Now that we are perusing every sermon given by Pastor Wright in an attempt to bury Obama, is it ok to hear some of Huckabee’s sermons? Pretty please?
Is it still un-American to talk about Mitt Romney’s funny underpants? Anyone? I just need to keep up to date on the rules, here.
Zifnab
NO! Why do you hate Jesus people!
ThymeZone
No, white middle class Jesus-lovers who live on 6000-year-old-Earth are exempt from all such scrutiny.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
OMG this is going to be awesome.
We’re going to have a full week of dissing Obama’s pastor in the news cycle.
Then all he has to do is say “how un-Christian can you be to attack one for his hometown religion?”. His Baptist negatives plummet and the attackers’ negs go up.
Bonus: to the Black vote, he says, “They don’t understand what the church is to us Black folk”, solidifying the Black vote.
I know my fellow Obamabots are pissed about this, but I think this is awesome. It requires one simple Judo move to remind people that they’re attacking his (Christian) religion. And we all know Obama can pull it off.
Wheeeee
TheFountainHead
While I don’t share Caidence’s glee or even all of his optimism, I do see how this could be a Checkers moment for Obama.
Raenelle
Yesterday on Hardball, Chris Matthews said that Barrack Obama should have gotten up and walked out of the church if he heard un-American sentiments. Not to do so implied some kind of acceptance.
How about applying that to Catholic Matthews himself. Do you think he’s ever walked out on homophobic sermons? If he hasn’t, doesn’t that mean that he’s comfortable with homophobia? Does he think it’s a sin? A character defect?
What about Bush? Does he believe in the rapture? Does he see himself as having a role in bringing it about? Did that affect any of his foreign policy positions? I think he needs to address these issues in a presser NOW.
Actually, this whole thing could get quite fun. Since every candidate wants to wear his piety on his sleeve, we should hold every single one of them accountable for every science-denying, witch-burning medieval view their religion has avowed.
If it’s fair for Obama, it’s fair for everyone. Or is this attack as racist as we really think it is?
Studly Pantload
Huck and Capt. Underpants are old news. Ain’t no one gonna go snoopin round them at this point. Besides, I seem to have read teh Huckster sequestered his pulpity ramblings. I think if Obama makes the GE, this and McCain’s spiritual idiots cancel each other out (i.e., the blogs will rage ineloquent on the other side’s preachers, but the campaigns will avoid the subject). The real fun will be seeing how ham-handedly Team Hill wields the Wright matter; stock up on the theater style micowave popcorn while you can.
Paddy
My SIL called me not long ago all a twitter about the Mormon’s “Baptism By Proxy” wanting to know why the Left wasn’t screaching about it re Romney. I told her, “We’re hanging on until we need it.”
This may be the time to pull out that trump card.
Zifnab
As a semi-practicing Catholic who has attended enough masses to hear the public view on this once or twice, I can tell you that even in Tom DeLay’s Sugar Land, the priests approach homosexuality and abortion as diplomatically as you could ask for. They – obviously – don’t approve of the practice, but they preach forgiveness and tolerance first and repeatedly stress the “judge not lest ye be judged” mentality.
My church is far more conservative on the war – tip-toeing around how against it the Vatican at large is – than they are on the shakier issues. Likewise, its hard to get a Catholic Priest around here to publicly condemn the Death Penalty.
Regardless – from my personal experience – Catholics are a great deal more liberal on the classic GOP talking points than you might think.
Alan
Rush Limbaugh already covered this. You see, Wright bastardizes Christianity by attacking America for its three strike your out laws. Pot smokers deserve to be in prison for life. It’s only fair-God bless America.
Rarely Posts
None of it is unfair, and it never has been. You probably just once believed the right’s talking point on this issue.
wwz
The Sorrow and the Pity Party
Svensker
No, no, no. Pastor Wright is black and scary. Booga booga!!!!! ZOMG!!! Huckabee and the Mormons are just normal ol’ white guys,nothing scary about them. That’s the difference.
Rick Taylor
Hmmmmmmmmm. Obama has to denounce and reject Farakhan and Wright, but it’s ok for McCain to accept endorsements from Hagee. What could the difference be? What could it be. Hmmmm.
ThymeZone
If anyone in this election cycle wants to play Let’s Shit On His/Her Religion, I think they lose in the long run.
Short run, you can get some media noise. But once the noise dies down, the absurdity of these things becomes clear.
Just using the Obama-McCain example for illustration, in one case you have a fiery black preacher and a young black guy who goes to his church. In the other case, you have a totally insane, sociopathic minister (Hagee) who is being used by McCain as a pander opportunity to get votes.
Once the true nature of that contrast is seen, and there is plenty of time for that picture to be properly painted, I don’t think it hurts Obama much.
GSD
I’d like to take a moment to remind everyone that Larry Craig is not gay.
Thanks.
-GSD
Rick Taylor
wwz said:
I agree with Wolcott’s general sentiment, only I think it applies to Hillary supporters just as well. Now at taylormarsh they’re warning how they’re just going to take their ball and stay home if Obama wins the nomination because he’s been so mean!
Honestly, I used to wonder how the Republican’s managed to win with such awful candidates, but I’m beginning to see why; what a bunch of babies. Of course the conservatives have been muttering about staying home if McCain wins the nomination, but I’ll be they come out in force when the time comes. The democrats better be ready to as well.
Studly Pantload
Steady as she goes. You wanna wield this deftly as an angel if at all. See if you can’t neutralize the matter with the “b-b-b-but *they* said….” argument first. I’m not sayin yours might not be a fair argument, just that it should be the last one considered.
Lemme put the racism issue (or, if looking at the presiential campaign from Team Hill’s point of view, the genderism issue) this way: A fair argument can be made that Keith Olbermann has the material at hand to do a Special Rant each and every night, so thick is the bullshit being flung around in our name day in and day out. But if he did so, each SR would would lose value (call it the outrage-inflation effect).
Duzzat make sense?
myiq2xu
Ezra says it’s Hillary’s fault.
Dennis - SGMM
I’m just glad that we can now add the Preacher Check and Ready to Answer the 3AM Phone Call to our presidential checklist. By adding just a few more such “qualifications,” those politicians whose presidential ambitions may have been truncated by thin legislative résumés, racism, homophobia, lunacy, being in the tank for corporate constituencies, or manifest hackery, will soon be able to run with the best of ’em.
Idiocracy: it’s not just a movie.
Lavocat
I’ve got no problem with a full court press on a given candidate’s religious beliefs. Shit, if they believe it, then why shouldn’t they be expected to put forth their positions on it?
If they believe in such radical ideas as The Rapture, I sure the hell want to know about it – and I want them to explain – FULLY – why they do, and the basis for that belief.
This isn’t an election for high school class president here.
Nonetheless, I DO have a problem with implying that another’s beliefs are those of the candidates, by proxy.
And, in the case of Huckabee, you’re DAMNED STRAIGHT all of his sermons are fair fucking game! Why do you think he’s still hiding them!? Remember, IOKIYAR – the general rules only apply to everyone else.
El Cid
John McCain is immune from all this because he can have a variety of crazy fundamentalist preachers back him and since their various crazinesses balance out, he’s 100% good, and since none of them will ever sound vaguely black nationalist or Afrocentric, Americans have to forgive John McCain so that he can invite more journalists to the best dry rub BBQ’s ever.
cbear
Here’s my take-
1. Frigging EVERYBODY across the progressive internets is PISSED at somebody.
2. This ain’t going to end well for either MUP or Hilldy.
3. Obama/Edwards might work at the convention.
4. If Obama isn’t on the ticket in some capacity, the Dems are fighting an uphill battle and probably lose.
5. I’m beginning to think there’s a slight, extremely slight, possibility that Gore plays a role.
6. Eliot Spitzer should send Rev. Wright a nice fat check.
Carry on.
Studly Pantload
Or, he could just wire the funds—-oh, nevermind.
Incertus
Oh yeah–the right certainly shouldn’t want to engage the left in a game of “whose preachers are more batshit crazy?” Besides, I though all us leftists were atheists and commies? I mean, I am, but I’ve always been told by right-wingers that I’m not special in that regard.
Dennis - SGMM
OT:
Avoid overcorrecting economy, Bush warns
“We’re sending some of you $600 and we’re bailing out Bear Stearns, that’s more than enough.”
wwz
Re: Rick Taylor
I agree, generally speaking. I think that the great uptick in participation by Dems is real, even if the numbers are skewed by cross over voting. The continuing flow of money to Obama and Clinton tends to support the notion that more people are truly engaged, in both camps.
I’d be surprised if Republicans reversed their stay at home and brood trend for the General election, though a lot can happen in the meantime. The one thing I do feel rather sure about, is that all those cross over votes will go back to Republicans come fall, or nearly all. I don’t count on them for anything, especially having good sense.
cbear
Fixed.
The Other Steve
John McCain was episcopalian, but he’s been attending a Baptist church because it’s more “conservative”. I wonder what his minister has to say weekly?
Dennis - SGMM
It’s only fair that a few tens of thousands lose their homes so that we’ll have the money to attack Iran and get those godless Islamocommiefascists right where they want us.
Dave_Violence
It’s completely OK to totally expose a politician’s history. Let’s find out everything. Including the speeches of his pastor.
Who ever said it was un-American to check out the magic underwear of the Mormons? When was it not acceptable to ridicule Mike Huckabee? In the former case, I don’t recall it being brought up, in the latter, the media never took Mike H seriously enough as a candidate to care – though he made it clear that he was a strict creationist, in other words, a kook – to the atheists.
What’s not being asked is how Wright can get along with Farakhan as the two religions disagree on a lot. Did they put religion aside and focus on being black? Don’t know… Maybe asking Obama about this stuff we will find out just how articulate he can be regarding “touchy” issues.
LiberalTarian
C’mon John, you know there is only ever one rule:
It’s OK if you are a Republican.
This rule can also be written:
Nothing is OK if you are a Democrat.
Dennis - SGMM
And maybe, just maybe, if we finally have enough of digging into their lives back to their first diaper change we’ll get so sick of it that we’ll once again start paying attention to their accomplishments and their stands on the issues. I’m still annoyed over the feeding frenzy on Edwards’ haircuts and his home – as if the rest of ’em were living in condos and cutting their hair with a Flowbee.
Darkrose
Yesterday on Hardball, Chris Matthews said that Barrack Obama should have gotten up and walked out of the church if he heard un-American sentiments. Not to do so implied some kind of acceptance.
How about applying that to Catholic Matthews himself.
You know, if I were Catholic, I’d be very, very careful about criticizing others for the actions of the leaders of their denominations.
Just sayin’.
TR
John, don’t you get it?
Only the religious beliefs of scary dark people are relevant and open to criticism and mockery. African Americans? Sure. Muslims from the Middle East? Absolutely?
But white people’s religious beliefs are above reproach. Why? Jesus was white. I mean, just look at all the pictures.
mark
Andy Borowitz breaks the story:
cbear
Fixed.
Man, this internets thing is easy—all you do is follow a smart guy around, piggyback his comments, and sit back with a Marlboro Light and a Bud.
Can we go to one of the other sites now, Dennis? Somewhere with more girls—let’s see if this thing REALLY WORKS.
D-Chance.
Did I miss the news cycle where Huckabee and Romney re-entered the race and were now the presumptive nominees for president?
D-Chance.
BTW, referring to the Kossacks right now… is there anything more pathetic than a bunch of anonymous, airheaded, voluntary, and uncompensated contributors to a blogsite going “on strike”? The Clinton supporters continue to entertain…
Rick Taylor
From Salon:
cbear
Fixed.
God, this is easy. Next.
Dennis - SGMM
Nuh-uh. I read about your post about what you did in prison.
Dennis - SGMM
minus one “about” there someplace
orogeny
It might be the best thing that ever happened to this country if the media WOULD start going after all the candidate’s ridiculous beliefs. Let’s make fun of Mitt’s magic underwear and Huckabee’s creationist ignorance; let’s point the finger at Wright’s babbling and Hagee, Falwell and Robertson’s bigotry. Let’s point out how silly the beliefs of all the various religions are. Maybe we can finally get to a point where the candidates for the most powerful position in the world don’t have to out-jebus each other in other to get elected.
orogeny
From Washington Monthly: Here’s a real double standard.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
One of these gentlemen is likely to become a whole lot more relevant when they’re tabbed to run as McCain’s VP choice. Especially since McCain is old enough to remember the halcyon days of his political youth spent hustling votes from the Anasazi and hanging out with the crazy kiva elders at Chaco canyon.
MJ
Here is a Huckabee sermon. Enjoy!
ThymeZone
Hear, hear.
Martin
That’s a black hole.
Everyone believes crazy shit. People believe in karma, and luck, and ghosts, and that if they rolled a 3 on the dice that they are less likely to roll a 3 next time.
It’s a black hole because as you probe this stuff you are guaranteed to catch people in a logical trap. People will offhandedly qualify things with luck and count on luck and then fully deny that they believe in luck when you ask them outright. That’s just how we are wired.
It doesn’t matter if Bush believes in the rapture or anything like that. What matters is that they recognize and can articulate that belief is not the basis for policy and have a record and positions that demonstrate that. Obama gave a quite good speech on this:
And he’s exactly correct. Our beliefs are not dangerous nor is what gets said in church or what we read in books. What is dangerous are our actions and how we take those words and beliefs and translate them to deeds. We’re focusing on the wrong thing here. Bush is a horrible person not for what he believe but what he does. I have to assume based on what I know of Clinton’s religious background that she believes in some things that I’d consider pretty outrageous – but I’ve never seen any evidence that she translates that to policy, so that was never an issue to me. She’s not as clearly spoken on it as Obama, but it’s a place where she earns almost full marks from me.
My issue with Hagee is that, elevated from a religious to a political role, what McCain has in mind. I think he’s just exploiting Hagee’s reach, which is bad enough in itself, but the burden on McCain is to explain what exactly is going on there. He’s caught because I think the honest answer no only invalidates the endorsement, but does considerable harm over the state before the endorsement was made.
Tax Analyst
This was well laid out and of and by itself is a good reason to support Obama. While I wouldn’t expect HRC to ACT differently I would sure like to hear her make the same points (in her own style and terms, of course).
I think it’s an important statement to make and one that really needs to be fully articulated. Silence, in this matter at least, appears to be a function of timidity rather than thoughtfulness. The separation of Church and State is an issue that cries out for a clear statement of stance from each candidate who wishes to be taken seriously. If Senator Clinton wishes to say, “Well, yeah…uh, me too”, let’s hear it. If she has something of greater depth to add, well, I’d like to hear that as well. If she doesn’t feel the issue is worthy of speaking to, hey, tell us.
LiberalTarian
Speaking of religion, anyone else getting excited about the return of Battlestar Galactica??
Check out No. 6 in the “last supper” pic. If that isn’t freaking out the xianists (more than the good guys believing in gods and the cylons being the ones who believe in one god), nothing on this planet will.
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Martin
She’s tiptoed into that pool, but not really jumped in as Obama has. The truth is that it’s risky. Most Americans justify their positions at least somewhat on faith and sheer irrational notions so telling people that we shouldn’t use the Bible to justify policy is not a popular message. (It should be further noted that Obama makes this case to the most hostile audience to the message – religious groups, which is who the speech above was directed to)
But the reason that it is risky is that a lot of Americans justify ALL of their positions on faith. They think the only reason they do good things at all is because the Bible says to. They have no conscious concept of societal morality (which in most cases religion follows rather than leads) so presenting the idea that beliefs shouldn’t be the basis for policy sounds like anarchy.
I firmly believe that Clinton would agree with Obama’s statement, but I don’t think she’s courageous enough to say it in as stark terms – and that’s always been one of my big problems with the Clintons – we never seem to know what their real views are because they do that triangulation shit all the time.
Martin
Absolutely! Watching wingnut heads explode when the good guys turned to suicide bombing was as entertaining as the show.
Brachiator
In what rational universe would anyone give full marks to Senator Clinton on the basis of what you ASSUME her position would be? She’s a big girl, uh (non-sexist) a grown woman, uh (full strength non-sexist) a grown person, who should be able to make a clear statement about her views in this area.
Similarly, there is no reason for anyone to have to guess about her courage or her love for triangulation. If she wants to be a moral and political coward, that’s her choice. I will not fill in the blanks in order to create a fantasy Clinton I can believe in.
Dante created a special place in hell for those angels who refused to take sides in the cosmic battle between good and evil. I willingly toss in those political leaders who won’t take a stand on the prostitution of faith by religious and political scoundrels.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
The separation of church and state was not just an abstract idea that the founders dreamt up, it was a reaction against the worst aspects of recent (for them) history. Remember that the vicious sectarian wars of the 17th Cen. were as close in time to Jefferson, et. al. as Lincoln is to us today.
jones
or some of Romney’s excesses, which were deemed out of bounds to discuss during his candidancy
Tax Analyst
= “Trust me, I’m with you but I can’t afford to say it” = haven’t you grown tired of complete equivocation as a substitute for a spine? I have.
It’s this type of timid bullshit that allows McCain to style himself as a “straight-talker”. I’d really like to see that silly myth effectively displaced within a comparative context. But that would require some actual “straight talk” – can’t do it with “triangulation”.
If our easily swayed voting populace perceive only one candidate as being “straight-forward” and that candidate ISN’T the Democratic Party nominee they might just end up sending John McClain to the White House.
I’d really prefer a bit more candor and clarity from our Standard-bearer and I think the public is ready to respond to a larger degree than Mssrs. Penn, McAuliffe and Clinton seem to believe. Playing it “safe” is bowing to the “50 + 1” gods and I’d just as soon rather not leave it up to them.
Krista
Indeed! I thought that was really ballsy and very well-done. There was a great interview the other day on CBC radio with Grace Park and Katee Sackhoff. I think I’m going to have to download and re-watch the most recent season, as a lot of it has blurred together, and I’ve probably forgotten about some of the subtle bits, and I want to re-familiarize myself with it before the new season starts.
Dulcie
Martin, I have really enjoyed reading your very thoughtful posts over the last few days.
Question for the commenters: Has anyone actually listened to what Rev. Wright actually said? The actual WORDS he spoke? I ask this because I have a feeling that people are more focused on the tone than they are on the content.
I grew up in the black church, so i’m very much used to the tone of the minister, and the feeling behind it. The first time I went to a service at a Catholic church, I was fascinated by all the “stuff” Catholics did – the incense, the prayers in Latin, etc.
I went to a Mormon church once as a child. I fell asleep. It was incredibly boring to me. I was used to music, and loud speeches, and people responding to the minister in kind.
I think people should step back, take a deep breath, and stop listening to the spin. I listened to Rev. Wright’s words. Some of them were inflammatory, but there was a grain of truth in what he said. YMMV.
Martin
I give her (almost) full marks because I’m not aware of any politician, even Dems, coming out as clearly as Obama has even though their record has been clear that they applied this view. And she has hinted in this direction at the very least (she may have clearer statements that I haven’t found)
My credit to her comes because she has applied that principle consistently WRT beliefs, even if she hasn’t articulated it – and that’s what matters in the current state. But if we want to see change as Obama is advocating, then we need to go further and challenge the status quo outright, which is what Obama is doing in his statements. Clinton isn’t willing to do that, but I won’t mark her down for it too much because it is a challenging path, and we shouldn’t expect every politician to fight on every front. But it’s an issue that matters a great deal to me and Obama wins my vote and support over it.
athensboy
after so many days the nation will just get tired of Wright and Obama, let the gop bring it up in the fall, then we’ll hit em with Hagee and Parsley. Seems like a wash to me. And if Hillarys crybaby supporters want to go vote for McCain, let em have nightmares every time they hear of American kids dying in Iraq in McCains 100 year war!
p.lukasiak
First off, this has nothing to do with religious beliefs… Wright is coming under scrutiny because of his social and political opinions that are expressed from the pulpit.
And ya know what? Mitt Romney lost a lot of votes because he was a mormon. And while Huckabee was embraced by Christian conservatives, both the media and the GOP treated him as a non-entity because of his beliefs.
Obama joined this church 20 years ago — apparently around the same time he decided to go to Harvard Law. Obama’s decision to join this particular church tells us a lot about who he was 20 years ago, and adds to the impression that he was quite far to the left, even a “radical”, back when he first ran for state senate (giving added weight to the questionaire in which he wanted to make hand-gun ownership illegal, etc.)
His decision to stay with Wright’s church is probably more about inertia and maintaining a consistent religious environment for his children that a reflection of his current politics. Nevertheless, his statement that he sees no reason to resign from this church because Wright is slated to retire rings false — this is Wright’s church, and he is likely to dominate the choice of a successor.
Wright has always been a ticking time bomb for Obama — one of the things that the Obots assiduously ignore because it interferes with Obama’s infallability. Coming on the heels of his admission of multiple failures of judgement concerning Rezko (an admission that is especially damaging, given that Obama is claiming that “judgement” trumps “preparation), it looks to me like the Obama campaign is about to implode.
LiberalTarian
Let us not despoil every thread by turning it into hillbot and obamite feces fests. It’s too fucking boring, so STFU.
There are threads for that, and this is not one of them.
Tax Analyst
Somehow this “ticking time-bomb” analogy feels like a reject from that insipid “24 Hours” TV show.
Who the hell is claiming “Obama infallablity”? Nice Straw-Man, though.
“Bad judgment”? Come on, I don’t want to sit here and pick apart Bill Clinton’s 8-years – I liked the guy – glad he was President. He wasn’t perfect but he served us pretty well on the whole. But the Clinton camp is throwing stones at glass houses if they want to bandy about “Bad judgment” bricks and you ought to know that or you’re not as smart as you USED to appear.
“Judgment” AND “Preparation” are BOTH important Presidential facets. Neither is a substitute for the other.
Listen, this is a tough campaign and within reasonable limits that can and should be a positive thing, unless you think McCain and company are just going to throw up their and hands and go “Well, shoot…we really aren’t as good as our esteemed opponent, so guess we’ll just have to sit here and get our asses handed to us.” Whoever gets the Democratic Party nomination had better be ready to deal with some shit, because I can pretty much guarantee you they will see and hear plenty of it.
You’re riding a candidate that’s touting “experience” as the foundation of their candidacy, but that’s a mighty shakey foundation that seems to rest more on sand than solid ground…8 years as First Lady is a rather unaccountable brand of experience no matter how grandly you wish to conflate it.
Tax Analyst
You’re right. Apologies, but p.luk’s last paragraph was so ridiculous it begged a reply.
Martin
Thanks. But I’m a right-wing troll that won’t let you weasel out of untenable positions. Never forget that.
I’ll add some of Dr King’s words to reinforce the point (recently reminded of from dkos):
The people that scream ‘racism’ from his words are the same ones that would declare that all is well, racism is behind us. Rather than be consider he might be right, they hollar that it’s unfair he talk strongly about whites when we can’t speak the same way about blacks, which is exactly what King is talking about with ‘devotion to order’. “Stop stirring that pot, black man, we’ve convinced ourselves that the problem no longer exists!”
Martin
Just to twist the knife in miq a bit more, I’ll use some Buckley for leverage:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views”
Splitting Image
“But it’s an issue that matters a great deal to me and Obama wins my vote and support over it.”
Mine too. Thanks for posting Obama’s speech, Martin.
Conservatively Liberal
Yup cbear, this is the easy way to blog!
I am glad that all of this crap is coming out now as airing it out now will make it old news later. Thanks for posting Obama’s speech above as that is a perfect example of why he is a candidate who I can support. He stood up in front of the people he was talking about and he told them exactly what his thinking is. He was clear, concise and hit his points in succession.
I think our forefathers knew what they were up to in trying to keep religion out of politics. When you have a multicultural society that is comprised of people from all faiths (or none), you need to find common ground from all to work from. We can not run our country and treat everyone fairly using the views of one religion, it just will not happen.
Obama is an organizer, not a triangulator. He works with people to solve problems rather than telling people that he is going to take care of everything for them, so do not worry about it, just trust him. Hell, Hillary is so in to triangulation that recently her campaign pointed out that there were three conditions that the convention will need to consider when choosing the primary winner.
I guess she just likes three…
John Cole
Watching people do political hits with religion is so much more seductive when done by Democrats.
You make me want to fucking vomit, Lukasiak.
ThymeZone
A chink in your armor, at last. I’ve admired your posts, but you are out of your yard on this one.
Buckley’s blurb is a lie. Liberals have no more dysfunctional attachment to their own views than anyone else — the trait is human, not political.
I like Buckley, Buckley is a friend of mine, but you are no Buckley. Buckley was too smart to have said anything like that other than with tongue in cheek. What he didn’t realize was that rhetorical ribbing would be mistaken by his followers for truth. The demonizing of liberals today is partly a result of the failure of the elders of conservatism to be responsible in that regard. “Extremism in the defense of …..” blah blah blah. Sounds great when you say it into a microphone and all those people are cheering, but it led to George W. Bush and a war that was ginned up on lies and who the hell knows what else.
Anyway, demonization of liberals is on really shaky ground, mainly because it is practiced by people who insist on believing that the earth is 6000 years old even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
cbear
Ain’t it great?
No more wrestling with a thought or thesis you want to talk about.
No more having to read the whole damn thread.
No more trying to appear as if you actually give a shit what half the other people in the thread have said.
Very little actual typing.
You just hang in the weeds and wait for somebody to say something reasonably intelligent—jump on board, and you’re off to the races.
I can’t believe I’ve wasted so much time over the last five years.
It’s kinda like being a flea and just hanging out waiting for a big dog to walk by.
ThymeZone
Your post is so ludicrous that a lot of people here are going to assume that you are kidding. The rest will be sure that you are just a complete fucking asshole. Either way, the thing is a disgrace.
But … judgment? Uh, no, you lose”
Rose Law Firm Billing Records. How much of our country’s time and energy did that asshole woman waste playing those games? And, for what?
Don’t come in here representing the frigging Clintons and talk to me about judgment, Paul, unless you want your balls cut off over and over again.
cbear
Here’s how its done:
Fixed.
Thanks for the lift TZ.
ThymeZone
Any time!
Martin
I agree 100%. miq accused me of being a right-winger simply because I backed him into a corner. I think it’s fair game for me, from that position to drop Buckley on him in isolation in reply. I don’t accuse everyone here of having that dysfunctional attachment, just miq. (Well, maybe a few others)
And I agree I’m no Buckley. I’m much too liberal myself. It’s fun to play one now and then, though.
But keep looking for that chink. I don’t deny that they are there, but I work hard looking for them myself rather than wait on others to point them out to me.
ThymeZone
Ah tongue in cheek. Sorry, my bad.
p.lukasiak
You call that a hit? I provided a reasonable explanation for Obama have stayed in Wright’s church so long, and simply stated that his explanation for leaving rang false.
And you refuse to address the fact that it has nothing to do with Wright’s or Obama’s religious beliefs — its really about the perception of Obama’s past association with the “hate America first” crowd — an an instance that (unlike with Ayres) ties him directly to that crowd in the present.
***************
I’m not here representing the Clintons. I’m here representing sanity. Obama has made his “superior judgement” the cornerstone of his response to the “preparation” question. Anything that throws that judgement into question is going to damage that argument.
Is simple analysis, TZ. I’m not claiming that Clinton’s judgement is better, just that by highlighting his own judgement, these events damage Obama’s campaign.
The Grand Panjandrum
Here’s video of the new Senior Pastor at Obama’s church. Careful! He’s a scary black guy.
John Cole
So now those 6,000 congregants are all members of the Hate America First crowd?
You are scum, Lukasiak.
Martin
I’ll pile on Rezko too, just because it’s fun.
So, yes, there was bad judgement there, and further bad judgement in the meta of this story by not being more forthcoming.
But what the Clinton supporters continually overlook is that the lapse of judgement is known and admitted to. He didn’t hide behind it, he didn’t try to spin it away as a lesser lapse in comparison to someone else’s bigger lapse. And that’s always been the problem with the Clintons – they never admit to the lapse or to the meta problem as well. They never claim responsibility for getting even the process wrong, which they routinely do.
Now, the issue is introspection and Obama does it, and Clinton might, but we don’t know. Obama appears to be considerably more honest with himself and his failings than Hillary does. That gives us a lot more insight into Obama’s judgement because we have some knowledge that he’s aware when he gets it wrong. We don’t know if Clinton is aware that she gets it wrong. Does she really know what they did wrong during Hillarycare in ’94 because I’ve heard a lot of defenses from them on how other people killed it and very little admission of what they did wrong. Hillary once offered up a defense that she had studied healthcare for 9 months! against criticism for her plan. Now, a lot of that criticism came from people that had studied it for decades.
So, we have a limited view of Obama’s judgement, but we have more material to work with for Hillary’s, yet seem to know less because we never see an honest assessment of it. My natural instinct is to assume that Hillary doesn’t have good judgement since she is so unwilling to reveal it to us directly.
Martin
As evidence that scary black men will doom Obama in whitebread, cornfed, inbred America, Obama in on track to pick up 7 delegates and Clinton to lose one out of the Iowa convention today (there’s more chance for them to shift in Iowa before August).
Doesn’t look like Iowa’s Dems think Wright is that big of a liability.
dslak
Someone remind me again why it’s always the Hillary supporters whining about how mean and dishonest Obama supporters are.
p.lukasiak
Well, John, when the congregants seem to act positively to Wright saying “God Damn America”, we’re not talking about the kind of reactions one would see at an American Legion convention, now are we?
I don’t care that Obama is a member of that church — what I care about is how his association with the church can be used by groups like Freedom Watch if he is the nominee.
dslak
I don’t care about facts. What I care about is how Republicans might use an issue to hurt the Democrat in the general. Because we know that Republican operatives won’t make something up if there’s nothing there.
myiq2xu
Why would the Obama supporters whine about how mean and dishonest Obama supporters are?
They whine about the Hillary supporters.
For the unaffiliated it’s one big whine and sleaze tasting.
mrmobi
P.luk:
Nice try, but minister Wrights’ successor was chosen about 19 months ago, and he appear to be quite moderate indeed. There is a clip over at Sullys place. So, that given, what is the objection to Obama staying put? What was that? I thought so.
mrmobi
Yes, Luk, we must vet all Democrats with “Freedom Watch” before we can consider they are viable candidates. But why stop there, why not consult with Dobson and that “God hates fags” guy?
You really are disgusting.
p.lukasiak
is this the piece cited above by someone else that was taped specifically for the Obama campaign? I’m sure that Dr. Wright is just as capable as sounding as reasonable as the new guy is….
ever hear of a guy by the name of George Santayana? You might want to look up his most famous saying….
Martin
Maybe if we enslaved them for a few generations and performed syphilis experiments on them they’d have a different attitude. But you keep going on assuming that a black congregation has the same life experience as the American Legion.
Martin
Then why worry about it? If they’ll just make shit up, then there is no anticipating it. Jesus and Lincoln carry as many liabilities as Obama does in that case.
mrmobi
Yeah, blah blah, but the history which will repeat itself here, if Obama goes down as a result of this deliberate series of smears and half-truths, is that of political arrogance and hubris that only the Clinton’s can bring to a victory won through purely Rovian tactics.
ThymeZone
Hmm. No, I don’t think in the long run, that that will be true.
It’s nonsensical. Only the idiots will think so, and I don’t think we are counting on the idiot vote.
Martin
More scary people from Obama’s church.
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed. This is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed for clarity.
Conservatively Liberal
So now the Hilldabeest donors may be going after Dean and the DNC? If Hillary donors start demanding that their contributions to the DNC be refunded, then this is extortion that is endorsed by the Clinton campaign.
I will reserve final judgment until more information comes out, but I would not be surprised if this is their next tactic to get Florida seated.
I also read over there that Ben Smith at Politico said Obama picked up a net of ten delegates in the final accounting from Iowa, with Hillary losing one and Edwards losing eight, so Obama ended up with nine more than expected. This alone wipes out the Ohio gains for Hillary.
Great news for Obama! :)
Martin
Clinton has been going after Dean for years. Dean wants the Democratic party to be accountable to voters, the Clintons to special interests.
But let them demand their money back. It’ll eliminate what’s left of the remaining loyalty to the Clintons. Dean’s a tough son of a bitch. This won’t work.
And Pelosi won’t seat Florida. It’s becoming clear that she’s all kinds of pissed at Clinton.
bILL b
Any hope Senator Obama had of winning the election just went out the window.
myiq2xu
There He goes again! Now he wants GOPers and Indies in the Keystone State to re-register as “Dems for a day” so they can vote for the MUP.
This breakdown of real Democratic votes shows why:
But Hillary will say or do anything to win. Good thing He transcended politics.
Shygetz
So in other words, you have no evidence that suggests the new miniter is an extremist, and you choose to ignore any evidence that suggests he is not.
But you’re not shilling for Hillary. No, never you. You’re intentions are pure as the driven snow. Blech.
Martin
Yes, damn him for continuing to expand the Democratic party. He should be blackmailing it as the Clinton donors are.
Since the number of registered Democrats has increased about 10% since 2004, isn’t it equally reasonable to remind those people in PA that want to genuinely join the Democratic party to register so they can vote? Let’s see if that’s possibly the case by looking at other evidence. California had an open Democratic primary, so anyone could vote. No need for Dem for a day. So let’s see what happened:
Ah, so it seems people tend to do their party registration right before elections, even if they don’t need to. It should be noted that the Republican primary was a closed one, so Repub for a day would have been needed, but the Dem registration was far higher anyway.
Based on that, reminding people to register would seem like the responsible thing for a Democrat to do, no?
Keep swinging. Sooner or later you’ll make contact.
Shygetz
Oh Noes! Obama appeals to independent voters! The horror!
Who was it that appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s show after Rush pimped conservatives to vote for Hillary as a spoiler? Oh yeah, guess you forgot about that.
Martin
Of course he has evidence! The new minister is black. What more do we need? Please pay attention.
I’m curious what the reaction is to the video I linked to.
myiq2xu
Typical. You praise Obama for something and use evidence that proves the opposite.
HILLARY CLINTON WON CALIFORNIA!
It wasn’t even close.
J. Michael Neal
Vie TPM, Clinton fell a little bit further behind in the delegate count today.
myiq2xu
Truer words were never spoken.
Delia
That white lady minister is probably covering up something, too. Maybe she’s from the Weather Underground or something. You never can tell. Once you get the paranoia on a roll anything can happen.
Martin
Uh, oh. Clinton even has miq believing she’s a republican!
I said nothing about the relative roles of either Clinton or Obama in CA, only that independents and republicans are moving into the Democratic party even when they don’t need to in order to vote. That’s all that data says.
So if they are moving into the party anyway, why not remind them of the upcoming deadline to register to participate. And lest we forget:
If he is doing this for Dem for a day, it looks more favorable to Clinton than Obama. So either he is genuinely strengthening the Democratic party by doing the same fucking thing he has done in every state, even when party registration didn’t matter, or he’s secretly helping Clinton.
Good Lord you are dense sometimes.
Martin
True, those edits probably were to remove her chants of ‘Black Power’. And how do you think she fit the afro under that wig?
ThymeZone
I haven’t read the whole thread, if this has been linked, then … ignore.
But, if you really think that this pastor thing is going to damage Barack Obama in any profound way, then watch this.
You be the judge, but to my ear, this thing is going to strengthen him, not weaken him. Let him speak for himself.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
First off, I don’t see any justification in calling pluk names – he may be persistent, but from what I’ve seen on these Obama v. Hillary threads he doesn’t initiate name calling and remains polite if you do. So keep it civil. You don’t help your own arguments by throwing around terms like “scum”. If being persistent and argumentative and just generally cuss-ed is a problem around here, then let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone.
In my neck of the woods we have a term for this. We call it “climbing a learning curve”. It is a sign of inexperience (the Goolsbee NAFTA screwup was another sign of inexperience on the part of Obama and his staff).
For me the big question with these things is “did he learn anything from it?” I would rather hire somebody who makes mistakes, learns from them, and then improves with time, than somebody who cannot cop to having screwed up (AUMF *cough* Kyl-Lieberman *cough*), which leaves you wondering about where they stand in relation to Mr. Santayana’s famous epigram.
also, Martin, please add me to your fan-club roster. Not because of long, well argued posts or anything, but just because we belong to the same cult ‘n stuff.
Martin
See, but to me, his mistakes aren’t any bigger than hers are from what I can see. Here’s the latest I’ve read on NAFTAgate:
So there may have been a mistake, but we’re down to the main mistake being a meta one again – getting blindsided by a non-story and not immediately recognizing that the questions about calling Canada should have included a caveat on Goolsbees brief visit to the consulate by invitation. But Hillary has made a slew of mistakes here and rather than admit that she should have campaigned in caucus states, she spins that away as they aren’t fair, and so on. Personally, I think she would have been better off admitting that she screwed up than telling the voters that they suck, because now she looks like a sore loser and complainer rather than, well, a normal person.
Agreed. But to Clinton’s credit (sort of) she is not really worse on this front than anyone else, it’s just that pretty much all politicians sucked equally in their unwillingness to look mortal. Obama is just a bit different on that front. I know a lot of the Clinton supporter disagree and sees Obama as someone who feels he can do no wrong – but admitting mistakes and moving on allows a certain liberty to make mistakes. The concern for having to cover up your screwups tends to retard the decision making process and leave a candidate constantly hedging on anything new that shows up.
Cult is important. You gotta have people you can trust to hand you the kool-aid when the UFO shows up.
p.lukasiak
wow. a three-peat of the video that was actually done by the Obama campaign itself.
I mean, does anyone know anything about the new pastor’s background? Why he was offered the job?
Now I have no idea what this guy’s background, etc is. My point here is that you people have completely lost any critical thinking skills — you see a video produced for the Obama campaign, and you think that the problem is solved — as if you actually believe that if Obama gets the nomination, he’ll be able to control the media or something.
The only reason that Obama is a media darling is because he’s not Hillary. And if you think that Obama is getting bad press now — but if/when Hillary goes away, you’re head is gonna explode when the media really turns on Obama.
ThymeZone
Actually, it’s just an air dub of a cable news cover of a speech. How it got onto YouTube hardly matters.
You should spend more time examining what you think and less time imagining what other people think, Paul. What I think is that Obama is bigger than this tempest in a teapot. He talks about it moves people to his way of looking at it. I am not sure what you think political speechmaking is mostly about in this context, but I think it’s about moving people to see a certain vision.
To you it seems to be all about numbers and square roots and strange pseudo-analysis. Great, good for you.
I see it differently, more like the people in the jammed room where he was talking.
This is politics, Paul. It’s not engineering. Politics moves people at a visceral level. Maybe you can see a doctor and get a viscera implant? There’s a donor out there somewhere for you.
ThymeZone
Sorry, out of broadcasting too long. It’s an aircheck.
Not an airdub.
ThymeZone
Yeah, your concern for our heads is touching and oddly not comforting.
Barack Obama really doesn’t need the concern troll handwringing. A quick listen to the speech will demonstrate that. Compare and contrast, his calm and unassuming discussion of the matter, versus your constant banging on pots and pans.
This is not a hard choice.
Martin
Problem solved? No, I don’t think there is a real problem here. That’s why I don’t care where the video comes from because it doesn’t matter.
This only hurts Obama if people accept that he’s an angry black man and it’s going to take more than this for that to take root over the next 6 months. Now, if you believe that there is more to be revealed, then it might happen, but I challenge the bias of anyone who assumes there is more to come.
If you see evidence outside of a few videos, then share it.
Now, will the right attack on this? Maybe. The GOP has to be careful about moving from the unspoken party of racism to the established party of racism. There’s a big latino vote out there that they could lose by going down this path. It’s a short trip from angry black man to lazy mexican. But even if there is nothing here and they want to attack on race, they’ll find some way to yell ‘nigger’ whether there is substance or not available to work with.
On the religious side, this is probably a win based on how it happened. Obama already has more of the young evangelical vote than McCain, and an attack on Obama’s pastor and faith will only deepen and broaden that.
For Clinton, it’s a loser I think at this stage. Most of the people that are reacting viscerally to this were never in Obama’s camp anyway. They weren’t gonna vote for the black guy. Yeah, he’ll lose some ground, but probably not all that much. But given how this appears triggered by Ferraro, Clinton faces the real prospect of having a lot of black voters sit out in November and at the very least not volunteer or give money. And that’s 100% out of the Dem column. It’s a win for her if it can appear he is less electable, but so far that hasn’t borne itself out. It yet might, but he’s gained in the last day or so.
If any damage has been done its to the Dem brand overall. McCain is up against both of them since Ferraro’s comments, but Clinton lost as much as Obama.
Asti
Well, some people, not all people. I remember talking to my daughter before the 2004 campaign and she said “oh mom, that politics stuff is so boring”.
Yeah, RIGHT!
ThymeZone
Right Asti, I think politics moves Paul Lukasiak at some kind of transistor level. Strings of hexadecimal numbers move along his neural pathways somehow.
Alan Stout
I have a question about Senator Barack Hussein Obama: Mr. Obama was born in 1961, and was therefore required to register for Selective Service (”the Draft”) under the law. Does anyone know if he registered? Bet the media won’t dig too deep into that one like they did President Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard!
http://www.sss.gov
ThymeZone
People find politics boring when they think that it offers them no pathway to actually have any effect on anything.
When they think that it connects them to important things, it is exciting.
I think that explains a lot of the appeal of Obama.
myiq2xu
Stroke him the right way and he’ll start spurting irrational numbers.
ThymeZone
This is unwanted information ………
ThymeZone
So, it’s almost midnight over there in Taft, CA or wherever you live? Tehachapi? I forget.
ThymeZone
Needles?
Barstow?
Martin
We have a Taft resident? My father in law lived in Taft until a few months ago. I’ve been there quite a few times.
myiq2xu
Once upon a time I leved in Yermo. My aunt and uncle lived in Barstow (about 1 mile from Hinkley) and my oldest was born there.
myiq2xu
Lived? Loved? Laved?
Something like that.
Conservatively Liberal
That is the problem, his compiler. Obviously there is a problem in compiling his data. Probably making a call to a memory address that is out of range, throwing an exception. His exception handler just outputs (“Obama has a problem with” %s”.”), with %s being a random variable he selects from his data.
Yup, the ol’ GIGO principle; Garbage In, Garbage Out. ;)
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
My take on NAFTAgate is a little different. From a policy standpoint it doesn’t stick in my craw the way it did with a lot of Ohio voters, mostly because I think we have much bigger problems with our trade relations elsewhere (than with Canada). What bugged me about it is that this is precisely the sort of backchannel communication and negotiation that is bread and butter stuff in international diplomacy. To do it right you have to know how the game is played:
1 – Leave no paper trail and maintain plausible deniability if the other side leaks news of the meeting.
2 – Know the other side’s agenda to anticipate why/how they might leak and how it is likely to be framed in the media if they do.
3 – Have a plan B ready to go if a leak does happen, so you don’t have to make it up as you go.
4 – Use a messenger you can afford to throw under the bus if necessary, to limit the damage.
Obama got sandbagged by the Canadians on this, and he + his team blew it on all 4 of the points I just listed. I don’t think that would have happened to Richardson or Biden for example, because they have much more experience.
This may sound like a lot to read into one econ. advisor’s role, but I think a lot of international messaging over the next 4 years will involve trade issues, so they need to get good at this, and that means econ. advisors too, not just State Dept. types.
Having said that, I expect that they will get better at this sort of thing. Bill Clinton’s team was really green in 1992, and from what I’ve seen thus far Obama’s team seems to learn from their mistakes at least as fast if not faster, so I’m not too worried about this. If something similar happens again, then I’ll start to worry.
This is one area where Obama supporters should be thanking the HRC campaign for pushing them around some – it is providing good experience to learn from in preparation for actually governing. Obama wasn’t very good at debating either, at the start of the campaign. Now that is much less of a problem. If Hillary could keep this stuff limited to things that don’t increase the chances of McCain winning in November then I would have a lot less to complain about.
myiq2xu
I hate quoting trolls, but this is classic:
In that whole passage there were two “factual” assertions. I highlighted them, but I’m not agreeing that they are both true.
The rest is opinion and/or speculation.
I especially like the part where he says it’s Hillary’s fault (via Ferraro) without a shred of evidence to back it up.
myiq2xu
Your take certainly is different.
“Say one thing to the American voters, but secretly say something different to foreign governments. When caught, lie. Sacrifice your players to protect your own ass.”
I guess Obama has transcended truth.
myiq2xu
Is it official? Are the Obots abandoning one of their major talking points about His Transcendantness?
I’ve been hearing for months now that we should all vote for Obama because, unlike Hillary, he will attract independents and GOPers who will not only vote for him but also Dems down-ticket.
Now you admit that he is just signing up voters who will vote for Hillary?
You’re not very good at this, are you?
Martin
Young evangelicals are not running to the GOP like before. And McCain isn’t going to bring these in easily, especially when they are reminded of his approach to Kerry in 2004. Obama is doing well with them. Go visit a Christian college and you’ll probably see Obama everywhere. It’s only the young voters it seems, but it’s a start.
You deny there is a big latino vote out there? Wasn’t that 30% of California’s vote on Super Tuesday?
I said Clinton’s fault via Ferraro there? I said triggered by Ferraro. I think it’s a pretty short walk from “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?” to the media seeing their chance to show the Wright videos that they’ve been sitting on for a few months. What’s your alternate explanation why they picked that moment to play up the videos?
Martin
There is no evidence that he said something different to Canada. The Canadian govt. retracted that suggestion. He never lied. When asked if his campaigned called the embassy in DC he said no, they never did that. I posted the link to the video so you could see the question he was answering. I admit he should have mentioned the Chicago visit several weeks before, but that doesn’t make it a lie. Who got sacrificed? Goolsbee is still on the team and Obama let him speak for himself on what was said there and Goolsbee defended his words. Given that Goolsbee is an academic and not a politician, I take him at his word on that. Academics get into that kind of trouble all the time because they speak to teach with the expectation they can clarify later, vs speaking to clarity with an expectation that the receiver of the message is motivated to distort it somehow. That’s a liability as TLT reminds us, but academics have their benefits as well.
You really need to get off the first day of the CTV story and catch up with where we are. Did you watch the interview with Obama I posted? Did you read the link I posted? Or is Obama now so powerful that he can get the Canadian government and media to bend to his will? Or do you just not give a shit about the facts to bother?
dslak
The thing you have in mind, Santayana never said. You probably should have just repeated the cliché misquote of him instead, because people who have actually studied Santayana know this attribution to be false.
Martin
Well, the last set of data was from MS and Clinton was clearly winning white Republicans. Who am I to argue? In fact, 1/4 of her votes were from Republicans. 1/4 of her voters had a very favorable opinion of McCain and 1/3 of her voters thought she was dishonest. Seems like being dishonest and promoting McCain is finally starting to bring in voters. We can expect to see more of that in the next 5 weeks then?
Maybe the Clinton supporters like you are right and we shouldn’t ask people to join the Democratic party. She still asking her donors to withhold money from the party? I admit to being a bit disillusioned. All this time I thought his voter registration and GOTV efforts and massive fundraising for the party were good things, but I can see now how Clinton’s approach is going to be much better for downticket candidates. That money from the party would just be a distraction and with fewer Democrats they won’t need to spend so much on mailers.
I confess, the Clinton strategy escapes my feeble mind.
(Oh, and a hint – when Obama gets the independents and Republicans to register as Dems, they stop being independents and Republicans. So yes, he is attracting them, and those unprecedented registration rates of Dems in states, even those that have open primaries is a clue.)
myiq2xu
Three factually deficient paragraphs and not one word refutes anything I said.
Yes there is, but I was referring to someone else’s comment:
“plausible deniability” = lie
Once again, we agree. And once again, I say apples and you argue oranges.
In the interest of fairness, and to assuage my liberal conscience, in the future when I respond to your trollposts (assuming I do) I will do so with one hand tied behind my back.
Pug
wwz Says:
The Sorrow and the Pity Party
March 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
There’s one little problem with Wolcott’s theory there, wwz. The line that Obama supporters are crybabies threatening to stay home if Hillary is nominated may sound good to Hillary supporters.
However, Taylor Marsh and others are now touting a new poll that shows 25% of Hillary voters will support McCain if Obama is nominated and 10% of Obama supporters will support McCain if Hillary is the nominee. So you and Wolcott might want to reevaluate who the real crybabies are.
p.lukasiak
first off, allow me to apologize for simply assuming that you linked to the same video as others.
And you are right about politics moving people at a visceral level. But the most politically powerful visceral emotion is fear, and this is especially true in an election in “uncertain” times. Hope only becomes powerful once a decision is made–so while Obama’s ability to inspire hope would be a great asset were he to become president, fear is going to play a bigger role in who people vote for.
The problem I have with the arguments of Obama supporters is that they arevisceral, and based on projection. Obots see Obama one way, and assume that others will see him the same way — and when people don’t conform to the way the Obot project, those people are assumed to be unreasonable.
I’ve been more radical than most people on this board all my life. I support Mumia’s efforts for a new trial (I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, just that his trial was tainted). I support reparations for slavery and segregation. And I happen to agree with Wright’s politics.
But I’ve spent my life “not understanding” on a visceral level why people don’t agree with me, and seeing them as “others” because they don’t think the way I do. Only on a conscious, rational level do I recognize that not everyone sees things the way I do, and that my political opinions are the “abnormal” ones. So I try and look at the process of politics from a conscious, rational perspective, rather than projecting my own visceral biases on everyone else.
None of that matters to the Obots — because I present a different perspective on things, I’m the enemy. (This is especially galling when it comes from someone like Cole, whose conversion to ‘progressive’ politics is less than three years old.) Little or nothing that I write gets through, because I don’t write from the perspective of their shared belief system. Instead, I get attacked for out of context quote — and when I respond to those attacks, I get attacked because no one bothers to read what I’m responding to.
In conclusion, Fuck Off TZ ;-)
p.lukasiak
Re: NAFTA-Gate…
Seriously, anyone who thinks this is a legitimate issue is insane. Lets face it, all the “tough talk” about renegotiating NAFTA is directed at Mexico — Canada already has the labor and environmental standards that both Democrats want to include in the treaty, and the idea that there won’t be reassuring back-channel communications between the campaigns and the Canadian government is pretty absurd.
Second, trying to make an issue of the Obama campaign’s denial of these communications is moronic. The whole point is that these are technically unofficial, back-channel communications, and are supposed to remain secret. Candidates for president, and their campaigns, aren’t supposed to be communicating with foreign governments in this manner — even though they all do.
myiq2xu
I agree with you Paul, at least partially. I try to understand how others see things, even though I don’t see things that way.
Arguing with the MUPpets is intructive. I don’t agree with them about Obama or Clinton, and I probably never will. They see Obama as good and Clinton as bad. I see little difference between Obama and Clinton. But unlike them I am not emotionally invested in my opinion. They are predisposed to believe only the good things about Obama and the bad things about Clinton.
They can look at the same evidence I do and reach an entirely different conclusion. Their opinions of the two candidates exist independently of any facts or evidence. If you challenge them with contrary evidence, they get angry. I’ve been slammed for saying that Obama was a political insider, even though I did not mean that as a criticism. Worse, they engage in groupthink and try to shut out or discredit any differing opinions.
Look at some of the comments in this thread. Several commenters basically say that the controvery over Rev. Wright is unimportant and has been resolved by Obama’s disavowel of Wright’s statements. In their minds, the issue is dismissed, because they still believe in their vision of Obama. They don’t want the bad things to be true.
But they ignore the fact that others will not agree, or dismiss it as partisanship or racism. There are many people who will be disturbed to hear Obama’s “spiritual advisor” say “God damn America.” They will be bothered by Wright’s claims that the US is responsible for the AIDS epidemic.
These people will not be satisfied by Obama’s denunciation or Wright’s retirement. Comparisons to Ferraro or Hagee won’t cut it either. This will resonate, and not in a good way.
How many people are we talking about? I don’t know, but it’s quite a few. And they are not all Hillary or McCain supporters either.
Will it decide the election? I don’t know. Will it affect the election? Most likely. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it reality? Yes.
As my uncle used to say, “It ain’t always what you want you get the most of.”
dslak
Why can’t all of Obama’s supporters base their decision on who to vote for completely on dispassionate, rational analysis. You know, the way Hillary supporters do?
By the way, myiq, you should recognize a difference in what you and p.luk are talking about. You’re talking about the people who are completely gaga over Obama and can’t be reasoned with: “MUPpets” or “Obamabots,” as you might have it, and not simply everyone who prefers Obama over Hillary.
P.luk is saying that everyone who prefers Obama is like that, and that’s why he catches all the shit he does.
myiq2xu
Criticism noted. I revise my statement. Not all Obama supporters are “Obots” or “MUPpets.” I was overly inclusive in my comments. I was referring only to the Obot/MUPpet types.
dslak
The first statement does not entail the second one. Two reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the available evidence without either being irrational.
tBone
It’s not because you “present a different perspective on things” – it’s because you adopt this pretense of a “conscious, rational perspective” while engaging in wholly transparent and frequently ridiculous spin to prop up Hillary’s campaign. And then you deride those who take issue with her or her campaign tactics as Hillary haters or CDS sufferers or (and this is my favorite) misogynists.
I love this as an example of “conscious, rational perspective”, by the way:
Do you honestly believe this? Really?
Ha ha ha. Good one.
BTW, aren’t you the one who was just attacking Martin for “factually deficient” posts? Can you point us to all of the facts in that long, whiny screed of yours?
myiq2xu
I agree with both of your statements. The second one in particular explains the neverending “discussions” that go on here.
But it is also true that two people can disagree without either one being rational.
dslak
That may be the case more often than we’d like to admit.
Conservatively Liberal
I am reading to get some feedback about the latest Obama happenings from the Clintonistas over at Hillaryis44.com, and here are a couple of ‘nuggets’ I found:
And the response:
Racist? You bet! Those idiots are really trying to outdo Redstate, and they are doing a pretty good job of it so far. Jeez, what ain’t fruit is nuts.
I take it they are not happy that the Wright issue is not getting better traction, and the same goes for the Chicago interview he did about Rezko where he got gleaming reviews. Boy, they are angry over there. I mean pissed off hornets angry. One of them even points out that more Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama than Obama supporters who would not vote for Hillary, so this means that the win should be given to Hillary to guarantee a win.
Grasping at straws. That is one sad, sick, sorry place, but it sure is amusing to read. ;)
p.lukasiak
me too!
*************
the fact that you perceive the Clinton campaign as in need of “propping up”, rather than a campaign that a lot of people see as solid despite the anti-Hillary media spin, suggests to me that you aren’t exactly an unbiased observer of what I write.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
pluk says:
That is spot on, IMHO. I’d add that the real elephant in the room is our trade with China, even more so than Mexico.
myiq says:
myiq,
My critique of Obama’s campaign is that during NAFTAgate they exhibited a lack of skills that they will need to have later on, in other significantly different contexts.
I see a big distinction between thinking that we should aim for honesty and transparency as a goal, and thinking it is OK to not be competent at being sneaky, if that is what circumstances require. Because sometimes they do, and being bad at it can take a bad situation and make it worse.
There is a key qualification in my statement which you either missed or are ignoring. Let me highlight it:
I’m not a big fan of Woodrow Wilson. Open covenants openly arrived at sounds really great, until it fails spectacularly due to a tragic lack of skill in realpolitick.
Color me a cynic, but I think that an administration which is investing political capital in badly needed internal transparency still needs to be good at playing the nasty, sneaky game of diplomacy the old fashioned way. Not because there are no alternatives, but because:
1) being bad at this sort of thing puts us at a disadvantage vs. others who are good at it.
and
2) Too many wars have started because both governments were locked into positions that they could not back down from due to the pressure of public opinion. Like it or not, being able to talk out of two sides of your mouth is an important aspect of crisis management.
Try this for a gedanken experiment: replay the Cuban missile crisis, only with everything that was said thru backchannels between us and the Russians being published in the newspapers. Do you think that would have produced a better outcome?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
After posting, I thought of a more succinct way to put this. I don’t want the next president to be like Richard Nixon. I also don’t want the next president to be like Jimmy Carter. I want them to combine the strengths of both while avoiding the weaknesses.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
p.luk says:
This is a very important point. For 99% of our elections I would agree with you on this point. Fear is more effective at winning elections. A quick glance at recent political history confirms this overwhelmingly. The reason I support Obama is that I think this election is abnormal, and the usual rules don’t apply.
Why? George W. Bush.
In the last 7 years we have been fed a concentrated diet of the politics of fear, and I think that for once in a lifetime the US electorate has overdosed and doesn’t want any more of it for a while. Evidence: the 2006 midterm election results, the 2008 primary turnouts, and the water-cooler talk in my locality which is running very strongly against the GOP on this issue.
Without intending to the GOP has crapped in their own punchbowl (the politics of fear) and now the turd is too big to ignore. Every time somebody from the GOP says “Booh! Scary brown people”, we just have to keep holding up a picture of George W. Bush and reply :
“We’ve already tried that. Did it work out well for you? Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?”
Eventually things will go back to normal, but this year we have a narrow window of opportunity to campaign using a different set of rules. If we seize this opportunity while it lasts, then we will improve our ability to govern well, because IMHO the politics of fear is the foundation on which bad policies are built. If the next administration is Democratic then we need the best possible results or the party will get hammered in 2012, because the economy is going to suck. We don’t need another Jimmy Carter.
When this campaign started, I was coin-flipping between Hillary and Obama, because I saw Hillary as a near-certain win in Nov, but less able to roll back Bush’s legacy due to likely partisan gridlock in Congress and past policy triangulations (AUMF, etc). I saw Obama as more of a high-risk, high-return candidacy. As the primaries and caucuses have unfolded I’ve leaned more and more heavily towards Obama because:
1) The HRC campaign has shown serious defects in planning, organization and messaging, so I’m not so sure they are the sure bet in November that I used to think they were.
2) Obama’s campaign in contrast looks like a real machine (especially in fundraising and GOTV), so they now look much lower risk than they did last year.
3) The Republicans have picked their strongest candidate w/ respect to appealing to Indy’s and moderates, so we need to be extra aggressive courting this group in November. McCain will be able to tie the Clinton and Bush administrations together in one nice neat little package (“the failed policies of extreme partisanship”) and sell that to these voters instead of taking the heat for his ties to Bush. HRC is McCain’s get-out-of-Bushland-for-free card.
From that point of view, picking between the two campaigns has gone from a coin-flip to something more like a no-brainer.
YMMV obviously.
joe in oklahoma
1. McCain backer Rev. Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God because we allow feminists and queer people to live here.
2.McCain backer Rev. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God because we tolerate Muslims.
3.Obama supporter Rev. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned because we neglect the poor and practice bigotry.
For my money, the third sentiment is the only one that resembles the Gospel. Yet the mainstream media tells us we must tolerate hate — Hagee & Robertson— but not those who don’t believe we should tolerate hate — Wright.