Obama Pokes Fun At Hillary's Shot-And-A-Beer
Camp Obama's push-back on Hillary's criticism of his "small town" remarks continues this morning -- in a speech before the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Pittsburgh, he again acknowledges error, but also gently mocks Hillary's efforts to appeal to working class voters this weekend by tossing back a shot...
Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I'm out of touch, it's time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.After all, you've heard this kind of rhetoric before. Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.
But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?
In addition to trying to re-frame the battle over this as an argument over whether Americans are "bitter" or not, poking fun at Hillary for this sort of staged politicking is a key component of Team Obama's push-back on the "small town" brouhaha (though Obama did some similar politicking in a bowling alley).
Full text of his prepared remarks after the jump.
Late Update: Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer responds:
With all due respect, this is the same politician who spent six days posing for clichéd camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow, and buying a ham at the Philly market (albeit one that cost $99.99 a pound). Sen. Obama's speeches won't hide his condescending views of Americans living in small towns."
Being here in Pennsylvania with the primary coming up, I know that politics is what's on a lot of people's minds. But as I look out at this crowd, I also know that being here isn't just about politics for me. It's personal. Because it reminds me why I entered public service in the first place.
As some of you might know, after college, I went to work as a community organizer for a group of churches on the South Side of Chicago. The job was to help lift communities that had been devastated when the local steel plants fell on hard times. Thousands of folks had been laid off and some plants were closing down. And I can still remember the first time I saw a shuttered steel mill.
It was late in the afternoon and I took a drive with another organizer over to the old Wisconsin Steel plant on the southeast side of Chicago. Some of you may know it. And as we drove up, I saw a sight that's probably familiar to some of you. I saw a plant that was empty and rusty. And behind a chain-link fence, I saw weeds sprouting up through the concrete, and an old mangy cat running around. And I thought about all the good jobs it used to provide, and all the kids who used to work there in the summer to make some extra money for college.
What I came to understand was that when a plant shuts down, it's not just the workers who pay a price, it's the whole community. I saw folks who felt like their government wasn't looking out for them and who had given up hope. So I worked with unions and the city government, and we brought the community together to fight for its common future. We gave job-training to the jobless and hope to the hopeless, and block by block, we helped turn those neighborhoods around.
More than twenty years later, as I've traveled across Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and Ohio, and all across this country, I'm still seeing too many places where plants have closed down and where folks are feeling like they're not getting a fair shot at life, like their dreams are slipping further out of reach. And that's partly because of the same kinds of global economic pressures that led steel plants in Chicago to close down in the 1980s.
But it's also because George Bush has pursued policies that don't work for working Americans. In recent years, we've seen more than 3 million high-quality manufacturing jobs disappear, and more than 40,000 factories close down. And more often than not, the few jobs that are being created pay less than the ones we're losing and come without health insurance or a pension, which makes it even harder for families to feel secure about their future.
But we also know this is a problem that goes beyond the failures of George Bush - because for decades, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, we've seen the number of American-owned steel companies dwindle down. For decades, our economic policies have been written to pump up a corporate bottom line, rather than promote what's right, without any consideration for the burden we all bear when workers are abused or the environment is destroyed.
It's an outrage, but it's not an accident - because corporate lobbyists in Washington are writing our laws and putting their clients' interests ahead of what's fair for the American people. The men and women you represent haven't been getting a seat at the table when trade agreements are being negotiated, or tax policies are being written, or health care and pension laws are being designed because the special interests have bought every chair.
That's not the America I believe in. That's not the America you believe in. And that's why when I'm President, we'll make sure Washington serves nobody's interests but the people's.
You know, there's been a lot of talk in this campaign lately about who's "in touch" with the workers of Pennsylvania. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are singing from the same hymn book, saying that I'm "out of touch" - an "elitist" - because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances.
Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I'm out of touch, it's time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.
After all, you've heard this kind of rhetoric before. Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll "promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.
But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?
I'm the only candidate who doesn't take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists, and I'm here to tell you that you can count on me to stand up for you after this election, just as I've been standing up for workers all my life. That's why I'm running for President of the United States.
Senator Clinton and Senator McCain question my respect for the workers of Pennsylvania. Well, let me tell you how I believe you demonstrate your respect. You do it by telling the truth and keeping your word, so folks can know that where you stand today is where you'll stand tomorrow.
The truth is, trade is here to stay. We live in a global economy. For America's future to be as bright as our past, we have to compete. We have to win.
Not every job that has left is coming back. And not every job lost is due to trade -automation has made plants more efficient so they can make the same amount of steel with few workers. These are the realities.
I also don't oppose all trade deals. I voted for two of them because they have the worker and environmental agreements I believe in. Some of you disagreed with me on this but I did what I thought was right.
That's the truth. But let me tell you what else I believe in:
For America to win, American workers have to win, too. If CEO pay keeps rising, while the standard of living for their workers continues to decline, that's not a win for America.
That's why I opposed NAFTA, it's why I opposed CAFTA, and it's why I said any trade agreement I would support had to contain real, enforceable standards for workers.
That's why I believe the Permanent Normalized Trade agreement with China didn't do enough to ensure fairness and compliance.
Now, you can have a debate about whether my position is right or wrong. But here's what you can't do. You can't spend the better part of two decades campaigning for NAFTA and PNTR for China, and then come here to Pennsylvania, and tell the steelworkers you've been with them all along. You can't say you are opposed to the Columbia Trade deal, while your key strategist is working for the Columbian government to get the deal passed.
That's not respect. That's just more of the same old Washington politics. And we can't afford more of the same.
We need real change, and that's what I'm offering. I'm offering a new, more transparent and more inclusive path on trade so we can help promote an integrated global economy where the costs and benefits are distributed more equitably. And it starts with a principle I've always believed in - that trade should work for all Americans.
That's why we need to finally confront the issue of trade with China. As I've said before, America and the world can benefit from trade with China. But trade with China will only be good for you if China itself plays by the rules and acts as a positive force for balanced world growth.
Seeing the living standards of the Chinese people improve is a good thing - good because we want a stable China, and good because China can be a powerful market for American exports. But too often, China has been competing in ways that are tilting the playing field.
It's not just that China is following the path taken by so many other countries before it, and dumping goods into our market while not opening their own markets, something I've spoken out against. It's not just that they're violating intellectual property rights. They're also grossly undervaluing their currency, and giving their goods yet another unfair advantage. Each year they've had the chance, the Bush administration has failed to do anything about this. That's unacceptable. That's why I co-sponsored the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. And that's why as President, I'll use all the diplomatic avenues open to me to insist that China stop manipulating its currency.
We also have to make sure that whatever goods we're importing are safe for our families. We all saw the harm that was caused by lead toys from China that were reaching our store shelves. A few months ago, when I called for a ban on any toys that have more than a trace amount of lead, an official at China's foreign ministry said I was being "unobjective, unreasonable, and unfair." But I don't think protecting our children is "unreasonable" - I think it's our obligation as parents and as Americans.
When it comes to trade, there's no one-size-fits-all approach. If countries are committed to reciprocity, if they are abiding by basic rules of the road, then we should welcome trade. Many poor countries need access to our markets and pose no threat to our workers.
But what all trade agreements I negotiate as President will have in common is that they'll all put American workers first. We won't ignore violence against union organizers in Columbia, or the non-tariff barriers that keep U.S. cars out of South Korea.
And we won't just negotiate fair trade agreements, we'll make sure they're being fully enforced. George Bush has been far too slow to press American rights. That's an outrage. When our trading partners sign an agreement with the Obama administration, you can trust that we'll hold them to it.
Now, if we're serious about standing up for American workers around the world, we also have to fight for you here at home. That means passing universal health care and making sure every American has insurance you can take with you even if you lose your job, and that a college degree is within reach, even if you're not rich - because all our children should have the skills to compete in the global economy.
And it also means protecting the rights of our workers. It's time we had a President who didn't choke saying the word "union." We need to strengthen our unions by letting them do what they do best - organize our workers. If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union, no matter whether they're full-time, or part-time, or contract workers. And that is why I will fight for and why I intend to sign the Employee Free Choice Act when it lands on my desk in the White House.
Here's what else I'll do: we'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been working on since I got to the Senate - so we can stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and start giving them to companies that create good jobs with decent wages here in America.
And to those who think that the decline in American manufacturing is inevitable; or that manufacturing has no place in a 21st century economy; we say right here and right now that the fight for manufacturing's future is the fight for America's future. And that's why we'll modernize our steel industry, strengthen our entire domestic manufacturing base, and open as many markets as we can to American manufactured goods when I'm President.
We'll also make necessary long-term investments in job-growth. Back in the 1950's, Americans were put to work building the Interstate Highway system and that helped expand the middle class in this country. We need to show the same kind of leadership today. That's why I've called for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years and generate millions of new jobs. We can't keep standing by while our roads and bridges and airports crumble and decay. We can't keep running our economy on debt. For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America.
And we need to invest in green technology. We can't keep sending billions of dollars to foreign nations because of our addiction to oil. We should be investing in American companies that invest in American-manufactured solar panels and windmills, and in clean coal technology. That's why I've proposed investing $150 billion over the next ten years in the green energy sector. This will create up to five million new American jobs - and those are jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's a promise that we are making not just to this generation of Americans, but to the next generation of Americans. And that's why this will be a priority in my administration.
Now, I know some will say we can't afford all this. But let me just say this - if we can spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq, we can spend $15 billion a year in our own country to put Americans back to work and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our economy.
So make no mistake - the American people have a choice in this election. We can talk about our economic problems with trade all we want, but unless we change the broken system in Washington, nothing else is going to change. We can talk all we want about respecting workers and their way of life, but unless we have a President you can trust to listen and put working Americans first, nothing is really going to change.
And you can trust me. Because politics didn't lead me to working folks; working folks led me to politics. I was standing with American workers on the streets of Chicago twenty years ago, and the reason I'm here today is because I don't want to wake up one day many years from now and see that our companies are still getting hurt because foreign governments are still bending or breaking the rules, or that we're still standing idly by while American jobs get shipped overseas, or that we still haven't made the investments in infrastructure and in training our workers that we desperately need.
The reason I'm here today is because I know what it's like to go to college on student loans, and see a mother get sick and worry that maybe she can't pay the bills. I know what it's like to have to scratch and work and claw to build a better life for your family. And I don't want to wake up many years from now and find that the American dream is still out of reach for too many Americans.
The reason I'm here today is because I believe that if we can just put an end to the politics of division and distraction, and reclaim that sense that we all have a stake in each other, that we rise and fall as one nation; if we can just unite this country around a common purpose - black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American; labor and management; Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - there's no obstacle we cannot overcome, no destiny we cannot fulfill.
That's the fundamental truth I learned on the streets of Chicago. That's the idea at the heart of your Alliance for Manufacturing. And that's the opportunity we have in this election. There is a moment in the life of every generation where that spirit of unity and hopefulness has to come through if we're going to make our mark on history. This is our moment. This is our time. And if you will march with me, and organize with me, if you vote for me, then I promise you this: We will not just win this Democratic Nomination, we will win the general election and then together - you and I - we're going to change this country, and we're going to change this world. Thank you.
Let's face it, Hillary is Annie Oakley, or rather, Calamity Jane, who likes to tell tale tales while riding a giant bull with Paul Bunyan under sniper fire.
April 14, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's beating his ass.
It must hurt.
April 14, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha. totally. obamabots, it's over for you. walk away.
April 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okee, today's Gallup Tracking Poll has Obama up ten points! Eat crap.
April 14, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Hillary looked and sounded hung-over at the Compassion Forum last night. She needs to quit the hard drinking.
April 14, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now if she called him a name she'd be a racist.
http://hinessight.com/
this is priceless.
April 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is saying that someone is talking LIKE she's Annie Oakley name-calling?
Are you people honestly not understanding what is said or are you actively looking to misconstrue everything you hear to your political advantage?
The education system has truly let us down if people refuse to read an entire statement and understand that much of what is said in latter paragraphs is modified by what is said earlier paragraphs.
It's no so much as people being truly outraged as it is people being beaten politically looking to tell people to be outraged.
How well this works will depend upon the voters and who they decide to believe.
April 14, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, comparing him to Jesse Jackson wouldn't be an insult anymore?
April 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this new tack because it gets at the heart of hypocrisy of the identity politics Republicans (and in this case, one desperate Democrat) have played.
April 14, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
nah. you're just upset obama can pop out another speech to fix this one. it's over for him.
April 14, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. It is over for him and it is over for her, too. Because, mathematically speaking, this thing is done. Better get used to the sound of "Candidate Obama".
Will he win? Who knows. I only know he has a better chance at being president that the hard drinking, gun shootin' bullet dodging "homegirl" from Winnetka!
April 14, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
you realize that your comment makes no sense, right (due do grammatical errors)?
April 14, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, once again, responds to Hillary's Rove-like attack with eloquence and poise. Imagine a politician who can do that?
The desperation out Camp Clinton is reaching absurdity. I mean, won't those "shots and a beer" affect her shooting skills when she nails her next duck?
Here's hoping the folks of PA get wise to the Clinton hypocrisy and pandering and put us all out of our misery on April 22.
Eric
www.changeany1thing.com
April 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? What planet are you living on? He attacked her square on. Take those rose colored glasses off.
April 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquence and poise? LOL!
I think the Clinton camp's response nails him very well on his hypocrisy. As if Obama doesn't pose for photo opps!?
April 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to trying to re-frame the battle over this as an argument over whether Americans are "bitter" or not, poking fun at Hillary for this sort of staged politicking is a key component of Team Obama's push-back on the "small town" brouhaha (though Obama did some similar politicking in a bowling alley).
I really don't think going bowling is the same as presenting yourself as a gun-toting whiskey drinker.
April 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you suck at bowling more than your opponent sucks at gun toting and whiskey drinking...
April 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that case it's clearly different.
April 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Obama was certainly not pretending to be a bowler. His gutter balls proved that. He was being himself. Big difference between that and the shot-and-beer and gun talk pretense.
April 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I remember when my daddy taught me to bowl on his private bowling alley at our summer cottage..."
April 14, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big difference from the gun. Less different from the whiskey.
April 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
nah. according to msnbc, clinton frequently has red wine or beer with staffers and reporters. so STFU.
April 14, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wine is one thing. Plainly, she can't handle her whiskey. It's a common enough affliction.
April 14, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how DEAD Shrillery's campaign is, it's surprising she's not drinking in public even more.
April 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a dream, that one day our politicians won't have to apologize for being intelligent and insightful and that one day honesty won't be considered a gaffe.
Is that too much to ask?
April 14, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that too much to ask?
That question just shows how elitist and (to channel little Billy Kristol from today's Times)how Marxist y'all are.
April 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Kristol's beyond self-parody at this point.
April 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god, that pissed me off so much! I normally read through Kristol to rebut him in my head, but I just skipped him today when I saw that title.
April 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It shouldn't be, for a serious country. I remain steadfastly hopeful that one day, we'll live in that country again.
April 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again?
April 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
from the perspective of a resident of an area where we can (literally) pick off the deer from our back porches, one must agree with Senator Obama. Real hunters know never to mix their booze and guns -- even metaphorically.
April 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not usually one to accuse any of the bloggers at my favorite website of any bias, but that completely unnecessary parenthetical was a little curious, Greg. I don't recall many (if any) of your posts which have reiterated Team Hillary's talking points randomly tossing in an aside that undercuts whatever argument they happen to be making. Seems to me this might be the type of thing that gets one (correctly, in this instance) accused of a pro-Hillary bias...
April 14, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is my next "shot" ?
April 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great pic!
April 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I actually stole it from a site Callimaco posted in one of today's blogs.
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/451/hillthemightyhunterjq3.jpg
April 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is with that headline, TPM? The guy gives a long, substantive speech - and the headline's about him ribbing her about throwing one back? Come on, guys.
April 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope not, cause I share your dream. That's why I am so mad at her now. What she is belittling is a major issue - maybe the most major issue at the heart of our problems.
She's going to make it very difficult for us to address this problem, which is key.
And she's finally pushed me over the edge to the point where I hate her guts for this. Not the attack on Obama, as much as the direct attack on truth. Just exactly like a Republican.
April 14, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on out, Hill - we got some Reposado Gold, a box o buck shot and a tri tip on the grill. Kablammo!
Hahahahahaha. I'm loving it. Keep digging grrrrl.
April 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, politicians pander? What a stunning new development.
April 14, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And one other thing: the Clinton campaign is giving McCain tons of ammunition with this. As usual. But for Phil Singer to zip out something about Obama "posing" is just over the top.
Two words for Phil: sniper fire.
I look forward to Obama handling this on Wednesday with the grace and eloquence that he has demonstrated in the past.
And note to the Clinton campaign: handing out "I'm not bitter" stickers is too funny for words. "Bitter" and "Hillary Clinton" are three words you don't want appearing together.
April 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone say bitter ? Me loves "bitters". Gimme some and let's go huntin' and shootin'.
April 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fell out laughing when I learned Clinton had handed out "I'm not bitter" bumper stickers.
So typical--she starts off with a nice pounce on his comments, then it all spirals out of control into overplayed cheeseballville. What could be more defensive and tin-eared than an "I'm not bitter" bumper sticker?
Sheesh. Next, "I'm not irrelevant" bumper stickers.
April 15, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!!
No shit.
April 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Slate:
"Poor wording was not the problem; on the contrary, it was his precision that was so unfortunate, and his ability to pack half a dozen unintended insults into a single sentence uncanny."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/04/13/the-worst-thing-i-ve-heard-obama-say.aspx
April 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richmond, you should post your whole comment from that Slate column. Here. I'll do it for you. The words of Richmond:
I found this: People like her ANYWAY to be particularly interesting. And just one question: then why has she been behind since February?
April 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
being behind doesn't mean people don't 'like her anyway'.
being neck and neck (even if behind, and even if far enough behind to not ever catch up) is the proof that people like her anyway.
April 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I would have thought that her sky-high negatives would have suggested that people *don't* "like her anyway."
April 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL @ Singer
This is really ALL they have to go on and nothing else. What a sad time for the Clinton camp.
April 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politics didn't lead me to working folks; working folks led me to politics.
That should be B.O's tagline in an ad the next week or so.
I am bothered by him being down 20 now to HRC in a poll that just came out today by ARG. They were tied a little over a week ago. Now he's down 20??!! WTF?
April 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Relax, its ARG. I don't beleive their polls when they show it in Barack's favor either.
April 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone kindly explain to me how the truth is an insult? This is ridiculous.
Bill Clinton used to say the same damn thing Obama has said. The same thing - because it is a major issue - books have been written about it.
It's true and I hate the Clintons for trying to make it seem not true when it's so damn important.
I just hate them now.
April 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
H-T-X
An explanation from Slate:
Here's what preceded the problem sentence:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not.
With this, who could argue? So far, so good. But then, straight into the ditch:
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter,'' (Angry, OK, but bitter? I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe someone they liked that way.)
"they cling to guns'' (If they had jobs, maybe they wouldn't be gun nuts?)
"or religion'' (Or religious nuts, either? This is an especially weird conclusion since Obama himself is a devout Christian; was he pandering to the segment of the party that does see believers that way?)
"or antipathy to people who aren't like them'' (So no wonder such a lot of them are haters?)
"or anti-immigrant sentiment'' (Who blame their troubles on people who'll live in concrete-block squalor while picking fruit for next to nothing.)
"or anti-trade sentiment'' (And don't see the big picture on globalization and free trade like you Davos-goers do.)
"as a way to explain their frustrations.'' (In lieu of a Harvard Law degree.)
April 14, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today's Rasmusen daily tracking poll:
Obama 48
Clinton 44
Yesterday:
Clinton 46
Obama 45
Yesterday, Gallup's daily tracking poll showed a two point gain to 50-41 for Barack after a full day of "bittergate", including 54-40 poling on saturday.
April 14, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but isn't BO's self-realization the same thing he did with his speech on "race"? It was something truthful but something people felt uncomfortable about.
In this instance, he supposedly puts down working class whites because of guns, gays and god. Ummm, yeah. Can't we talk about this, or is the reason we can't becuase the people that he's talking about/too don't understand what he's saying? Ooops, there I go being all elitist again.
April 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rejuvenated Hillary Clinton strolls small-town Pennsylvania;
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took a stroll on Sunday, but the crowds lining the sidewalks and jamming the porches of a blue-collar neighborhood in Pennsylvania made it anything but casual. A crowd of several hundred people lined the street in Scranton to see Clinton. One resident held a sign that read "Small Towns Need You."
http://bp1.blogger.com/_UQPUzwdX51o/SAGBAm9YsPI/AAAAAAAAAHU/qtpQt3Gntao/s1600-h/r-HILLARY-DRINKING-huge1.jpg
Obama's divisive rhetoric shows his hope and unity message is bs and he is just another lying politician.
April 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
filed for future ownage.
April 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife, you are brilliant. Acting like you're praising Hillary and then posting a link to her doing her shots of Crown Royal. Once again, you show that you have the heart of a true Obama supporter.
April 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://dailykos.com/
Word to your mother.
April 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gutter-balls? What was that with Hillary's bowling on Ellen?
April 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Cartoonist finds that Obama has mastered the Jedi mind trick over his cultist followers and NBC News/MSNBC":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_jh2dO78U
They are laughing at you .
Hilarious.
April 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Likewise.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Hilarious, indeed.
April 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love the video, a truly accurate representation of Obama cultists.
April 14, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not condescending in the least, thanks. Heaven forbid I support a different candidate, or Soft-Freez here will call me a name! Crikey!
April 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Soft-Freeze has revealed he is a Republican troll. Best not to feed him.
April 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
Comparing Obama to a Jedi Master. Hmmm.
Maybe not the best way to insult a candidate?
But, it's funny. It is. I liked it.
Especially the part about Bill Clinton not inhaling.
or wait, was that a different movie?
April 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is the Jedi, doesn't that make Hillary and McCain the Sith? And, if so, which one's the master and who's the apprentice.
April 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama must get saddle sores from riding on his high horse so much. Here he is strikeing back at Hillary and McCain for allegedly politicizing his words!! Hmmm, then he might try not politicizing their words, either.
Continuing on his beloved steed, he says of them that around election time they'll "promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer." And of course Obama doesn't do any of this himself. No promises or proposals or TV crews following him around at all.
April 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's great Gotalife. And when HRC wins PA and gets slaughtered in NC and loses IN, we'll all thank you for your own high-minded comedy.
April 14, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you even think before you post? Hillary and McCain on one side of this vs. Obama on the other? So you prefer the Republicans over Obama?
Good going.
April 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer the truth. Novel idea, I know. Even if Bush himself ever says anything true, I'll be glad to admit he's right.
I add up the score to see who's right the most and who's wrong the most, and vote accordingly. Also take into account whether the guy/gal seems like a fair, honest and open-minded thinker. I'm that most dangerous of creatures, an independent voter.
This isn't the official Obama website, is it? If it is, then TPM must have redirected me there.
April 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the most truthful politician out there.
No punchline, that's it.
April 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he's not. He's just a more artful liar than the other two.
April 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Barack Obama even know what a duck blind is? He hardly strikes me as the rod and gun club type himself.
April 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
He certainly isn't a rod and gun club type. Then again, he's not portraying himself as one either.
April 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was referring to this:
April 14, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you were referring to. I think it's a hilarious line.
What's your point?
April 14, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I don't mean for that last line to sound snarky. I'm genuinely asking, but that's just how it comes off.)
April 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's a hilarious line, all right. I can just see Barack Obama all decked out in Brooks Brothers cammo, bowling bag in hand...
April 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's exactly my point. He's never portrayed himself as a "rod and gun club type" or a master bowler. Yes, he went bowling during his tour of PA, but he sucked! He didn't try and lie about his bowling experience ("I remember my daddy buying me my first ball when I was just a kid").
April 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this matters because...?
April 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you know that in order to be elected President, you have to shoot defenseless animals for sport? Bonus points if it's on a private range.
April 14, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many points for a lawyer (Dick Cheney's preference)?
April 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That'll score you about 150, last I checked.
April 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
See above. (Apologies for the missing context.)
April 14, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Replied to the wrong comment. Let's try that again.
April 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
See above. (And apologies for the missing context.)
April 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha, what are you doing?!
April 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, why isn't the Annie Oakley passage in the transcript?
April 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on...
No one has done more for small towns than Barack Obama.
April 14, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two important things going on.
One. Obama is saying that he chose his words poorly when he was talking to those donors in San Francisco. That certainly distorts what he actually did, because what he actually did was reveal his attitude. It wasn't a poor choice of words. He was expressing accurately the way he views small-town people, their faith and their core values. He revealed a condescending view of a class of people he clearly disrespects.
Two. His response to the flap that his words generated is to make fun of Hillary on a personal level. Example, he calls her "Annie Oakley". He makes fun of her in personal attacks. It drew laughs from his audience. That kind of thing appeals to his supporters. But get beyond those supporters, and it comes across as nasty. And, just like his remarks about small-town people, he again comes across as disrespectful and dismissive. And of course everyone, including his supporters knows that he is now saying these things try to change the subject, which starts to look more desperate than anything else. I don't think he's doing himself any favors. It certainly doesn't help the image of a "uniter" he worked so hard to cultivate.
And now with Jeremiah Wright lashing out against Fox News, and making statements about Thomas Jefferson being a pedophile, we're all being reminded of something Obama wants us to forget.
April 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we nominate another "professor" who is going to explain to us what we really feeling and acting out when we hunt or pray or consider immigration policy then we will lose again. It is a matter of whether our nominee conveys respect for people's traditions and mores. it is absolutely irrelevant as to whether Hillary or Obama hunts or prays. Of importance is how each approaches and attends to people unlike themselves.
When Obama graced mulitmillionaires in San Fransisco with a "psychoanalysis" of rural people before a closed session opens a big wound for Democrats. It will be "San Fransisco Democrats" all over again, led by a man whose wife was never before "proud of America" and who finds people who disagree with him "likeable enough" all the while getting solace from a minister who berates America and spouts anti-Semitic bile.
Hillary is far from perfect but this Obama comment is brutal and may be fatall. Here we Democrats go again.
April 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not people who disagree with him, he finds Hillary "likeable enough." And considering how she's run her campaign, I think even that's a stretch.
but this Obama comment is brutal and may be fatall.
The Daily Kos had a great break-down of local PA media's coverage of "bitter-gate." Well, actually, it should be "lack of" coverage, because almost all local papers ignored it. I don't think it's really as big a deal as you are making it out to be.
April 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The funniest thing about this episode is Hillary acting like she has so much in common with these "small town folks"....Yeah, and being 1st lady and making millions really connects you to the less fortunate. Come on.
This is the Clintons playing the same game that of divide and conquer that hasn't worked so far in this Primary. Move on.
April 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude she's lived in Arkansas for a long time. She knows of small towns....
April 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
She lived in the freakin' governor's mansion! How down to earth is that?
April 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
schedley, he dropped a couple of elections if you remember plus the LUXURY property in Whitewater. So they've seen a few small towns.
April 14, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ARG has had a pretty unreliable record this primary season. But this is a pretty stark shift. ARG's poll taken on April 5-6 had a Clinton-Obama tie at 45%. Today they have a new poll out, taken April 11-13, shows a 20 point spread. Clinton 57%, Obama 37%."
Obama now is a joke.
April 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another local PA poll had her up by six points.
April 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem..."ARG has had a pretty unreliable record this primary season."
April 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ARG Web site looks like a geocities.
April 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
is there no limit to the depths of the slime machine?
April 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
misrepresenting what Senator Obama said.
TPM and Senator Clinton's campaign are employing the worst of Rove-style politics. Embracing what is wrong with our discourse.
and yes, TPM is misrepresenting it as well. WHile they'll go out of their way to insert the Clinton position into a post, they are silent on the mischaracterization of Senator Obama's words.
This is the same behavior that John Stewart took the Crossfire boys to the woodshed over, so long ago. I wish someone would take the New-Rove Clinton campaign and the TPM boys to the woodshed over it all.
Shameful.
April 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is giving a great speech on CNN on her proposals for the economy.
Great stuff and gives hope for the future not divisive, bitter attacks.
April 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It's about time she stopped with the divisive, bitter attacks and started campaigning for herself.
April 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC waits for an Obama gaffe to suddenly show up "sipping" her shots at a local bar.
Hey, I'm just like you!! Look, I'm like Roseanne from her old show!!! Pass me another marti...err, boilermaker!!!
Please.
Although, there's obviously been some effect in PA since the ARG poll, regardless if it's inaccurate on percentages, has at least shown some kind of shift locally.
April 14, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - I read that and it's true. She's the one making this into something it isn't and she's fucked us up in the process in a big way by tearing down what Democrats believe and see as a major problem.
Stupid stupid woman.
April 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I'm begging Clinton:
Please, please keep talking about this!
Goldwater-girl trying to argue that she's more "common" than Obama.... please.
I'm trying to think of something witty to say, but I'll let Obama do it for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxmi3e2Vmo&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
April 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so tired of Barack Obama using diversion to fail to address very serious concerns about his stance on issues. It's all good that he was a union organizer on the South Side of Chicago putting him in touch with "ordinary people," but last time I checked the South Side of Chicago was an URBAN demograohic. His comments at the fundraiser were directed at the rural voters that Obama backhanded and insulted in his unfortunate comments. Where is Obama's credibility with these voters? The shame is noton Hillary for calling attention to his condescending comments. It is Obama's for not coming to terms with his own errors. For someone who believes that words matter, one would think he would take more care in not insulting broad groups of people in the US.
I get it - he's frustrated because he's not getting traction with the middle income voters in PA, WV, and KY and was using that opportunity to prepare his supporters for the coming losses, but you can do so without insulting the people whose votes you can't get. Maybe just maybe they are voting for Hillary not because they cling to guns and anti-immigrant passions, but rather because they remember the 1990s where we had a time of economic growth for all Americans and they believe Hillary is best positioned to turn our economy around.
Disclosure - I spent the weekend on the ground canvassing for Hillary in NE Philadelphia and I can tell you that not one voter I spoke with brought up Bosnia or Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama's asinine comments about rural voters. They were concerned about which candidate had solutions and they believed could bring back jobs. They were concerned about foreclosures (so many homes had for sale signs on them). They don't have the luxury of HOPING that Barack Obama will fix these problems. They BELIEVE that Hillary Clinton will. That's why it's Hillary Country.
April 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really can't be that programmed on this. I'm sure the tens of millions of "urban" residents aren't "ordinary people". (Well, as long as you're taking so much time being offended by nothing, I figured I'd give it a try. Tastes like chicken.)
April 14, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I was referring to Senator Obama's comments on American Idol that by giving to charity, "ordinary people" can make a difference.
Given the sparse contributions to charitable donations when his family was in the top 2% of household incomes, he did not consider himself an "ordinary" person and was thus exempt from charitable giving.
April 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the most contrived way I have ever seen a person manufacture offense from nothing.
You should be given an award for that, given how this site is virtually a shrine to irrational offense-taking, and yes, on all sides.
Congratulations.
April 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope all these people will support Obama when he wins the nomination.
I'd support Hillary if she did.
April 14, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, I don't see this woman signing up, or folks who are considerably more trollish. I hope I'm wrong.
April 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think this poster will support Obama, if he's the nominee, based on other comments she has made.
Mr. Softee, kefa, richmond, raeK? (and a couple I've probably overlooked) They are just Republican tools.
April 14, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should have gone instead to the Hillary's family home of Scranton where the newspaper of record just endorsed Obama in their Sunday paper. How do you explain that one, dijamo?
April 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The newspaper does not necessarilly speak for the community nor do big name endorsers. Case in point - the Boston Globe, Caroline & Ted Kennedy,John Kerry all endorsed Obama. Massachusetts voted solidly for Hillary.
The media does not get it - they get wooed by pretty speeches and charisma and the flim flam and forget to look at the substance. As quoted in the Scranton paper endorsement: "On policy matters, there are more similarities than differences between the candidates. The real difference lies in their likely ability to build the consensus needed to realize their vision. The advantage, in that regard, clearly lies with Mr. Obama."
First mistake - their policies are only similar on the surface. Hillary's are more thought out, explicit, detailed and certainly more progressive. Yes Obama can build consensus by cowtowing to republican talking points that mandated universal healthcare is wrong and people should not be forced to buy affordable healthcare and it is of course easier to build consensus when you are starting from a Republican talking points. Imagine if Social Security contributions were voluntary? You'd have all the younger folks or people who thought they didn't need Social Security opting out of the system which means the system would not work. Obama's healthcare plan is critically flawed because without mandates we are still inthe situation where uninsured pople will be entitled to emergency medical care that they cannot afford and the responsible people paying into the system absorb the cost.
Hillary starts from a position that universal healthcare is necessary and that we must use our political will to get this done.
Hillary is the only candidate that has been actively pushing for direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosures that would have if implemented been a stabilizing factor on the housing market. They didn't listen so instead we are bailing out Bear Stearns investors rather than the people being thrown out of their homes and the housing market is still a mess. What does it say that even McCain is coming around to possible direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure on a very limited basis and Obama's plan gives incentives to the companies to renegotiate mortgages but does not give direct assistance to people at risk of losing their homes?
The truth of the matter is that the country is ready for change and what Obama's policies offer is nothing but half measures and baby steps that will through negotiation and "consensus" get whittled away to nothing.
As I've said the country is eager and ready for real change. We have the possibility of bringing in majorities in both houses of congress. This is not a time to be timid or back away from the hard questions. This is a time to stand up for what you believe in and too many times barack Obama backs away from the heart of the matter so he can find "consensus."
April 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey I'm launching a new candy!
It's called BARRY'S BITTERS!
It comes in two flavors: "Foot-in-mouth" and "Kool-Aid"
Order now!
April 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I love voters who vote for the pol who downs a shot with them, picks up a gun and goes and blasts shit as a way to connect with their problems.
Yeah, that's the kind of politics I just love - George Bush politics.
April 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was too funny. I mean, what is really the difference between hope and belief? Not exactly the best way to make her (talking) point.
April 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually there's a huge difference between hope and belief.
I can drive down to Philadelphia since I've driven down there before and hop in the car with no directions no plan and HOPE I don't get lost.
or
I can drive down to Philadelphia with a GPS system, a map and Google directions and BELIEVE I will not get lost.
The difference between hope and belief is that one is based on belief and one is based on prepartion and plans. Past history plays a part as well in that Bill Clinton was able to achieve much of his economic plans that he campaigned on at great political cost - the tax increase on higher income earners, welfare reform, balanced budget and paying down the debt - all of which translated into real jobs and economic growth. The believe Hillary will do the same. Hillary has the detailed plans and Barack does not hence they go with belief rather hope.
April 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to get off topic, but the difference between "hope" and "belief" is that hope is based on belief?
April 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify - Hope is blind belief with no reason/logical support while true belief is based on reason, facts, preparation etc.
April 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that you didn't study philosophy, at least not very hard. Most philosphers define belief or faith as asserting a truth without reliance on evidence, reason, or logic. Hope is to look forward to with reasonable expectation based on past experience. Your definitions would make more sense if you reversed them. I wonder what that would do for your argument.
April 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any link you can provide to prove your assertion in philosphical terms?
Hope to me is an awfully inactive word, like sit around and hope for something without taking any active steps to bring it around. I HOPE I win the lottery! Hope is somthing you have absolutely no control or logical basis for.
Belief seems to me far more powerful that there is somthing behind the belif that is far more active like facts, logic, rational thought or faith [faith to me means true belief in something that cannot be logically proven like God]
So if someone says I HOPE there's a god, I take that statement to be far less assured than I BELIEVE there's a God.
But since you are the philosophy expert, I HOPE you can show me how this reasoning is wrong, but I BELIEVE your previous post was just full of bullshit and bluster with few facts.
April 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is there any link you can provide to prove your assertion in philosphical terms?"
Before I go to bed, I just want to tell you to stop using this as a retort. It is your job to educate yourself. The Buddha advised us to "be a lamp unto yourself." If you have a problem with an assertion, do your own research. it is a lot better when you are right and you can rub it in their face with a pointed link or definiton.
"Hope to me is an awfully inactive word, like sit around and hope for something without taking any active steps to bring it around. I HOPE I win the lottery! Hope is somthing you have absolutely no control or logical basis for."
Now, hope has many levels of meaning, just like belief
Now, not to beat a dead horse, but what did Martin Luther King mean when he said "I have a dream?" He meant that he has a vision for the future and hopes that it will be enacted.
I'm sure that hope meant more to you before it became a politically charged word. I hope that you are a better person than that. See how I just used hope? I am thinking the best of you, and now I am waiting in good faith for your well-intentioned response. This is the basis for civil discourse.
Now, when Barack Obama uses hope, he is using hope to illustrate the possibility of overcoming our divisions and working together as a nation to address the crises we are succumbing to. As long as we are polarized, we will sink, because gridlock and corruption will win the day. His campaign is built on the premise that hope will engage our best intentions and lead us to a brighter future.
Hope is a state of mind that creates results. Can you hope for a lotter win without buying a ticket first? That's a poor use for hope... but see what I mean? How can anything be accomplished in the LONG TERM without hope? If we continue to live short-sighted, only for ourselves, brimming with cynicism, we will be hopeless.
Belief is a more intense term and problematic. It is difficult to hope for the extermination of an inferior race, but you can believe a race is inferior. It is difficult to hope for nuclear war, but you can believe that it is inevitable.
April 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's deep. I use research to disprove a whole bunch of BS claims all the time, or to find out where I am wrong when that happens as well - basically to better educate myself. When I am unable to find any evidence to support someone's untenable assertions, it leads me to BELIEVE that people are using lies or false arguments to prove a point based on deception. I HOPE people are not stupid enough to read everything the see that supports their worldview without questioning it, but sadly on TPM that seems not to be the case.
MLK did not just have a dream. He engaged in active civil disobedience. He was jailed, civil rights workers were beset by dogs. Plenty of people besides MLK had hoped for a more just society. MLK actually did the hard work necessary to make it possible.
I do not question that HOPE is good. Hope can inspire, challenge, lift us up etc. But hope by itself is not enough. We need action too. And I believe Obama's plans for action are sorely lacking.
April 14, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Read some Kant regarding objective knowledge and reasoning. Blaise Pascal was more poetic regarding belief: The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. Ernst Bloch is pretty good regarding hope.
If all that's too taxing, try the dictionary. Using your own definitions, e.g.,
can be fun, but awfully idiosyncratic if no one else buys them. For example, believing that I am "full of bullshit" leaves you in your own private Idaho unless you can marshall some reasoning beyond your idiosyncratic wrealm of wishful thinking to actually prove your assertion. "Calling bullshit" might sound witty, but it's rather empty minded without some, um, proof.BTW, notice the root of idiosyncracy? It shares the same root as idiot. Surely, you're familiar with that concept since you so much favor personal definitions. (idios = personal or private)
April 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow that's really impressive seeing as I've actually read Kant.
I believe Kant also championed the categorical imperative no? Like every vote should be counted (which I've always believed is a categorical imperative). Or that everyone should be entitled to healthcare (another categorical imperative). You can argue all of your elitist double talk and it still boils down to what is stronger I suppose you ignore the inconvenient philosophical arguments when they don't fit your world view. But I digress.
That said, you still have not cited a single source that indicates hope is stronger than belief. Who the hell believes "Hope is to look forward to with reasonable expectation based on past experience"? I am sure when MLK was hoping and dreaming of equality it was not based on his past experience. It was based on his ideal of what should be.
And when has that definition of hope as a reasonable expectation become the accepted definition of hope in philosophy. You can't defend that definition by any account, so you deflect and dissemble and don't answer the original question posed.
Idiosyncratic may have its root in idiot, but your argument that hope is stronger believe is asinine which has its root in ASS.
April 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And on a second note, belief as defined by merriam webster's "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
Hope as defined by merriam webster's:" to cherish a desire with anticipation or to expect with confidence"
I believe conviction based on examination of evidence (evidence as I alluded to earlier) is much stronger than merely an expectation of something with anticipation or confidence. But that's just me.
But despite your disdain for personal logic (which is rooted in the elitism that only trained thinker's opinions have merit and only if they are formed in the proper ways), there is a place for the personal in logical reasoning. An argument can be perfectly made and still not hold up to basic truth - for example hope is stronger than belief. So why don't you analyze it in its purest form - which are the stronger statements: I hope there is a god - I believe there is a God. I hope for world peace. I believe in world peace. I hope that I am on time. I believe that I am on time. I hope for democracy. I believe in democracy. I hope for equlaity. I believe in equality. I challenge you to defend your claim that the hope statements are stronger than the belief statements.
But you just go on hoping that you are right, while I will continue to believe you are just double-talking in an attempt to avoid the real issues - hey you have a lot in common with your candidate. No wonder you are an Obama supporter.
April 14, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no disdain for personal logic, just shoddy logic masquerading as common wisdom. You're quite welcome to your opinions. Just don't expect everyone to believe that everything that comes out of one (or another) of your orifices is a pearl. Sometimes the stench gives it away.
April 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was never my argument that hope is (or isn't) stronger than belief. My argument is that belief does not depend on "reason, the facts, preparation, etc." while hope usually does.
Your original question asked for a link for my definitions. I provided sources (sometimes you just have to read a book or two). Nonetheless, I don't recall providing a standard definition, just ones that have currency,i.e., it has acceptance beyond my little mind. Every definition of hope that I've ever seen has the element of desire. Do you have one (which isn't idiosyncratic) that doesn't? The element of reasonability is clear from even a cursory reading of Aquinas, Bloch, and even Nietzsche (although I wouldn't call him the champion of the hopeful).
The argument wasn't mine to begin with, so you can play strawman with someone else. As for asinine: from the Latin, asininus, stupid, dull. Ass as you [probably] intend it comes from the Latin, asinus, donkey. Although similar, the roots are different. Nice try, though.
April 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most philosphers define belief or faith as asserting a truth without reliance on evidence, reason, or logic. Hope is to look forward to with reasonable expectation based on past experience.
Your analysis begins with a fallacy that belief and faith are synonymous, when they are clearly not. Belief can be assertion of a truth or conviction based on sound reasoing, logic, analysis of arguments etc. Belief can also be based on FAITH which is convinction in the absence of proof. Therefore, when you claim that most philosphers claim that belief is defined as asserting a truth without evidence, logic or truth, I BELIEVE based on logic, reasoning and analysis of arguments that you are flat wrong but unwilling to admit it. You defend your argument by sqaying belief and faith are the same when clearly they are not.
Hope by your own definition is an expectation rather than a convinction -certainly sounds weaker to me. And you also further confuse your point by arguing that hope is based on reasonable expectation based on past experiences. You can indeed hope for a utopia without having experienced it which disproves your point that hope is a reasonable expectation based on prior eexperiences.
And now for the coup de grace, your own destruction of your previous argument. Let's look at another of your own golden nuggets of wisdom that again disproves your point that hope is areasonable expectation: "Nonetheless, I don't recall providing a standard definition, just ones that have currency,i.e., it has acceptance beyond my little mind. Every definition of hope that I've ever seen has the element of desire." Hope and desire - now that sounds like the hope that I know and argued for previously. You can desire something (like a million dollars) without any reasonable expectation of having it. (and there goes your previous untenable assertion that hope is reasonable expectation based on past experiences).
You can't use your own philosophers to bolster your argument. You are embarrassed because you just got read by someone who's last Philosophy and the Law course was way back in 1998. Let me give you some advice. I could read from to end every book you cited and they still wouldn't back your claim that hope is based on reason and belief (not the strawman argument you just created "faith") is not. You couch BS in philosophical terms and expect people to quiver and run away assuming that you know what you are talking about and when pressed you disprove the BS I called from the get go. Insert the sound of one hand clapping here. You take the cake for most illogical argument EVER.
April 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: \bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date: 12th century
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof .
synonyms see in addition opinion
This is from Merriam webster's - note definition #3 which explicitlly states "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" might I ask where you got your definition of belief from? All the definitions of belief I have seen indicate belief can be rational (based on facts, reason, logic) or irrational (based on faith or instinct in the absence of proof).
Secondly you can hope for something reasonable or irrational and take no active steps to make it a reality - WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY POINT. Hope requires thought and expectation, but it DOES NOT require can inspire action or it can be hollow and passive. belief is by it's nature an active thing. It is conviction vs an expectation.
But your "logic" will not allow you to see that your constantly changing arguments do not stand up to scrutiny and therefore you need to keep redefining positions and terms without addressing my main point addressed previously that Belief is stronger than Hope. Conviction is stronger than Expectation. But alas, it is to no avail to argue with someone who obviously believes he is smarter than everyone else when his weak, constantly shifting easily disproven "logic" does not hold up to examination.
April 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I took of looking at your link where you sourced the definition of belief and lo and behold there have a number of definitions of belief, including the ones that I put forward earlier (and afterwards). Note that I included definitions of belief that fit both areas (rational and irrational) You take the ones that fits your world view or argument in this instance and discard the rest. Now THAT is true intellectual honesty and logic right there.
I HOPE you realize the error of your ways and won't try to pull fast ones on TPM on other people in the future, but I BELIEVE you'll just go on looking for suckers to exploit and bow down before your pompous master of philosophy claims. Guess what - look somewhere else. I don't debate with people who are incapable of an honest discussion and are unable to include information that does not agree with their preconceived notions. You are a fraud. Thanks for showing that so clearly. Have a nice day :)
April 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
asinine
Main Entry: as·i·nine
Pronunciation: \ˈa-sə-ˌnīn\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ass
Date: 15th century
And may I reiterat that you think people won't check and call your BS, but they do. Asinine is rooted in asinus which means ASS (synonym for doney). Don't take my word for it - look at the dictionary definition.
Nice try though :) ASS.
April 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
After further review, I want apologize if my previous post calling your argument asinine or "of an ass" in literal translation therefore making you the "ass" was in anyway disrespectful, insulting or out of line...towards actual donkeys or asses.
I know the stereotype is out there that donkeys are dumb animals (hence the root of the word asinine), but there are limits to their stupidity and I firmly believe even a donkey would not posit the garbage that Schmedly put forward. Again, to any donkeys/asses who I may have offended I offer my deepest, humblest and most sincere apologies.
April 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevermind the truth. Nevermind nuance. Nevermind being an adult and being talked to as if you are an adult and capable of understanding ideas that go beyond lapel flag pin patriotism, cause that's what Hillary is selling these days.
Just like the Republicans and anyone who is still supporting her can have it - I want a Democratic president who tells the truth even when we don't want to hear it. I don't want any more phony goddamn employment numbers, for example - which this administration has lied about for 8 solid years. For 8 years, even after 9/11 this administration has been all about: be scared to death but don't worry, be happy. That's Clinton's message, too. It's demeaning to the voters. She is demeaning small town Pa residents and voters with this ridiculous happy unemployed people crap.
April 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking to me?
On the truth and honesty score, I put Obama under the category of a clever liar. For example, that argument he always makes about experience not being important (citing Cheney, etc.) contains a blatant logical fallacy. If he doesn't think experience matters, then next time he flies let one of his staffers pilot the plane.
Try the "Reply" function. This is a poorly designed website, but eventually you should be able to figure out how to work their stupid buttons and links.
April 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case it's clearly different.
April 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suck pretty hard at bowling but I still get in a game every now and then when I have the time and inclination.
April 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that people in Pa believe Sen Clinton when she refuses to so much as talk about anything serious. Instead she wants to talk about whether or not people are really bitter - since she's handing out "I'm not bitter" stickers. If that's what they are believing in - we're screwed in this country.
April 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said - I was on the ground with the Clinton campaign this weekend and people are talking about real issues. Like universal health care, foreclosures, the economy, etc. That doesn't get media coverage, but it happens every day. Real voters want to know what their plans are. Amd when you compare Hillary's plans and Obama's, Hillary's are far more progressive and detailed with cost and impact - particularly with healthcare, foreclosures and the economy. Barack doesn't want to campaign on real issues and have a debate because he knows he'll lose. He'd rather campaign on slogans.
However, if you want to engage on the actual issues and policies I'd be thrilled to engage. But reading your previous posts, it seems like all you are focused on is hatred and bitterness towards the Clintons. I should hope Obama supporters are smart enough to realize that the Clinton's are not the enemy, that you can support your candidate without trying to destry the Clintons who have worked their entire lives for the public good. But instead, it is just attacks and antipathy. Love that new politics! It is so inspiring!
April 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm glad her supporters were talking about the real issues because HRC was more interested in doing shots and sharing huntin' stories this weekend.
April 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, TalkingPoints:
On March 25, 2008 a reader posted an item on your blog called "It's A Shame Hillary Skipped Church on Easter". Can you verify that this is true ?
I did a thorough Nexis and Google search but could find not a single story on Clinton attending Easter services. Given that this was at the height of the Reverend Wright scandal, one would think the press would have covered her church visit. I note that she was in Chappaqua that weekend.Let's hope the press verifies the church Mrs. Clinton attended in Chappaqua that day
Here's the item from Talking Points:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/its-a-shame-hillary-skipped-ch-1.php
April 14, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, this means I should vote for Obama or McCain? Because maybe they went to church on Easter? What if I'm an atheist?
April 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should have left the Crown Royal shooter issue to the internet blogs, and Late Night Comedians because as the old saying goes, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
April 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Context is everything. "He who lives in a glass house should dress in the basement."
April 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scmedley:
Mrs. Clinton was asked by a reporter yesterday in Scranton when she had last fired a gun and attended church. After first saying the answers "weren't relevant," she said, "I went to church on Easter. I mean, so ?"
Given her propensity for stretching the truth, I think her statement is worth checking out.
April 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta agree with her, the answers AND the question are irrelevant. If we want honesty tests, asking someone about their religion during a job interview is grasping at straws. The media have more important issues on which to report and I have far more interest in her qualifications than I do about her church attendence.
April 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. It is beneath us to go after Hillary's religion. Article VI deals quite plainly with religion NOT being a factor in one's fitness to be chief executive. I deeply agree, and it has helped us as a nation navigate through some harrowing times.
Let Hillary and McCain roll around the religious pigpen.
April 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe just maybe they are voting for Hillary not because they cling to guns and anti-immigrant passions, but rather because they remember the 1990s where we had a time of economic growth for all Americans and they believe Hillary is best positioned to turn our economy around."
The 1990s was a time of less expensive food and gas. The 1990s were also a time when the government opened the flood gates on venture capital by allowing taxpayers to pay taxes on the stock price when they PURCHASED instead of the stock price when they SOLD. This alternative minimum tax allowed banks to spread money like peanut butter on internet businesses so that they would go public and they would reap tax-free profits. This is why it was called a bubble.
The heartland did not benefit from the Clinton Presidency. It was not a rising tide that lifted all boats. The 1990s saw the beginning of the outsourcing phenomenon, the beginning of mass-mergers, and the institution of deregulation which has been furthered beyond redemption by the Bush administration.
You can see the trends if you actually do the research. You can see movement away from the heartland into the suburbs, and you can see the reckless civic development known as urban sprawl. You can see that the Clinton Presidency was a continuation of neoliberal policies.. and that ALL, and I mean ALL, progressive measures were watered down beyond recognition or simply abandoned.
The Clinton Presidency cost the Democratic Party Congress. Bill Clinton cut DNC funds to congressional candidates in order to build his own war chest and damaged the party further in 1996 and 1998.
If it weren't for the damn blowjob, and your legitimate rush to defend him from an obvious hatchet job impeachment, he would have a negative legacy. In fact, history will not be kind to the Clintons. Every progressive issue was whittled down to splinters. He helped frame the conservative agenda against progressives by his own actions and agenda. His wife will be the same and proves it EVERY DAY through her arrogant and malicious campaign.
We are being systematically crushed by deregulation. Urban, rural, middle class, poor, black, white, wide or narrow. If you think that Hillary with her extensive ties to the neoliberal financial establishment will do anything but continue to drown the baby in the bathtub, YOU ARE DREAMING.
I stand by Barack Obama because he is funded primarily by small donors like myself. Whether they are active duty military like me or a small town bitter voter doesn't matter. We are investors in his campaign. That alone is enough to lock my vote. His campaign is successful because of our collected energy behind him. Most of the Hillary supporters see that as a cult, when I see that as grassroots civic duty.
So keep on with the low-grade elitist smears. Keep on with innuendos and gotcha politics. Keep on suppressing the vote. Keep on backing the beltway. Keep on backing the candidate that stands by McCain. Keep on with the sniper fire, travel files, secret meetings, and shots of whisky. When me and my buddies are still in Iraq in a couple years, I will BE SURE to write you a thank you note.
April 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAMN RIGHT!
April 14, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Amd when you compare Hillary's plans and Obama's, Hillary's are far more progressive and detailed with cost and impact - particularly with healthcare, foreclosures and the economy."
This is out and out crap.
The sole difference between Obama and Hillary's health care plans involves mandates. That is a debate where both sides have legitimate issues. I am personally for a single payer plan, but I am open to any plan that prevents mandatory buy-ins to subsidize the insurance industry... unless the insurance industry is REGULATED. Obama has a consistent record of being pro-regulation and his speeches point that out. Clinton is a deregulator and has made little mention of anything beyond letting the system eat itself like Jorgumandr.
Their plans on dealing with the housing crisis is similair except in one crucial way: Hillary is relying on Rubin and Greenspan. Both of them are behind the Fed's current whisper campaign to bulldoze foreclosed homes in order to stabilize prices for investors... not owners. So Hillary's campaign, until she says otherwise, is for the Fed's plan to destroy neighborhoods in order to prop up the banks that helped issue adjusted rate loans that were targeted specifically at low-information consumers. Her backers, and her hand-picked chiefs to deal with this crisis are only interested in subsidizing the risk and privatizing the profits. Even if that means destroying thousands of homes.
Their economic policies as far as taxes are largely the same... and the power of the purse and budget is Congress' primary duty per the Constitution. So I, personally, want a progressive Congress... which means high voter turnout and long executive coat tails. The Clintons have a history of voter suppresiion, victory by plurality, and ZERO coattails.
"However, if you want to engage on the actual issues and policies I'd be thrilled to engage. But reading your previous posts, it seems like all you are focused on is hatred and bitterness towards the Clintons."
I have engaged. Your turn.
April 14, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, Zipperupus. Good job.
April 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn - do you even bother to check the substance of what tripe you are reading or do you just buy it hook line and sinker when it is full of easily disproved lies?
I know Obama supporters are all for the surface and gloss but come one - is there no intellectual curiousity to even find out whether his diatribe is correct before signing off on it?
Always check the source.
April 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have engaged but you are woefully uninformed about your candidate's positions. Allow me to enlighten you.
Obama supports universal access (meaning making health care affordable) but does not require everyone to buy it. He assumes people will buy it if it is affordable. He only supports mandates for children. If adults choose not to buy affordable health insurance, that is their choice.
Hillary supports mandated coverage which means everyone must have coverage. If you work and have not elected coverage through your employer, Hillary supports automatic enrollment. If you are self employed, she has recommended possibly going through the IRS just as we do to recover social security taxes for the self employed. For those who truly cannot afford coverage, it will be provided by the system. She supports a cap on premiums of 5-10% of earnings depending on tax brackets.
Under Barack's plan, if someone does not buy healthcare and is uninsured and then gets sick, at the point of the emergency room he said that he could support fining them and charging them higher rates and then mandating that they get coverage going forward at possibly higher rates. That makes a hell of a lot of sense doesn't it? Punishing someone who is sick and then requiring them to pay a fine. Someone who is uninsured is less likely to get preventative care and more likely to allow an illness to progress where as if they had been required to get healthcare from the beginning, the cost of treatment would be lower.
In addition, people who consider themselves not at risk can choose to not pay into the system until they get sick thereby ensuring that costs stay high because the people electing coverage are more likely to use it. As far as how much the premiums will be - who knows, who cares about specifics? And we haven't even gotten to the questions of opting in and out (on an open enrollment period annually???). Obama's plan - less progressive, more consensus, less solutions, more inherent probelms.
April 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You have engaged but you are woefully uninformed about your candidate's positions. Allow me to enlighten you.
Obama supports universal access (meaning making health care affordable) but does not require everyone to buy it. He assumes people will buy it if it is affordable. He only supports mandates for children. If adults choose not to buy affordable health insurance, that is their choice.
Hillary supports mandated coverage which means everyone must have coverage. If you work and have not elected coverage through your employer, Hillary supports automatic enrollment. If you are self employed, she has recommended possibly going through the IRS just as we do to recover social security taxes for the self employed. For those who truly cannot afford coverage, it will be provided by the system. She supports a cap on premiums of 5-10% of earnings depending on tax brackets."
Actually, nothing that you have said here indicates that I am uninformed. In fact, I summarized this difference without the wonkery.
First of all, giving the IRS the job to compensate insurance industries will take away from the IRS' ability to do its job which is to audit. Secondly, the IRS has the ability to garnish up to 90% of your wages if you owe a debt through them. They are a debt collector of unparalleled power. That doesn't strike me as middle-class friendly.
Secondly, making health care affordable means REGULATION. Hillary's plan is to subsidize the indsutry. A cap on premiums does not cap the overall expenses nor does it cap surchages, administrative costs and inflated overhead. Further, most insurance companies already have a premium cap, and it is much less than 5-10% of care for care of diseases or extended hospital trips and surgery.
All Hillary's plan is doing is taking the burden off of the business and putting it squarely on the middle class without a resonable REGULATORY apparatus. Obama is proposing to regulate the industry to make it more affordable. This involves capping overhead, reducing adminsitration, and granting federal oversight over managed care budgets.
Guess what? I AM INFORMED.
Barack Obama has also spoken about timber subsidies, outsourcing, strengthening the SEC, and several other regulatory measures that give oversight capabilities back to the federal government. If you notice carefully, Hillary Clintong proposes nothing like that. She always promotes taxpayer-subsidized solutions that reduce business profit burden, but does not take the necessary policy steps to roll back the deregulation that her husband helped implement.
I'd rather you didn't treat me like some dipshit. Don't just spit some numbers and concepts at me and expect me to get weak at the knees.
If you want cites and sources, get them yourself. I am not your researcher. I would highly reccomend that you visit Obama's web site and READ. It will do you and your elitist attitude a world of good.
April 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument re: The IRS imposing fees is bullshit. They collect social security taxes from the self-employed with no penalties - why would health care be any different.
Secondly - Obama can deregulate all he wants [which is also part of Hillary's plan] - it does not address the continuing problems of the uninsured or the other problems raised by his half-assed plan that I addressed in my previous post - BECAUSE HIS PLAN HAS NO ANSWERS FOR THEM. He asserts that mandates are wrong (but imposes them on children) and then punishes people who don't have health insurance at the very time they are the most vulnerable. By the way Hillary's caps premiums at 5-10% of income. Obama's plan offers no such discrete plans or goals - he just says trust me we'll negotiate and regulate and the prices will come down. What kind of fool would fall for that tripe with no proof whatsoever of his intentions. People hammered Hillary for details on enforcement mechanisms and premium costs, and she's been very clear on those. Obama gets away with rhetoric and no specifics. Can I get some consistency and fairness here please???
So how again is Obama's plan superior to Hillary's ? There is no way to defend his plan if you truly believe that affordable health care is both a right and RESPONSIBILITY for every American. And guess what - regulated industry does not mean that savings are passed down to the consumer which is why his plan can't even estimate what the healthcare cost will be for people.
For someone to claim the progressive mantle and be spouting republican talking points against mandates for health care is incongruent. Period.
April 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And did I forget to add that Hillary's mandated coverage means insurers will not be able to deny coverage to anyone and enforces more regulations on the industry to provide real coverage. Your diatribe about Hillary supporting deregulation is totally nonfactual. Please provide some evidence to support your rants or otherwise correct the record.
Obama and Hillary both make efforts to enforce regukations, reduce medical costs, enforce patient's rights. The key difference is Hillary mandates coverage for everyone. If you are claiming Hillary's plan is a boon to the insurance companies, how much more of a boon is Obama's plan where uninsured people who get sick will be charged higher rates and charged penalties for not electing coverage previously?
April 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And finally in terms of foreclosure:
8/5/07 - HRC: Help Reduce Foreclosures
Hillary will establish a $1 billion fund to support state programs that help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosure. Some state programs help borrowers make the single payment necessary to become current on their loans; others help borrowers renegotiate their loan terms, or simply provide financial counseling. These foreclosure mitigation efforts are more important than ever right now. Federal assistance for state programs that assist at-risk borrowers supplements Hillary's call earlier in the year for "foreclosure timeout." At-risk borrowers and lenders should be encouraged to work out alternatives to foreclosure.
Expand Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's Foreclosure Prevention Efforts. Hillary would expand the goals of Fannie and Freddie, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that help stabilize the mortgage markets, to include helping a larger number of at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure. This would be consistent with Fannie's and Freddie's existing goals that promote home ownership. The GSEs already help mitigate foreclosures by enabling some borrowers to swap into less risky, lower-cost loans. Fannie also helps homeowners arrange payment forbearance, financial counseling, and loan restructurings. Hillary will expand those initiatives to make foreclosure mitigation a greater priority.
12/07: HRC plan
FORECLOSURE MORATORIUM: Hillary will call for a moratorium on home foreclosures of at least 90 days so that a rate freeze can take effect and at-risk homeowners can get financial counseling to help them transition to affordable loans.
FREEZE ADJUSTABLE RATE LOANS: The rate freeze must last at least 5 years, or until subprime mortgages have been converted into affordable loans. A typical subprime adjustable rate loan is raising monthly payments by 30% to 40% for many families, causing a wave of housing defaults across the country.
REQUIRE ACCOUNTABILITY: Hillary will ask for regular status reports on the progress Wall Street is making in converting unworkable mortgages into loans families can afford.
Barack's plan does not mandate lenders to rengotiate directly with homewoners facing foreclosure. he merely gives them the right to renegotiate mortgage terms in bankruptcy court. In addition his foreclosure fund does not directly assist homeonwers facing foreclosure, but only incentivizes lenders to renegotiate terms through Fannie Mae etc.
April 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=577&Itemid=1
This link deals with the bulldozing of homes. This is an idea floated by the Fed, whose leader is Ben Bernacke, student of Greenspan. Greenspan and Rubin are the two proposed heads of Hillary's blue-ribbon panel to solve the foreclosure crisis. Greenspan and Rubin were the architects of the boom and bust cycle of the last twenty years.
This idea, to amputate the diseased foreclosure limb by bulldozing homes to keep prices stable, is a Fed idea. This leads directly to Greenspan, Hillary's touted expert.
What do you have to say about that dijamo? Are you gonna dazzle me with more boilerplate from your canvas notebook>
April 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, if you haven't notice Greenspan is supporting McCain not Hillary and when did she invite him to her blue ribbon panel? That's right - NEVER. Lie #1.
Second, Bernacke is Bush's boy, not Hillary's and Hillary has stated frequently her goal is to keep people in their homes. That's why she's calling for a forclosure moratorium and freezing of the ARM rates. Why would she give people time to catch up on payments and refinance affordable mortgages if the goal is to bulldoze homes? She wouldn't - Lie #2.
Third, when sourcing articles I would recommend reputable sources like WaPo, NYT, etc with actual journalistic standards. When you are resoting to the blackagendareport to prove your point, you know your argument is incredibly weak. And by the way, your own source says "All three major presidential candidates are on great terms with the madmen of Wall Street who have brought western "civilization" - which includes Cleveland and Baltimore - past the edge of the abyss." - not exactly a rining endorsement for Obama, Clinton or McCain. PS Don't forget to check out the Hugo Chavez is a Huge Santa for America's Poor or Kucinich a Blacker Candidate than Obama - I kid you not. These are actual "article" on this website. - Poorly sourced defense of your erroneous argument - 2 demerits.
Wow your defense of your candidate on policy which you were so enthused to engage in is really lacking. Maybe the problem is not with you, maybe it's with his half-assed policies.
April 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"First, if you haven't notice Greenspan is supporting McCain not Hillary and when did she invite him to her blue ribbon panel? That's right - NEVER. Lie #1."
Hey, dijamo, I used "The Google.":
http://cbs3.com/campaign08/hillary.clinton.foreclosures.2.683521.html
If you actually click the link and read the article, it states quite plainly that Hillary wants Greenspan, Rubin, and Volcker to head a panel on the foreclosure crisis.
Second, the black agenda report essay cites the Wall Street Journal as its source.
Third, why are you telling me that the mainstream media is the only place to get news, and everything else betrays a damaged mind? Why are you even here, then?
Finally, I knew you were lying about Obama. I have read his proposals for the foreclosure crisis, and note that he is requesting a 30 billion dollar economic package for homeowners, a moratorium on foreclosures, and increased regulation and oversight of the credit monster.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/EconomicPolicyFullPlan.pdf
That is the link to his plan. I suggest that you read it instead of using talking points.
I wrote a response, but I think the editors have held on to it for safekeeping. I didn't say anything untoward, just I think you need to take a deep breath. I have been a progressive for a very long time. I became a progressive when I found a homeless man sleeping in one of my Uncle's cars. He was one of the thousands of dispossessed when Reagan slashed the budget on mental health care. I was seven years old, and even then I saw the consequences of using government to punish the unfortunate.
I am an educated rational being and I do not vote lightly. You come around and spread filth and act like you are better than everyone else because you are standing behind Hillary. That does not earn you brownie points in the sky. You have been mean, rude, dismissive, and above all willfilly ignorant. You don't listen to points reasonably, and your tactics are very arrogant and narrow-minded.
I think you are emblematic of the Clinton campaign.
April 15, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
damn this comments thing - scroll down so you can see where I've adressed your issues (logical issues at least) in detail.
April 15, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blast Away Obama!! Even if you somehow lose because Billary and McCain are ganging up on you with their Rovian tactics; history will judge you well for pointing out what should be obvious - that our obsession over orange juice, bowling, hair cuts, bitter small town voters, and etc. is part of a ploy to continue us further down the road to fascism.
You can't eat guns or your Bible. Making abortion 'illegal' just means the daughters of the affluent will go on 10 day 'vacations' to Central and South American medical clinics like they did in the 1950s and 60s. Blaming immigrants and other 'hidden enemies' or declaring never-ending wars on terror is a convenient excuse for unchecked executive privilege and taking away your civil liberties.
Wake the **** up fellow U.S. voters! Stop listening to all the hot-button issue 'noise' and really think about your country and its future. It may already be too late... Turn off the corporate media complex, listen to the candidates and read their position papers, and go with your heart.
April 14, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is more progressive than Obama? Then how come she's campaigning on Fox, with Scaife, agreeing with McCain?
Which is it - I'm hopelessly confused at this point. You claim she is more progressive - and that is what Pa voters want - then why is she trying to sell herself to them as a whiskey downing, gun toting REDNECK?
April 14, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schmedley: She has been talking about church nonstop for the last three days. If she is hammering OBama about his statements about faith and church, then it is fair game for her to asked about church attendance. If she can go on something called the Compassion Forum on CNN as she did last night and talk about when she feels the presence of God, I do not understand why she didn't want to answer the reporter's extremely simple question about when she last attended church. If she's President, the press will cover her attendance in church.
And since she has been known to fib, and since Talking Points Memo had an item back in March about her skipping church on Easter , I think readers and voters have a right to find out who is telling the truth: Talking Points or Clinton ?
If anyone out there can find a news story that talks about her attending church on Easter Sunday, I would appreciate it if you could post it here.
It's also relevant because that was during the height of the Wright controversy, and her campaign was blasting Obama over attending that church.
So, please, let's see those news stories on Clinton at Easter Services ! Anyone ?
April 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you go right on tilting at that windmill. I don't think it's gonna get much play. Her mendacity is fairly well established and I doubt that church-goin' folks are looking to her for moral guidance.
April 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you guys who are so outraged by this comment also outraged by the nearly identical comment Bill Clinton made? What about Hillary's "cookies and tea" line? Just curious.
April 14, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can some one please explain how Hillary Clinton can claim that she grew up in Scranton, Pa.
There is nothing said about it on her online White House First Lady Bio Profile.
She was born in the Chicago area, and spent all her youth there, so why is she allowed to claim that she is from Scranton Pa. Here is her actually history.
Hillary[1] Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois,[2] and was raised in a United Methodist family,[3] first in Chicago, and then, from the age of three, in suburban Park Ridge, Illinois, which is also located in Cook County.[4] Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a child of Welsh and English immigrants[5] and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry.[6] Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell, of English, Scottish, French Canadian, and Welsh descent,[7] was a homemaker.[4] She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony.
As a child, Hillary Rodham was involved in many activities at church and at her public school in Park Ridge. She participated in tennis and other sports and earned awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout.[8] She attended Maine East High School, where she participated in student council, the debating team and the National Honor Society. For her senior year she was redistricted to Maine South High School,[9] where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in 1965.[9] Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice.[10]
Raised in a politically conservative household,[11] at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon,[12] and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[13] Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, who got her to read Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative[14] and who was, like her father, a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicag
April 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary gets heckled talking about Obama.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/14/888068.aspx
April 14, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations. You're rude morons. I'm impressed. Break open the bubbly.
April 14, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea who was doing the heckling. It could be Obama supporters just as easily as it could be Hillary supporters and/or undecideds who are sick of her going for cheap political points.
April 14, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was not people heckling Hillary.
That was the location's automated Bullshit detector sirens being set off.
April 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. As if anyone else cares what she says about him except his hyper-sensitive supporters. They're just spoiled little brats who cry until they get their way. 'Course like you say, maybe they wuz aliens!!
April 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Maybe voters who care about real issues?
April 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Obama supporters be in Hillary's audience? Death wish?
April 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Hillary's campaign not remind any of you very vividly of someone else? This is how George Bush did it - he sold himself as a good ol boy; people wanted to have a beer with George - that's what the pundits told us.
He kept saying: I'm not really a batshit insane neo-con and moron and criminal, honest I'm not.
And rural Pa said: Hot damn! I'm voting for that guy - we're going out afterwards for beer and a little night hunting.
And that's what she's doing - there is a name for this - Identity politics. It's the Republican specialty.
April 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question of order: Since B.O. has sunk to name-calling ("Annie Oakley"), is it okay now to start asking Osama how he plans on catching Obama? Wait, it's the other way around. Obama catching Osama. Or is it? Oh, the heck with it. That guy who's running for president, you know the one, catching that other guy, the terrorist.
April 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Annie Oakley is "name calling"?
April 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm assuming since George bush abandoned the hunt for Osama and since John McCain is one of the chief proponents of the war that took us away from the hunt for him, you really detest them, right? And you know that one of Obama's criticisms of the war was it distracted us from finding Osama?
April 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, have you ever tried reading or listening to what the other two candidates say?
McCain has said that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell. I tend to believe the man. McCain had 2 broken arms, a broken leg, and was stabbed when the N. Vietnamese found him. Instead of giving him medical care, they tortured him while he was in that condition. He later turned down their offer of a special early release ahead of his fellow prisoners.
Obama has done community organizing.
Now if you want to sound like you're a tough guy viz the war on bin Laden, which of those two are you going to try and impress people with?
April 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is he going to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell when our military is stuck in Iraq for the next 100 years?
April 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try reading what he said, not Obama's lies. He spoke of BASES in Iraq for 100, 1000 or 10,000 years. Not war. Like we have in Germany or S. Korea. Caution, you have to read a full 2 or 3 sentences.
As for how he's going to do it, I have no idea. How's Obama going to do it? Is he going to meet with Osama "without pre-conditions"? Or is he planning on using 100,000 troops to invade Pakistan to try and find one guy among the 100's of millions of people there?
April 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He actually made no mention of "bases" in the quote. Regardless, you're okay with a 100 year "presence" in Iraq? You think that's smart foreign policy?
And hey, you're the one touting McCain's toughness. He says he'll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell and you believe him. You have no idea how he'll do it, but you just trust him to keep his word. And, hell, if he has to torture some people along the way, so be it.
April 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt McCain's bravery in Vietnam. I do doubt his sense. We diverted resources from the fight against Al Qaeda to this war in Iraq. If McCain spoke out against that incredible mistake, I have indeed missed it. He may say he's willing to follow Osama to the gates of hell, but apparently he's willing to invade some other countries first. When George Bush said finding Osama wasn't really important anymore, when they closed down the unit responsible for it, I didn't hear McCain protesting at all. So, finding Osama--not really so important for him.
April 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, up to you. I can't change your way of thinking. My guess is that you close your eyes and ears to what the other 2 candidates say, and get your information about them from Josh Marshall or whatever. You're an Obama supporter, and that's that. I don't say I'm 100% open-minded, but I do think seriously about what each candidate says, and also look at what the various responses to their comments are from all sides. It's a little confusing sometimes, and it sure would be easier to just support candidate A and put blinders on, but I just couldn't look myself in the mirror (which ain't easy as it is).
April 14, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are then making judgements based on biography and a moment of tough rhetoric, unsupported by everything the candidate has done over the past six years. Blinders? Hell, ya--I don't want to live in John McCain's America. "Bomb Iran?" Bush tax cuts? Stacking the Supreme Court? Anti-civil rights for gays? Voting against a ban on assault rifles? Continuing the war on science? Letting people suffer and die for the ideology of stem cells? A health care proposal that relies on the marketplace and would actually make the current situation WORSE? Not to mention that he seems to have the barest understanding of foreign policy and has admitting not to knowing anything about the economy, and his default position is "I agree with the president." So, yes, I am totally blind to John McCain's charms.
AND I want to get Osama, and I trust the person who saw what a disaster this war would be in the fight against Al Qaeda far more than the one who cheered for it.
April 14, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain has said that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell. I tend to believe the man. McCain had 2 broken arms, a broken leg, and was stabbed when the N. Vietnamese found him. Instead of giving him medical care, they tortured him while he was in that condition. He later turned down their offer of a special early release ahead of his fellow prisoners.
Obama has done community organizing."
I am a United States Marine. My avatar is me, holding a wad of Iraqi 25,000 Dinar bills. That photo was taken six weeks ago, in Iraq. I am still there.
I would like to show you Article III of the Code of Conduct:
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Early release is a special favor.
Now, hear me out. Individuals like Admiral Stockdale, Senator McCain, and my Uncle all survived POW experiences and their fortitude amazes me. I am grateful that they have set the example for those of us that, God forbid, may end up in a similary situation. But this does not give John McCain credibility on foreign policy.
He has stood behind a poorly planned, poorly implemented and above all illegal invasion and occupation of a foreign power that was not a threat. He took his eyes off of Osama bin Laden and now we are fighting a two front war against an enemy that is not only persevering but is learning how, in the long run, to win. I am witnessing first hand the positives and negatives out here.
John McCain has showed that his decisions rely on defense contractors, oil magnates, and he gets his orders from Saudi Arabia. He is not fit to lead. These big wigs have offered him special favors, and instead of taking his cue from his time in the Hanoi Hilton, he has betrayed the troops and this nation by becoming just another corrupt influence peddler.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
April 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipperupus is my new favorite TPM member.
April 14, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers.
April 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could've saved you all that typing by pointing out that I say that his experience shows me that when he says he's ready to go to the gates of hell for something, he knows what it means to say that, and I tend to believe he would more than a community organizer from Chicago (although I'm sure Obama put in some ungodly tough long hours).
As for expertise on foreign policy, I didn't address that at all, did I? But since McCain's son is in Iraq, I really doubt if McCain is betraying his own son in order to please the Saudis. But think whatever you want, it don't cost you a nickel.
I'll be 100% serious here, and say that I don't blame anyone for the invasion of Iraq except the Bush administration. They misled the country and congress, and I can't blame the people that were misled. However now that we're there, consideration has to be given whether one blunder should be compounded by another blunder. If leaving Iraq pronto would mean that it turns into a mess and makes things even worse than they are now, and we have to go back in and do it all over again, how smart does that sound to you in terms of military strategy? There may not even be ANY good answers on Iraq. But I'm willing to listen to any well-reasoned practical arguments by any politician or military official. I was against the invasion from the beginning, but I'm mature enough to realize that maybe it's too late to take a mulligan on the whole thing now.
And btw, I hope you're never in McCain's situation either. You can't just pick up and leave a POW prison whenever you want to.
April 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I could've saved you all that typing by pointing out that I say that his experience shows me that when he says he's ready to go to the gates of hell for something, he knows what it means to say that, and I tend to believe he would more than a community organizer from Chicago (although I'm sure Obama put in some ungodly tough long hours)."
Well, my informed opinion shows that he hasn't followed Osama bin Laden anywhere. He's followed the money.
So if he says that, and he means that, he needs to follow through. Instead, I see him on high security junkets through the green zone, examining taxpayer funded infrastrcture, then coming back and giving artificially rosy scenarios.
Face it, McCitizen, the guy's a scam artist like Duke Cunningham or Bo Gritz. Cunningham helped pad contractors wallets and supplied the troops on the ground with shoddy untested equipment. McCain has never seen a weapons research boondoggle he doesn't want to attach his name to, but balks at the idea of keeping the MGIB commensurate with inflation.
McCain has doubletalked on torture. TORTURE. He is giving the enemy license to hurt troops by following our example. Bush's torture policy revolves around stress positions: forcing prisoners to stand until their ankles break from the swelling or their joints tear from the pressure. This involves being held in a forced stress position for over 18 hours AT A TIME. And McCain was against it before he was for it?!
This war is not exclusively Bush's fault. The fault is braod and deep, and cheerleaders like McCain are in it up to their blood-soaked elbows.
April 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet it was Obama who said he'd follow Bin Laden into Pakistan even if Musharraf wouldn't cooperate, and got hammered for it. And McCain continues to support an Iraq War that diverted resources from the hunt for Bin Laden.
Apparently McCain would follow Bin Laden into hell but not into the place where he actually is.
April 14, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She knows better"
Senator Obama takes Hillary Rambo Clinton, The Heroine of Tuzla, to task for her latest barrage of silly Bullshit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxmi3e2Vmo
April 14, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons went into the White House with a salary of about $250K a year -- far below the Obama's salary. The attempt to paint them as elitist when Bill grew up poorer than Obama is ridiculous. Michelle Obama goes into a poor neighborhood and complains about having to spend $10K a year on her daughters' dance lessons. Give me a break!
April 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's words may have been inartful, but he's essentially outlined the Republican strategy since Reagan for attracting working class Democrats--cynically play on the emotional wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, and anti-immigration sentiment to distract people while you ship their jobs overseas and enact tax policies that exacerbate the growing gap between the rich and everyone else.
April 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Teresa:
I don't believe Bill Clinton's mother ever had to resort to food stamps, as Obama's did. But that's beside the point: it's Hillary Clinton who is running, not her husband. And she had an upper middle class background. She did not attend college on scholarships. John McCain is married to an heiress to a beer fortune.
At this point, it's kind of useless to deny the wealth made by the Clintons in the last seven years.
April 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you know little about Bill Clinton's background. Here's a refresher from his nomination speech - I believe in a place called Hope:
I never met my father. He was killed in a car wreck on a rainy road three months before I was born, driving home from Chicago to Arkansas to see my mother.
After that, my mother had to support us. So we lived with my grandparents while she went back to Louisiana to study nursing.
I can still see her clearly tonight through the eyes of a three- year-old: kneeling at the railroad station and weeping as she put me back on the train to Arkansas with my grandmother. She endured her pain because she knew her sacrifice was the only way she could support me and give me a better life.
My mother taught me. She taught me about family and hard work and sacrifice. She held steady through tragedy after tragedy. And she held our family, my brother and I, together through tough times. As a child, I watched her go off to work each day at a time when it wasn't always easy to be a working mother.
As an adult, I've watched her fight off breast cancer. And again she has taught me a lesson in courage. And always, always she taught me to fight.
That's why I'll fight to create high-paying jobs so that parents can afford to raise their children today. That's why I'm so committed to making sure every American gets the health care that saved my mother's life, and that women's health care gets the same attention as men's. That's why I'll fight to make sure women in this country receive respect and dignity -- whether they work in the home, out of the home, or both. You want to know where I get my fighting spirit? It all started with my mother.
Thank you, Mother. I love you.
When I think about opportunity for all Americans, I think about my grandfather.
He ran a country store in our little town of Hope. There were no food stamps back then, so when his customers -- whether they were white or black, who worked hard and did the best they could, came in with no money--well, he gave them food anyway --just made a note of it. So did I. Before I was big enough to see over the counter, I learned from him to look up to people other folks looked down on.
My grandfather just had a grade-school education. But in that country store he taught me more about equality in the eyes of the Lord than all my professors at Georgetown; more about the intrinsic worth of every individual than all the philosophers at Oxford; and he taught me more about the need for equal justice than all the jurists at Yale Law School.
If you want to know where I come by the passionate commitment I have to bringing people together without regard to race, it all started with my grandfather.
I learned a lot from another person, too. A person who for more than 20 years has worked hard to help our children--paying the price of time to make sure our schools don't fail them. Someone who traveled our state for a year, studying, learning, listening, going to PTA meetings, school board meetings, town hall meetings, putting together a package of school reforms recognized around the nation, and doing it all while building a distinguished legal career and being a wonderful loving mother.
That person is my wife.
Hillary taught me. She taught me that all children can learn, and that each of us has a duty to help them do it. So if you want to know why I care so much about our children and our future; it all started with Hillary. I love you.
April 14, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing says: Hillary I love you., by presenting her with a lovely blue stained dress. "Honestly Hill, you can ask Gennifer for yourself, and she will tell you how often I have told her about how you are the only one that I have ever loved. Honestly baby, you know I would never lie to you" Bimbo Bill
We all know that Bill Clinton is an Olympic Champion in the Marathon Liar category, so we can just ignore that long list of his Bullshit that you posted.
April 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - and the blue dress has what to do with Hillary's policies are ability to lead our country out of the economic sinkhole that we are in how? The Clintons have done far more for this country than Barack ever has and continue to do so. I would hope that most democrats would respect the good they have done even if they disagree with them on issues. But some Obama supporters are so far gone on the kool-aid that they have no decency left. I find your comments deplorable and I should hope most fair minded Obama supporters (if there are any left) would agree.
April 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe in a place called Hope
Doesn't Bill know that Hope is bullshit, though?
April 14, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill believed in Hope and inspiration, but also had detailed plans prior to the election that addressed tough issues. Like having the moral courage to raise taxes on the wealthy even though it was politically unpopular on the right. Like tackling welfare reform in a responsible way that was not popular on the left. A proposal for universal healthcare that sadly did not get passed because it was attacked on both the right and the left.
Barack is an empty suit - soaring oratory and rhetoric with very little substance and timid baby steps towards addressing big problems.
Bill had it all - the substance and the charisma. Hillary has the substance. Obama has the charisma. I will go with substance and policy any day of the week.
April 14, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too funny. Caught dissing the voters he is courting in Pennsylvania Obama says "Shame on Hillary Clinton" and calls her "Annie Oakley". Now that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is talking again, I wonder what else Obama will have to say about Hillary. This weekend Wright went off on slavery again, and called Thomas Jefferson a pedophile. Shame on Hillary!!!! lolol
April 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
He went off on SLAVERY???? Oh my god!!!!!!!! How DARE he!
April 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said, clinton team. obama needs to shut his yap already. he's only making it worse for himself! haha!
April 14, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha ha. Gallup's daily number have Barry back in a double digit lead over the whiskey swillin' terror of tuzla.
Crown Royal? I'm a bourbon man myself. less, um, bitter aftertaste. HAhahahahahah.
K Thanks, try again.
April 14, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
mmmm. Bourbon.
April 14, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
just lovin' which poll you chose, and so conveniently ignored the one that has clinton up 20!
haha! "bitter," are we? HAHA!
April 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think it is sad Hillary's taken to drinking out of frustration.
April 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not out of frustration. It is because she is a lush, and loves to get liquored up. She does it all the time.
The mayor of Hammond Indiana said, on Saturday, that ever time he meets with Hillary they end up drinking.
Remember her Vodka Shots Binge Contest against McCain.
Did you see how she ordered a shot of Crown Royal, and tossed it down. That was the act of an experienced boozer.
Paging The Betty Ford Clinic. Save a room for Hillary.
April 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can some one please explain how Hillary Clinton can claim that she grew up in Scranton, Pa.
There is nothing said about it on her online White House First Lady Bio Profile.
She was born in the Chicago area, and spent all her youth there, so why is she allowed to claim that she is from Scranton Pa. Here is her actually history.
Hillary[1] Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois,[2] and was raised in a United Methodist family,[3] first in Chicago, and then, from the age of three, in suburban Park Ridge, Illinois, which is also located in Cook County.[4] Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a child of Welsh and English immigrants[5] and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry.[6] Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell, of English, Scottish, French Canadian, and Welsh descent,[7] was a homemaker.[4] She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony.
As a child, Hillary Rodham was involved in many activities at church and at her public school in Park Ridge. She participated in tennis and other sports and earned awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout.[8] She attended Maine East High School, where she participated in student council, the debating team and the National Honor Society. For her senior year she was redistricted to Maine South High School,[9] where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in 1965.[9] Her parents encouraged her to pursue the career of her choice.[10]
Raised in a politically conservative household,[11] at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon,[12] and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[13] Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, who got her to read Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative[14] and who was, like her father, a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicag
April 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack has close ties to Kansas, Illinois and Hawaii and played them all up in his campaign. Hillary has close ties to AR, NY and PA where her maternal family and grandparents are from, where she was baptized, where she spent many summers. They have this new thing called "the google". Try using it sometime.
April 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They have this new thing called "the google". Try using it sometime."
Your arrogance truly amazes me. Have you heard of "tact" or "politeness"? Comments like these detract from your argument, no matter how factual they may be.
April 14, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Hillary the sniper she was running from?
April 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is rich; the two candidates, who are being schooled by "THE ROOKIE" on how to raise
FUNDS (most individual donors, most monies on hand), MANAGE finances (pay bills on time),
ORGANIZE a nation wide campaign (most caucuses, delegatesand popular votes won.) and address
REAL issues affecting Americans is being called "OUT OF TOUCH"
Well, HIll & John, when either of you start showing me some Competency and Leadership,
instead of Whining and Divisiveness, I may start paying attention to your RAVINGS.
In the mean time, JUST GO AWAY
April 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is rich; the two candidates, who are being schooled by "THE ROOKIE" on:
1. Raising FUNDS (most individual donors, most monies on hand),
2. MANAGING finances (pay bills on time.
3. ORGANIZING a nation wide campaign (most caucuses, delegatesand popular votes won.)
and address REAL issues affecting most Americans is being called "OUT OF TOUCH".
Well, HIll & John, when either of you start showing me some competency, leadership and poise(instead of whining and divisiveness), I may start paying attention to your RAVINGS.
In the mean time; JUST GO AWAY!
April 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about triple post
April 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both candidates need to sign up for my blue-collar boot camp:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/bluecollar-boot-camp.php
April 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
One election, with a two year gap before being re-elected, if I'm not mistaken.
April 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's called a False Equivalency.
April 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably just as smart a move as allowing the pilot's wife to fly the plane.