- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 5, 2008 at 6:01 am #620949
JoBParticipanti decided maybe i should look at David Pouffle (sp?) more closely.. Barak Obama’s campaign manager… since we are looking at Hillary’s staff so closely… and i stumbled across this…
Full disclosure means that i should tell you that there isn’t a single Obama supporter who won’t be sputtering within the first few paragraphs of this piece… but unlike those articles which depend upon innuendo, this is actually a well documented article that tells a compelling story about the Obama campaign strategy.. and talks about the way words can be and are misused.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
April 5, 2008 at 6:20 am #620950
JanSParticipantI think it was on this thread that JoB brought up “good” superdelegates, as opposed to “bad” superdelegates…while this is just saying some are more “super” than others, it’s interesting nonetheless…
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1131ap_super_sized_delegates.html?source=mypi
April 5, 2008 at 6:36 am #620951
JanSParticipantok..just so we’re clear…the article that talks about Race Man is interesting…but we do have to remember that was written 2 months go…and by a man who is a Hillary supporter (of course a tad of bias, just like stuff coning from Obama supporters). Sean Wilents has written some good stuff…I especially enjoy the stuff he’s written about Bush. And I don’t read the New Republic often…some interesting stuff in there, too…
here’s an interview with him, as to why he’s supporting Hillary.
April 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm #620952
JoBParticipantJanS
Isn’t it amazing that an article as well documented as that piece…. published by an acclaimed historian who has a reputation to protect if it is inaccurate… has received no attention.
hmmm… i wonder why
Thanks for the link above.. his interview lays out a far more cogent argument for Hillary than i could.
April 5, 2008 at 5:48 pm #620953
AnonymousInactiveApril 5, 2008 at 10:40 pm #620954
JoBParticipanti honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry.. but i am willing to bet she laughed:)
April 5, 2008 at 11:19 pm #620955
JanSParticipantApril 6, 2008 at 1:01 am #620956
JoBParticipantApril 6, 2008 at 5:32 am #620957
JoBParticipantI decided to follow up with further research on Sean Wilentz’s decidedly controversial article because no-one else had… and i really did want to know.
i did a lot of further research this evening on who Sean Wilentz is, his connections to the Clintons… and whether or not his article got any network play..
as to network play.. i found this interview on MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540#23377803
That was all i could find.
I really couldn’t find that much out about the man. Yes, he is a liberal democrat… and he did testify on Clinton’s behalf in the impeachment hearings and he is a Clinton supporter.. tho as an individual.. not as a staff member of any kind.
He claims they are not personal friends and despite allegations to his wanting a special position in the Clinton White House.. i could find no evidence to the contrary.
I also looked for rebuttal articles.. and i found some that were primarily aimed at Wilentz himself and concerned more with the politicized style than content.. and couple of reasonably well thought out blog comments…
this really is the best of them… tho the style and blog is decidedly political.
But this one does look at the points Wilentz makes and makes direct comments about those points… and is referred to in several blogs by posters making their own points.
http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/02/im-all-out-of-violins.html
In the end.. i am left with the impression that some of the Wilentz article is political posturing.. and quite frankly i think that dilutes his case… but that he is accurate in his facts.. if sometimes biased in his characterizations.
Do it think that it is wrong for Obama to play the race card? No. He is a politician. He is using everything he has… and i would expect no less.
But i do think that this campaign tactic could easily misfire when we get to the race this fall…
and… i think it does call into question one of his main campaign points.. that he has taken the high road and has run a clean campaign.
No-one but Obama could have made the speech he made.. and it was a great speech.. and it was a great time to be making that speech…
but the question remains.. was this a great man making that speech?
and that, i think, is a personal judgment call.
I want to thank those who challenged me to look for background information.. who were not content for me to write mere opinions.. no matter how well thought out they were.
I have had an incredibly instructive time with the Mark Penn inquiry.. and it has led me places i didn’t know existed… places i will surely return to at another time.
It has also reminded me how much fun it is to ask questions and then follow the trails of the information you find on to even better questions.
those who find me pedantic will be glad i am not publicly documenting all the trails this inquiry has taken me through ;->
i think i will take tomorrow off:)
April 6, 2008 at 8:23 pm #620958
walfredoMemberhttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html
Another out and out lie, directly from the mouth of Senator Clinton… When does it stop? This is not a misstatement, or someone misspeaking. This is a deliberate lie about first her position on the war in Iraq, including her continued support publicly in 2005, and about Barrack Obama’s consistent opposition to this war.
It’s up to you to choose whose position you agree with, but it is flat out wrong to make the false statements Senator Clinton is making that re-write history, to change her position…
April 6, 2008 at 8:32 pm #620959
walfredoMemberhttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4596305&page=1
Don’t it make you proud Hillary supporters…
April 6, 2008 at 10:30 pm #620960
AnonymousInactivewalfredo, what exactly is your agenda? Did you read the title of this thread? Why aren’t you posting on the obama thread reasons TO vote for him? You’ve been asked in every possible way to state why you support *your* candidate. Instead, you seem to have this out right hatred for Hillary that you need to express everyday.
I followed your link and thought, so. They both want this war over. Can we move on now. Did you happen to read any of the comments? Someone listed 58 Obama lies. I don’t know if the list is accurate, but why don’t you waste your time finding out and get back to us. Someone else posted a link to the speech Hillary gave on the senate floor before she voted for war as the LAST resort. It’s a good speech. Did you read it?
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Again, I ask, what is your agenda? You seem to post nothing more than see, see, I’m right. How about we give up on that routine and move on to getting a democrat elected.
April 6, 2008 at 10:44 pm #620961
charlabobParticipantJT, normally I’d agree with you about posting ProObama information on the Obama thread. However, we’ve gotten ourselves into this bind where some of us on all sides feel it necessary to refute what we think is misinformation, so all threads except McCain are filled with that. I don’t think that’s very rare at this stage, with two very similar candidates.
BTW if I were an anti-Obama person, I’d start looking at some of the information from the left. :-)
I know when I’ve posted rebuttals it hasn’t been to change the minds of the proClintons — or even to annoy JoB :-) It’s to make sure that on-the-fence lurkers know there’s another view.
I would strongly suggest that anyone who follows links to pro-Anyone or anti-Anyone information follow up with the comments as well. They’re frequently filled with interesting alternative information as well. (They’re also filled with vitriolic crap–that’s what scroll bars are for.)
Jan has posted a lot of solid information on the McCain thread and it keeps drifting off the end of the page.
April 6, 2008 at 10:48 pm #620962
JoBParticipantapparently headlines are enough for some people…
the actual content of the piece doesn’t matter…
What Obama criticized was the statistics for the timeline for withdrawal of troops…
Clinton was clear and unequivocal about the lies that had been told to the American people to get them into this war and the lies that were being told about the progress..
So Obama criticized the withdrawal plan…
Clinton criticized the war…
Not a minor distinction… She didn’t lie…
All you had to do was actually read the article…
but some reporter jumps on the “lie” and apparently doesn’t even read his own quotes… and the lie becomes the headline… and the story.
This is just one more example of the kind of negative press for Hillary that has been the hallmark of this campaign.
so now the story is .. why did you tell the lie?
another example of the “when did you stop beating your wife” technique.
Yes, i am proud to be a hillary supporter.
April 6, 2008 at 10:49 pm #620963
JoBParticipanti forgot to say thanks JT …
i should have said that first!
Back to looking for a hot spring resort close enough to celebrate entering one more decade next month:)
April 7, 2008 at 12:12 am #620964
charlabobParticipantMark Penn “stepped down.” (I hope for the sake of his family it wasn’t to spend more time with them.)
Yesterday Colombia fired him — today (one can hope) the Clinton campaign did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us/politics/06cnd-penn.html?hp
April 7, 2008 at 12:29 am #620965
JoBParticipantsince he doesn’t seem to have any of his clients best interests at heart… i think it’s good that he’s gone…
April 7, 2008 at 12:33 am #620966
JoBParticipantAlso..
i just spent some time at factcheck.org …
i was hoping they had something up about the big clinton lie.. but not yet.
they do have a video of the week up talking about the real records of Obama and Clinton in the Senate… and it should come as no real surprise that Clinton is far more efficient when the numbers are crunched… it’s worth watching.
she really has done an excellent job in the Senate…
What it didn’t talk about was the content of the bills.. and i happen to think that is even more worth investigating.
But then.. i like looking things up:)
April 7, 2008 at 12:47 am #620967
JanSParticipantanother article about Penn…she’s better off without him…
April 7, 2008 at 12:51 am #620968
charlabobParticipantI think we can see why senators never get elected (when they run against any non-senator): too much to look up.
April 7, 2008 at 1:54 am #620969
JoBParticipantcharlabob..
your comment made me laugh before i linked to the article…
in all of the campaign rhetoric.. it’s too easy to lose sight of the truth.
they are both “dang” politicians … it’s not what they do… it’s who they are.
If they are any good.. they love the game.
It’s only when we close our eyes to what they would have us believe (about themselves.. about each other… about what the real issues are) that we can come close to figuring out who is in our best interests.
There will always be campaign managers… and politicians who use them to sell us what they think we will buy.
I am just buying less of it these days.
April 7, 2008 at 2:11 am #620970
walfredoMemberJoB- you are insane! You are saying you agree with HRC, that she actually was the first of the two candidates to speak out against the war?
That is so thoroughly false, in every conceivable way, its hard to begin refuting it. If seeing it in black and white, if watching speeches of him consistently speaking out against the war for 5 years doesn’t do it, nothing will.
In fact, in Febraury your candidate went on and on championing the war she authorized and supported for 5 years. She only said she regretted her decision for the first time, in the last debate, when it was convenient. But I guess she gets to make up the truth as she goes, and her followers are crazy enough to go with her…
April 7, 2008 at 2:27 am #620971
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
it is obvious you didn’t follow the link to the clip that JT so thoughtfully provided for you to a Clinton speech… because if you had.. and you had noted when that speech was made… you might have a differing impression.
You might even find the wording of the actual bill that ultimately was used to authorize the war interesting reading. It wasn’t quite what you think it was.
I know that i am respecting your links enough to follow them. Perhaps you thought anything which might challenge what you know was irrelevant? I would only say that it is easier to defend any position when you arm yourself with the facts on both sides of the issue.
As for what was there in black and white… if you actually read the quotes from both Senators.. you would have noted that although the material quoted for Obama is earlier than the material quoted for Hillary… his quotes actually refer only to differences with the assessment of troop withdrawal timelines while hers actually speaks to the deception and mismanagement of the war.
Not that i think the whole issue amounts to a hill of beans anyway.
I am hoping factcheck takes that one on.
As for his 5 years of speaking against the war… you probably should fact check that… i think in more than one printed article he said he was unsure what he would have done.. and his voting record doesn’t reflect 5 years of being against the war.
Do yourself the favor of visiting factcheck.org.
There is some truly interesting reading there.
April 7, 2008 at 2:36 am #620972
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
i just started to write another lengthy reply to you.. then i realized there really is no point to it.
You need to get out more.. and by that i mean you need to read a lot more than campaign materials and political pundits.
Maybe you even need to go look a the comedy clips on the NAFTA thread…
Do you need a hug?
April 7, 2008 at 4:30 am #620973
charlabobParticipant71 — The good news is all three are senators and when the dust settles, which it will, there’s a h-ll of a lot more to disparage about McCain, who is ALSO a senator (1) because he’s done many more things that are detrimental to the American(sic) people and (B) because he’s been there longer.
I’m having many tigger moments today; my eyore has definitely gone to back to sleep.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.