’s going to work well in November!

    Reply

  6. Kathleen says:

    Paul..p.s. I am not voting against my convictions for any reason, let alone being insulted…my convictions have always been to vote for Nader for many reason, most recently impeachment….I also disagree that voting my conviction is not in my best interest….I’ve said a kajillion times that I vote to preserve an alternative route to the ballot…this may seem unimportant and esoteric to you, but it’s isn’t to me.
    A great deal goes on at a convention beside the nominating and the bells and whistles…sometimes what goes on besides the nomination is actually more important for its long range impact…like changing election laws and party rules…
    Hillary needs the pressure of her supporters to change party rules from caucuses to primaries so that every eligilble voter can particitpate in the nominating process, not just those who are off work during the caucus…Teddy is not going to want this, so BO won’t want it either….but it is a necessary change to make the nominating process more open and fair. If we all got in line to do the bunny hop one more time, they wouldn’t change the party rules,…. that would be for some other time…
    Finally, my anger will go on for years, but not over the veep thing….there are infinitely more important problems I have with the partisan process. but if at 3 a.m. on Nov 4 th I do decide to hold my nose, get in line and do the Pavalian Nasty, I don’t have to like it..This is still America so if I want to bitch and moan all the way to the polls, I will…. and if I want to send money to Nader and McKinney to preserve my choices, I will…I felt duped in 06 when they told me to hold my nose for subpoena power, which I did only to have them take impeachment off the table as soon as they got subpoena power….another head fake.
    I spent a lot of years with the Hopi elders…one of their teachings is “Never complete a circle”….When I asked them why they said in case the majority is wrong, it is the duty of one or two elders to stand apart and show another way….I don’t do group-think.
    by. can yourself…I’m not telling anyone how to vote but others try to convince me how to vote and ask for explaination. skip over my comments, but don’t tell me to shut up…and I don’t give a damn how you vote either…do what you think best., …

    Reply

  7. WigWag says:

    George, your parody of working people is just so emblematic of what so many Barack Obama supporters are all about. You’re doing great work, George. I’m sure that Senator Obama is really happy to have you on the team. When he coined his credo, “Yes We Can” I’m sure it was folks like you that he had in mind.

    Reply

  8. . says:

    Ok, Kathleen, we get the message, like we give a goddamn how you vote. Can it!

    Reply

  9. George in PA says:

    WigWag, you got me all wrong.
    I’m not racist, I am just voting my self-interest and it doesn’t lie in voting for Liberals who are in the pocket of the Homosexuals, or, (ok, I’ll put it in more politically-correct terms), Blacks. That’s just a fact. To keep the American traditions that we grew up with we cannot let the radical agendas of Homosexuals and Blacks get the upper hand, or the America we have all grown to love is lost.
    I’m not racist, just an American traditionalist, and as for Homosexuals they just make me cringe, it’s a natural reaction, and in respect to them I guess I’m just a naturalist. Homophobe is fear of Homos; I don’t fear them, they are just naturally repellant. Two men kissing, are you kidding me?, that doesn’t give you the creeps? and you don’t have to be a pure traditionalist to get the creeps over that!
    Anyway, hope you got to understand me a little more and that we are on the same page. I guess you are trying the get across to Liberals in terms that they feel comfortable with, and I’m just telling the story in a different way without much regard to political correctness.
    Got to listen to some Rush now.
    God Bless America and keep up the good work WigWag.
    Thanks.

    Reply

  10. Kathleen says:

    First, I have been opposed to the two party system for many years now, so voting for either major party was going to take some coaxing…Further, I feel so strongly about impeaching elected officials in the face of wrongdoing, especially when thousands are dying for those wrongs, that I WILL NOT support a candidate who doesn’t see antyhing that rises to an impeachable offense, as BO has said. . You may not like it, but I am entitled as a voter and a taxpayer to have my own prioirites. I happen to think enforcing the standards of offical conduct is a FIRST duty not an optional one, to be considered only when it’s politcally convenient.
    Skipping the Kyl-Lieberman vote was chickenshit in my book, and supporting domestic spying put the brakes on my reluctant consideration of Column D…The Hillary thing was just the nail in the coffin..
    The Hillary issue matters to me, not because of Hillary, but because of what I think was a cruel prank on her supporters’ heads, and every other voter\ who thought she’d be the best pick….she may have said that she didn’t want to be vetted unless she was picked for Veep, but he told everyone that she was on the short list, knowing he had no intention of picking her.
    This created false hopes among her supporters and other voters who thought she would be the best pick. BO allowed the press to stoke those false hopes and create greater interest in his veep pick by doing this, milking it all he could.
    Then when the whole world was poised for the TEXT, he chose to mock Hillary by doing it at 3 a.m….I call that a mind fuck…I don’t like a candidate asking me to trust him and take his word, and then playing some childish schoolyard joke on me… I feel duped by all his talk of unity, and pretending that she was on his short list, when he knew full welll she wasn’t on any list.
    A mature “leader’ would have taken better care of the feelings of 18 million Hillary voters. Instead of letting those voters down easy, he set them up for a second slap down… and we say “OUCH’ you say we’re bad losers??? Well, I don’t want to play with you, now. …what other head fakes are we in for?
    Hillary has been a very good loser, but BO is not being a very good victor….while stealing her campaign lines, like “Many Americans are one pay check away from falling through a trap door” He says, “One pay check away from disaster”, and “When I get up each day, I will go to work for you”….where I went to school, that was considered copying a classmates’ homework… cheating… if your’e going to use her lines, source them, Harvard Grad.
    I’m sorry, but I take the honor sytem very seriously and I insist on doing my own thinking. CW is exactly that, conventional… I refuse to be a Pavalian Patriot..I will not hold my nose and get in line on Nov. 4 and do the Pavlavian Nasty…. I do not live in Stepford.
    I will vote for the candidate who has proven to me over the very long haul, that he is the most competent, original thinking, ethical and dedicated to the public good, not his own personal wealth and ambition…Ralph Nader.
    I will not discuss the differences between Mcpain and BO because McPain is not even a consideration in my book… I will discuss the differences between Nader and BO…on the merits of their positions and their relative qualitifications and experience and good works. I will not listen to whining about how the best qualified candidate is taking votes away from Junior..
    In voting for Nader, I will be voting to preserve an alternative, non-partisan route to the ballot…..I will be voting to restore zero tolerance for wrongdoing in gov’t….
    Y’all can do whatever you want…if you want to try to convince me otherwise, go right ahead… I’ll let you know at 3 fucking a.m. on Nov. 4th if he makes the cut….
    I have to re-read the comments to se what else I should answer…

    Reply

  11. WigWag says:

    That’s right, George in PA. Those tens of millions of Reagan Democrats are not only “low information” voters, they’re all racists and homophobes; that’s why they are reluctant to vote for Obama.
    They’re not the bigots, George. You are. And by the way, rant as much as you like. They’ve proven again and again that they are immune to your charges of racism. The strategy of calling them names to win them over has already been tried by Senator Obama.
    Here’s a news flash for you.
    It didn’t work.

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    For those who might be interested:
    New poll: McCain lead widens slightly in Florida
    By Mary Ellen Klas | Miami Herald
    “A new poll shows Barack Obama trailing John McCain 47 percent to 43 percent in Florida, even as Obama spent millions in the state trying to introduce himself on local TV, while McCain has yet to spend a dime…”McCain’s lead in Florida is largely built upon his margin over Senator Obama among independent voters, the group that probably will decide the state’s 27 electoral votes,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.”
    And this from Rasmussen this morning,
    “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Barack Obama attracting 44% of the vote while John McCain also earns 44%. When “leaners” are included, it’s still tied with Obama at 46% and McCain at 46%. Yesterday, with leaners, Obama had a three-point advantage over McCain (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. Sign up for free daily e-mail update.
    Obama is supported by 78% of Democrats while McCain gets the vote from 85% of Republicans. The GOP hopeful also has a slight advantage among unaffiliated voters.
    Obama’s support has declined in each of the last three individual nights of polling. This may be either statistical noise or a reaction to the selection of Biden. If it’s the latter, it probably has less to do with Biden than Hillary Clinton. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democratic women say Clinton should have been picked and 21% of them say they’ll vote for McCain.”
    I would be happy to share some positive information about Obama but there just doesn’t appear to be any except for the fact that the news media is reporting that Michelle Obama’s speech was very well received.

    Reply

  13. Crux of the Biscuit says:

    Hey Tahoe,
    Simply put:
    If McCain wins; Evil wins.
    If Obama wins: Good wins.
    It’s a very simple choice.
    Choose.

    Reply

  14. George in PA says:

    Absolutely, WigWag, absolutely!
    I respect your sensitivity toward groups that support Barack Obama, but allow me to venacularize your astute observation so it can be recognizable to plain folks on my end of the economic spectrum,
    Addressing this crowd here, WigWag states:
    “Barack Obama is the candidate of African Americans who support him out of racial solidarity, the press (who always fall for charisma) and the creative classes. The Democratic Party is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the creative classes whose values it prizes.”
    But here’s how we would phrase this truth-telling in a more understandable down home way:
    “Barack Obama is a Nigro who the Nigroes love cause he’s a Nigro, and he’s the candidate of the Liberal Media (who always fall for his mumbo-jumbo jive ass), and the Homo-queers. The Democrat Party is now owned Lock, Stock and Barrel by Homo-queers who are aiming to take over our country. Ain’t gonna God damn happen.”
    And when Obama goes down in flames in November, WigWag, you say:
    “To assess blame, Obama supporters should just look in the mirror.”
    Yup, and they will see Nigroes and Homos, and the McCain victors will look smiling in that mirror on that glorious Wednesday morn and see exactly why they never could vote Nigro; it goes against there natural born self-interest and undermines American traditions upon which they were raised.
    I don’t mind Nigroes, but they just ain’t gonna be telling me and my family what to do, it goes against what America is all about.
    We’ll see who’s bitter when all is said and done.
    Thanks WigWag for explaining and defending us plain folk, and being a beacon of truth here where people are all caught up in a novelty act that will just be a passing fad once We the People in the Heartland cast our cherished vote.
    God Bless America !

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This non-stop anti-Obama spam is getting tiresome. Personally, I wish Tahoe and Wigwag would take thier troll blather and shove it.
    Theres no alternatives offered by them, no serious policy discussion, just one fuckin’ Hannity sound-take after another, all along the same vein.

    Reply

  16. Tahoe Editor says:

    Obama in November: “America, you blew it. The rise of the oceans has resumed.”
    I love the repeated line about, “Well if you don’t vote for Obama then you DESERVE to live with the consequences of a McCain administration.” Are we not ALL going to live with the consequences of whatever administration takes power? Do you somehow live in a different sphere if you vote for Obama and he loses? “Yes, McCain is the president — but at least I don’t deserve it.” ??? Huh?

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    More on the healing process in Denver from “The Fix” at the Washington Post
    “Polling seems to suggest that the rift is deeper than simply a clash of personalities. In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, roughly two thirds of self-identified supporters of Hillary Clinton in the primary are now backing Obama while 27 percent say they will vote for John McCain in the fall. A survey done last week for NBC and the Wall Street Journal showed an even clearer divide with only 52 percent of Clinton backers siding with Obama in the general election…Obama can’t afford to lose one-third of the party base either to McCain or a non-vote.”
    If Obama loses one third to one half of the Hillary Clinton voters, the die is cast. He will surely lose.
    These aren’t Hillary Clinton dead enders and they aren’t PUMAs. They are Reagan Democrats who have gotten used to voting for Republicans as well as Democrats. They will surely be happy to do it again.
    Fauxgressives at the Washington Note can’t understand why these folks vote against their own economic self interest in election after election. Maybe, just maybe these folks, like everyone else, consider a variety of factors when deciding who to vote for. Sure, Obama’s economic policies will be more in their interests than McCain’s policies. But it was Obama who went out of his way to insult them. You remember, speaking to a upscale liberal audience in San Francisco he called them bitter. I can’t help but wonder how many African Americans or Jews or Italians or Country Club Republicans would vote for a candidate who insulted them regardless of what that candidate’s policies might be. But the Reagan Democrats are supposed to take the insults whether they come from Obama himself or Father Pfleger or Reverend Wright and keep their mouths shut. Well they’ve proven again and again that they won’t do it. That’s why Democratic presidential candidates always lose.
    Since the 1960s there has been exactly one Democratic candidate who treated this group respectfully; that candidate was Bill Clinton (okay, maybe Mondale did too.) Hillary Clinton also treated the Reagan Democrats respectfully; that’s why they voted for her in huge, almost unprecedented numbers.
    What the fauxgressives don’t get is that it’s not the Republicans who “trick” the Reagan Democrats into voting for Republicans by focusing on cultural issues. The problem is not Karl Rove. The problem is Howard Dean and people like him.
    The Democratic Party is more culturally elitist than ever. And it shows big time. Just look at the Convention. They advertise how all the food that is served will come from local farmers. They brag about the efforts to make the convention carbon neutral. They proclaim how energy efficient the convention will be and they are holier than though about their efforts to recycle.
    Trust me, I get it. To most readers of the Washington Note, these efforts and the values that they represent are self evidently laudable. But the simple reality is that many of these efforts are nothing more than upper middle class conceit. The creative classes brag about their recycling efforts the way country club republicans brag about what golf courses they have played.
    The values of the people who now rule the Democratic Party are not the values of the people that Franklin Roosevelt fought for and they are not the values of Reagan Democrats.
    Reagan Democrats can’t afford to visit restaurants owned by Alice Waters (as if they could get a reservation); they don’t shop at Whole Foods and they buy coffee at Dunkin Doughnuts not Starbucks. They can’t afford to trade the pick up truck in for a Prius; they can’t bike to work and they can’t throw out a perfectly good refrigerator to buy an energy efficient model. They’re worried about saving themselves, not saving the world. And unlike the creative classes, they are not so presumptuous to think that they could save the world even if they wanted to. The major difference between people who obsess about buying produce from local farmers and people who happily buy it from Walmart is the amount of disposable income they have in their pockets. Obama, Kerry and Dukakis were the locavores. Bill Clinton and Al Gore (who really won) cared more about the Walmart set.
    The bottom line is this. Barack Obama is the candidate of African Americans who support him out of racial solidarity, the press (who always fall for charisma) and the creative classes. The Democratic Party is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the creative classes whose values it prizes.
    If the Reagan Democrats (aka Hillary Clinton voters) decide to once again vote against their economic self interest and vote for McCain (who can at least hide the fact that he despises them) instead of Obama (who has basically said that he despises them) don’t be surprised. And don’t blame John McCain, Karl Rove or the tooth fairy. To assess blame, Obama supporters should just look in the mirror.
    And before you Obama supporters cry like stuck pigs, ask yourself, would you vote for a candidate who made it plain that he thinks you’re a low information dead ender?

    Reply

  18. Sweetness says:

    Questions writes: “When you run for Senate, you need money,
    your job description is to represent your state and bring home as
    much (veggie fake) pork as possible. THAT’S YOUR ACTUAL JOB
    — benefit your constituency or be voted out of office in favor of
    someone else.”
    As usual, astute and right on.
    I do think, though, that this piece of the job description has to
    be balanced by the imperative to be a states(wo)man and think,
    also, of the country as a whole. At a practical level, this happens
    when the Senator from IL horse trades with the Senator from
    Maine. But beyond this transactional level, a Senator should
    ALSO be thinking beyond the boundaries of his state to the
    good of the nation as a whole. Which thinking probably requires
    him to educate his constituents about why they didn’t get
    exactly what they wanted this time, etc.
    Obviously, it’s a balancing act.

    Reply

  19. Tahoe Editor says:

    Like Steve, I preferred Dean to Kerry in ’04. But his “leadership” at the D-helm has been paltry. Obama’s 57-state strategy is obviously an overshoot.

    Reply

  20. WigWag says:

    To Dan Kervick:
    Is this what you meant about the healing process you were so sure would start in Denver?
    Tensions boil between Obama-Clinton camps
    By JOHN F. HARRIS & MIKE ALLEN | 8/25/08 11:48 AM EST Updated: 8/25/08 11:48 AM EST
    From Politico
    “DENVER — As Democrats arrived here Sunday for a convention intended to promote party unity, mistrust and resentments continued to boil among top associates of presumptive nominee Barack Obama and his defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
    Can you just feel the unity, Dan?
    To Linda: I’m sorry you didn’t like my little poem. It seemed perfectly appropriate to me to mention Will Bower. He is one of the founders of the PUMA movement, he is its chief spokesperson, he reads this blog and Steve Clemons is one of his mentors. And by the way, I don’t adore Will Bower, I just respect him.
    Linda, you make the point that the Democrats won back control of Congress because of Howard Dean’s organizing all over the country. You are simply wrong. Democrats won back control of Congress because the public became disillusioned with Bush; because Senator Schumer did a better job than Senator Dole in recruiting senatorial candidates and raising money for the DSCC and because the party holding the presidency almost always loses seats two years into that president’s final term.
    Howard Dean’s fifty state strategy was a disaster. It wasted valuable resources that could have been devoted to seats that should have been won. Because of Dean’s stupidity the Democrats lost 7-15 House seats that they could have won had just a little more money been available for them.
    I’ll look forward to chatting with you about the Obama 50 State strategy in November. You know the one I mean. The strategy that said he was going to be competitive in Southern states like Virginia, Georgia or South Carolina or Western states like Montana. He’s so deluded that Obama and Governor Napolitano actually think he has a chance in Arizona. We will see how that works out. Right now the polls suggest that Obama would be far better off taking whatever financial edge he might still have and devoting most of his resources to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Once again, those states will decide who wins.
    And Howard Dean, that great progressive, has worked with the DNC and the Denver Host Committee to establish rules for demonstrations in Denver that are as onerous as the rules the Republicans enforced in New York in 2004.
    Howard Dean is a hypocrite, a sell-out and a political idiot.

    Reply

  21. rich says:

    Kathleen,
    Hillary refused to be vetted unless she was the VP pick. So not going through the vetting process is on her. Second, I disagree you can read some perceived slight into these events: it happens to every second-place finisher in Presidential races. The winner, you know, wins and the decisions that flow out of that are Senator Obama’s to make. Just as they are for every nominee before him, and there’s really nothing more to it.
    Second, if you watched the primary rhetoric closely, you noticed Hillary Clinton adopt the rhetoric and buzzwords of Edwards and Obama, right out of the gate. Was it a mere five hours after the Iowa caucus? Front-runners do that constantly to take the wind out of their rivals’ sails, as to major parties to third parties. But Clinton’s habitual adoption of Edwards & Obama’s wording and message was chronic and constant.
    At this stage of the game, though, the nominee traditionally incorporates the issues raised by defeated rivals, welcomes their supporters, and becomes a staunch advocate for the issues that rival had championed—in no small part because Obama no doubt agrees with those positions and believes in those same issues.
    I don’t think it’s forthright to say the Obama team was ungracious or disrespectful or dishonest. Of course it is important to respect Sen. Clinton’s accomplishments and to honor those. At the same time, an Obama/Clinton ticket has flaws (read BadSadTidings above blackmanwhitewoman) and both Obama and Clinton will be stronger apart than together. Biden has more deeper foreign policy and Senate experience, so he’s more solid on the merits.
    For you to say that Obama’s team “was cruel, petty, and totally stupid” I don’t think bears scrutiny. Obama publicly praised Clinton. You write that “Obama/Teddy . . . want submission.” I question whether this can be taken seriously. Submission? Obama doesn’t need that: he has victory. He won. He could use your support, and the votes of Clinton delegates, but he’d be a fool to humiliate these passionate Democrats. If he really demanded ‘submission’, i.e., total humiliation, he’d lose them all and the election. So I don’t buy it for one instant.

    Reply

  22. Linda says:

    Kathleen,
    I was going to answer you above about Howard Dean because I was for him from 7/03, before anybody knew who he was. just as I was for Obama from 2/07. Dean gets dissed by WigWag for being a “big party boss” when Democrats won back control of Congress because of his organizing all over the country including GA where I’ve given all my politcal contributions to organize here. He’d want you to vote for Obama.
    Look at the little poetry from WigWag about Will Bower. Is he anyone worthy of such awe which BTW a lot of female Obama supporters like me never had about Obama and never will? We vote issues and smartly and with our heads–not our emotiona, our hearts, don’t need respect/catharis for all our past problems caused my men, and don’t believe it’s our duty to protect Hill and Bill from mostly imagined insults (probably made up by Rovian GOP operatives).
    I am as progressive liberal as it gets, but we are a minority of the Democratic party–so will never be totally satisfied–and I don’t see Dennis Kuchinich or John Lewis or name whomever you want advocating voting for anyone except Obama or not voting.
    POA has fun referring to WigWag as “he.” You, Carroll, and WigWag all sound very female to me and ready to do your part to set a progressive agenda and this country back by your actions.
    I was very moved by what “pleading voice” wrote above. Racism and some older feminists are doing a lot of harm that may produce “blowback” that will hurt what you believe in and this country. I don’t think it will do any good as a woman to ask you kindly to “get over it” and start thinking more clearly and strategically and care about the future for yourself and future generations. But at least perhaps WigWag won’t accuse me of being “sexist” or “narcissistic” and I did take offense many blogs ago when she called Obama supporters that.
    I’ve only commented at all recently because I felt there should be at least one female voice of reason here, but that’s become a waste of time and energy. So I’m not commenting any more and joining the thousands who just read TWN and don’t comment.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    Kathleen,
    I`m not sure which of my comments you refer to, but in one of
    the last ones on this thread, I mentioned different kinds of
    possible Obama voters, and some different kinds of anti-
    Obama commentators (among them those who feel insulted).
    To avoid my post getting unnecessary complicated, and to
    focus on my main point, I did not elaborate, and also omitted
    two categories represented at TWN.
    1) Independent voters.
    2) Commentators who say that they may not vote for Obama
    because he does not demand impeachment for the current
    adm.; because he does not promise to reduce the power of the
    president and VP back to “normal size”, and because he does
    not tell the truth about the current ME mess.
    I`ve read your recent posts, and appreciate your anger re
    Obamas treatment of Hillary Clinton. But I considered you to
    represent that unmentioned second (pro impeachment) position
    as well (perhaps Carroll and others too?). In any case, I guess I
    should have elaborated a bit on this.
    However, I still think it`s irresponsible if someone feel so
    personally insulted for months, that their emotions lead them to
    vote contrary to their political convictions. Or to collect and
    paste anything bad they can find about the winner, bashing a
    candidate through hundreds of posts during several months.
    I have no sympathy for that – and especially not under the
    serious current circumstances after 8 years with Bush.
    And BTW, your arguments always appear to be intellectually, as
    well as emotionally honest – clear and transparent… in contrast
    to the opaque, obscure or dishonest anti-Obama posts we
    frequently see at The Washington Note.

    Reply

  24. rich says:

    Jesse Helms is still dead.

    Reply

  25. Kathleen says:

    POA…it is possible to be torn about voting…when you pour your heart and soul into a campaign, it’s hard to lose…hard to hop right on the victor’s bandwagon, especially when that victor is pompous and ungracious…
    Paul…I’m insulted and I wasn’t even a Hillary supporter…to completely ignore the candidate who got more votes than you, and not even vet her,while stealing her campaign lines, was disrepsectful to her and all women….and just to rub it in you string us all along, while lying about Hillary being on the short list, knowing that her supporters were hoping she would be on the ticket was cruel, petty, and totally stupid…Obama/Teddy don’t want party unity, they want submission…what it said to women voters was… We big boys don’t need you…well, good fucking luck with that,. boys. Your work is cut out for you…get to it….you’ll not get a penny of my money or a minute of my time… In other words you blew it and you deserve your blowback…

    Reply

  26. a pleading voice says:

    Good God Almighty! What on God’s green earth is wrong you?! You write all these horrible things and then suggest we abort Barack’s candidacy before it gets off the ground. What we have been witnessing and will yet witness is a series of eternal tests for America. A black American has successfully ascended to threshold of the Presidency by the will of the people in his party. Now he must beckon unto “the better angels of our nature” so that America can be brought forth into a new day. All of our personal little horrors and living nightmares that have festered over the centuries must now be put behind us. We have an opportunity to turn out the biggest fears in ourselves and deliver the grandest hopes for our country. The pettiness that has divided us all these many decades can be cleansed and we can come together under Barack. Yes, there will be evil forces trying to undermine America’s great leap, forces that conspire to keep America chained to its fears all for the sake of power, but please do not lay the entrails out before us here! We want to be done with it, rid of it, and burst forth into a newborn America with the election of Obama. The world is watching, American ideals are in the balance, this can be one of the greatest moments in our history, or the most shameful if things turn out for the reasons you say they will. Please God, I know that all whites are not like how the bearer of bad tidings says, and I pray that those who have tendencies to think in small ways will let their hearts and love lead the way to righteous thoughts and acts come November. Resist temptation of the Deceiver, and come home to the teachings of the real Jesus. Love one another for Christ’s sake.

    Reply

  27. BadSadTidings says:

    The more I see the picture of Biden standing with Obama the more I envision the little angry white men of this country wholeheartedly supporting McCain, who becomes their Great White Hope. Obama/Biden say to white America that the highest authority in the land could very well be a young virile Black who is the direct immediate superior of a White, much his senior, who has seen his day. This will all conjure white male insecurity into their thinking.
    The once proud small white males in this country cannot vote for Obama; the reasons are etched in American history and ingrained in the White psyche. It’s just what America is.
    Mark Penn was correct in saying that Obama may be able to win it all in 2050, but not today. There is still too much white visceral memory of “Burn Baby Burn” of the ’60s to Gangsta Rap of today, and all the perceived steady erosion of white masculinity in between. The Right wing has nourished on racism, steadily fed it to white Americans since Reagan and now can cash in after pushing all the buttons they have place in the white man’s psyche over the years.
    Getting to the sorry truth of the matter, the unmentionable truth lurking at core of this fear, and at the core of all life in general, is that the White knows the Black can sexually satisfy his wife or girlfriend or any female far better than he ever could. Blacks are more in tune with the natural rhythm of life, while the white man struggles to keep the beat.
    And perhaps even a harsher truth that Whites need to forestall is that Blacks are their natural betters and should be at the helm leading with their natural God given abilities that exude an earthy but graceful lust for life.
    Come election day the northern white working class males and their families will not be able to vote Obama. They will not participate in their own steady demise from top dog through intimidation, and the McCain campaign will reinforce white fears regularly with subtle imagery.
    The USA becomes a victim of its own history. The chickens are comin’ home to roost. And we get McInsane all because of it. The Final Straw.
    Sorry, no Messiah to lead us out from the road to Damnation; we are much too far down that road of doom.
    Or, maybe McBane won’t be all that fatal after all and the clock ticks on.
    PS: It would be refreshing if Hillary supporters aired the above hard truths tactfully but forcefully,at the Convention to rescue the Party from sure defeat in November. It will be hard to Say It without causing tumult, but it is better to confront this ghastly reality than ignore its grim consequences. I believe Bill could best address the situation; he being our first “black” President and knowing the ways of the world from a lower-class white male perspective; he’s a bridge between all the American realities now in collision and may be able to explain to the Democrats, in his down home way, how matters stand at this particular point of US history; that we as a Nation are still many years away from being able to elect a Black man to the Presidency and we should not squander the great opportunity we have at hand and try to force an outcome with Obama that cannot be. America is just not ready yet for Obama; a generation or two has to die off, to put it bluntly.

    Reply

  28. strangefruit says:

    If you need any more confirmation that Obama is a Negro first, last, and always, this revealing ad should do the trick America!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auG9qsZpL6o
    Sing it! “This Is Our Cuntreeee”

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Portraying Reid and Pelosi as heroes for the left is an insane departure from reality. These two traitorous cowards are an embarrassment to the party, and have been complicit in blocking any true efforts at accountability for the numerous crimes of this Administration.
    Reid should have that pathetic and belated whitewash, “Phase Two”, shoved up his cowardly mewling hind end. And for good measure, that lying sack of crap Roberts should be allowed to do the deed, because, after all, he’s got Reid’s nuts in his trophy case.

    Reply

  30. rich says:

    Hey ed,
    Thanks much for that link. I highly recommend it.
    Not just b/c Glen Greenwald gets it so right again in much-needed analysis.
    But because he exposes the core dishonesty of David Ignatius, who, I feel compelled to say, actively ill-serves his readers, the public debate, and the country.
    Ignatius:
    >>
    “Pelosi and Reid rose to leadership positions during the hyper-partisan years of Republican control of Congress, and it shows. They are the people who refused to be Swift-boated, DeLay-ed or otherwise crushed by the Republican attack machine. They attacked back and were as vengeful as the Republicans. . .”
    >>
    Ignatius may have redeeming qualities, but here he’s actively misrepresenting the Democrats’ tone, level of partisanship, degree of fight, so much so that he actually has the nerve to compare them to the extremism, partisanship adn corruption of DeLay & Co. Characterizing Pelosi and Reid as vengeful goes straight to David Ignatius’ personal and professional integrity—and if he has any, it isn’t deployed in this column. Reid & Pelosi have recoiled from any such vengeful partisanship, so much so that the Democratic base is not far from the point of insurrection. Many have concluded both leaders actively assist Bush/Cheney, and have thrown their honor out the window along with their vow to uphold the Constitution.
    But that’s a pattern for David Ignatius. His cheerleading for the neocons as they muscled the country to war included supplying an egregiously misleading rhetoric that sharply deviated from the available facts and had nothing whatsoever to do with the national interest or our continued security. The instructive feature is, of course, the blatancy of his willingness to twist the widely available facts.
    Steve has complimented Ignatius’ ideas at least once here. So let me be clear. Ignatius, for all I know, may be a nice guy in person. He may have bright ideas that earn the respect of colleagues-about-town. But he does much harm to the body politic, to the public debate, and to the social contract by penning columns that clearly feel no obligation to hew to the available facts. To paint Pelosi and Reid in such terms is as dishonorable as it is dishonest. There is simply no other way to put it.
    Mr. Ignatius’ method is wrongheaded. And he badly errs in assuming he can re-paint reality to suit his own ends without losing face along with credibility—at least, in the public arena. What colleagues think of him, privately, or think as they omit to confide that his rhetoric is untethered from any denotative function, from any effective engagement with the public interest, I really can’t imagine.
    I mean, it’s a hoot. But Mr. Ignatius’ pre-Iraq prevarications failed to mislead then. And the policies he promoted were not only incredibly costly, but delivered a near-reversal in terms of the intended benefit to American security and the national interest.
    I can understand Mr. Ignatius is frustrated. But does he really think equating the iron fist of Tom DeLay’s corruption and the Republican refusal to allow any participation whatsoever in the legislative process, not to mention the blatant rules-breaking—with the measured demeanor of Pelosi and Reid—is even possible? That we won’t somehow notice David Ignatius is attempting to rewrite history? We had a Republican Congress so corrupt and unprincipled it impeached Clinton over illicit sex and a legal technicality—but somehow Ignatius has the gall to equate that venom and exercise of raw power with Pelosi’s restraint in ignoring the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration? Impeachment for sex; nothing for the obscenity of lying America into an unConstitutional War and Occupation.
    I suppose in the wake of the massive failures of Ignatius’ bright neocon ideas, in the midst of a momentous Przntl campaign, he assumes we won’t notice he’s ginning up another Gingrichian cycle of liberal/Dem scapegoating. When you’ve got nothing left it must feel like an equalizer, at least, for the intellectually bankrupt.
    But then, that doesn’t explain the same MO Ignatius wielded before the Iraq War and Occupation, does it? These are such odd times: our Rose Garden Prznt still hasn’t gotten Osama bin Laden ‘dead or alive’; this Prznt really is the Sheriff Who Never Gets His Man. And nary a peep from David Ignatius about it. Almost as though they had no intention of bringing bin Laden to justice. But it’s a pattern: even Jimmy Carter didn’t hide in the Rose Garden this long. And David Ignatius’ job description clearly does not involve sage advice or honest counsel. George Orwell wouldnt’ have it any other way.

    Reply

  31. WigWag says:

    Looks like the convention hasn’t even started yet and the Obama/Biden ticket already has a scandal on their hands. This from today’s Washington Post (full article available on Washington Post website):
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, August 24, 2008; Page A09
    Biden’s Son, Brother Named in Two Suits
    By: Kimberly Kindy and Joe Stephens
    A son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show…
    The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden’s involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm.
    A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.
    Hunter Biden was made president with an annual salary of $1.2 million, despite his inexperience in the hedge fund industry, the lawsuit said. Before that, he had been part of the Washington law firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair, which earned $1.76 million in lobbying revenue in the first half of 2006, according to Congressional Quarterly’s CQ MoneyLine. One of its biggest clients is the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, a District-based group representing law firms specializing in investment and corporate law.
    Hunter Biden is one of many children and relatives of prominent members of Congress
    who have made their careers as lobbyists. He returned to lobbying after less than a year with Paradigm.
    Lotito’s lawsuit alleges that James Biden called him in January 2006 to arrange a job for Hunter Biden. It says James Biden told him that his brother (Sen. Biden) “was concerned with the impact that Hunter’s lobbying activities might have on his expected campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination,” and, “Biden told Lotito that, in light of these concerns, his brother had asked him to seek Lotito’s assistance in finding employment for Hunter in a non-lobbying capacity…”
    The campaign of Sens. Barack Obama and Biden declined to comment on the case, referring questions to Nicholas Gravante Jr., a lawyer representing Hunter and James Biden. Gravante said assertions that Joseph Biden told his brother he was concerned about his son’s lobbying are “absolutely false.”
    “This lawsuit has nothing to do with Joe Biden, and there is absolutely no truth to those allegations,” Gravante said. “It is a business dispute between former partners. The suit is baseless.”
    Brian C. Wille, an attorney for Lotito, said the lawsuit alleges no wrongdoing by Sen. Biden, only that his concerns set in motion the business deal.
    “There was a concern that Hunter Biden’s role as a lobbyist would have an impact on the senator’s proposed presidential run,” Wille said. “That’s what James Biden told Mr. Lotito. . . . Was it true? Who knows? There is no allegation the senator was involved in any of these events…”
    In the hedge fund business deal, Lotito and the Bidens created a company called LLB Holdings USA and together agreed to pay $21.3 million for 54 percent interest in Paradigm.
    In the lawsuit, Lotito said that soon after creating LLB, the Bidens crafted a “secret deal” to create their own company that was designed to buy out his shares in Paradigm for a low rate, to which he agreed. He said he knew nothing of the secret deal until later and now believes he was defrauded out of millions of dollars and his share in the company.
    In the second lawsuit against the Bidens, which was filed in June, Lotito is also named as a defendant. Stephane Farouze, now an executive with Deutsche Bank, seeks $10 million, saying the Bidens and Lotito promised to buy his shares in the hedge fund company but reneged

    Reply

  32. MarkL says:

    Rich,
    Don’t be stupid.
    There would be documentary evidence if Obama was made a tenure track offer. We CERTAINLY would have been told by the Obama camp, had such an offer been mad, to boot. No such offer was made.
    Look, this is not a major issue, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

    Reply

  33. ed says:

    Good Biden analysis, free from tepid Conventional Wisdom, here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/24/ignatius/index.html

    Reply

  34. What Grief is Good? says:

    “Cultural elitism” of Obama and his supporters??? Or just plain
    old racism, given that some African-Americans who support
    Obama are poor? As are many others of his supporters.
    I am also voting for Barr, but if Americans are truly that stupid to
    not see that a vote for McCain means a vote for the real elite in
    this country then we do deserve what we get.
    I’m in the top 20% tax bracket and I’m feeling the pinch.
    Younger friends are really hurting – losing jobs, not being able
    to pay off their student or credit card debts, a lot of them feel
    hopeless. Forget about owning a house.
    Older friends are going bankrupt because of medical bills and
    losing equity in their homes.
    And yet people like Wig-Wag want to hold grudges, because of
    Hitlery Clinton, so that McInsane gets elected over someone
    who’s relatively sane on a domestic level.
    Obama is not the answer, but if he can stave off the Israel
    lobbies and their endless wars long enough to right this country
    economically, then he will be our savior. Not that I’m counting
    on it.

    Reply

  35. Paul Norheim says:

    Yeah, thought about Kotzabasis and his pompous comments, but
    he doesn`t honor us with his presence and wisdom on a regular
    basis.

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But not one honest and intelligent pro McCain commentator involved in the discussions”
    Hey, Paul, don’t forget good ‘ol Kotz. Now theres enough derangement to constitute ten hearty McCain supporters.

    Reply

  37. WigWag says:

    “But the fact is, I do want Obama to *win*, so I don’t say absolutely every negative thing that pops into my head about Obama. I try to limit my criticisms, even when harsh, to things I consider a constructive kick in the can, which might help influence his positions or tactics, while not damaging his chances of winning, and which perhaps might even improve his chances of winning.”
    Just a little bit narcissistic Dan? You think anything you post at the Washington Note is going to influence Senator Obama’s positions or tactics. How self-important can you get? Earth to Dan; Senator Obama is not reading the Washington Note to develop his campaign strategy. Nothing you say here matters to anyone but you and the few readers who are here for the fun of it. Steve Clemons may have a limited amount of influence (I’m even skeptical of this); his readers have none.
    “I don’t dig up every little tidbit of negative polling information I can find to provide Republicans with ammunition to use against him…”
    That’s right, Dan. If only I hadn’t let the cat out of the bag, the Republicans never would have found out about that polling. Sure, some of the polling shows Obama plummeting; but that was supposed to be our little secret. If we had maintained radio silence, the McCain Campaign would have remained clueless.
    And you’re right, Dan, those polls are just little tidbits of ammunition that I toss out there as part of my massive campaign of disinformation. After all, I’m not sighting credible polling organizations. I just mention data from small organizations that no one has ever heard of like Rasmussen, Gallup and Zogby.
    “You personally might not fall in line behind Clinton’s exhortations next week, but I assume that most of the people who voted for Clinton did so because they trust her judgment.”
    I think most people voted for Clinton because they thought she would be a good president and won’t feel obligated to support who she supports. As I told you before, Dan, I haven’t decided whether to fall in line. But I do think you’re right, when faced with the prospect of a McCain Presidency many PUMAs may hold their nose and vote for Obama. But it’s not WigWag and the PUMAs you need to worry about, it’s the Reagan Democrats.
    Obama can win without WigWag and he can win without the PUMAs but he can’t win without them. You remember the Reagan Democrats, Dan. There are alot of them in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, Indiana and Florida. They’re the people Obama called “bitter.” They’re also the people who don’t take kindly to Ministers or Priests like Reverend Wright or Father Pfleger or activists like William Ayers.
    Originally, Obama thought he could overwhelm them with TV commercials reminding them of their economic distress. But now Obama’s money advantage has just about dried up. McCain will be running lots of ads reminding them about the cultural elitism of Obama and his supporters.
    And he’s already running commercials reminding them that the candidate that they supported overwhelmingly (18 million votes) was passed over for VEEP in favor of a candidate who got 1,000 votes. How do you think that’s going to sit with them, Dan?
    “I don’t…damage Democratic morale needlessly, or to sow division and discord for selfish purposes.”
    Am I damaging your morale, Dan? I’m so sorry about that. I just didn’t realize how fragile you are.
    But just to show you that I’m not all bad, let me try to lift you spirits a little. After a month of bad news, here’s some good news for you:
    Zogby disagrees with the Rasmussen and Gallup about the Biden pick. He says it’s been well received.
    Released: August 24, 2008
    Zogby Poll: Obama Scores by Picking Biden as Running Mate; Gains Ground
    Picking Biden seen as a good decision; Vice Presidential candidates seen as much more important in this election
    UTICA, New York – In a year when three-quarter of voters see the vice presidential candidates as important to the Democratic and Republican tickets this year, Democrat Barack Obama scored good marks for choosing Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, a flash Zogby Interactive poll shows.
    Nearly half – 43% said they think it was a good decision by Obama, while 25% said it was a bad one, the Zogby online survey shows. And while 43% said Biden was the best available option for Obama, 41% disagreed. However, 43% said they think Biden will help Obama’s chances to get elected, while 22% said he would hurt the ticket’s chances in November.
    Feeling better now?

    Reply

  38. Kathleen says:

    We’re Screwed…I see. I did the same thing on the Dem side…Spunk…My vote is for Obama to win…..he keeps talking me out of it, so he must not need it…Demz don’t need loonie lefties like me….they’ve got the center all sewed up..

    Reply

  39. Paul Norheim says:

    Just a question: Why haven`t we – as far as I know, or
    remember – seen one straight forward, honest and intelligent
    McCain supporter commenting regularly at this site during the
    last months?
    NOT ONE honest opponent from the right!
    Because they don`t exist? Off course they do.
    Because TWN is perceived as “leftist”?
    Well, there are several conservatives, or people belonging “to
    the right”, commenting here, but none of them explicitly making
    a case for the republican candidate.
    There are plenty of pro Obama commentators, and perhaps
    even more people with very low expectations, but still deciding
    to vote for him to avoid McCain.
    The opponents?
    Obama bashers.
    Some just spamming, without even trying to argue or reflect,
    others spamming & arguing & then some more spamming.
    Some obviously pro McCain without telling it.
    Some PUMA.
    Some anti-Obama because of hurt feelings and/or tactical
    reasons or whatever.
    But not one honest and intelligent pro McCain commentator
    involved in the discussions. Strange.
    It would be refreshing, compared to the current muddy waters
    at TWN.

    Reply

  40. rich says:

    MarkL,
    Unless you’d like to spend the time disproving that there was an offer of a tenure-track position, you’d best not be making claims that “there was almost certainly never an actual offer.”
    Prove it. Until you can do that, you don’t have the credibility left and no basis to make that claim. Where’s your evidence?
    You say: “What I said … is taken as common knowledge by a lot of people.”
    ‘Common knowledge’ is code for “I heard it somewhere.” It means exactly zero, unless and until you can substantiate those charges. You’ve already proven you are unable to provide a citation, a link, or a source for these spurious claims. That’s discredited much of the sh!t you’ve been throwing at the wall, and if you want to lose more face, be my guest.
    But you need to put up or, you know, at least discuss these matters on a civil, factual basis with a stable foundation..
    You write: “I could be wrong, but I was not making the charge up.” So, you were just repeating it. Just repeating whatever you hear, without checking out its validity, is pretty damn irresponsible. I’d take a closer look at all those people with all that ‘commmon knowledge.’
    “You are still confused about what I am saying, re tenure.”
    No, I’m not. What you’re saying is crystal clear. It’s also clear you’re avoiding the fact that universities often hire talented, qualified people into tenure-track jobs. Two points: 1) If true, I have no doubt Obama earned it; 2) NO way in hell Obama’s campaign makes that claim unless it’s true. Too easy to check.

    Reply

  41. Spunkmeyer says:

    If you can live on a world with the McCain Administration at the
    helm, Kathleen, I say go for it.

    Reply

  42. Kathleen says:

    cryrus…I was talking about Bob Barr because We’re Screwed said she was voting for him…but you’re right, I shouldn’t call anyone a pig…I had erased that sentence, but somehow posted both by mistake…I had just seen the documentary on Larry Flynt on his role in outing the Repug hypocrits in Bill Clinton’s impeachment, which included Bob Barr…
    I was not planning on voting for either major party candidate since waaay before the veep fiasco….and Obama’s rudeness is a big turnoff…get him to call for impeachment hearings and I’ll reconsider….you’re wrong about Hillary’s treatment of Obama…she has campaigned for him in Illinois for his other races and the Clinton’s contributed money to his campaign too, ..it’s not easy to lose a hard fought race… a little kindness and cosideration would have gone a long way…..I do like pumpernickle, a lot…POA…oy, perish the thought.

    Reply

  43. rich says:

    MarkL @ 5:08,
    Unless you’ve got your own set of facts, Obama’s command far exceeds any of his rivals. You don’t get your own reality.
    Obama didn’t express his “famous ‘bitter’ remarks effectively. You say they “were not only wrong about sociology—they didn’t even make sense! Why would people ‘explain’ their economic troubles by clinging to guns, god and bigotry?”
    People already believe in “guns, god and bigotry,” they always did, but that doesn’t mean Senator Obama got anything wrong there. In hard times, people take solace, comfort, and pride in traditional culture. That’s common knowledge. There’s every reason to take pride in that.
    Obama understands that and was pointing that out. His mistake was in appearing to deride the natural reaction of returning to the solid, familiar, reliable values that always worked or at least comfort in the past—bigotry included.
    So, no, he didn’t get it wrong.
    Obama’s human, he can mangle a sentence and hem & haw just like anybody else. But “he IS more fluent in his delivery than [John McCain]” (quoting you). And Hillary Clinton. Not just George Bush.
    I think you should take a good look at the basis for your attacks on Senator Obama. Are they valid? Even true? Or are they based on your personal dislike of the guy. Look a little close, I bet you change your mind.

    Reply

  44. MarkL says:

    Rich,
    What I said about Obama and the HLR is taken as common knowledge by a lot of people. I could be wrong, but I was not making the charge up.
    You are still confused about what I am saying, re tenure.
    There is an unsigned claim from the U of Chicago law school that Obama was offered a tenure track position many times.
    I highly doubt the veracity of that claim. There was certainly never an actual offer.

    Reply

  45. rich says:

    MarkL @4:45,
    Again, you’re ignoring the common practice of hiring faculty who have high-demand jobs outside academia, as teachers, and not requiring that they publish. It was posted upthread, or I’d say you were ignorant of that practice, as it wholly contradicts your claim that you “know all about academic positions.” Apparently you do not.
    Universities are free to offer any positions they choose, generally speaking, as long as they’re confident a candidate can perform. We have every reason to think that’s the case here. They saw him in action as a teacher. He’s obviously capable of publishing all he wants to. A tenure-track job means nothing until the professor builds a track record of published articles. He doesn’t do that, he’s either out or in a dead-end, no-win position. It’s not hard to understand; do give it a try.
    Worse is your vain attempt at a cite:
    >>
    “The law students on the Review all have the right to publish at least one piece .”
    This proves my point. And it disproves your contention. They “have the right,” NOT the obligation to publish.
    If Obama put the emphasis on editing contributor pieces, herding cats, shaping ideas and polishing the Review, rather than buffing his own ego and resume (and this is entirely plausible), I have more respect for him, not less.
    Either way, you pasted up a cite and disproved your point. That speaks volumes about the integrity of your original claim. If something changed due to Obama’s performance, you don’t know it. Let’s keep to the facts the next time you try to smear Sen. Obama. Have some basis for your criticism and you’ll earn plenty of respect around here.

    Reply

  46. We're Screwed says:

    Hi Kathleen,
    Because I’m a Ron Paul Republican — I changed from
    Independent to Republican to vote for Ron Paul because I live in
    a closed primary state.
    I have no intention of changing back till after the next election,
    solely so that I can tell the Republican party to screw itself. I
    hope that many other “Republicans'”, either people like myself
    who were former Independents, or real Republicans fed-up with
    the near-absolute destruction of this country under Cheney,
    vote for Barr to send the same message.
    I also agree with a lot of the Libertarian/ Paleo-conservative
    platform, i.e., small localized government (hard to have an
    aggressive war machine if government is in the hands of the
    people on a local level); NO to imperialism and war; the Bill of
    Rights as the absolute standard; no to the “Patriot” act; no to
    FISA, individual rights in the vein of John Locke, the classic
    “liberal.”
    I don’t think America has ever been what it purported to be. We
    have always been an imperialistic country, which went against
    everything the Founding Father (well, most of them) tried to
    establish as our credo.
    Democrats in the last century have been at least as militaristic
    as Republicans. Obama and Biden promise more of the same,
    but at a slightly lessened rate than McInsane.
    In terms of voting for McKinney or Nader — those would be
    perceived as votes taken from Obama. I think John McCain is
    truly and totally nuts, so Obama is the slightly lesser of two
    evils. He at least has a brain, and some knowledge of the
    Constitution. I think that he’s tacked to the right in some sort of
    futile effort to win Independents, and is losing his base as a
    result.
    Again, if McCain wins, we’re toast. But I personally cannot vote
    for Obama because, like all the other Democrats, he and Biden
    are part of the endless war machine, and I have enough blood
    on my hands just from being an American.

    Reply

  47. MarkL says:

    Actually, Obama speaks muddled nonsense much of the time, and has little command of the facts on the issues (IMO). His famous “bitter” remarks were not only wrong about sociology—they didn’t even make sense! Why would people “explain” their economic troubles by clinging to guns, god and bigotry?
    He IS more fluent in his delivery than Bush, sure—but who isn’t?
    I don’t see what the point of our debate here is though. You are impressed with Obama. I am not.
    Fine.

    Reply

  48. cryrus says:

    Who you be callin’ a pig, woman? I know you be upset about the womens not gettin’ to the top almost this time. But, fer cryssakes, woman, take half a loaf if yer serious that you was up fer a black man and white woman ticket. Accept the black man now, and the country will be set fer a woman on down the road. You hang the black man on out to dry now your chances for a woman may never come cause we then may be in there clutches fer good! And face up to the facts that Obama and Hillary with Bill on the ticket is a nightmare fer poor Obama cause they will try to take his ass over and run the show and just plain give him such high falloottin’ high handed treatment, he being just a boy in their mind, that Obama would be emasculate, like Jesse wanted him, and only a figment of the man we all came to respect. So please take half a loaf now, and you can look forward to the other half later. Hope you like pumpernickel, m’am.

    Reply

  49. rich says:

    MarkL,
    If Sen. Obama’s humdrum, what’s all the excitement about?
    All you need to know is this:
    Barack Obama speaks in coherent sentences and thinks for himself. John McCain can’t remember which cue-card to read from and gets his policy positions from Bush/Cheney/Rove’s broken neocon toychest.
    Barack Obama only needs to be more qualified than his opponent.
    Looking forward to seeing them onstage together. I give it one debate for it to dawn on the open-minded; and halfway through the second for the hard-of-thinking to realize the rigid smears and cheap ideologies aren’t going to cut it this year.
    The ancient crabby white guy whose awkward delivery makes whole stadiums wince never could whip up enthusiasm in a crowd not made of true believers. How’s he going to appeal to the vast middle who’re facing real problems? Who see the reality every day, the one McCain can’t admit exists when he says ‘our economy is strong’?
    Truth is, McCain is running on something that happened to him 40 years ago. He hasn’t run a war, and despite a few bipartisan efforts, has few real accomplishments under his belt. He placed his bets on the notion Americans want a well-run war.
    But McCain never excoriated Bush for leaving Osama bin Laden running around loose for 8 years. John McCain never called George ‘I always get my man’ Bush to account for screwing around. McCain’s fully endorsed and embraced Bush’s war, and he’s counting, almost entirely, on Americans to vote for more war. More War.
    That’s just not gonna happen.
    It’s about policy direction and sound decisions, not just experience. Though I should concede that experience point: you were right! It’s gonna be has-been experience and wrongheaded policy against up-n-coming experience, capable common sense and new policy directions.
    What’s not to like? Obama’s more qualified, and that’s all that matters.

    Reply

  50. Dan Kervick says:

    Sorry agony, but I live in this country. And so does my family, and most of the other people I care about. So I can’t afford your self-indulgent apocalyptic fanaticism. Maybe it’s all doomed, but there is no choice but to keep plugging away.
    You sound like one of those radical Christian fundamentalists dreaming about how to maximally screw up the world so that we can hasten the arrival of the End Times.

    Reply

  51. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “ooops, don’t know how I did that”
    Funny how that happens, eh? Happens to me too.
    I wonder if McCain will give us the same disclaimer if and when the nukes are in the air.

    Reply

  52. MarkL says:

    Rich,
    I know all about academic positions. I don’t know about law schools in particular, but I know that in any other department, no one would be offered a tenure-track position without any publications.
    The University of Chicago is a top school.
    If they make a practice of hiring people for tenure-track jobs people who have no publications, I’ll grant you the point; otherwise, I don’t believe it, and it is on the anonymous say so of people who are probably Obama supporters.
    It’s a minor point though. I told you, I’ll grant that he can teach law.
    So can thousands of others.
    I can’t find an exact cite on the other point, but this one is close:
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-good-was-obama-at-running-harvard.html
    “The law students on the Review all have the right to publish at least one piece (typically they publish at least their third-year papers, which they have to write anyway), and many publish at least two pieces. It would seem surprising if Obama published nothing at all in the very Review over which, he has so often boasted, he presided as President.”
    And “Obama’s vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years”
    And lastly, newsflash , repeated:
    Hillary is not in the race anymore. Nor is Lincoln, for that matter.
    Obama’s record in the IL legislature was mediocre at best, as you well know.
    He also was the go-to guy for the insurance industry on a health care bill.

    Reply

  53. Dan Kervick says:

    What the hell are you ranting about WigWag? If you look back over my posts you will find plenty of criticisms of my “messiah” Obama mixed in with my praises of Obama. But to find these criticisms you might have to dig back in the archives as far as … um … yesterday, when I spent most of the day criticizing his VP pick, and charging his team with bungling the expectations game and overhyping the announcement.
    But the fact is, I do want Obama to *win*, so I don’t say absolutely every negative thing that pops into my head about Obama. I try to limit my criticisms, even when harsh, to things I consider a constructive kick in the can, which might help influence his positions or tactics, while not damaging his chances of winning, and which perhaps might even improve his chances of winning. (I think Steve approaches things the same way, by the way, even when we disagree about what is helpful and what isn’t.) I certainly don’t set out to *prove* to my fellow Democrats at every turn that he can’t win or won’t win. I don’t dig up every little tidbit of negative polling information I can find to provide Republicans with ammunition to use against him, or to damage Democratic morale needlessly, or to sow division and discord for selfish purposes. I don’t make myself available as a willing patsy to the schemes of Republican provocateurs.
    You personally might not fall in line behind Clinton’s exhortations next week, but I assume that most of the people who voted for Clinton did so because they trust her judgment. So I do expect her vigorous demonstration of support for Obama at the convention will actually have a significant impact. Maybe that irks you, since you would like Hillary’s Last Battalion to hold the line, and you’re frustrated by the realization that it’s a small group to begin with, and likely to be much, much smaller after the convention.

    Reply

  54. kathleen says:

    ooops, don’t know how I did that.

    Reply

  55. Kathleen says:

    We’re Screwed…Again, I didn’t vote for Hillary, but half the party did so I think she would have been the strongest choice…had she been chosen as the Veep, I could have brought myself to hold my nose and do the Pavlaian partisan thing…but BO’s snarky mean-spirited little 3 a.am. trick just makes that too irksome for me to do now.
    On woman getting elected on their own, my father;’s cousin, Ella Grasso,D.CT. was the first woman Governor elected on her own…not as the widow of a governor, so I can appreciate the difference…but we seem to be in an age of family coatails…Bobby Kennedy, Georgie Porgie Bush, Hillary and even Bomb, Bomb, Bomb McPain over Wesley Clark with the military family connections…
    If you weren’t planning on voting for McPain in the first place, how is voting for Barr depriving him of one vote? Why not vote for Nader or McKinney?We’re Screwed….Again, I didn’t vote for Hillary..it is that half the party voted for her, so she would have been the strongest choice…and I would have been able to bring myself to support the ticket because it was a vote for blacks and women…BO’s snarky rudeness makes it too irksome now…
    I have great respect for women who are elected on their own…my father’s cousin, Ella Grasso,D. CT was the first woman elected as a Governor, all one her own, not as the widow.of a Governor…so I can appreciate the difference…but we seem to be in age when family coatails are in..Bobby Kennedy, Georgie Porgie Bush, and Hillary, …McPain over Clark on the Military connections… if you weren’t going to vote for Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran McPain in the first place, how is voting for Barr going to deprive him of a vote?…Why still vote for a pig? Why not Nader or McKinney?

    Reply

  56. PissedOffAmerican says:

    If you examine WigWag’s posts, on a daily basis, you find that the twist of derision against Obama mirrors the day’s derision du jour of the RW talk show hosts such as Hannity or Limbaugh.
    WigWag’s spew is at times alomost verbatim to Limbaugh’s, and is always timely to Limbaugh’s parallel rants. Even his specific semantic’s, such as “Messiah”, are directly in keeping to that of the oxi-contin lubricated drivel of the fat addict Rush Limbaugh.
    And “agony”, you are 98% correct. However, I’m am not so sure that the apathy stems from being “as dumb as dirt”. Of course, that small segment that has made the likes of Limbaugh worth 400 million may well fit that category. But I believe the vast majority of us, having had witnessed a government run amok, and unaccountable to the law for decades now, are intelligent enough to realize that the idea of “representation” is a carefully nurtured illusion, and has been nonextistent for some time now.
    Collectively, I believe the vast majority of Americans are convinced of their powerlessness over a corrupt and elitist government, and have become isolated in their personal spheres of daily travails and personal pursuits of everyday needs and enrichments. Such an attidude can easily be seen as wisdom rather than stupidity. “Stupid” is a lifetime of tilting at windmills.
    When we see the carnival atmosphere unfolding as we do today, on the heels of what historians will see as one of the most disastrous, criminal, and destructive decades in American history, one cannot help but feel helpless and powerless. As neither party’s camp shows any willingness to level with the American people about our domestic and international slide from solvency and grace, what choice do we have but to simply abandon participation, and tend to our own gardens?
    No, its not stupidity. Its the intelligence to know, and admit, when we have lost the game.

    Reply

  57. We're Screwed says:

    Article- Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden On World’s Hot Spots,
    8/24/08 (so much for Joe being a peacenik– WW III here we
    come…):
    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24232415-
    5005961,00.html
    BARACK Obama’s vice presidential pick of Senator Joseph Biden
    is widely seen as shoring up the Democratic Party ticket’s foreign
    policy credentials in the battle against Republican John McCain.
    Here are Senator Biden’s main positions on the world’s hot spots:
    IRAQ
    Unlike Barack Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq from the
    beginning – but was not in the Senate at the time of the vote –
    Senator Biden voted in favour of an October 2002 resolution
    authorising President George W. Bush to use military force in
    Iraq.
    Senator Biden however became a fierce critic of Mr Bush’s Iraq
    policy, saying that while the United States should eliminate
    Saddam Hussein, a unilateral invasion was “the worst option”.
    In 2006 he wrote that a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq was
    desirable by 2008, a position close to that of Senator Obama,
    who supports a withdrawal over 16 months starting the day he
    takes office.
    In a 2007 interview with The Politico, Senator Biden said he
    regretted voting for the war.
    He fiercely opposed the so-called “surge” of US troops to Iraq
    that Mr Bush ordered in early 2007.
    Senator Biden has proposed a plan to end the conflict by
    dividing Iraq into three largely autonomous ethnic regions – a
    southern Shiite region, a western Sunni region, and a northern
    Kurdish region – held together by a central government in
    Baghdad with limited powers.
    AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN
    Like Senator Obama, Senator Biden believes that the “real central
    front in the war on terrorism” is not Iraq, “but rather the border
    of Afghanistan and Pakistan”.
    “If we should have had a surge anywhere, it is Afghanistan,”
    Senator Biden said in a recent opinion article in the New York
    Times, because “Afghanistan’s fate is directly tied to Pakistan’s
    future and America’s security”.
    “The recent Pakistani elections gave the moderate majority its
    voice back,” Senator Biden wrote. “To demonstrate to its people
    that we care about their needs, not just our own, we must triple
    assistance for schools, roads and clinics, sustain it for a decade,
    and demand accountability for the military aid we provide.”
    Senator Biden also called for Mr Bush to fulfill a pledge for a
    plan for Afghanistan along the lines of the Marshall Plan for the
    reconstruction of Europe after World War II.
    IRAN
    Also like Senator Obama, Senator Biden supports direct talks
    with Iran.
    “I believe the United States should agree to directly engage Iran,
    first in the context of the ‘P-5 plus 1’, and ultimately country-
    to-country, just as we did with North Korea,” Senator Biden said
    in an early July press statement.
    The ‘P-5 plus 1’ refers to the five permanent UN Security Council
    members plus Germany.
    “The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is
    this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb,” he
    said.
    MIDDLE EAST
    Senator Biden is a strong supporter of Israel.
    “I am a Zionist,” he said in a March 2007 interview with the US-
    based Jewish cable television network Shalom TV. “You don’t
    have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”
    He described Israel as “the single greatest strength America has
    in the Middle East”.
    He travelled with Senator Obama to Israel in late July, when
    Senator Obama promised strong support for Israel against the
    threat from Iran, and said he would strongly support the Mid-
    East peace process soon after he takes office.
    GEORGIA and RUSSIA
    Senator Biden travelled to crisis-plagued Georgia last weekend
    on a fact-finding mission.
    “I am going to Georgia this weekend to get the facts first-hand
    and to show my support for Georgia’s people and its
    democratically-elected government,” Senator Biden said before
    his trip.
    In mid-August, following the Russian military incursion into
    Georgia, Senator Biden said: “I have long sought to help Russia
    realise its extraordinary potential as a force for progress in the
    international community, and have supported legislative efforts
    intended to forge a more constructive relationship with the
    Kremlin.”
    However, Russia’s actions “will have consequences” on its ties to
    Washington, he said.
    “Russia’s failure to keep its word and withdraw troops from
    Georgia risks the country’s standing as part of the international
    community.”

    Reply

  58. MarkL says:

    Rich,
    Your cheerleading convinces nobody.
    Whether Obama is a strong candidate will obviously be decided in November, but the fact remains that he is the least qualified Democratic nominee in *over* 50 years.
    All the rah-rah in the world warm Obama to undecided voters who thinks he lacks the necessary experience; in fact, this incredible hype over a humdrum candidate will probably have the opposite effect.

    Reply

  59. Carroll says:

    Posted by Seamus Aug 24, 1:15PM
    Apologize for the sweetcakes thing or from here on you be will addressed as sonny boy.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Posted by We’re Screwed Aug 24, 2:29PM
    “our barnacle, Israel,”
    That’s so funny, I am adding it to my descriptions.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Now lets talk about the groups all set to bring us more f’ ked up government.
    Religious nuts
    Zio’nazis Israel firsters
    Gun nuts
    Robber Barons
    Think tanks
    Intellectuals
    Neos
    NeoLiberal interventionalist
    Jewish anti arabs
    White anti blacks
    Labor anti business
    Business anti labor
    Free traders
    Illegal Immigration advocates
    Media and press
    Lobbies
    Politicans
    And oh yeah, voters like this…”BIDEN NOT HAVING MUCH MONEY SPEAKS VOLUMES. It makes me trust him”

    Reply

  60. agony says:

    No one who has a conscience should vote. Let McCain win and complete the destruction to its final end. The American people deserve McCain and all that he brings. Voting for Obama only will gloss over the criminality of the last 8 years. Americans need a more than a full dose, they need to Overdose on the Evil that they seemingly tolerate as this election is now a dead heat. Obama would be 25 points ahead if the American electorate understood what has actually happened in the last eight years. But no, the American people, for the most part, are stupid and need even more raping from regime that could very well be worse than Bush. If one didn’t know better, one would think the American people had a Death Wish; but no, they are just plainly dumb as dirt.

    Reply

  61. Dan Kervick says:

    You might be right POA, but I think the fall campaign is just beginning, and things haven’t really heated up yet. I suspect that by November, most of these disputes will seem like ancient history, and that as the reality of the election draws closer, and everyone begins to feel acutely, in addition to knowing intellectually, that keeping another fanatical Republican militarist crackpot out of the White House is more important than the historical animosities between Democrats, we won’t have to worry about it that much.
    Of course, if Obama loses, we’ll be arguing about the reason for decades, with people like WigWag blaming people like me for nominating Obama in the first place, and people like me blaming people like WigWag for doing everything they could to weaken Obama afer he was nominated.

    Reply

  62. We're Screwed says:

    Hear, hear Carroll: I’m voting for Barr, despite not particularly
    liking the man or his past. However, Barr is now anti-war, anti-
    Patriot Act, anti-FISA, pro-restoration of the Bill of Rights.
    The biggest bonus is that my vote for Barr will peal off one vote
    for McCrazy, while allowing me to vote my conscience. And
    perhaps send the GOP a lesson that true “conservatives” HATE
    what it has done over the last eight years.
    And to Kathleen: I’m of the generation of feminists that I think
    felt that we didn’t need to rely on things like affirmative action
    to get to where we wanted to go — we felt that we could make it
    on our own merits. This was, of course, because of the ground-
    breaking work of generations of feminists before us, to which
    every woman owes endless gratitude.
    So, to me, a vote for Hillary just because she is female, would be
    a huge step backwards for women. I want to be judged as a
    person, regardless of my race/ color, etc. For women to be
    embittered because a female candidate didn’t win is to fall back
    into that “helplessness trap” in my opinion.
    Women are stronger than that — when a female candidate for
    president is fielded who doesn’t carry the baggage that Hillary
    Clinton does, I am fairly certain that her gender will be ignored,
    at least by thinking people. In the same way that Barack
    Obama’s race is a non-issue for many Americans.
    But to vote for Hillary solely because she is female, and to take it
    out on the world by then switching to crazy McPain, is crazy. It
    brands women yet again as “emotional” voters, incapable of
    reasoning, and that’s the last thing that we need. It would be
    spitting in the faces of the brave sufferagettes who got us the
    vote in the first place.

    Reply

  63. WigWag says:

    “I think the logic of WigWag’s political strategy is clear enough.”
    Dan you are so smart. How did you figure out my political strategy? It took me months to dream it up and you sleuthed it out in just a few hours. All I can say is wow!
    And now, because of your extraordinary powers of deduction, I am like a tree unbarked. Do you have any idea how hard I have been working to stay on message, Dan? Do you think it’s easy to think of so many terrible things to say about such an obviously brilliant and effervescent candidate?
    And all because I was hoping against hope that the multitude of Super Delegates who read the Washington Note every morning while sipping their Vente lattes, would read my comments and rethink their inclination to vote for the very junior Senator from Illinois.
    But thanks to you, Dan, it’s not going to happen now. Just when I thought I had them in my clutches your comment appears and exposes my strategy. Now they’ll just go back to vote for Obama.
    And Dan, your right, we have done “everything possible to damage, discredit, embarrass and weaken” Senator Obama. Using our secret powers of hypnosis we’re the ones who forced Senator Obama to vote for the FISA Bill; we’re the ones who encouraged him to embrace the Bush faith-based initiative; we’re the ones who urged him to abandon his pledges on debates and on campaign fundraising. And let’s not forget our success at getting the Senator to alter his positions on the Iraq pull-out and off-shore oil drilling. And please, Dan, don’t forget our great work in getting the Senator to endorse the Supreme Court’s second amendment decision or to endorse capital punishment even for crimes where no one was killed.
    For most normal geniuses that would have been enough. But amazingly you even have those awful polls for Obama figured out. He’s not really tanking; it’s just that “diehard” Clinton supporters are grossly overrepresented in the sampling done by Rasmussen, Gallup, Zogby and all the others. We’re all lying to the pollsters about our true intentions and there are so many of us playing this trick that Obama’s polls just look worse than they really are. I understand your confidence, Dan. After all, you know the truth; Obama is right where he wants to be.
    You’re also right about Clinton’s speech at the convention. When she calls for party unity and stands tall with Senator Obama, we’re all going to fall in line just like the robots you think we are. We didn’t support Hillary Clinton because we thought she would be the best president. We supported her because we’re clones who do what we’re told by our messiah (oh sorry, that’s the Obama supporters).
    When Hillary and Bill call for party unity, we will be right there with them. Count on it Dan!
    You’ve got nothing to worry. Your candidate’s great. His VEEP choice is great. His polling is great. His policies are great. His experience is great.
    You’re sitting pretty, Dan. After all, you have the Messiah on your side.

    Reply

  64. rich says:

    MarkL @ 1:01PM
    >>The Democratic Party also needs to front a strong candidate. I notice you don’t even try to defend Obama. Do you recognize with me how awful he is?
    <<
    I don’t think anybody, save wigwag, “will recognize with [you] how awful” Senator Obama is.
    Barack Obama is hands down the strongest nominee fielded by the Democrats in a good fifty years.
    I look forward to seeing Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain going toe-to-toe on the same stage. The contrast will be telling, though many will be too invested to see it.
    It was always going to be a close election, and poll numbers mean exactly squat, but we’ll see some movement after the debates.
    John McCain’s campaign strategy, though, is basically stillborn. He’s riding a failing economy and a failed war & occupation and pretending it’s cake and ice cream. McCain had enough sense to wear body armor to that Bagdhad market and walk in to prove it was safe flanked by Apache and Blackhhawk helicopters, Humvees and a full contingent of marines. But he didn’t have enough sense to tell the truth about it back home, and he’s been going through this election just as naked of any real protective cover or personal armor.
    Up to this point, he’s been firing blanks. Feeble answer when asked how many houses he owns in the middle of a mortgage crisis. Either he’s completely outta touch or can’t count to seven.
    Entitled? McCain sent Linsey Graham and Lieberman to Georgia as though he was somebody, as though he had a diplomatic corps of his own. As Jon Stewart said, “that’s as good as me sending Don Rickles and Jimmy J.J. Walker!”
    Celebrity? Attacking Obama as ‘popular’ isn’t a winner: didn’t work for Hillary—and John McCain has appeared on more sitcoms, soap operas, movies and talk shows than generally keeps one’s dignity intact.
    Flip-flopper? McCain can’t quite seem to stay on one side of even the easy, black&white issues—like torture. You’d think John McCain would have that one down cold, but you’d be wrong. Turns out John McCain was never tortured. We know this because George Bush and Dick Cheney say it never happened. Bush/Cheney define torture in such a way that they can assert that what American soldiers and operatives do is not torture. By definition, what Vietnamese agents did to John McCain is not torture either.
    John McCain cannot have it both ways. Now, don’t get me wrong: I believe it was torture. It was torture. But either John McCain respects and honors his own service and comes clearn about what Rumsfeld and Addington and Bush have directed our soldiers and agents to do—or he’s exploiting his own service as well as the American men & women in uniform and covert who’ve been asked to carry out what America has traditionally abhorred and always denounced when committed by nations stalinist and fascist or just plain garden-variety brutal.
    That may be hard for many to read, but what are you gonna do?
    John McCain’s in a race for President, but the horse he’s riding is already dead. He may not know it. He may get lots of votes. The commentariat will inject as much drama as possible. But unless the American people think we’re all better off than we were 8 years ago, and want another 50 years of war, this thing is a foregone conclusion. It’ll be interesting, but it’s over.

    Reply

  65. Carroll says:

    Posted by Kathleen Aug 24, 12:50PM
    >>>>>>>>
    I think I will do just that.
    When I really get honest and think about it like I ‘ve been doing today, neither party has anything to offer me or mine personally. While both of them seem determined to tear down my view of the original pillars of America.
    Voting my own conscience seems to be the only rational thing left to do.

    Reply

  66. We're Screwed says:

    Why didn’t Hillary say, “If Israel attacks Iran with any kind of
    weapon, we will obliterate Israel?” After-all, Israel, far from
    being an ally, has proven over and over that she will betray the
    U.S. any chance she gets.
    Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, nor does she have a
    delivery system of any kind. She doesn’t even have ICBM.
    Iran is a signatory to the NPT; Israel is not despite having at
    least 200 nuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach
    into Europe, North Africa, South Asia, and Western Russia.
    Some of those delivery systems, like a few Dolphin class
    submarines, were provided using my U.S. tax dollars.
    Israel threatens and attacks her neighbors on a regular basis.
    Syria and Lebanon were the most recent, both within the last two
    years.
    If you’ve read any of my previous posts, you would know that I
    have disparaged Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden.
    You would also have read how I know that neither party is
    concerned about America. Rather their concern is appeasing the
    pro-Israel lobbies, which rule U.S. foreign policy. Endless war
    then in turn decides exactly what we can, or rather CANNOT,
    spend on domestic issues.
    I would never vote for Clinton, but I’m not voting for Obama
    either.
    However, again, I think that the demise of our Republic would
    be slightly slower under an Obama presidency than if crazy
    McInsane’s finger is anywhere near the nuclear button. Especially
    given that he wants to restart a, this time, HOT war with Russia
    and will do anything that Israel wants, including attack Iran
    without provocation.
    P.S. I meant to type “race” rather than “sex” in my last post.

    Reply

  67. Kathleen says:

    We’re Screwed…are you saying that you would vote for McPain if it were Obama/Clinton? I don’t think so…I didn’t vote for her either, but half the party did, so it was egocentric foolishness for him to totally ignore her. …he deserves his backlash….I have always planned to vote for Nader, but hoped they would give me reason to vote for the Demz…i could have voted for dshattering the glass ceiling for blacks and women, but a vote for the good old boys, who are too petty to be kind and considerate??? No way…
    Again, if BO wans me vote he’s gonna have to sweat all the way to 3 a.m. on that first Nov Tuesdays to find out if he made the cut. he fried my brain so bad with that snarky little joke, if i were going to Denver, I’d plan a mass simultaneous mooning at Investco field… with Kiss my Ass in bold letters across all our SweetCheeks….we’ll let you know at 3 fucking a.m.
    In between being furious, i just want to cry…..he should have chosen Hillary for his grandmother, his mother, his wife, his daughters, and Maya Angeliu…and all the owmen who make the party machinery work….but his way of paying tribute to women’s rights was to play that snarky little 3 a.m. trick on our heads and hearts. It was mean spirited….

    Reply

  68. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Dan….
    Wow. Thats a long way of explaining why efforts such as WigWag’s work towards landing McCain in the Presidential slot.
    Whether your hypothesis is correct, and the ass actually believes he and his cohorts can still put Hillary in, or my hypothesis is correct, and he’s just a lying Republican scumbag, is irrelevant really. Both hypotheses still point to efforts that can only increase Democratic division, and work in McCain’s favor.

    Reply

  69. MarkL says:

    Dan,
    I doubt PUMA’s are much of a force… not as an organized group. However, polls show that Obama has failed to win over Clinton voters. In fact, his campaign has behaved very stupidly toward Clinton and her supporters; for example, in turning down Rangel’s request to speak at the convention.
    By the way, I suspect that it is Obama’s supporters who will embarrass Democrats at the convention by booing Clinton and the speakers who supported her.
    We shall see.

    Reply

  70. Dan Kervick says:

    POA,
    I think the logic of WigWag’s political strategy is clear enough.
    There is a certain small but active movement of Clinton diehards who still dream of a convention upheaval that will give Clinton the nomination. The idea is that if Obama can be sufficiently damaged heading into Denver, they might still be able to sway enough superdelegates into getting cold feet, create a panicked stampede toward Clinton, and pull off their Mile Hile Miracle.
    Ever since Obama sewed things up, they have done everything possible to damage, discredit, embarrass and weaken him, hoping to soften up his numbers in an attempt to put him in a maximally vulnerable position for this kind of revolutionary overthrow at the convention. If they hear any bad polling news, they broadcast that polling news immediately, and post it on all the blogs. They spend all their time attacking Obama for every conceivable foible, and stirring up dissension among Democrats, while ignoring McCain completely, not because they have any real respect for, or interest in, McCain; but because strengthening McCain and weakening Obama is the tactic that serves their present political strategy of nominating Clinton.
    If a pollster calls them, they claim to be “undecided” as a way of artificially softening up Obama’s numbers. They are also planning things like floor demonstrations and street demonstration at the convention, and rules committee assaults on the caucus system, which would have no concrete legal effect on this year’s nominations, but might have the psychological effect of discrediting and delegitimizing Obama’s pending nomination, giving them more ammunition to use with superdelegates.
    Once they are conclusively defeated in Denver, the majority of these diehards will stop playing this game, and will turn their attentions to defeating McCain. But for another week or so, we are just going to have to live with this. Until the actual votes are cast in Denver, we won’t see an end to this kind of activity. After Denver, there will just be a very tiny and politically negligible platoon of ultra-nutcase diehards left, and nobody will pay any more attention to them than they do to Lyndon LaRouche’s gang.
    Since the diehard brigade knows that most rational people regard their crackpot scheme as something akin to planning for the rapture or laying a trap for Bigfoot, they tend not to advertise it very much, but instead present themselves as people “concerned” about Obama’s numbers. So WigWag comes here routinely to post these numbers, and any other bad Obama news or criticisms that can be dragged up, in a tediously monothematic, and somewhat pathetically forlorn, campaign to pull off a miracle buzzer win in Denver. To put it plainly, WigWag is still trying to win. So the posts make perfect logical sense, in a sad, desperate sort of way.
    A moment’s rational reflection on the utter chaos that would be created by an overturned verdict at the conventions, and the rapid unraveling of the Democratic party that would ensue, leading to a crushing defeat of whatever Democratic candidate is running, has been enough to dissuade most rational Clinton supporters from pursuing this demented course. Most of the Clinton supporters I know appear to be somewhat embarrassed about this gang of loons.
    To her credit, Clinton seems to be fighting back against this lunacy, and has hired a team of floor whips for Denver to keep the yahoos under wraps a bit, and under control. I expect Clinton will give a grand speech which will first recall the brave struggle of the campaign and revive her emotional bond with her supporters, and then lay out a patient and detailed case reminding everyone of the dozens of ways in which Democrats are better than Republicans, before closing with the great emotional transference of their hopes and dreams to Obama. I’m fairly sure Clinton wants to go down in history as a great Democratic hero, who gave one of the most memorable speeches in Democratic convention history, and helped deliver victory for the party in November. She clearly doesn’t want to be remembered as some crazed Medea figure who slaughtered the Democratic children and burned down the Democratic house in a final act of scorned vengeance.

    Reply

  71. MarkL says:

    “We’re screwed”
    You’re not very bright, are you?
    Hillary said that the US would respond if Israel suffered a nuclear attack by Iran. An uninformed reader could not get that from your comment.
    Obama has said similar things. In fact, Obama—unlike Hillary—has threatened to bomb Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
    In fact, Hillary took preemptive war off the table with her “umbrella of deterrence” proposal. She was the only candidate to do so.
    Obama is more of a hawk than Hillary, sweetie.

    Reply

  72. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Campaigns are an army of individuals. One piece of shit like WigWag is irrelevent. But two thousand of them, all harping the same message on a myriad of venues, have an impact.
    Of course, this spineless pissant WigWag will deny his part in such an effort. And THAT defies all logic and common sense, if one considers the ad nauseum consistency of his efforts here.

    Reply

  73. We're Screwed says:

    I’m a woman. I would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
    Her comment about “obliterating” Iran if it dared to attack our
    barnacle, Israel, basically finished her in my circle of feminist
    friends.
    Last thing we need is Margaret Thatcher in the Oval Office,
    determined to kill anyone or anything to prove that she has
    balls.
    McCain is insane, and Clinton supporters must be to even think
    of voting for him. What a bunch of losers — why should we
    look at sex or gender in determining a candidate?
    Haven’t we gotten past that? Can’t we, the supposedly
    enlightened voters, look at a candidate for what he or she
    offers?
    At the end of the day, McCain will just kill our republic faster
    than Obama/ Biden, because all are out for endless war. But for
    Clinton supporters to vote for McCain is really cutting off their
    noses to spite their faces. The man is bat-sh*t crazy and the
    only solution he knows is war, which is why he is the neo-cons
    golden old man.

    Reply

  74. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Meanwhile, as this ridiculous carnival unfolds, there are truly newsworthy events unfolding worldwide. Among the top of the list is the deterioration of the system of bribery that has enabled the Bush Administration to label the “surge” as a “success”.
    It appears Maliki has decided his role as a willing puppet for the Bush/Cheney deception, (namely “the success of the surge”), is no longer a role he wants to play. There is more than an odds on chance that the situation in Iraq will once again approach civil war footing as Maliki casts aside his Washington imposed constraints and seeks to neutralize the US financed power of the “former Baathists”, “Sunni insurgents”, and “Saddam loyalists”. Ironic that yesterday’s enemy in Iraq, (today’s “allies”), is the only thing standing between an Iraqi government largely controlled by Iranian influence. And now Maliki is seeking to sever those purse strings, and do away with, once and for all, the influence of the surge enabled and bought-and-paid-for “Sons of Iraq”.
    It may well be that the situation in Iraq, as we know it today, is far more stable than it will be when the new administration assumes power in 2009. Whoever inherits this mess will ultimately be blamed for the whole disastrous clusterfuck, from beginning to end. And it will be BLAME, because there is nothing in this mess that warrants credit. The whole fuckin’ disaster, from beginning to ANY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION, is a picture perfect illustration of criminality, malfeasance, ineptitude, and treason at the highest levels of the United State’s government.
    http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/sf/latimes243.htm
    I will vote for the first candidate that tells me the TRUTH about the “success of the surge”, and the true nature of this disaster in Iraq. Such a commentary will include the words “lies”, “criminals, “high crimes”, “treason”, “impeachment”, “indictment”, and “prosecution”. Until then, I cannot morally participate in this shameful charade, masqueraded as “the Democratic process”.

    Reply

  75. Kathleen says:

    Oh and Seamus, if you want to get somewhere with convincing me to vote for the boy-toy team, you’ll have to change out of your smarty pants…get you a big pile of dungarees because you’ve got some heaving lifitng to do before Nov Sonny…….maybe you could whistle Dixie while you work, too.
    I was ready to go shoulder to shoulder for an Obama/Clinton ticket because they both beat my candidate of choice, Kucinich and the party spoke a nearly equal voice for both…but the snark and condescention of telling me to get in line by Nov..because you got all the angles figured and I can just take my cues from you??? Who the fuck are you,….what makes you think the first black president isn’t gonna bend over backwards trying to prove how strong he is on National Security……how Christian he is and God knows what all……I can brush the crumbs off my shoulder too, buddy….brush-offs go two ways…

    Reply

  76. MarkL says:

    Spunk,
    TWN has always delivered!
    You should go back 3 or 4 years in the archives… it was even better then!

    Reply

  77. Spunkmeyer says:

    Still hilarious. This thread just continues to deliver.

    Reply

  78. WigWag says:

    Thanks, MarKL!
    By the way, in case you haven’t seen it, here is another interesting story from Zogby:
    Do Obama’s Sinking Poll Numbers Signal History Repeating for Democrats?
    By John Zogby
    As the Democrats head into their convention, should they be singing the Eurythmics 1985 hit “Here Comes That Sinking Feeling”?
    Just as party leaders pack their bags for Denver, our latest Reuters/Zogby poll finds their nominee in some trouble, as Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Barack Obama. That is a 12-point reversal from the survey we took for Reuters in July. Interestingly, Obama’s margins among what had been his strongest demographic groups dropped by as much as 12 points. These include Democrats, women, city dwellers and younger voters – those ages 25-34. Also, Obama has lost his lead among the swing Catholic vote, dropping 11 points to McCain over a month.
    What is happening is all too familiar to Democrats. McCain is using the Karl Rove playbook, attacking Obama’s perceived strengths, notably his mass appeal and freshness. Democrats hoped that eight years of a failed Bush presidency (80% in our latest survey said the nation was on the wrong track) so diminished the GOP brand that “going negative” would not work again for the Republicans.
    In the end, it may not. Negative campaigning did not work on either side of the aisle in the primaries and caucuses. However, clearly McCain has been the aggressor for the past month, seeing an opportunity to define Obama for General Election voters before Obama could define himself. At times, it has seemed like he has been the only one throwing any punches, especially with Obama on vacation in Hawaii.
    The adulation of European crowds on Obama’s overseas trip seems to have helped McCain with conservatives. They distrust Europeans and actually had the opportunity to imagine a liberal Democrat in the role of President – and didn’t like the thought. Meanwhile, Obama’s attempts at flexibility on issues dear to liberals and young voters (Iraq and FISA) may have dampened their enthusiasm.
    Choosing August for a vacation proved inopportune for Obama. August has been cruel to Democrats in the past. That is the month when Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry all went down in the polls.
    As much as voters may prefer the Democrats on most issues, McCain is winning the contest of defining who has the character and personality that swing voters expect in a President. Obama appeals to the mind. McCain goes for the gut.

    Reply

  79. MarKL says:

    Wigwag,
    great comment, and exactly what I was thinking.
    While I recognize exactly how much electoral influence that POA exerts through his mighty rants, I attribute no such power to myself.
    This is just chatter. I do it for the joy of conversation, and hoping that I might learn something.

    Reply

  80. WigWag says:

    POA, while you have always been a goon, and while your recent rants about Mexicans make me wonder whether you are a racist, I have never thought you were stupid; until now.
    But this comment proves what a jackass you really are:
    “It makes absolutely no sense to profess Democratic affiliation while drooling out a constant barrage of rhetoric that can only serve the purpose of putting McCain in office.”
    You must be completely deluded if you think my rhetoric at the Washington Note (or the few other blogs that I look at) has any effect at all on whether Obama or McCain is elected. The effect of my rhetoric on the election is zero.
    So when you see Obama’s national poll numbers declining or his electoral vote total tanking you can be assured that I had nothing to do with it.
    If you do want to understand why the dynamics of the election are changing, just ask Dan Kervick. He’s one of the most articulate advocates for Senator Obama at the Washington Note. Read his comments and ignore mine. I’m sure Dan can explain this election to you in a cogent way. That is unless he’s sulking somewhere and crying about the remarkable reversal of fortune of his candidate.
    Or go chat with your buddy Seamus (see above.) You two seem to have alot in common. He thinks Kathleen is his sweetcakes and you like to compare people to braying horses. You and Seamus, just two peas in a pod.

    Reply

  81. Bartolo says:

    Before any fears of what McCain will do, we had first better fear what the SCOTUS will do in a contested election. Pretty much the same cast of characters is on board there.

    Reply

  82. Kathleen says:

    Seamus…I’m in a state that cherishes the Constitution and where Nader is a favorite son…I was not a Hillary or Obama supporter because right now Impeachment and defending the Constitution is my primary issue, not womens’ rights….I’ve been trying to find a way to bring myself to hold my nose and do the Pavlavian thing come Nov. but I’m not a conformist….and if BO wants my support now he can sweat for it. I’m also old enough to know how not to get pregnant…

    Reply

  83. WigWag says:

    Seamus is perfectly emblematic of so many Obama supporters. And they wonder why many women won’t vote for Obama. According to Zogby, Obama enjoys just a 2 percent gender gap (which is stunningly small for a Democratic candidate)
    Seamus to Kathleen: “Get it together sweetcakes.”
    Obama to female reporter in Michigan: “Hold on one second sweetie.”
    Oh and Seamus, the abortion black mail won’t work.

    Reply

  84. PissedOffAmerican says:

    It makes absolutely no sense to proffess Democratic affiliation while drooling out a constant barrage of rhetoric that can only serve the purpose of putting McCain in office.
    Unhappy with both candidates, for a myriad of reasons, and seeing little difference between the two, I find my criticisms flowing out in a wholly unpartisan manner, understanding that my deeper dissatisfaction stems from a distrust of both parties and recognizing the complicity the two parties have shared in the events of the last eight years.
    I can only assume, having had marveled at the non-stop lopsided and vitrolic rhetoric of these jackasses like WigWag, that they have misrepresented themselves, and are working solely in the interests of putting John McCain in office. Such tactics only serve to underscore the despicably low nature of partisan politics, and underscore the complete lack of integrity and honesty that party operatives often resort to in an effort to put their candidate in office.
    Wigwag’s efforts here, when considering his proffessed loyalties, make absolutely no sense, and actually defy logic. In short, the only rationale explanation for his behaviour is the conclusion that he is lying about motive and party affiliation.

    Reply

  85. Seamus says:

    OK, Kathleen, 3am is somehow disrespectful …… hope you are in a State where you all will not be disrespected in having to travel to another to get your cherished abortions after McCain is through with his Supreme Court appointments!
    You had better vote BO if you are so concerned about your womankind being really disrespected bigtime!
    Or is that what you want; more abuse!
    Here’s a song to bring you to Barack and restore your womanly place in the great scheme of things:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f20Oz9Yr_So
    Get it together, sweetcakes. You can still turn from your wayward thoughts and end up in place in November that is in your best interest.

    Reply

  86. MarkL says:

    Paul,
    Your blitheness about Obama’s electability inspires me. It is judgment such as yours that has delivered loser and loser to the Democrats in election years.
    You seem to care not at all whether Obama can be elected. I find your attitude smug as well as incomprehensible.
    This election is not just about McCain and the GOP.
    The Democratic Party also needs to front a strong candidate. I notice you don’t even try to defend Obama. Do you recognize with me how awful he is?

    Reply

  87. WigWag says:

    This is the nominee that Obama supporters have delivered to us:
    From the Zogby website
    Zogby Electoral Map: Obama Falls Below Needed 270 as McCain Rises
    Florida to McCain, as Colorado and New Hampshire now too close to call
    UTICA, New York – With the Democratic Convention just days away, the Zogby Electoral College map at http://www.zogby.com still has Democratic Barack Obama ahead of Republican John McCain, but the shift of three battleground states – Florida (27 Electoral College votes) from toss-up to McCain, Colorado (9 Electoral College votes) and New Hampshire (4 Electoral College votes) from Obama to undecided brings Obama below the 270 electoral votes needed for election…
    Pollster John Zogby: “As we saw in our most recent Reuters/Zogby poll that has McCain ahead nationally, the dynamic of the race appears to be changing. This battleground poll of 10 states reflects that change. Obama has lost some support to the point where he is now below the Electoral College victory threshold.”
    STATES ON THE MOVE:
    In Florida, McCain holds a 45% to 40% edge over Obama in a head-to-head match-up, which is close, but his base is so much more solid that we see an advantage here (McCain wins 87% support among Republicans, while Obama wins just 76% support from Democrats). He also enjoys big leads over Obama among voters over age 50, of which there are many in the Sunshine state.
    Pollster John Zogby: “McCain could be tailor-made for this state’s demographic, and has the support of its very popular governor. He understands the issues facing most Floridians and relates well to huge swaths of the populace here. This is an electorate that is more likely than others to put a premium on experience. We are, however, watching Libertarian Bob Barr from neighboring Georgia, who now sits at 5 percent, but could hurt McCain going down the stretch. A rising Creative Class and a tough economy in the south could also help Obama.”
    In Colorado, Obama holds a 44%-41% lead in a head-to-head match with McCain. That lead over McCain grows to 44%-38% when Libertarian Bob Barr (8%) and independent Ralph Nader (2%) are included in the question.
    Pollster John Zogby: “Obama may have the edge now, but McCain’s current national momentum leads us to hedge our bets on Colorado and switch this state from blue to purple. Support for Bob Barr brings too much uncertainty to the call.”
    In New Hampshire, a small Obama lead has shifted to a 42%-38% McCain lead in both head-to-head and four-way questions. Barr picks up a significant 11% support here in the Live Free or Die state. McCain holds a slim lead among independents.
    Pollster John Zogby: “McCain, who won the GOP presidential primary twice here with strong support from independents, needs to win over conservatives. Obama needs to capitalize on the state’s voters’ worries about the economy and Iraq…

    Reply

  88. Kathleen says:

    Carroll…go for it…vote for the guy who will take out the garbage…vote for impeachment, vote Nader…don’t leave your vote unused…the only way to make a statement for the rule of law is to vote for impeachment…..we have to resist our conditioning…all it does is gaurantee the status quo, if we don’t.
    It’s time for Burnham Wood to come to Dunsinane….asap

    Reply

  89. Mr.Murder says:

    It only takes seven paragraphs to explain Joe Biden and his vote for George Bush’s Iraq war.
    Who among us does not love nuance?

    Reply

  90. rich says:

    Carroll,
    Yes, I do. Not only will Biden be on the same page as Obama, he’s uniquely equipped to assist in managing Obama’s foreign policy objectives, using a seasoned diplomatic corps, from the Office of the Vice President.
    And as a Senator who experienced Cheney’s clearly unConstitutional abuse of Executive Branch power at the expense of the Legislature and particularly in relation to the Senate, yes, Joe Biden will shrink that power. Once he accomplishes what he needs to, including altering internal relations in the Senate.
    But Barack Obama’s foreign policy will be run out of the White House. He will need a strong team and a strong role for the VP, though, and can’t afford to delegate the making of foreign policy to, say, a Holbrooke by making him Secretary of State and giving him a free hand.
    I don’t accept the premise that Obama is too changeable from the primaries to the general; he’s a principled guy who is running to be nominee and now to be President. As such, he speaks to different audiences and must persuade different segments of it; he first must lead the Democrats, and then must lead the country.
    I don’t accept the premise that Biden is too much the egotist; he’s just unafraid to say what he knows when confronted by the egregious idiocy of Dick Cheney and Joe Liebermans. You’re not accustomed to seeing that. Second, his foreign policy comments have to be seen in the context of events and landscape shaped by the Cheneys and Perles and Rumsfelds and Wolfowitzs of this world. This time, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will be shaping that landscape, driving those events, and determining the framework of that conversation.
    I had not be a Joe Biden fan, because I couldn’t see him in action, in person, and operating organically as he does his job. But I think we’ll see that on the VP campaign trail and as VP, both of which will allow him to be himself on some level. That might seem counterintuitive or odd, but he can function as a statesman and as be himself in a way that will be effective on the international stage and as a frank public personality in the domestic arena. This contradicts cherished tenets of conventional wisdom, but in the wake of Dick Cheney, I think the American people will appreciate the difference, and if Obama and Biden are smart (hey, are they intelligent?), they’ll take full advantage of it.

    Reply

  91. questions says:

    Carroll, a good place to look for an explanation of what you’re describing is Charles Stewart III’s book Analyzing Congress (it’s text booky but clear and cogent). (He’s referred to above in the Huff. Post thing I pasted in about whether or not veeps matter).
    In this book, Stewart runs over “spatial voting theory” — draw an east west line. Locate Sears on one side, Penny’s on the other. Sears gets all the westerners, Penny’s the easterners. If they could move cost free, each would creep towards the center, keeping their respective bases and snatching a few customers from the more central part of downtown. Eventually, they locate right next door to each other. And this, Stewart suggests, is why similar stores congregate in cities. Same logic holds for parties. Newt Gingrich would be the counter-example — go for the base, assume the center will follow, change the national discourse so that the center moves more in your direction. But this kind of sharp move seems to implode after a while, and people drift back to the center a bit.
    The payoff logically will nearly always be to drift centerward, and politicians are usually astute enough to see this fact. And it is rare when anyone can challenge the national discourse at a level that could convince us all to move one direction or another in any sharp fashion. Reagan did it. Obama, I think, has wanted to. But you have to be simplistic (if I have to balance my budget so should the government/those welfare queens in their Cadillacs….) McCain is trying to maintain some of the rightward drift (drill here drill now). The real question, in my mind, at least, is whether or not we’re going to buy this crap for yet another cycle.

    Reply

  92. DonS says:

    “You think that oversized ego is going to shrink the power potty Cheney created? I don’t think so.”
    For that matter I can’t think of anyone in Washington (or elsewhere) who relinquishes power voluntarily.
    That’s why the who perennial charade about giving the Pres the line item veto is such a joke. I mean, who really believes that the President, any President, is suddenly going to become Mr. (or Ms) Pork Fighter, foreswearing political considerations?
    No, we are largely dependent on luck, and the possibility that whoever get’s elected will turn out to be decent and competent. Progress?? Fuggedaboudid. Avoid catastrophe? Maybe.

    Reply

  93. Carroll says:

    “And if Dick Cheney’s torn a hole in the Office of the Vice President so big you can drive a no-bid un-armored Humvee through it, who better to utilize and repair that hole than Joe Biden”?
    Huh? Listen to Joe Biden talk. About anything. You think that oversized ego is going to shrink the power potty Cheney created? I don’t think so.

    Reply

  94. Carroll says:

    Steve says the netroots is set up to champion Biden. I don’t entirely see that. The dem bloggers certainly are but the site comments I have checked out are split. That isn’t to say the poeple who object to Biden won’t still vote demo.
    But there is disappointment among a lot who bought hook, line and sinker into Obama. It’s also true that a lot of true believers have been critical of late about Obama’s move to the right for republican voters.
    So what about the independent voters?
    I haven’t seen anything on them yet. Maybe a poll will come out.
    The question for a voter like myself is will Obama control Joe or Joe control Obama. Not to mention who is the real Obama, the primary Obama or the general Obama? Will Biden be Cheney lite on foreign policy. If we accept Joe was selected for foreign policy bono fides than logic would say Obama is going to listen to him.
    I don’t like what I know of Biden’s approach to foreign policy.
    I don’t like McCain’s either.
    So that puts me in a bind doesn’t it.
    My voting profile has been to vote for the usual lesser of two evils. But frankly all I see that has done is bring both parties closer and closer together and keep government by for and of the parties going. I think this is what is called negative reinforcement voting…or should be.
    Frankly I am tired of not having any choices except what the ‘establishment’ and ‘party election strategy’ gives me.
    Yea I know, we won’t know what someone is actually going to do until s/he gets in office. Because gee whiz they have to get elected first. But I am tired of that too. Because gee whiz they have to get elected a second time too. So if the first election tactics worked, then governing by what worked to elect them will get them re-elected again won’t it?
    Maybe I will have a political psychotic break and not even be able to vote by November.
    One thing the selection of Joe means I am betting is that there won’t be any going after the criminality of the Bush adm on the Iraq war or any of the other criminals involved. But then dem leadership has never shown any balls anyway.
    Bizness as usual.

    Reply

  95. questions says:

    And furthermore…. On an earlier debate in some other thread was: the Obama/McCain press coverage meme. Admittedly, this passage/link is from Frank Rich (Sunday 8/24), but he has a citation, so maybe it’s okay anyway. It seems that, for all of the disproportinate coverage of Obama that WigWag has found, the CONTENT of that coverage actually does seem to matter….. I’m just sayin’…
    And the passage is:
    What Obama also should have learned by now is that the press is not his friend. Of course, he gets more ink and airtime than McCain; he’s sexier news. But as George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs documented in its study of six weeks of TV news reports this summer, Obama’s coverage was 28 percent positive, 72 percent negative. (For McCain, the split was 43/57.) Even McCain’s most blatant confusions, memory lapses and outright lies still barely cause a ripple, whether he’s railing against a piece of pork he in fact voted for, as he did at the Saddleback Church pseudodebate last weekend, or falsifying crucial details of his marital history in his memoirs, as The Los Angeles Times uncovered in court records last month.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

    Reply

  96. Kathleen says:

    DonS….On the subject of being spiteful, for BO to send his text message out at 3 a.m. was unecessarilly cruel to Hillary and her supporters… little things mean a lot and that act was the sign of a petty, little man… with no capacity to be magnanimous…..while using many of her lines in his stump speeches, yet…just what we need, two plagiarizers…..
    Every time I try to talk myself into supporting him, he does some chickenshit thing, like skipping the Kyl-Liebrman ammendment vote, voting Yes on FISA and now his rudeness to Hillary and her supporters…that’s stooooopid and bratty…I was never a Hillary supporter, but she has been very courteous and gracious in her loss and I take that disrepsectful act personally, as a woman…
    Note to BO: at 3.a.m. Sat. morning, I took the two party system off my table and crammed it down the garbage disposal…then I treated myself to some catharsis by unsubscribing to your puny little list and every other goddamned Dem List….let’s just say the carrot on the end of your stick is all shriveled….

    Reply

  97. rich says:

    Steve,
    Just a quick note.
    Joe Biden is a far better VP pick than most people realize. I’d been lukewarm at first (see below). Wes Clark as VP was driven by the mistaken idea Obama needs to compensate on the military front (& would’ve been seen as overcompensating). What we need in the Executive isn’t military in nature We’ve got the Joint Chiefs, as always, and Obama’s got the judgment and civilian status the Exec demands.
    What we need is a foreign policy pro with deep, existing ties in the diplomatic arena. That’s Joe Biden—others must know this, but a dkos diary recently drove home for me just how deep and strong Biden’s longstanding personal ties abroad really are.
    For many, that’ll be a ‘No duh’ observation. But that feature has not made it into the punditry’s analysis in any meaningful way, with very delimited references to Biden’s tenure on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee falling far short of the point.
    Biden cannot be reasonably viewed as ‘compensating’ for some imagined Obama shortcoming. Barack Obama went out and got the best guy, hands down. Neither Bayh, Clinton nor Kaine have the foreign policy depth or tenure in the Senate.
    Biden’s been kind of a cipher, viewed from afar.
    I’d always been intrigued by the contrast between Bidens’s rep as a quality Senator and his disappointing campaign performances and tepid appearances on MeetthePress, etc. I’d read he’s my kind of Senator, and then kept finding he seemed to pull his punches on those shows, dumb down his message, or never quite come right out and give the knockout blow the country was looking for.
    I kept concluding Biden was maybe too much a creature of D.C. to offer policies or messages the status quo/Establishment would find uncomfortable. But his short-lived campaigns could be explained by the reverse—no establishment support.
    More important, his impressive interpersonal skills don’t translate onto the Presidential campaign trail. Seeing Biden on the stump isn’t the same as seeing him manage his Senate staff or conduct business in an organic, ongoing fashion.
    The electorate will be better able to see the real Joe Biden as VP nominee. His frankness will be refreshing, and his personality and operating style will become more apparent.
    No way does the contrast poorly serve Barack Obama. You want two strong candidates, contrary to the theory that picking weak VPs protects a vulnerable Prznt.
    Joe Biden will say what needs to be said, frankly, so that Obama can speak a little softer and more Presidentially.
    Joe Biden knows the Senate inside and out. Barack Obama will need that expertise, particularly given the Senate’s refusal to challenge Bush, force the issue of witnesses & contempt, and game the filibuster for Reps but against Dems. I have no doubt Obama’s former Senate colleagues will attempt to extort Obama and foil any number of policy corrections. Biden at least will be able to parse legitimate concerns from self-interested or partisan hackery, while attending to institutional matters.
    And if Dick Cheney’s torn a hole in the Office of the Vice President so big you can drive a no-bid un-armored Humvee through it, who better to utilize and repair that hole than Joe Biden?
    Obama will need a beefed-up capacity, run close-to-home, and can’t afford to hand it all off to State, particularly if it’s populated with old-school neocon/’realists’ such as Holbrooke or Albright, who are part of the problem and will offer neither difference nor distinction.
    Holbrooke will be great with a tightly defined portfolio, but I’d like to see where Bill Richardson fits in the international picture.

    Reply

  98. Paul Norheim says:

    “Your fear of what McCain will do if elected is not shared by most
    Americans. This is a statement of fact, not a value judgment.”
    Perhaps you`re right, MarkL. And compared to that tiny, feather-
    light judgement of mine, the massive confidence in McCain,
    shared by “most Americans”, is in itself a huge and compact
    entity— almost a fact, wouldn`t you say?
    I remember, more than five years ago, my fear of what George
    W. Bush would do was not shared by most Americans either. And
    that is definitely a fact, MarkL.
    With such tricks up your sleeve, you seem well equipped to work
    for the old man.

    Reply

  99. questions says:

    Below is a quotation and link giving a reasonable reading on the importance of the Biden choice from a quantitative perspective. As much as I’ve hated quatitative social science over the years, I do actually occasionally find that it can be informative.
    The passage:
    That said, the Biden choice is likely to be far less consequential to the outcome on Election Day than the current flurry of commentary suggests. Although political analysts and political scientists have explored the importance of vice presidential picks, “the quantitative research finds nothing,” notes MIT political scientist Charles Stewart III. “You can’t even really say that there’s a ‘first do no harm’ principle involved, since there are plenty of examples of ‘problematic’ vice presidential choices, running from Johnson (alienated Kennedy’s core) to Bush I (alienated Reagan’s core) to Quayle (lightweight boy blunder).”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/23/biden-the-good-great-bad_n_120868.html
    Next of all, the “experience” meme is driving me absolutely bonkers. So many times invoked, so little defined. People, CHENEY and BUSH are EXPERIENCED. Want ’em back????????? Somehow I think ideas, rhetoric, and platforms and the like matter, more than experience. Where experience really matters is in the actual people who do the actual work of governing: THE STAFF. Not even the cabinet DOES work — it’s THE STAFF. They do the prep work, the research, the rhetoric finding and laying out, they structure arguments, write memos, know the law and the policy history. Look at Obama’s STAFF. Do they do this all on their own? Nope. Of course they take cues from the boss, but the boss is okay on policy most of us seem to agree. So please, again, find a contentful reason to argue against Obama instead of an “empty suit” reason. I’m happy to hear POLICY reasons.
    Second round of issues: Exelon, ethanol, insurance in Illinois, the Pritzkers and Ayers and Rezko memes….. When you’re running for local office, you attract local backers. No rocket science there. Without backers, you’re nothing. When you run for statewide office, you need to support statewide backers and state industry and state interests. When you run for Senate, you need money, your job description is to represent your state and bring home as much (veggie fake) pork as possible. THAT’S YOUR ACTUAL JOB — benefit your constituency or be voted out of office in favor of someone else. So when Obama supports Exelon (nuclear power in Illinois), ethanol (corn farmers in Illinois), the Pritzkers (hotel money in Illinois), he’s actually performing his job. When Biden supports MBNA and the like, he’s doing his actual job. Without this job performance, the two are out of work. Welcome to the Senate. That’s how it’s meant to function. Individuals supporting their districts/states and local industry and their populations are favored over the populations of other states. It’s not a Kantian categorical imperative view of the world; it’s closer to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Be selfish, and all the selfishness will balance out and raise us all up at some level.
    Congress can’t function except through local/parochial/special interest pandering or supporting or whatever you want to call it. This is the CHECK that BALANCES tyrannical central power. If Illinois corn growers can check Pennsylvania coal miners, then that’s the point of it all.
    Finally, we can all begin to see why Senators don’t often get to be presidents. They have voting and support records open to a lot of scrutiny. OOOOHH, you supported a constituent who had narrow self interests and not the good of the nation in mind. OOOHH, you were very bad indeed.
    SHEESH

    Reply

  100. MarkL says:

    Paul, at least you agree with me that Obama is underqualified.
    Surely you understand this is a big problem in a national election.
    Your fear of what McCain will do if elected is not shared by most Americans. This is a statement of fact, not a value judgment. Obama can’t win the election on national security, IMO, and he doesn’t have the record of accomplishment on domestic issues to inspire confidence.
    Tell me—do you think Obama will win?

    Reply

  101. Paul Norheim says:

    “So now we have an underqualified candidate with no record
    who does not even hold Democratic values, versus a somewhat
    over the hill “maverick” who is extremely conservative on tax
    policy, social welfare issues and abortion, but who probably is
    more ready on national security issues.”
    More ready on national security issues?
    You mean, in the same way guys like
    Bolton, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and other
    war mongers were ready?
    You know, when I think about Obama`s lack of experience,
    I get scared. But every time I think about how ready McCain
    is on national security issues, I calm down.
    It`s almost like valium.

    Reply

  102. MarkL says:

    Paul,
    Of course the issues matter to me! That is why I am so bitterly disappointed in the choice offered.
    Biden, a champion of the middle class? A sicker joke is not possible. He is in the pocket of the credit card companies, bearing chief responsibility for the horrid bankruptcy “reform” legislation of recent years.
    And Obama? The man who killed any chance of UHC with his “harry and Louise” ads against Hillary?
    Talk about “saying anything to win”!
    Paul Krugman noted several weeks ago that Obama’s proposed budget contains no money for any expansion of health care coverage.
    Moving on, how about energy? Surely you jest!
    Obama, Mr. corn ethanol, when he’s not the Senator from Exelon?
    Let’s not forget his horrid FISA vote.
    Even Biden voted against that bill, I read.
    Remember that Obama wanted to support John Roberts, but his staff talked him out of that position. Then there was Biden defending Thomas in 1991.
    One of the top prospects for SCOTUS under Obama is Cass Sunstein, who is up there with Yoo in the strength of his defense of the adminsitration’s lawbreaking.
    Yeah, issue matter to me.
    Obama robbed the Democrats of the chance to have a real debate about the issues with his empty slogans and vicious character attacks.
    Edwards, while obviously having no shot at the Presidency, at least offered a robust debate on crucial issues.
    So now we have an underqualified candidate with no record who does not even hold Democratic values, versus a somewhat over the hill “maverick” who is extremely conservative on tax policy, social welfare issues and abortion, but who probably is more ready on national security issues.
    Oh, and did I mention that Obama was the go-to guy for the insurance industry in Illinois?
    Look, if Obama wins, more power to him. Even though I loathe him, it probably would be better if he is elected. My position is that he has slim to no chance of winning in November, due to his enormous flaws. I agree with Paul Lukasiak’s analysis, which is that Biden was a last minute, desperation pick, made to stop the bleeding in the polls. Why would Biden say he was not the guy, earlier in the week? He’s not that careless with words. No, I think Obama’s internal numbers were hemorrhaging, and his handlers, Daschle and Kennedy, told him he needed to go with experience.

    Reply

  103. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Sorry, Dan, it’s intellectually bankrupt to attack me instead of attacking the substance of what I say. But that’s you, intellectually bankrupt”
    Gee, Wigwag, read your posts on this thread.
    I comment about your “women voters are abandoning Obama in droves” bullshit, and you convert that to me hating Mexicans, right alongside Lou Dobbs.
    Thats real “substance”, bud.

    Reply

  104. Dan Kervick says:

    Owww, WigWag, that hurt my feelings. I think I’ll go bomb a Middle Eastern country and gut some social programs so that I can properly express the depth of my pain.

    Reply

  105. Paul Norheim says:

    MarkL,
    WigWag is all about PUMA and hurt feelings. And nope, I`m
    sober.
    So I suppose you prefer the more experienced McCain, hoping he
    doesn`t have one of those regrettable senior moments when he
    wake up in the middle of the night by a phone call?
    Personally I would prefer the combined experience of Obama &
    Biden any time.
    And what about the issues – do they matter to you?

    Reply

  106. MarkL says:

    Paul,
    Is this your idea of a cogent argument?
    I’m guessing you’ve had a few drinks.
    Your fancy is amusing, but totally off base.

    Reply

  107. Paul Norheim says:

    Teachers continued:
    “At that time, most moderate Republicans left the GOP, which was
    rapidly transformed to this blend of adventurous neocons,
    apocalyptic rapture proponents and PUMA feminists that we know
    today.
    This of course became a cause of tensions, and the GOP almost
    got destroyed by the fighting among the factions. However, when
    they nominated NN, the most hawkish, neocon woman within the
    party, this seemed to satisfy all three factions: the PUMA`s were
    ecstatic, the born again Christians interpreted this as a sign of the
    End Times, and the tensions disappeared within the party.”

    Reply

  108. WigWag says:

    Sorry, Dan, it’s intellectually bankrupt to attack me instead of attacking the substance of what I say. But that’s you, intellectually bankrupt. Respond, don’t respond, I could care less.
    It’s not me who selected this disaster of a candidate, it’s you.
    Unfortunately, we are all going to have to live with the results.
    You don’t like reading my comments, Dan? My suggestion is that when you see a comment from WigWag, you just move on.

    Reply

  109. Dan Kervick says:

    All people like WigWag want is attention. It’s not about issues, or consequences, or grown-up politics. And it’s not even sincere. It’s just about stupid little drama queen games of emotional blackmail aimed at extracting gestures of mollification, indulgence, or pleading. The more frustrated, or angry, or fearful people are of WigWag’s insignificant threats and warnings, the more attention WigWag gets, and the more WigWag wins the game. All of these mountains of direct responses to WigWag just reward spoiled behavior.
    “Ooooh. I’m *ever* so torn! I just don’t know *whom* I’ll vote for! It’s such a difficult decision! And I’m so *concerned* about these bad numbers and confusing polls. *Whatever* do they mean?! I’m just going to keep broadcasting these bad, confusing numbers because I’m so *concerned* about them.”
    It’s just the usual bratty tactics: “Respect me! Pay attention to me! Give me! Give me more!”
    I suggest that the next time WigWag comes in here to make one of these fussy, breath-holding scenes, we collectively just say, “OK princess. When you get tired of holding your breath, we’ll see you in the car.”

    Reply

  110. DonsBlog says:

    I see the AP Editor felt required to add a comment after the article. Perhaps next will be a disclaimer, then an apology.

    Reply

  111. MarkL says:

    Paul,
    It’s not about PUMA’s: it’s about Obama being unable to close the sale to a whole range of voting blocs.
    I don’t personally know anyone who isn’t voting for Obama because of the way the primary campaign went, but I know tons of people who say they are worried about Obama’s lack of experience. That is his primary problem, and it has nothing to do with Hillary.
    And lecturing me about his vast experience is a useless exercise, btw. I know his biography.
    In 10 years, I think history teachers will wonder how in the world 5 years as a community organizer was considered good experience for the Presidency, IMO. Of course there was his inflated IL Senate record, but the idea that 5 years in one of the lowest jobs on the totem pole had any relevance to the Presidency was preposterous. It’s not like any of the people who touted this experience could even tell you what he did in those 5 years.

    Reply

  112. WigWag says:

    Or maybe Paul, those teachers 10 years from now will be saying this:
    The presidential campaign in 2008 was one of the most sexist in history. The news media referred to Hillary Clinton’s cleavage, they claimed that any accomplishments she had could be attributed to the fact that her husband had extramarital affairs, they compared her to psychopathic movie characters and they demeaned her daughter. Her main opponent, happy to benefit from the sexism said nothing and occasionally chimed in with his own sexist comments. Millions of American women were infuriated and Obama never recovered.
    But what really sank Senator Obama’s candidacy were his inexperience and his tendency to flip flop on issues of importance to his supporters. As unpopular as George Bush was, no one thought the Republican candidate could prevail, but he did.
    During the McCain Presidency the American and European economies did very poorly and the world became a much more dangerous place. Ultimately Democrats learned that selecting a presidential candidate was not the same as selecting an American Idol winner. Future Democratic nominees were all far more experienced and never again did they tolerate sexism.

    Reply

  113. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!! See, I told you that WigWag and MarkL should hook up. Now I’m a “staunch defender” of Obama.
    Bigot. Anti-semite. Staunch Obama supporter.
    Wow, maybe these two geniuses should pull MP out of their bag of tricks and REALLY compile a list.
    Hey Carroll. Deja vu, eh? How many now, with the EXACT SAME bullshit?

    Reply

  114. Paul Norheim says:

    I wonder how teachers ten years from now may explain the PUMA
    phenomenon.
    “Well, you see… these women just felt so INSULTED, so ANGRY
    that they just…you know… stopped being concerned about
    politics and issues. They just didn`t want Obama to become the
    next president! They claimed that he showed a sexist behavior
    during the campaign. There was no evidence for this, they
    just…uh…I suppose they FELT very strongly that he was a sexist.
    And this is probably the main reasons why we got McCain,
    resulting in…you know… three more wars… the total collapse of
    our economy…all these disasters. For these women, their hatred
    and bitterness was…well… a very personal thing.”

    Reply

  115. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Keep digging, Wigwag. Its what you do best.

    Reply

  116. WigWag says:

    I apologize POA, I guess you like the Israeli settlers. I guess you don’t have anything against Mexicans either. It’s just their truckers that you don’t like.

    Reply

  117. WigWag says:

    Questions, tens of millions of Americans agree with you and me and Senator Obama on the issues you outlined above. That doesn’t mean that tens of millions of Americans are quslified to be President.
    Obama is an empty suit because he lacks substantial accomplishments. He is all talk and very little action.
    And I don’t know if there should be a specific hard and fast rule about picking the Vice President, but I do know that Obama ignored and didn’t vet the candidate who got 18 million votes and selected the candidate who got 1,000 votes. I am sure that Senator McCain will be pointing that out. I am sure that Senator Obama will be pointing out Senator McCain’s position on choice. Voters will make of it what they will.

    Reply

  118. MarkL says:

    Questions,
    Where is Obama’s impressive record of political accomplishment? Besides winning elections, it does not exist. In fact, his IL record was inflated when Emil Jones gave him a package of 20-some bills to claim as his own—bills he had not worked on.
    What has he done in the US Senate? A small amount—definitely nothing meriting promotion at this stage.
    I”m rather mystified that POA defends Obama so staunchly here. I know that he is not impressed with Obama. In fact, I know that he is not even a Democrat. So what gives? You think Obama has the right stuff? Really?

    Reply

  119. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Oh yeah, thats it, Wigwag, I “hate” the Israeli settlers.
    Yeah man, now you’re really on a roll. Anti-semitic. Bigot. Hate the Israeli settlers. Wow, you’re really winning this argument, bigtime.
    What a champ you are, Wigwag. A real sage.

    Reply

  120. questions says:

    Confession: For all the times I have seen the words “empty suit” and Obama linked in a sentence, I have not understood what that phrase means. I think that, in fact, his “suit” is full. And I think you must at some level too if you can write the following: McCain is far worse than Obama on all the issues you mentioned.
    So where’s the “emptiness”? We’ve been over the sexism thing before and it doesn’t sway me. There was sexism, racism, ageism, regional-ism, anti-gold standard-ism, anti-UFO sightingism — lots of biases come out in elections. Not sure Obama caused any of this, but whoever the winner was, he or she would have benefited from some of this.
    Is there a requirement that the second place finisher get the vp nod? Is there a vote number threshold? If HRC had gotten, say, 16 million votes, would Obama still have had some kind of obligation? Should this now be a hard and fast rule that the Dems should put into place? Or does it only hold for HRC?
    And, as others have pointed out, a vote choosing one Dem among many Dems is not equivalent to a vote choosing a Dem over a Rep or vice versa. Loving apple pie more than pumpkin pie is one thing. Choosing any kind of pie over chopped liver is something else. So what kind of preference is being stated in the primary? 17 million plus people preferred HRC over Obama. Doesn’t necessarily mean that they have an absolute preference for HRC, it’s a relative preference given the set of choices. So the apples/oranges or pie/liver thing is significant here.
    A PUMA voter will sacrifice all others in order to salve his/her anger. A Republican will vote for McCain. A Democrat will vote for Obama. And anyone trying to decide between the two is simply not principled — in the sense of having no core set of beliefs or values. If you’re a feminist, how could you even think of aiding McCain? It’s beyond my understanding of the universe.

    Reply

  121. WigWag says:

    And Paul, one more thing. Barack Obama appears to be a Zionist. Joe Biden is certainly a Zionist.

    Reply

  122. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I don’t know what a principled voter should do. If and when I figure it out, I’ll let you know”
    MAN!!!! I never thought I’d see the day that WigWag would admit that all his hard work spamming this blog with anti-Obama rhetoric has been unprincipled.
    Gee, Wigwag, thats one hell of an admission.

    Reply

  123. WigWag says:

    Well, Paul, funny that you should mention it. I always wondered why people who were so angry at Israelis taking Palestinian land were so indifferent to Americans who took Mexican lands. After all, the Israelis took the West Bank in 1967 after defeating the Arabs in a war. The Americans took Californian (and alot of other Mexican territory) in 1848 after defeating the Mexicans in a War. The land that POA lives on was “stolen” from Mexico just 119 years before the Israelis “stole” Palestinian land.
    So why is one so much worse than the other? Could it be that people like POA can’t tolerate Jews winning wars but are perfectly happy to enjoy the fruits of wars that benefit them?
    POA told us today about his fear of traveling through Mexican neighborhoods and in the past he complained about Mexican truckers coming into the United States.
    Actually, POA is alot like those Israeli settlers he seems to hate.

    Reply

  124. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Wigwag. Keep it up, thats about as stupid of a post as I’ve seen from you. You’re makin’ an ass of yourself again.
    So tell me, Wigwag, are the majority of the dems in Congress “bigots”, or not?
    And, uh, yes, occassionally I do mention illegal immigration. Gee, uh, at least five or six times in the last coupla years.
    And, I admit it, I have brought up the Mexican trucking program. Once before.
    And yep, I’ve mentioned Mexican gangs and street violence at least five times in two years. Man, I must be obsessed. I mean gee, why else would I blame the Mexicans for all the world’s ills??
    And hey, how dare me mention illegal immigration when there is just so many other crimes to cover. After all, illegally immigrating is just like any other crime, right?
    Did I cover all your dissembling crap, Wigwag, or did I omit a dingleberry or two?

    Reply

  125. WigWag says:

    “If you want to argue against Obama, pick one or two or three policy positions and show how McCain does better. That’s all it takes. So, is McCain better on health insurance? Better on war policy? Better on women’s issues? Better on financial regulation? Better on education? Better on Social Security? Better on energy policy? Better on the mortgage crisis? The credit crisis? The soon-to-be commercial mortgage crisis? (Mark my words, if commercial mortgages sink too, we’re really in trouble.) Just what do you think a principled voter should do?”
    McCain is far worse than Obama on all the issues you mentioned. Obama himself in an inexperienced, empty suit who won the nomination in large part due to sexism. Then he arrogantly selected as VP a man who won less than 1,000 votes over a woman who won 18 million votes.
    I don’t know what a principled voter should do. If and when I figure it out, I’ll let you know.

    Reply

  126. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry WigWag,
    but as a Zionist, I`m not sure if you`re in a position to talk loudly
    about “stolen property”.

    Reply

  127. WigWag says:

    POA, you comment at the Washington Note about Mexicans almost as often as Lou Dobbs does on his CNN Show. Funny, since you live on property stolen from the Mexicans less than 170 years ago.
    Being an interloper on Mexican property, I would think you might be a little more sympathetic to their truck drivers.

    Reply

  128. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Just what do you think a principled voter should do?”
    Why in God’s name would you ask Wigwag what a “principled” voter should do?

    Reply

  129. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Oh, and uh, I guess the millions of Americans that opposed, (and prevailed) McCain and Bush’s push for amnesty are “bigots” too, eh?
    Yep, thats it, you ignorant blathering fool, we’re all a bunch of anti-semites and mexican haters.

    Reply

  130. questions says:

    Question for WigWag,
    If Clinton as veep would have helped Obama, AND you note on a different thread that Biden bashed Obama during the primaries AND you note that said bashing is going to be picked up by the Republicans, AND you know that Clinton bashed Obama during the primaries, what then would stop the Republicans from using Clinton’s bashing instead of Biden’s? Kind of a weak argument all in all. Anyone Obama picks is going to be cause for Repub attack at some level. That’s what partisan politics does.
    If you want to argue against Obama, pick one or two or three policy positions and show how McCain does better. That’s all it takes. So, is McCain better on health insurance? Better on war policy? Better on women’s issues? Better on financial regulation? Better on education? Better on Social Security? Better on energy policy? Better on the mortgage crisis? The credit crisis? The soon-to-be commercial mortgage crisis? (Mark my words, if commercial mortgages sink too, we’re really in trouble.) Just what do you think a principled voter should do?

    Reply

  131. PissedOffAmerican says:

    BTW, “dissatisfied democrat”, it is the Democrats that have opposed the Mexican trucking program. In fact, it was Bill Clinton that blocked it from becoming part of the first stage of NAFTA.
    Point of fact, it is BUSH that has pushed it, and extended the program after the Dems recessed.
    And you’re a democrat? I guess all those dems in Congress that oppose this are “bigots” too, eh?
    Democrat, my ass. Gads, some of you McCain supporters are unbelievably slimey.

    Reply

  132. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag, I have no problem understanding why women
    supporting Clinton may have been DISAPPOINTED when Obama
    chose Biden.
    But INSULTED is a feeling I have no sympathy with in politics on
    this level, with so much at stake. It leads to the kind of
    irresponsible blindness that make people prefer a semi-senile
    man, promising to continue the catastrophic path of the last 8
    years – exactly the same irresponsible blindness (or is it just
    tactical blindness?) that you`re showing, WigWag.
    Personally, I should wish that he had chosen Hillary. That would
    have increased the chance of winning the election, thus MAYBE,
    just maybe, avoiding more geopolitical disasters. You obviously
    disagree – because that would result in a woman “playing
    second fiddle”.
    As far as I see it, even if Hillary became Vice President of the
    USA, it would serve woman better than not being VP. And who
    knows, perhaps you even agree with that obvious argument, but
    you`re just so “insulted” that you even would undermine the
    cause of women to satisfy your hurt feelings?
    Whatever — as I`ve said months ago, I have absolutely no
    sympathy or patience with the so called “dilemmas” you`ve been
    sharing with the readers at WTN recently. Reducing US politics
    and foreign policy in the current terrible situation to “feelings” is
    ridiculous and highly irresponsible.

    Reply

  133. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!!! Theres Wigwag. If ya don’t like AIPAC, you’re anti-semitic. And if ya don’t like illegal immigration, street gangs, and uninspected Mexican trucks on American roads shortchanging the American trucking industry, you’re a “bigot”.
    Well, guess what, WigWag? I don’t like assholes like you either. I’m an equal opportunity bigot.

    Reply

  134. WigWag says:

    Yeah, POA, I heard that Lou Dobbs hates Mexican truckers almost as much as you do.
    Two major league assholes and bigots, POA and Lou Dobbs

    Reply

  135. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hey Kotz, where ya been?
    Uh, listen, if you see any of your heroes in Washington, you might wanna mention to them that they seem to have dropped Maliki’s strings.
    They better get ’em re-attached quick, or ‘ol Maliki might just shit all over Bush’s legacy before the lying worm even has a chance to slither out of the Oval Office.

    Reply

  136. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Actually, JohnH, I rarely watch cable news”
    You should try it. They’re as full of it as you are. You might pick up some pointers.

    Reply

  137. kotzabasis says:

    No Bidens of any kind will change the color of Obama’s green horns on foreign affairs and international issues. The question for Americans in this election is whether they will allow HATE to trump REASON. Whether their RAGING hate for Bush-Cheney and the Republicans will drive them to elect a policy chameleon and a wannabe to boot as president of a great nation (speaking as an Australian), which still protects the free world from lethal enemies in our dangerous times, against all the dicta of reason.

    Reply

  138. WigWag says:

    Actually, JohnH, I rarely watch cable news.

    Reply

  139. JohnH says:

    “Had Obama picked Clinton (I’m glad he didn’t) he would have almost certainly been elected.” (WigWag)
    And if my name had been Bush or Clinton, I most certainly would have been elected, though I most probably would not have deigned to accept the position. Although…I’ll have to think about that one for a while before I get back to you.
    Speculation is fun (and a waste of time), which is why Cable “news” does a lot of it–it’s cheaper than hiring reporters to cover the stories. And people like Wigwag seem to love it.

    Reply

  140. WigWag says:

    I think I have explained it in the past, Paul. I think Clinton is a highly qualified and competent woman. I think Obama is an unqualified man. Throughout American history, great women have played second fiddle to not so great men. I didn’t want it to happen again.
    With that said, had Obama selected Clinton it’s hard for me to see how he could have lost. Picking a man who got less that 1,000 votes over a woman who recieved over 18 million votes tells you alot about the type of man that Senator Obama is.
    In my opinion, it confirms what millions of women have thought about Obama all along; that he’s arrogant and that he’s a sexist.

    Reply

  141. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Oh hell, Paul, have you already forgotten WigWag’s unsupported assertion that women voters are “abandoning Obama in droves”?
    You still think Wigwag is a dissatisfied democrat,eh?
    Guuuuulible.

    Reply

  142. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    I will try to explain that. But only if you first try to explain your
    sentence: “Had Obama picked Clinton (I’m glad he didn’t) he
    would have almost certainly been elected.”, and how that is
    connected to your claim that you support the democrats on
    issues.
    “I`m glad he didn`t” implies an increase of the risk of McCain
    winning. So please explain.
    And apropos sarcasm, who was it that just said: “I wonder why so
    many women don’t like Obama.”?

    Reply

  143. WigWag says:

    Paul, it’s easy to be sarcastic. Instead, why don’t you explain why women shouldn’t be insulted that Obama selected a man who got 1,000 votes and had to pull out after Iowa instead of a woman who competed to the end and won 18 million votes (more than received by Obama himself)

    Reply

  144. Paul Norheim says:

    “Had Obama picked Clinton (I’m glad he didn’t) he would have
    almost certainly been elected.” (WigWag)
    “What surprises me in how negative women appear to be on
    Biden. It could be the Anita Hill hearings that he chaired or it
    could be Obama’s arrogance at not selecting as his VP the
    women who got more votes in the primaries and caucuses than
    he did.” (WigWag)
    Be prepared for 200 more posts from WigWag, blaming Obama
    for not choosing Clinton as VP, and expressing “surprise”
    because other women are unhappy with the choice —
    …with the words “I`m glad he didn`t” whispered in the
    background.
    Muddy waters…

    Reply

  145. WigWag says:

    “Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that is unfair or untrue.”
    Sorry, POA, everything I’ve said about Obama is true.

    Reply

  146. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “To Democrats like me, who for the first time, don’t know what to do….”
    Don’t know what to do???
    What the f are you talking about, WigWag? Its obvious you know EXACTLY what you are going to do. You’re gonna swiftboat Obama, like you’ve done, ad nauseum, for months now, and do your damnedest to put McCain in the Oval Office.
    Who the hell do you think you’re kidding?

    Reply

  147. WigWag says:

    Sorry for the typo. Clinton got 18 million votes so naturally Obama selected the man who got less than 1,000 votes in the Iowa Primary and then pulled out.
    I wonder why so many women don’t like Obama.

    Reply

  148. WigWag says:

    MarkL, you’re right they are terrible numbers. What surprises me in how negative women appear to be on Biden. It could be the Anita Hill hearings that he chaired or it could be Obama’s arrogance at not selecting as his VP the women who got more votes in the primaries and caucuses than he did.
    18 million Americans voted for Clinton; many of them were women. Less than 10,000 voters went for Biden. Women might find Obama’s selection inexplicable; don’t you think?

    Reply

  149. MarkL says:

    Wigwag, those are terrible numbers for Biden.
    The low %age who think he’s ready to be President really surprise me.
    I think it’s because he has been something of a court jester for 20 years. Sure, he says some interesting things, but nobody takes him seriously, overall.

    Reply

  150. WigWag says:

    According to Rasmussen, the choice of Biden has not been particularly well received; at least so far.
    39% Say Biden the Right Choice, Women Less Enthusiastic
    Saturday, August 23, 2008
    On the day that Barack Obama announced Joe Biden as his running mate, 39% of voters said he made the right choice. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 25% disagreed and another 35% are not sure.
    Women are notably less enthusiastic than men—33% of women say Biden was the right choice while 27% disagreed. Men, by a 46% to 24% margin, said that Obama made the right choice.
    Not surprisingly, Democrats were more supportive of Obama’s decision than anybody else—52% of those in his party agreed with his pick while 19% disagreed. However, just 43% of Democratic women said the presumptive nominee made the best pick while 23% disagreed.
    Overall, 32% said the selection of Biden made them more likely to vote for Obama and an identical percentage said it made them less likely to do so. Among unaffiliated voters, 25% are more likely to vote for Biden while 33% had the opposite view.
    Thirty-nine percent (39%) say Biden is ready to be President while 35% disagree.

    Reply

  151. DonS says:

    you shift ground faster than a pile of quicksand. If you’re really THAT kind of democract (me, I’m independent), you’re either very very young, or haven’t been wathcing these past decades since George Wallace presciently said “there’s not a dimes worth of difference” between the two parties.
    Well today, there might be about 6 cents difference, but its the best shot we’ve got, unless you’re a died in the wool anarchist.

    Reply

  152. WigWag says:

    It sounds vitriolic to you because you prefer Senator Obama to Senator McCain. To a McCain supporter it sounds too mild. To Democrats like me, who for the first time, don’t know what to do, it just sounds sad.

    Reply

  153. DonS says:

    this is true, but I think you are letting your vitriolic dissappointment that Clinton was not nominated control all your discourse. Such vitriol often demands an object. But it can’t be good.
    No charge for the analysis 😉

    Reply

  154. WigWag says:

    I’m just saying what I think, just like you are.

    Reply

  155. DonS says:

    “Had Obama picked Clinton (I’m glad he didn’t)he would have almost certainly been elected. ”
    Wigwag, you are a provocateur ofthe first water.
    “Joe Biden
    by kos
    Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 08:04:49 AM PDT
    “Really, if we live in a just world, this will be the end of Joe Biden’s political career…It’s clear his career has dragged on one election cycle too many.” ”
    Could we say you are really good at cherry picking, as are most virulent partisans. You’ve missed you calling, or maybe not.

    Reply

  156. WigWag says:

    Speaking of the netroots:
    Joe Biden
    by kos
    Wed Jan 31, 2007 at 08:04:49 AM PDT
    “Really, if we live in a just world, this will be the end of Joe Biden’s political career…It’s clear his career has dragged on one election cycle too many.”

    Reply

  157. WigWag says:

    DonS, it’s a free country; think whatever you like. But regardless of what you think about Clinton supporters, Obama is tanking. The more the Democrats protest that they are united, the more fractured you know they are.
    Had Obama picked Clinton (I’m glad he didn’t)he would have almost certainly been elected. Obama is either very smart or very dumb. Maybe he will win anyway; but I wouldn’t count on it.
    Not only are millions of Clinton supporters unhappy that he picked Biden instead of her, they think it’s a sign of Obama’s arrogance that he didn’t even vet her.
    Obama had a terrible August. Biden may be a good guy, but he won’t help Obama.
    My guess is that most Obama supporters are beginning to realize that Obama is in trouble. He might still be ahead and he might even win, but at the moment, he’s headed in the wrong direction.
    And did you get a load of the stage in Denver? It looks like a game show set.
    No wonder Obama wants to accept the nomination in the stadium instead of the Pepsi Center.

    Reply

  158. Mr.Murder says:

    Fournier was like that on Clinton and Obama supporters carried his water.
    Yet another flip-flop.

    Reply

  159. totalrecall says:

    What do the Netroots and the Obamanauts have in common…a deep love for liberal fascism and the utter public destruction of anyone who disagrees with them.
    Think about it in this case…they are working hard to have Fournier fired from his job, his reputation destroyed and his family put out on the street.
    Steve — if he loses his job then you have blood on your hands and our just as guilty as Kos and his robotic followers.

    Reply

  160. DonS says:

    If even “one in five” Clinton spporters truly is dertermined to vote for McCain, it gives new meaning to the phrase “cutting of your nose to spite your face”.
    I am the last one to be partisan, seeing Obama as the lesser, far lesser I hope, of two evils in a corrupt system, but if this Zogby information is in anyway near accurate, it reveals a spitefulnes and stupidity of these Clinton supporters that belies belief. I’m tempted to say it shows a politics before country attitude.

    Reply

  161. We're Screwed says:

    Joe Biden is basically promising to come to the OFFENSE of
    Israel, a nation that we do not have a Senate-ratified defense
    treaty with. If we attack Iran for Israel,or allow Israel to use U.S.
    controlled airspace in her attack, the world is over. What don’t
    you people get about that?
    All this shilly-shallying about domestic issues is screaming into
    the eye of the hurricane. The hurricane being endless war in the
    Middle East, and now South Asia.
    We do not have any money to spend on domestic issues, nor will
    we until we curb our imperialism, which Democratic presidents
    have been equally as reluctant to do as Republicans.
    We are broke because of these wars. Biden’s talk about splitting
    Iraq into three was put forward by Douglas Feith, Richard Perle,
    the Wurmsers, and other neo-cons in a paper that they wrote in
    1996 for former, and perhaps future Israeli Prime Minister,
    Benjamin Netanyahu.
    The paper was entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
    Securing the Realm” That realm being Eretz Israel, which is
    envisioned to be the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.
    Look it up, it’ll be a crystal ball in terms of telling you what
    USrael has up their imperialist sleeves.
    Americans are the stupidest, F-ing people on Earth, and we
    deserve Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden.
    How many graves can Arlington hold? Maybe we can outsource
    some of our graves to Israel, because, after-all, Israel and its
    psycho-phants (deliberate mis-spelling) like Biden will be
    responsible for the death of America.
    And so will all of you, who natter on and miss the big picture,
    which is WAR. Biden is a Zionist, so in effect, a neo-con. We
    cannot save our country without kicking every single one of
    those F-ers out, no matter which party they are in.

    Reply

  162. WigWag says:

    “Hilarious.”
    Your laughing now, but you may find yourself crying in November.

    Reply

  163. Mary says:

    Talking Points Memo has also done yeoman’s work on the Ron
    Fournier problem even before he was elevated at AP. The Biden
    pieces are only today’s problem. Fournier shows his corruption
    several times a week. I think it traces back to Murdoch on the
    AP board.
    One thing I have noticed is that there are not enough blogs in
    the rankings on Google news. I think Huffington Post is no
    longer ranked and yet RushLimbaugh.com is ranked. Someone
    has been messing around at Google just recently. Google
    should be notified to pull Fournier’s pieces as they are not news
    but rather analysis.
    Make sure the ethical problems of Fournier are posted to the
    influential blogs as well as the problem that his opinion pieces
    are not sufficiently disclaimed as news. Always repeat the
    possible McCain job and the Karl Rove letter whenever Fournier’s
    name is mentioned.

    Reply

  164. Spunkmeyer says:

    Hilarious.

    Reply

  165. WigWag says:

    This is from the John Zogby website
    “Obama might not beat McCain without Clinton and her supporters”
    This is from the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll
    “A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll yesterday shows that his challenge remains attracting Senator Clinton’s supporters to the ticket. Half said they would vote for the senator and one in five said they would support Senator McCain.”
    George Bush was elected President the second time because he defeated John Kerry by less than 20,000 votes in Ohio. The total number of popular votes cast in the 2004 election was 122,267,533. A change of two one hundredths of one percent of the total vote cast (if concentrated in Ohio) would have changed the outcome.
    George Bush was elected President the first time because he defeated Al Gore by less than 1,000 votes in Florida. The total number of popular votes cast in the 2000 election was 105,405,100. A change of one thousandth of one percent of the total votes cast (if concentrated in Florida) would have changed the outcome.
    Bush defeated Kerry by 286 to 252 electoral votes; Bush defeated Gore by 271 to 266 electoral votes.
    The PUMA vote along with their fellow travelers will almost certainly decide this election.
    I wonder how those PUMAs are going to feel about Obama being so arrogant that he didn’t even “vet” Clinton.
    The “netroots” that Steve is posting about was vicious towards Clinton during the primary and caucus fights. Now it looks like their going to learn that what goes around comes around.
    The Netroots has alot bigger problems than Ron Fournier.

    Reply

  166. shocked says:

    I just read the Fournier article, and it was striking in the tone that it took. Joe Biden has his faults, certainly, but he also adds a lot of pluses to the campaign. But if I am to understand Fournier, he is saying that by picking a strong candidate, one who will clearly be helpful both to a campaign and a presidential administration, Obama is showing weakness and his own fear. Yes, this is in part a response to criticism of Obama’s relative inexperience with foreign policy (even though presidential history shows no correlation at all between experience and actual foreign policy success).
    If Obama had chosen a weaker, less-known, more inexperienced person (say, Tim Kaine) he would have been derided for leading such an inexperienced ticket, or would have probably been critiqued by the likes of Fournier for not having the self-confidence to choose a stronger candidate. Or the McCain campaign would have come out and said Obama didn’t want to share the spotlight with a worthier VP.
    Biden is a good choice, and will ultimately be a plus for the campaign.

    Reply

  167. Steve Clemons says:

    Dan — I think your views are just fine. And frankly, I also thought that we should welcome healthy debate and discourse, including with Ron Fournier. Thanks for that clip. steve

    Reply

  168. Taylor says:

    Steve, hopefully not OT, I posted this at OpenLeft and would be interested in any comments that you have. “Hopelessly naive” is fine if you can shed further light.
    We’ve seen examples of FP split 3-ways in the first Bush term, with Cheney/Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice all having their own agendas. Rice’s agenda, as a successful university administrator, was to kiss her boss’ ass.
    Now might be a good time to reread Ari Berman’s great essay about the strategic class that dominates the Democratic party (see also here). Expect VP Biden and SoS Holbrooke to pretty much toe the party line. Perhaps NSA Samantha Power might offer some new perspectives. Wondering how Richard Clarke will fit into things. Cross my fingers for SoD Clark, but I get no indication that that is in the cards, quite the opposite really.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *