Obama Criticizes Debate, Says Hillary "Looked In Her Element"
Obama, seeking to turn his rough night at the debate to his advantage, takes shots at ABC's debate performance on the trail today in North Carolina -- and places himself above both ABC and Hillary by saying she "looked in her element"...
One thing Obama has been very adept at doing: When he takes a political hit, he neutralizes it by decrying it as the very sort of negative politicking he's trying to rise above.
In this case, he did this by describing the debate as "precisely why I'm running for president -- to change that kind of politics."
Hillary has tried this before, but it's not the sort of liberty the political press and pundits have been willing to permit her to take.
ABC debate moderator George Stephanopoulos responds to Obama, and defends his handling of the debate, here.















Staphyloccus can go screw himself.
April 17, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just in from Countdown with Keith on George Stephanopolous
George worked for the Clinton Administration as Bill Clinton's press secretary.
My question is, why in the hell was he chosen to moderate a debate. As if this guy wasn't going to have a biased in favor of his ex boss' wife.
Countdown also played the audio of Hannity's Radio show and Hannity is telling Stephanopolous to use the Ayers subject as a question to give Obama, and Stephanopolous is saying that he's taking notes.
Who takes advice from Sean Hannity? Come on now Sean Hannity.
April 17, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he "screws himself" does his wife get the house and kids?
April 17, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been the definition of politics as usual. In fact, after decrying the gotcha games, his campaign released a series of talking points on Clinton and Ayers. I thought he wanted to move past that? I don't get it. It's OK to attack Clinton but not him?
April 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if the only way to change the system is from the inside, then I guess you better be pretty good at playing the old politics in order to get in there.
McCain and Clinton didn't even want to change the politics of Washington until Obama started wining on it, so i guess I'd have to go with the guy who's said it the longest and before it was popular to say it, even if at the moment he's doing a hell of a job playing the old politics.
I think I am starting to understand how the republicans felt about Bill Clinton and how the Democrats felt about Reagan --- "can't you see what he's doing? Can't you see it? OMG, why can't you see he's just like all the rest...
And I just figured out why that doesn't work...because when you say he is just as bad as the other candidate, you aren't offering anything better.
April 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
that didn't make any sense at all!
April 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
so i guess I'd have to go with the guy who's said it the longest
Saying something does not make it come true. What has he changed? Where is the proof that he will change anything? Simply saying you're going to move past something, but when confronted with it, engaging in it, is not new and it's not change.
If he is so committed to sticking to the issues, why does he launch attacks like these? If you believe the American people don't care about these issues, why continue to bring them up? Stick to issues and know that Americans will hear them only. If not, you're full of BS about this whole new politics thing. I call his bluff.
April 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where were the grey, ominous ads blanketing Pennsylvania in the wake of the Bosnia sniper "misspeak"? In other words, where Clinton hits first, Obama has hit back, but when given the chance to go on offense against a fellow Democrat, Obama has taken a pass. That is the sort of change of which he speaks; surely you can see that, no?
April 17, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. Intellectual dishonesty and partisanship go hand-in-hand.
April 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, in that instance he took a pass. He didn't have to do anything because he'd been calling her untrustworthy for weeks. Just because his attacks are slightly more sneaky and behind-the-scenes doesn't mean he is changing anything. Surely you can see that?
Also, what about Obama's radio ad in Mississippi distorting Hillary's words and taking them out of context? How did she hit first there?
So, no, I really don't see how Obama is change at all. I really, truly don't.
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So every poll on the question of trustworthiness is an attack on Senator Clinton? Or would that be stating a fact?
April 17, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just polls they cite. Read this article.
April 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to see him as change. You have to see him as the better candidate. There are lots of reasons to vote for Obama, and change is only one of them. You don't have to believe in all of them to give him your vote.
As for the "oh, he's attacking Hillary!" meme - save it. Please. Glass houses, guy.
April 17, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see him as the better candidate.
I'm not complaining that he's attacking Hillary. I'm calling him a hypocrite for pretending he doesn't. It's not a good idea to fail on the number one promise of your campaign.
April 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if I get your point. My quick read of the article was (1) they pointed to the Gallup numbers on trustworthiness and (2) the discrepancy between her NAFTA claims and her actual schedules.
Not an attack to point out factual discprepancies between words and deeds, or how those discrepancies feed into a larger factual point. I guess the question is, why does Senator Clinton lie even when she doesn't have to (see, e.g., foreign policy resume).
Same thing here. Are you telling me she DIDN'T take every opportunity to turn the knife during the debate? She did it. It's not an attack to say she did it.
April 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess I see a difference in someone drawing a distinction between his position and that of another, and character attacks the likes of which Clinton has specialized in. Also, she likes to attempt to build political capital off the mistakes of others, and that's something Obama (and many of us) decry. He's done so for a long time.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood his entire premise of change in politics, and done so largely because you're so gung-ho for his opponent. Look, I don't want some guy who'll just turn the other cheek and not respond when he's challenged. He's never promised to simply ignore attacks when they come. You can't be so simple as to not see the differences between how he's run his campaign and how she's run hers.
April 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is quibbling. The examples you adduced to undergird your claim read, to my eyes, like an attempt to fill a swimming pool by thimbles. It is a small point, however, so I will not pursue the matter further. If you think we are deluding ourselves, I will leave you to whatever satisfaction or consolation that this perspective offers.
April 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Your claim was this:
where Clinton hits first, Obama has hit back, but when given the chance to go on offense against a fellow Democrat, Obama has taken a pass.
However, I provided a link to a radio ad Obama's campaign created on the offense that took a months old Clinton quote out of context and hammered her on it. This is the type of thing he is now attacking Clinton for doing with his "elitist" PA comments.
How is this quibbling?
April 17, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama started hitting Hillary from 15 months back when Hillary was still criticizing Bush instead of any of the Dem candidates. And now he whines.
Obama has called Hillary many names but you haven't heard Hillary call Obama any name or even insinuate one. She hasn't even whine about being called names.
Obama is playing sissy. He just simply flunked in the debate. If he can't handle that, go figure how he'll do in November.
April 17, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeeze, I grant your basic point and you accuse me of BS. I'm done playing with you.
April 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't accuse you of BS, I accused Obama of BS. Re-read it. I know I said "your" but if you look closely that was in reference to Obama. Sorry for the confusion.
April 17, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are delusional.
April 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
convincing
April 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're one to talk.
April 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
even more convincing
April 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, you think I'm trying to convince you...that's rich. Trying to have a reasonable discussion with posters like you is like conversing with a brick wall.
April 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes because your quote of You have to see him as the better candidate left so much room for conversation. Keep patting yourself on the back for being so open-minded.
April 17, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant that you have to see him as the better candidate in order to want to vote for him genius. My four-year-old nephew could've figured that out.
April 17, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking Senator Clinton on Ayers? Certainly, Clinton's name was mentioned in his Fact Check response this morning, and in the debate last night, but I hardly think that constitutes an attack.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/fact_check_on_clinton_attacks.php
There are two mentions of Clinton in Obama's Ayers Fact Check document.
and laterHere's HRC last night
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all
First, Senator Clinton's statements were an implicit, and vicious attack on Senator Obama. Senator Clinton is suggesting Obama's time on the Woods Foundation board with Ayers, the proximity of their homes, and his campaign's (foolish) characterization of their relationship as "friendly" is a sort of guilt by association. Essentially, Senator Clinton is calling Senator Obama's patriotism into question here, insinuating that his relationship with Ayers is real, that the association is hurtful/offensive to Americans (especially Americans from her "home town", New York City), and that he is unfit for the nomination as a result.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, is putting the relationship into context, explaining the fundamental absurdity of Senator Clinton's jab. He argues the relationship is non-existent, and nothing more than an incidental acquaintance. Obama argues it's absurd to criticize someone's patriotism, dedication to the country, or qualifications as the Democratic nominee based off these tenuous associations. Senator Clinton, Obama's campaign argues, has her OWN connections to the Weather Underground, and that certainly doesn't make a convincing case for her hidden contempt for this nation, or its core values and voters.
In summary, Clinton's statements were an attack, because she's using the relationship to eviscerate Senator Obama, casting doubt on his patriotism, his character, his judgment and his case for the Democratic nomination.
Senator Obama, on the other hand, is simply putting his proximity to Ayers in context. He mentions Clinton's pardons, only to make the point that these "gotcha" games are meaningless, since Hillary has her own connections to the group, and that certainly doesn't make her an America-hater.
April 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the thought and time that went into your post, but you don't seriously think "another_reader" is actually going to acknowledge the reality of what you are saying? That's just not how this works. Intellctual dishonesty is the phrase of the day.
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I talked to Ayers in 2002. Put it in a blog.
Not tooting my own horn or nothin'... but there it is.
What I found then was a guy actually doing good, helped to get a $14.5 million dollar federal grant to schools not only in Chicago but in small town Michigan (my area). Western Michigan University profs worked with him on that. And when he was talking to me, anyway, he said he realized that playing with bombs was wrong.
Didn't hear of any Clinton, or Obama, connection then. But he was named Deputy Mayor for School Reform in Chicago under Mayor Richard Daley Jr.
April 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Context is everything. If I hit you with a baseball bat, that is one thing. If I hit you with a baseball bat after you break into my house, that is another.
April 17, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, its ok for both parties to get at each other.
Its just not ok to not be stupid about it.
I understand if you dont get it. It depends on how you see the words, and also how you hear the words that are being said. That is how individuals make their own Choices.
The difference, like I said, is being stupid about it or being what we SHOULD consider as an adult. Non-hating, non-discriminatory, not mean spirited, and most importantly, not childish. That aspect is what think, and fear that you dont understand.
And though you may not agree..........Im almost certainly positive if you do some of the research you will find this true.......Mrs. Clinton started the negativity. And that right their pisses alot of people off, and gives Obama the "here she goes again" line, even when and if he pushes back. Because it always looks like he is just pushing back.
Blame that on Mrs. Clinton. Blame that on the trolls that run around every major media site and small Blog talking shit, instead of just speaking as ordinary voters and explaining why they like her.
Blame yourself on just being Another Reader and the others who dont add to the discussion, but look to demean it based on the individuals around you in the discussion.
April 18, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its ok not ok to BE stupid about it.
Damn we need a edit button...give me 60 secs to edit or something, sheesh.
April 18, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
That tough campaigns are her element is exactly the point Clinton is making.
And what's with Obama calling Gibson "sir?"
How Presidential is that?
April 18, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that soul-killing excuse for a debate really crushed him, didn't it?
April 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Greg? Not a criticism or a bias accusation. I'm just not clear what the "this" in "Hillary has tried this before" refers to. What is it she's tried before? And when?
Sorry, to be dense. I'm still trying to recover the IQ points that were stunned into unconsciousness by the periods when I wasn't watching "Mythbusters" last night.
April 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an odd statement. I think it's Hillary's own record that prevents her from taking these kinds of liberties. Nobody forced her to bring up Hamas last night.
April 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"looked in her element"...
Like a hog in it's favorite wallowing mud pit!
April 17, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent pivot.
April 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy is he adept!!!
April 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you have to be particularly clever or talented to take advantage of that immensely crappy debate last night. Seriously. Both candidates probably would have been able to say "See? This is one of the things we have to move past".
Unfortunately for Clinton, she can't. Yet another misstep by the Clinton campaign. Go for the short term wins and forget about the longer battle.
The crowd in this video apparently wasn't thrilled with the debate, either.
April 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
you see at about 3:00 when he brushes it off?
crowd goes nuts.
April 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This probably would not fly, but Jay-Z has my Obama theme song for the week:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1QY6haFKfk
Go on brush your shoulders off...
April 17, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, I thought about that too. Got it playing right now, thanks.
I think at least part of the crowd eruption was aware of the reference. He's good, man.
Go on brush your shoulder off...
April 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, Yglesias picked it up too
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/dirt_off_your_shoulder.php
April 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
Someone else made the comment on Yglesias, and id like to reiterate.
When Obama beats Clinton, he should come out to the song 99 Problems. If you havent heard it, just listen up until you hear the chorus, like the first 5 or 10 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwoM5fLITfk
April 18, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow. that would be f-ing hilarious.
i'm betting it won't happen.
April 18, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he's been doing that for months now, just not visually.
But this time, apparently since the vid doesn't show it, he also does something with his foot and the stuff he brushed off his shoulders onto the floor. I'd be willing to bet that he side swiped it off the podium, or under the lectern, but whatever he did with his foot the audience was guffawing once they realized.
Lemonade, this guy makes lemonade not Kool-ade. We should enjoy it, it's great stuff.
April 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of new politics, I'm surprised the cookies question didn't even get a golf clap for crying out loud.
If you're getting dunked on all night by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, there is something seriously wrong with your game.
April 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Homerun for Barack!
Dust off the HRC plate and KA-BOOM!
April 17, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone noticed that Hillary said last night that she said something that she "knew not to be the truth." Isn't it even slightly newsworthy that she admitted she lied about Bosnia. I can't recall a politician actually admitting they lied about somethign before
April 17, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, she admitted lying and nobody seems to care...
April 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and there was zero follow-up. Had to get to that flag-pin question.
April 17, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today, Obama is whining about getting crushed and going negative.
Clinton is not.
Poor Obama, sad and embarrassing.
Different kind of politician?
BS.
April 17, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your robot like efficiency.
June 3rd. See ya. Buhbye.
April 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
April 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aint a Goat's life grand?
April 17, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! That's all I read, too is "goat life". swell.
April 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goats are supposedly really stubborn too. Makes sense that people mistake the name goatalife.
April 18, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another $.50 for gotalife! Gotta buy those flag pins!
April 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
robotic generalized answers that wnader everywhere, Senator Clinton was in her element. An ex-campaign staffer to her husband fielding her questions, hell, I bet she's done that before.
April 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, this guy's good.
April 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the other excerpt from Obama in North Carolina on how he will beat the Republicans. On "Obama for America." Really good.
April 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGC5Fd
Lovely.
Especially when the crowd leaps to their feet at ~ 3:30, and he ends by saying he's trying to show some "restraint" when dealing with a member of his own party. Would 'twere that applied in the other direction...
April 17, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So this is going to be Obama's stance? They're going to come at him, but he is just going to brush it off? He certainly didn't do very well at that last night. He's going to just brush off everything that the Republicans throw at him? He's going to rise above it? Head unbowed? It sounds like he thinks that his campaign itself is going to change politics forever. It sounds like he believes everything will be different even before he is elected. It sounds like he believes he can run a one-sided nice guy campaign on just the issues he wishes to address, and somehow the GOP will fall in line and debate him on the same level. Yet at the same time, he hasn't really run a nice-guy campaign against Hillary. He has gone on the attack against Hillary many times. He has engaged in politics as usual. So what is he talking about? He's just spinning damage control. It's just more politics as usual.
April 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 3rd. See ya. Buhbye.
April 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It burns, doesn't it? How talented he is as a politician?
Oh, and I suspect that the Obama campaign is raising money by the truckload because of that debate.
That's gonna hurt.
April 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the beauty part. He is made of Teflon. When he attacks, it is not perceived as an attack. This is a tremendous strength in a political candidate, and I cannot understand how one democrat can think that this is a bad trait for a democratic candidate to possess.
April 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait! I don't get it!
Are we supposed to criticize him for crying or for brushing it off so easily?
Life is so confusing as a mindless Clintonite!
April 17, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great to see him smiling and in such a relaxed mood.
He is ready to bring it home.
April 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
BREAKING NEWS!
Obama outs himself as Whinning, Crybaby.
More later...
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 3rd. See ya. Buhbye.
You can always vote for the old guy.
April 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama outs himself as Whinning, Crybaby."
How's this for breaking news - your candidate is lame, with an approval rating slightly north of most pedophiles.
April 17, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch!
April 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...thanks, Matt. I'm totally in the tank for Clinton now. Your posts are so productive in that respect.
April 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no h in winning, although I'm glad to see you got both ns in there. ;)
April 17, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
or maybe just brushing it off....hmmmm
Matt your disconnect with reality is really disturbing. You know there are really great therapies and medications you can take. Then you can join us in the reality based community.
April 18, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This should be his next commercial.
April 17, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cry Barry Cry.
April 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haters doing what haters doing best: hating. I'm not mad at you. Get your hate on, it's all you've got at this point.
April 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll, MP, troll.
April 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
All these attacks were self inflicted by hanging out with radicals and spewing bittergate.
He is to blame and nobody else.
So stop crying and unite with a winner and a fighter.
Hillary Clinton.
April 17, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All these attacks were self inflicted by hanging out with radicals and spewing bittergate."
The guy was a radical when Obama was 8 years old - your mother should have swallowed you.
April 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
and a liar
April 18, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama can multi task.
From today's Chicago Sun Times.
Obama sends letter to TSA over uniform flap
April 17, 2008
Recommend
BY MARY WISNIEWSKI
Illinois senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama sent a letter to the head of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration Thursday expressing “serious concerns” over TSA uniforms being left out in the open at O’Hare Airport.
Obama was responding to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times that TSA uniforms, TSA radios with access to a secure channel, sensitive security information and a cashbox were left unsecured at airport checkpoints. TSA said there was no security breach and that the materials were within the “sterile area” beyond the checkpoints.
Security breach hits O'Hare
But an airport security expert said the uniforms could have been stolen and used to impersonate TSA officers.
“As you know, terrorists have attempted to impersonate law enforcement and other security officials in order to gather intelligence, conduct counter-surveillance, and even carry out attacks,” Obama wrote in a letter to TSA Assistant Secretary Edmund “Kip” Hawley. “Considering the extraordinary security threats our nation faces every day, reports suggesting that uniforms could possibly be accessed are wholly unacceptable.”
Obama, who is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, asked Hawley to provide further information to highlight areas where improvements may be “urgently needed,” and requested guidelines governing the security of uniforms and other equipment.
Obama also wondered whether TSA staff or staff of the Department of Homeland Security is concerned about theft of screener uniforms or other items as a terrorist tactic.
“I know that the more than 40,000 TSA screeners work diligently to screen millions of passengers and bags every day across America, but their efforts will be compromised if seemingly mundane, but still critical security protocols are not followed,” Obama wrote.
The information about the unsecured items was provided in a March 14 Chicago Department of Aviation report obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
April 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, thank god he wrote that letter. I know I will sleep easier. Did he set the Terrorist alert level to Red?
April 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guy's just giving people information, even if it off-topic. Take the stick out of your ass.
April 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm.... You mean Obama's staff can multi-task. Wow. Who'da thunk it?
April 17, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know that Hillary didn't actually distribute her own book? The book company handles that.
Or that Neil Armstrong didn't actually build the rocket?
Better yet, that Edison had a staff of inventors who devised his ideas?
It's weird, I know, but a lot of the world works like this.
April 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find these revelations so completely disgusting that I don't think I can vote for Clinton, Obama, or Neal. But your mischaracterizations of Edison are beyond the pale! If Edison is not the candidate in November, then I'll vote for John McCain!!
April 17, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is Norma Desmond in Sunset Blvd.: "All right, Mr DeMille, I'm NOT ready for my close up."
I am big, Barry Obama. It's the my friends that made me small.
April 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of bizarre out-of-date reference was that? Are you Dennis Miller's weird uncle? Good God.
April 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
that refence should help with the crucial 60 - Dead demographic.
April 17, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd that he would use an out of sorts, aged, fading female celebrity as a metaphor for Obama.
There seems a closer, more perfect match, but I can't think of who it might be....
April 17, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for these comments. I'm been giggling all the way through...
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kelly Clarkson? You know, another moderately talented synthetic celebrity, courtesy of American Idol?
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think Marginal Player should have used Norma Desmond as a metaphor for Kelly Clarkson?
That's weird, but I guess, I mean, she is kind of yesterday's news...
It's a stretch. But I'll give it to you, why not?
April 17, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...wow.
April 17, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary has tried this before, but it's not the sort of liberty the political press and pundits have been willing to permit her to take."
I'm gonna take issue with this...
It's the PEOPLE who don't permit it to stick, because most voters don't trust her!
Obama, like him or not, just oozes coolness. You want to stick up for him when he's down, and cheer him when he's up.
The media has been trying to bring down Obama with attacks on his youth, his religion, his patriotism, etc.
They don't stick to Obama, not because the Media is not trying, but because the people aren't buying!
April 17, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew Weaver, in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaSPQnHUnLQ&feature=related
April 17, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or is he looking down his nose at all of us?
April 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like he's pretending he's following a teleprompter.
April 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Matthew, get out of your basement once in a while.
April 17, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that really Matthew Weaver? Whoever that was on that video, I felt a lot of compassion for him, but would also avoid him like the plague. The guy on that video has a real chronic problem with shallow breathing [not to mention severely shallow thinking] and I suspect he has a digestion and/or colon problem from the rigidity of his body and the fish motions he makes with his mouth. Can't imagine him as a breadwinner, either, because his whole body language shtick is 'somebody else feed me.....I am too busy being THE important thinker'' Ugh.
April 17, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like him..check out his avatar up thread
April 18, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta love the brush-off. Right on, Barack.
April 17, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, what a Hypocrit you really are.
April 17, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what a great speller you are, L1975...
April 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hater's randomly capitalized words of the day:
"Hypocrit"
"Whinning"
"Crybaby"
April 17, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention misspelled.
April 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta love that Ohio Valley eddicashun, huh Chris.
April 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch the polls on this. This strategy has been working for Obama. The dynamic reminds me of South Carolina. I was impressed then at how he was willing to stick the knife into Clinton while decrying the sticking of knives. The way the media usually treats Clinton, not that big a trick, but still noteworthy. It should not be hard here to tear down Clinton along with ABC. He does it well in the clip. This could be the pivot point that lifts him in Pennsylvania, if not to victory, then close.
April 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
During last night's debate: Hillary on saving Social Security. At the end, she admits that she does not even have any plan for how she would do so. Ready on day one, My Arse!
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. If we had stayed on the path we were on at the end of my husband's administration, we sure would be in a lot better position because we had a plan to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund and again, President Bush decided that that wasn't a priority, that the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans were his priorities, neither of which he's ever paid for. I think it's the first time we've ever been taken to war and had a president who wouldn't pay for it.
But when it comes to Social Security, fiscal responsibility is the first and most important step. You've got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund.
And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you've got to get Republicans and Democrats together.
That's what I will do. And I will say, number one, don't cut benefits on current beneficiaries; they're already having a hard enough time. And number two, do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.
There are lots of ways we can fix Social Security that don't impose those burdens, and I will do that.
SENATOR OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax. And so Senator Clinton, if she -- she can't have it both ways. You can't come at me for proposing a solution that will save Social Security without burdening middle- income Americans, and then suggest that somehow she's got a magic solution.
SENATOR CLINTON: But there are more progressive ways of doing it than, you know, lifting the cap. And I think we'll work it out. I have every confidence we're going to work it out. I know that we can make this happen.
Do you get it folks: Hillary's Ready On Day One Social Security Plan Is: She thinks that they will work "something out" . Ready on day one, My Arse!
April 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. More to the point, did anyone notice how he was in command of the specifics of the issue, while she clung to vague generalizations like "I will appoint a blue ribbon comission." Who is policy wonk and who is the empty suit?
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm afraid your comments are a bit substantive. you'd never make it in broadcasting.
April 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great response by Obama, but...
WTF is he doing in North Carolina five days before the Penn primary?
April 17, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
hes there for 1 day, and early voting started today in NC.
April 17, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep, I don't know why I didn't make that connection clearer in the long-term/short-term. decided to write a first diary about it.
I think Obama is a tactical genius. Really. I mean, setting the PA debate for the night before early voting opens in NC. Say what you want about his bad friends or his poor choices in lapel adornment, but that is some kind of smart, right there.
April 18, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
winning the election.
PA does not win the election. He's going to win NC by double the margin that Hillary wins PA.
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by "winning the election," I think it's important to underscore that it's the general election that Obama is working on in NC now. He needs to spend time here campaigning for the primary, not because he needs to spend time here to win the primary. He could win the primary without ever setting foot in the state. But he has a very real chance to turn NC blue in November, and part of that happens by showing that it's worth his time to campaign fiercely for the state now. He's not taking it for granted, not making it less important just because it's assumed he'll win. And so he gets lots of free press here now - and McCain hasn't put up an ad yet, or stepped foot in the state (to the best of my knowledge, though it is possible that I've missed it).
Even though the primary season is interminable, the Obama campaign is intelligently - if quietly - working toward the general already. Polling right now shows Clinton doing better in matchups against McCain in the traditional "swing" states of OH, FL, PA. She and Obama seem to do equally well against McCain in MI, which looks like a safe "leans Dem" state at this point. But really, we know from experience that OH and FL are going to be at best "too close to call" until election eve, and that the results of those states are going to be determined by some fluffity fluke last minute whim of political "reporting" or (more likely) by voting machine glitchiness. It seems like the most sensible thing to do is to assume that they'll go into the Republican column. Campaign for them, sure. But the same way you'd campaign for Mississippi or Utah. Then look elsewhere for those electoral votes.
And this is the great thing about Obama - or at least another great thing. This is one of the reasons that I support him, as an NC voter who has known for the last two Presidential cycles that my state hovered at purple but needed the right push. The same amount of resources that normally get pumped into one of the "big" swing states like OH or FL will turn the whole lower Atlantic corridor for Obama. The registration numbers, turnout, volunteer base, and donations coming out of VA, NC, and SC should really be enough to make these states worth fighting for. And there is enough match up polling to put them into the "at play" category, despite all conventional wisdom insisting that they will, of course, vote red in the end. They won't, if they are contested by Obama. And here's the kicker: if you campaign for these three states as a block, rather than just looking to pick up the one which looks like a "maybe," you'll see that VA (12) + NC (15) + SC (8) = 36 electoral votes. More than FL, PA, or OH. More than TX, even. So it's smart, smart, smart for Obama to campaign like hell for the NC primary, because he needs to campaign like hell for the Lower Atlantic block come November.
But it's so his. You should see the Barack love around here. And for reals, I've yet to see a McCain... anything.
April 17, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
jeebus. sort of lost track of my tags there. looks like I'm drunk. sorry. Drunk on electoral college speculation, and Obamania, I guess.
April 17, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like a little Obama political jujitsu to brighten my day!
April 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you're running for President you've got to be able to handle all the questions. Last night Obama couldn't handle all the questions. I wonder if any of the people complaining to ABC about the questions asked last night believe that the GOP won't be asking the same questions. They will, of course. They will make last night look like a cakewalk. Obama is still the front runner in this campaign, and what we saw last night really worries me.
April 17, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You reeeeeally think the GOP doesn't have anything to throw at Clinton? She's hardly been "vetted" at this point.
April 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What should concern you, Otto F, are the truckloads of cash Obama is raising off the debate. Your gal Hillary could have, as well, had she actually behaved like a human being rather than a programmed rightwing talking point. She didn't. And how's she going to get cash from donors now, after saying Obama could be elected president?
He's raising truckloads of cash off this debate. She obliterated one of her own arguments about his electability.
That should concern you.
April 17, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It did concern Otto.....last night he was complaining bitterly [he] that she must have 'lied' when she said that Obama could win.
April 17, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
the GOP! the GOP! OMG!!!
I swear to god Clinton supporters are the biggest bunch of pussies. If you think bullshit "issues" like these are going to be the deciding factor in an election where the country is in an intractable war, the economy is sucking, and the opposing party is being blamed for the mess by the public, you are crazy.
It's like Clinton runs her entire life by what she thinks the GOP will do. She's scared to death of them. Her policy and tactics are both guided by fear. Apparently, that fear also carries through to her supporters.
Democrats should not be afraid of the GOP.
April 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, this is simply not true. One does not need to be able to handle all the questions, just enough of them to persuade the voters to vote for you (witness George Bush, who certainly flubbed more than a few). I think that Obama performed just fine and will surely do well with the voters as a result. If you disagree with my take, that is fine, we will see on Tuesday who is right. If Clinton wins by double digits, then evidently Obama did not answer enough of the questions well enough, but if she wins by less than that, it would suggest that voters were, by and large, o.k. with his handling of the questions thrown at him.
April 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary has tried this before, but it's not the sort of liberty the political press and pundits have been willing to permit her to take."
Oh, but Greg, that's not why it doesn't work for Hillary. The reason it doesn't work for Hillary is because when she tries it, she sounds like a complete phony. Or a whiner.
Obama's funny, smart, and civilized. Hillary's just smart.
April 17, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the political press and pundits were gonna change this game, Obama would've lost Iowa and we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Obama's where he is because of his overwhelming support from people who donate to his campaign and make calls and knock on doors for him. This is what everyone just can't seem to figure out, is that, finally, we have a candidate with support deep enough to withstand the fickle and silly pundits.
April 17, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
People love Obama. And when you get love, people are willing to work with you. To cut you some slack. Clinton doesn't get love. It's hard to love her. And so it's so much easier to picture her with the knife. Sure you can vote for her, but it doesn't feel the same. She a junkyard dog. Useful at times but also easily disposable.
April 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Junkyard dog! I love it!
April 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama vows that when the gop attack him, he will fight back.
Um, they attacked him last night and he did not.
Let us put to rest that he will fight back.
Need a fighter not a whiner.
April 17, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is showing himself to be unready to face the Republicans. He was thrown by the questions last night, and wants a different kind of debate. But this is the real world. In fact, last night was just a taste. Obama is not ready.
April 17, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
Do you think Hillary's non-answers were better?
Bottom line: Either of these candidates will run circles around old-man McCain.
April 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
really, why didn't he propose another commission instead of actually having a policy prescription that would address social security's future shortfalls? if he had real guts, he would have foisted off the decisions on a blue-ribbon commission instead of making a decision himself, the way a real leader like hillary did.
April 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary's baggage had been completely rummaged through, like she is claiming, then how come her "Screw 'em" remark, about the working class, from 1995 just recently got revealed.
I think that there are lots more of that kind of stuff still stuffed away in many concealed pockets in Hillary's Political Samsonite Set.
April 17, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letterman: Top Ten things President Bush asked the Pope.
Number 10. So where is the little woman?
First time every Dave had to stop reading, because the audience was laughing and cheering for such a prolonged period.
April 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton said she believed Senator Obama would beat Senator McCain in the general election.
So why is she still int he race. She can't win. We should be taking the fight to the republicans instead of continuing this primary, she can not win.
April 17, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to be the obama hater line of the moment is that the debate was a GOP attack and Obama failed.
this analogy is wrong for several reasons, but playing along for a moment.
If Hillary can't beat Obama, who you all consider a lightweight, how's she gonna beat McCain? This logic escapes me.
Either Obama is better than you give him credit for, or Hillary is worse. Which is it?
April 17, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all agree that the Clintons are some of the best politicians in the business. (Notice, I did not say leaders, or decision makers. I said Politicians).
The fact that Obama has been running circles around them has less to do with Mark Penn (surprise!) and more to do with Obama and his incredible grass-root support.
If Obama can beat the Clintons, he can beat McCain. It's as simple as that.
April 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
word.
I too also find it impossible that Margarine Platter and co. were ever going to vote for Hillary.
I mean, I think she's over the edge, yes, but all the Hillary supporters are decent people, and none of them would undermine a Dem to aid McCain either.
April 17, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like you're living in my brain. Yes, yes, yes.
April 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um... looks like he's fighting back.
A lesson all Dems should've learn from 2004, is when they hit you with the bullshit, and the bullshit makes it out of the fringe and enters the mainstream, you have to hit back.
Remember how Kerry responded to the swift-boaters? He decided to ignore it. He was above it. But he lost respect because of his inaction.
April 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than drag it out through North Carolina, I guess my hope, however unrealistic, is that Obama can pull off an upset in Penn and therefore end this race which will force McCain to actually campaign for himself rather than continuing to let Hillary do it for him.
Otto: Can we lay the "It's okay bloody Obama now because the Republicans are going to do it fall" talking point to rest once and for all? If Hillary's scorched earth campaigning doesn't bother you, then at least be honest about the ramifications of her continued negative attacks. If you'll recall none of the Republicans attacked each other durning their primary battle with asinine rationalization that the Democrats were going to it in fall and therefore it's okay.
April 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The politics of Hope. BARRY OBAMA GIVES HILLARY THE UNIVERSAL GREETING after words "in her element." You're all class, Barry, just like your supporters and your MSNBC scum friends like Tweety and Olbertwirt. Barry Obama= TRASH!
April 17, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hulk Mad!
Hulk Smash!
April 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh just stop it.
You weren't going to ever vote for Hillary. You know it, we know it.
April 17, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, ho. Just watched it again, I see what you are saying.
I sure it was just a subconscious thing...
April 17, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if he intended that hand gesture in his pause while talking about Hillary, but it is obvious the crowd thought it was an intentional raising of the middle finger. Obama flips off Hillary. Funny, all (low) class Barry and Michelle.
April 17, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boo-hoo.
Like more cowbell, GO FOR MORE CAPS!!! YOU'LL MAKE YOUR POINT THAT WAY!
April 17, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marginal,
Do us all a favor and stop pretending you are on Hillary's side.
Be real and truthful. You can give us the Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity reports. You said once that you are an avid Fox Noise fan. So you can be our resident neo-nut on this blog. You know, just to keep us up to date on the latest bullshit from the right wing.
Don't pretend to support Hillary. It is beneath you. Be a man. Stand up for the proud right winger you are. We'll respect you more...well maybe not.
April 18, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Greg:
You need more space to expound on Clinton trying to reshape discourse/elevate the political process/keep us from wallowing in the muck - and not being allowed to do so.
I would love to hear about those instances. I've been following this primary season fairly closely, and I missed them.
P.S.: Someone had to explain the "brush it off" multiple cultural references (I am older, you know).
gotta love it!
April 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Greg:
You need more space to expound on Clinton trying to reshape discourse/elevate the political process/keep us from wallowing in the muck - and not being allowed to do so.
I would love to hear about those instances. I've been following this primary season fairly closely, and I missed them.
P.S.: Someone had to explain the "brush it off" multiple cultural references (I am older, you know).
gotta love it!
April 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was listening to his response without watching, and I suddenly heard him stop talking and people cheering and yelling and I was like "what just happened?"
I think it was just his manner of "brushing it off" that made it so appealing, nothing about the term itself. He's like teflon: nothing sticks.
On a side note: I love Hillary supporters getting mad about the "in her element" comment.
The "knife" comment was OK, I guess? ;)
April 17, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That 4 minute speech snippet from Raleigh encapsulates what is so special about Obama. I hope the powers that be have the good sense to utilize it in a TV commercial: It truly has the potential to shift the entire paradigm of this election. Magnificent!
April 17, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You realize that Obama's attempted insult of Clinton today actually has the opposite message? Obama declared that Clinton "looked in her element" last night at the debate. How true, she looked like a winning candidate. Obama instead looked unprepared and unelectable last night and today followed up as a sore loser.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be honest, Weaver. Is this you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaSPQnHUnLQ&feature=related
April 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of all of you dogpiling me, I haven't seen crowds respond to the personality of a politician in the way they do to Obama since Reagan.
Reagan bought a lot of goodwill from the people by being funny, and easy-going like this. I would love to see Obama have the opportunity to influence the direction of this country as strongly as Reagan did, though ironically and fortunately, that will mean undoing most of what Reagan did too. Something Clinton didn't get close to pulling off.
April 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama represents peoples hopes and dreams. And sometimes those dreams get stepped on and pushed aside but people still hold onto (cling? perhaps) the dream. The amount of goodwill he is able to draw upon is perhaps one of the least understood aspects of this campaign.
Like I said earlier, people love the man in ways that they do not love Hillary or McCain. This affection is hard for journalists to put within the normal confines of how they are used to covering politics. There is something shifting in the country and the news media is slow to pick up on it.
April 17, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to whiny Obama and his whiny bunch of whiny whiners whine. Do they whine while Hillary gets slimed by Obama supporters and thier media shills? Oh no, it is fine to bash Hillary and cheer while they call her a F*cking Wh*re, but ask candidate Saint Hussain Obama a few tough questions and they all whine like a little babies.
April 17, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap.....
April 17, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC and Clinton ganged against Obama
ABC and Clinton ganged against Obama.
This is what happened. Obama is smart enough to fight down Clinton and its gang friens -- ABCnews.
April 17, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
ABC News BAD; FOX News BAD; MSNBC broadcasters wet their pants when Obama speeksP: GOOD
April 17, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Stephanopoulos, and Charles G failed to post one follow up question? Would someone tell ABC that Clinton has a 5% change left for her nomineeship?
April 17, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guy is a marvel. Wonderful. As we sit in front of our monitors, clicking away at our keyboards, trying to be smart, he just does it. What a natural Barack Obama is!
Earlier, MMASONM wrote, "Nothing like a little Obama political jujitsu to brighten my day!" That's exactly it. The guy is a pro at political leveraging. Every time I get depressed by how tough the going seems to be for him, he pivots and throws his opponents and the made-up issues over his shoulder and onto the mat.
A real wonder to behold.
President Obama!
April 17, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "brush the dirt off" clip just got played on NBC Nightly news, as did Obama's criticism of the debate taking 45 minutes before getting to any topics that people care about.
All in all, NBC's debate story tonight was very favorable to Obama. The story was about the questions, Clinton's attempts to "put him on heals", and his smooth respone today.
April 17, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised that the story has become about the questions, because as appalling as that whole 45 minutes of sludge was, Obama did an excellent job in fielding all of those questions and pointing out how ludicrous each of them was. I think it wore him down, because his second half wasn't as good...but who's going to remember the second half thanks to the parade of filth that comprised the first half and his grace under stoopid?
April 17, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A debate is not everything. Also I think the reason Obama is even talking about the debate is because the American people are talking about it and are so angry they are finally going straight to the Mainstream Media. It became an issue, Obama didn't make it an issue. Obviously the people spoke (atleast thousands did) at what they correctly percieved as media bias and conflict of interest. As an Obama supporter I am happily surprised. The American people can't be as hoodwinked so easily anymore- we've been through alot.
April 17, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't there like 13,000+ comments in the ABC Debate thread alone? Not to mention the phone calls and emails? That is some serious response - and it is, unsurprisingly, the most "newsworthy" aspect of the debate (even though there were a couple of noteworthy policy points discussed in between the second half commercials and amendment readings. But you'll have to dig through the transcripts for those).
April 17, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
18,000, last time I checked.
April 17, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This clip demonstrates yet again why Obama is going to and has to win.
April 17, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone conceding he lost?????
They didnt ask her about Columbia, mark penn, her upcomming court date, or anything to the equivilent nonsense they asked Obama. Is he not supposed to be human? Hell maybe he really just couldnt believe that they were tag teaming him on conservative talking points in a dem primary debate. I thought he handled it well and was honest! They asked Hillary a question about Bosnia and she fell apart. She was sleepy again. How does the media not print this today after making such a big deal about it previously? That right there shows you they had an agenda, and watching the pundits on Msnbc try to defend ABC was just as sickening. Yes Im talking to you David, Joe, Harold and John. Get in touch with the people and stop taking fox news talking points and perpetuating their will to make the news. Take a freakin look at what happenend to ABC last night on the web page and start being honest.....Yeah, I know Im asking too much!
April 17, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 17, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena
Are you sitting on a hunk of cheese?
April 17, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
AAIIIIIYEEEEEEE - damn rented fingers can't close tags!
April 17, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He flipped her the bird.....maybe he is brought up on ethics charges. Hmmmmmmm.
April 17, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey? What The!
I looked in her element too and didn't see any problem. Who do I see around her about some snacks? >_>
April 17, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so enjoyable to watch the Clinton trolls get more and more incoherent (quite a feat, really, considering where they started) as their unelectable party-traitor candidate completes the destruction of her own political career. Fun times.
April 17, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You betcha! Those Clintonistabillarytonian wankoffs are just begging for a party traitor wedgie!
Like I always say to the WalMart cashier: "I want change I can believe in!"
April 18, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha ... this is actually what I heard in my head when I saw this.
(Language warning for kids or work)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjbDKU1ndXs
April 17, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry pal but your corporate buddies Disney/ESPN/and ABC were out to get him and you were the messenger - and today GE/ NBC took up the campaign
April 18, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
2:20+ was the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
Someone else made the comment on Yglesias, and id like to reiterate.
When Obama beats Clinton, he should come out to the song 99 Problems. If you havent heard it, just listen up until you hear the chorus, like the first 5 or 10 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwoM5fLITfk
April 18, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
hilarious idea
April 18, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has to wade through spin is subject of below post written BEFORE debate. Also, what is difference between ABC's debate technique and media coverage of Paris or Brittany's un pantied lower cleavage?
None!
Obama shows trust and respect for voting public: Hillary not so much
.
Obama has embarked on a profound sociological and political gamble. He gambles by offering the electorate a deep respect by quietly and firmly telling truths. His campaign, to a degree unparalleled in normal campaigning, constantly and repetitively gambles that voters of all stripes, indeed, can handle the truth. It must be at times agony to watch the 'gotcha' spin from opponents and the press while waiting to see if the American citizenry can make intelligent decisions faced with a cacophony of spin.
So far the voters have proved Obama's respect for them to be well placed. They have showed their common sense by ignoring mindless spin battles and continuing to vote increases in Obama's winning lead primary numbers.
April 18, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the everything the Clintonistabillarytonians have ever done/said/thought is wrong!!
(insert look of furtive shame here)
REMEMBER: When you pay your bill, demand "Change I can believe in"
April 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must live in a vaccuum. In San Francisco, Obama bunched the successes of the Clinton Administration with the failures of the Bush Administration. Obama has questioned Clinton's electibility since before the primaries started.
Obama derided her with comments like "you're likeable enough."
You delude yourselves.
April 18, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta get that dirt off your shoulders
http://i26.tinypic.com/2ptp1s0.jpg
April 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink