Quick - What do Ron Paul, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all have in common?
Please indulge a quick story before I come to a point...it will make sense.
I come from a proudly Democratic branch of an overwhelmingly Republican extended family. When I was growing up, Thanksgiving was the event that would bring the family together every year, and in even-numbered years the conversation always turned to the recent election.
In 1988 I was 10, but my parents were very strong supporters of Michael Dukakis. We know how that turned out. At Thanksgiving dinner later that November, several of my uncles were salivating at the chance to rub my father's nose in the results of the election.
As soon as we arrived, they sauntered over and said, "so what did you think about the election?" My father surprised them by saying he was delighted.
"Why?" they asked.
"Well," dad continued, "George Bush said that he was going to reduce violent crime, clean up Boston Harbor and balance the federal budget - all without raising taxes. That sounds great to me."
My uncles were a bit taken aback by this naive comment. They didn’t say anything for a minute then one of them chortled - "You actually believed him?"
Dad ended the conversation with: "Didn’t you? You voted for him?"
I tell this story because I really like it, and because it informs my opinions about who gets my vote. I will never, like my uncles did, vote for a candidate that I know is lying to me. There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly.
Furthermore, I give extra credit for a candidate that utters a truth that they know will be politically damaging, just for the mere fact that it is true. In this season, there were three candidates who fit this bill from my perspective:
1. Ron Paul - Don’t get me wrong, this guy is crazy, and other than his position on the war (sort of) I can't think of a single thing he said that I agree with, but was there ever a moment where you thought he was lying? Crazy and dead wrong, sure - but not dishonest.
2. Joe Biden - Very simply, I don’t think Joe Biden gives a s#%t if you agree with him, or if what he says is popular. He calls them like he sees them, and I like him for that.
3. Barack Obama - He not only tells the truth, but he relishes it. He tells more truth than he needs to. He could have gone along with the gas tax holiday, and it would have been safer politically, but he told the truth, and screamed it from the rooftops. He could have simply disavowed Jeremiah Wright at his first opportunity, but he told more truth than he needed to, and really added something to the discussion on race in this country.
As you think about who will get your vote, or as you look back on who you voted for, ask yourself how many times they lied to you - How many times did you have to justify your candidate's words by thinking "they have to say things like that if they want to win."
Maybe they don't. Maybe if they tell the truth, they can win anyway. I hope Barack proves me right.
I come from a proudly Democratic branch of an overwhelmingly Republican extended family. When I was growing up, Thanksgiving was the event that would bring the family together every year, and in even-numbered years the conversation always turned to the recent election.
In 1988 I was 10, but my parents were very strong supporters of Michael Dukakis. We know how that turned out. At Thanksgiving dinner later that November, several of my uncles were salivating at the chance to rub my father's nose in the results of the election.
As soon as we arrived, they sauntered over and said, "so what did you think about the election?" My father surprised them by saying he was delighted.
"Why?" they asked.
"Well," dad continued, "George Bush said that he was going to reduce violent crime, clean up Boston Harbor and balance the federal budget - all without raising taxes. That sounds great to me."
My uncles were a bit taken aback by this naive comment. They didn’t say anything for a minute then one of them chortled - "You actually believed him?"
Dad ended the conversation with: "Didn’t you? You voted for him?"
I tell this story because I really like it, and because it informs my opinions about who gets my vote. I will never, like my uncles did, vote for a candidate that I know is lying to me. There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly.
Furthermore, I give extra credit for a candidate that utters a truth that they know will be politically damaging, just for the mere fact that it is true. In this season, there were three candidates who fit this bill from my perspective:
1. Ron Paul - Don’t get me wrong, this guy is crazy, and other than his position on the war (sort of) I can't think of a single thing he said that I agree with, but was there ever a moment where you thought he was lying? Crazy and dead wrong, sure - but not dishonest.
2. Joe Biden - Very simply, I don’t think Joe Biden gives a s#%t if you agree with him, or if what he says is popular. He calls them like he sees them, and I like him for that.
3. Barack Obama - He not only tells the truth, but he relishes it. He tells more truth than he needs to. He could have gone along with the gas tax holiday, and it would have been safer politically, but he told the truth, and screamed it from the rooftops. He could have simply disavowed Jeremiah Wright at his first opportunity, but he told more truth than he needed to, and really added something to the discussion on race in this country.
As you think about who will get your vote, or as you look back on who you voted for, ask yourself how many times they lied to you - How many times did you have to justify your candidate's words by thinking "they have to say things like that if they want to win."
Maybe they don't. Maybe if they tell the truth, they can win anyway. I hope Barack proves me right.
Advertisement
May 24, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total red herring.
If someone asks you "are you running for election", the worst answer to give is "I don't know" or "I'm keeping my options open" - because it reads like a big, fat, YES.
If you need proof, see the situation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown right now. Last Sept/Oct there was mounting speculation about the possibility that he was about to call a snap election. This speculation was fueled by the fact that he never said he *wasn't* going to call it. In the end, he didn't, and the anticlimax pretty much killed his administration. His poll numbers went through the floor and they remain there today.
Conclusion: biggest mistake ever is to equivocate. Far better to say "no" and then change your mind, than to say you might and then decide you won't.
May 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. There is a big difference between a lie and a change of heart.
May 25, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either way, it's a broken promise, but I appreciate your willingness to make a point about it and not just say it's a red herring.
May 25, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there is everything to indicate that it was in fact a change of heart, that - as someone says downthread - if he was thinkin of the presidency it would have been sometime later, perhaps 2012, perhaps even later than that (when it wouldn't be so hard on teenaged children). He's young enough and he's smart enough to know that *not* having served out his term was going to give him problems, as it has. But there is such a thing as the "right time" ... as we former supporters of Mario Cuomo know well, and I'm glad that he recognized this was his. ------- Please don't tell me, Constantinople, that you believe every politician who announces an intention for the future should stick to it, come hell or high water. Haven't we just had a 7+ year illustration of where THAT sort of stuff leads them? and the country? There is something entirely different between saying "I intend to do such-and-such in the future" and then changing ones mind (any divorce or broken engagement in your past?) and saying "two years ago while landing in Bosnia such-and-such happened" when it didn't. I have no problem with a president who assesses new information and alters his or her course; I do have a problem with one who outright lies or who makes up their mind and never changes it, no matter what.
May 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
bravo
May 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that politician also goes around telling me that he represents Change and a New Kind of Politics, then yes, he'd damn well better stick to it, or be called for the lying, opportunistic hypocrite that he is.
May 25, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think whether one considers this a "broken promise" or a welcome change of heart is subjective, based on whether one does or doesn't want Obama to be president. If I'd told my kids we would never be able to afford to go to Disneyworld and then some time later, I announced that we'd be able to go after all, I doubt that they would have accused me of "breaking a promise."
May 25, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 25, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended, because I like the story, and I intend to use it against conservative friends for every Republican victory.
May 24, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you won't be needing it much for a few years then.
May 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Optimism is overrated.
May 25, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but I have Conservative family in the UK - and, what with the recent London Mayoral Elections, I think that a Conservative government might not be too far off.
May 25, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's the Boris Johnson show now, isn't it.
Yeah, the signs are definitely pointing towards a conservative government. Brown really blew it with the non-election election last autumn.
May 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. *puke*. The only hope is that London ends up such a failure that it's a living advertisement for the failure of "Cameron" Conservatism.
May 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
MassDem said he told the truth; I provided one example where he didn't tell the truth, and you call it a red herring.
Thanks for playing, you've won a free copy of From Chicago to Jonestown: One Man's Story.
And let's not forget how fond Obama is of claiming how no one applauded when he spoke truth to power at the Detroit Economic Club See http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/05/obamas_detroit_speech.html?hpid=topnews (which even TPM linked to).
May 24, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the case of whether he'd serve his entire term, a number of people have said that Sen. Obama originally intended to run in 2012, which would have allowed him to finish out his first term.
Times change, however, and Sen. Obama correctly realized that this was the right time and place for him to run. That he recognized that, and took the chance, says much for his judgment, and I'm willing to forgive his earlier assertion.
And initially, he was right-- Detroit didn't applaud. They eventually did, however, when they realized he didn't intend to leave them in the cold.
May 25, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
More straw man than red herring - this is what I said:
There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly.
If you want to disagree, make sure you are disagree with what I actually said, not a position that you conjured up to win the argument.
May 25, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama was supposed to lead a different kind of politics, the kind where he was brave enough to tell them what he didn't want to hear.
Instead, we get things like
May 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
----Clean Kentucky Coal
Do you truly believe that there is no sense in exploring the possibility of clean coal energy and that, if a way were found, it wouldn't be used? It's a stupid person who says they know everything, and Obama isnt' stupid.
----In 2004, he said he didn't know how he would have voted on the AUMF, in 2008 he suddenly knows
In 2004, so as not to embarass the leaders of his party who were running for office (and I'm sure because it is also true), he stated that he could not say how he would have voted IF he had had all of the un-published information available to him that was available to the Senators ... but that based on what he was able to know "the case was not made"
---the constantly shifting explanations for his ties to Wright, and the severance of those ties - Occam's Razor suggests that political expediency is the explanation
Or how about changing his position in response to what amounted to escalating and very harmful betrayal by a close and valued friend? When that happens in your life, don't you at some point decide to distance yourself from such a friend? The video clips (9/11 and 'damn America') that predated his asking Wright not to appear at his campaign announcement were not - if you read or hear them in context - outlandish or unAmerican; when he learned of the sermon reported in the Rolling Stone, he forthrightly stated his disagreement and distanced himself from that position; and when Wright began his escalating destructive and angry course of conduct (the hideous statements about Clinton in the video clips and then the public appearances, esp the press conference), Obama said "enough!", with full justification.
----his healthcare plan, which will magically provide for 100% coverage, despite analysis suggesting that it will leave 15-22 million won't be covered
He has never said that it would automatically provide 100% coverage and has stated many times that if his belief -- that people would purchase health care if it is affordable so as to equate to universal coverage -- proves to be wrong, subsequent adjustments would have to be made. In the meantime, his proposal is 1) more likely to be passed by Congress, 2) gives an incentive for carriers to compete over the business of that 15-22 million, and avoids the quite hideous problem of enforcement. Clinton's proposal is unlikely to pass in the first place, allows no reason for the insurers to be competitive, and will have to immediately deal with the thorny issue of enforcement.
---his criticisms of NAFTA, yet somehow his chief economic adviser is telling the Canadian consulate not to worry
Even if you accept that the third-hand reporting of Goolsbee's statements was 100% accurate, what he said was that despite concerns that "protectionist sentiment has emerged" in the campaign, Obama's statements "should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans". Goolsbee also noted that of the leading candidates Obama had been the "least protectionist" and said that he felt confident Obama's campaign "was going to be carefor to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist." Goolsbee was NOT quoted as saying (as was widely reported) that Obama's statements were just campaign rhetoric and to ignore it. ------- In Obama's own statements he said that he would tell Canada and Mexico "we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards." There was never any hint or suggestion, from Goolsbee or otherwise, that he intended to back down from this stance.
You may see thes as examples of Obama's willingness to lie. I do not and I suspect others do not. Characterizing something in a negative way does not alter the facts of what occurred.
May 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for saying what I honestly couldn't be bothered to.
May 25, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended, and 2 thumbs way up (unlike for Indiana Jones, which I saw today and nearly slept through).
Loved the story. And that's what I tell people too. He's not perfect, and he's still a politician, but he's trying to tell the truth about as many things as possible, especially when it comes to the big stuff (ie - the Gas Tax fiasco, and Foreign Policy negotiations).
May 24, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. About Indiana Jones. What the hell were they thinking, putting UFOs and Aliens into it? Guess Lucas stuck with what he knew.
May 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended -- wonderful story -- and a very good reason why the ticket of OBAMA/BIDEN 'O8 is so sterling. In addition to being politically very strong, can you imagine a greater contrast to Buch-Cheney when they actually get down to *governing*!!? (That is what all this is about, right? Not just winning an election, but actually governing.)
May 25, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
While you've obviously set your argument up in a way so as to prevent any formidable opposition ("There are always a number of platitudes that a candidate must utter in a campaign, but I look for the candidate that does it less, and does it reluctantly"), here are some things that make me strongly disagree with your statement "he not only tells the truth, he relishes in it:"
1) Campaign financing. Plain and simple. He made a promise to the American people and John McCain. He has already hinted he won't keep it, and it should be fairly obvious, given his fundraising talent. This is one of the most blatant lies/flip-flops that I've seen from him, and is a very arrogant move.
2) Reverend Wright. Perhaps you think it was morally right of him not to disown his preacher immediately, but the claim that he did not hear such hateful sermons after attending the church for years is VERY difficult to believe. Anyone that takes Obama at his word here without a doubt should re-evaluate their logic. Imagine the same thing happening, but for HRC. Would you also give her the benefit of the doubt? Incredibly doubtful.
3) Rezko. This story oozes with Chicago politics. Obama was on quite friendly terms with the guy, was involved with him in a real estate deal that was beneficial for him, yet claims to have known nothing about Rezko's reputation. Again, you guys that would fail to question Obama's explanation are really disgustingly illogical.
By your own metric, is Hillary bad? Sure. Does she lie? Hell ya. But does she claim to represent a new kind of politics, to transcend the faults of old politicians? No.
What really peeves me about Obama is that, in the end, he is just another politician. It doesn't even make sense anymore to say that he has a clean slate: his history is as bad if not worse than most of the initial possible Dem nominees. If this weren't the case, the Dems wouldn't be worrying at all about their prospects in November when all of the special elections point to landslide victory.
Yet, as we saw with Rev. Wright, when Obama is caught in a lie or a bad position, he doesn't apologize or own up to his fault. On the contrary, he proceeds to lecture the rest of us, as with the speech about the Wright affair, and the MSM eats it up. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think we should be objective in our judgments. Like it or not, myself and many other Clinton supporters do feel like Obama has gotten a free pass (or close to one) from the MSM and his supporters while Clinton has been pounded.
Writing in Hillary and staying home are options that a growing minority of HRC supporters are considering. Don't be so quick to write us off as unimportant either; elections are often decided by a small percentage and McCain is proving to be the Republican's best chance against Obama. Obama's actions (and those of his supporters) are not water under the bridge; this needs to be addressed or many of us will not be falling in line as Dems in the fall. Posts like these, though certainly not with such intentions, only solidify the belief that HRC has not only been pushed aside unfairly, but that Obama and his supporters actually belief he is without blemish. He and his supporters need to admit these faults and explain them, yet this does not seem to be an action that will be undertaken by Obama or any of his supporters. Until then, I look forward to a McCain victory in the fall.
May 25, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain how Obama has gotten a pass from the mainstream media and HRC has been treated unfairly. This particular argument is puzzling given that HRC has been slinging most of the mud in this campaign, openly saying that she and McCain alone have passed the necessary leadership threshold, and generally sticking the knife in for a turn whenever Obama is vulnerable. Obama has had plenty of heat about Wright and the canard now dubbed "bittergate." He also has been gracious in defeat in contests that he has lost and taken the high-road (like his comments on the RFK flack) on more than a few occasions. What particular issue/fault/slight has the press quietly forgiven him and on what issue has HRC been over-covered? Please share.
If Obama has had an easier time perhaps it is because he is generally easier to like, he has not engaged in the politics of personal distruction (and fear as in the red phone ad) like HRC has, and with regard to Rezko and the Chicago dirty-politics rap, well, in the same way that McCain cannot bring up Wright because he can easily be portrayed as the Grand Marshal heading a parade of Republican nut-bag preachers who have said things that are equally as bad or worse, HRC and Bill have more than a few unsavory characters as campaign contributors and other dealings that could be dredged up, that is, if the Obama camp or MSM wanted to make that an issue. The press has left her alone on Bill's connections and dealings since he left the WH, went easy on their tax returns, hasn't emphasized how poorly she has managed her campaign finances and staff, and even with the Bosnia story the MSM didn't chase after it until she so blatantly crossed the line of exaggeration into the realm of outright lying. She has gotten the bye on a number of issues, and as a woman I struggle to believe all of the claims (a la Ferraro) that sexism has somehow played a role in the primary. Gees. James Carville, one of her most ardent and outspoken supporters was only recently claiming that HRC could lend Obama one of her "cohones" then they'd have an equal number. What's that all about? Sexism from the media? Hmmm.
She's fought hard. Good for her. I just hope that she's not a poor sport, although I won't be surprised if she turns out to be one; it would be in keeping with how she has conducted herself throughout this campaign. And I completely understand how her supporters might not want to vote for Obama because I wouldn't vote for HRC under any circumstance. However, my protest vote was decided long before HRC announced her candidacy because I decided early on that I wouldn't vote for anyone who supported or voted for the Iraq war. So that means HRC or McCain in my case. However HRC's behavior during the campaign has only hardened my resolve not to vote for her. In most cases I can not understand why HRC supporters would not vote for Obama in a general election against McCain, unless of course they have a racial bias. He's extremely smart, an able and talented manager, he is a progressive, and has demonstrated himself to be cool under fire (and gracious). He would be without question a better president than John McCain.
I look forward to reading your thoughts on how HRC has been treated so poorly compared to Obama. I really don't see it.
May 25, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brand 182, you wrote,
"He and his supporters need to admit these faults and explain them, yet this does not seem to be an action that will be undertaken by Obama or any of his supporters. Until then, I look forward to a McCain victory in the fall."
What is this all about? Some sort of call for Obama supporters to take part in a collective Cultural Revolution-style Maoist "struggle session" to denounce anti-Clinton thoughts or sentiments? I certainly do not have any hopes that Clinton supporters are going to admit that her tactics have at times been wrong.
May 25, 2008 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 25, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was pretty sure that the Philadelphia speech was an admission of faults, and yet also an explanation of them. He wasn't 'lecturing', he was showing leadership. He took the Wright 'scandal' and rather than shunning it, he embraced it and elaborated to provide the context which the YouTube clips had so willfully ignored.
On a different point entirely, I'd like to point out that I feel that much of the 'shock' surrounding Wright's comments was entirely manufactured. When I think of Bush and Cheney, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Iraq, Wiretapping, Rendition, Torture ... yeah, "God Damn America" isn't too far from the truth.
May 25, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't read all your comments, so take this with a grain of salt.
Americans should stop calling Rev. Wright's soundbytes hateful. They weren't. Farthermore, you should get over it! America is a nation where people with white skin still receive privileges, advantages, and rights that others don't receive. That means for all of America's good, it still has some crimson stains. Namely that not all her citizens enjoy her supposed "goodness." The UN has even cited the US for depriving people of color human rights. The USofA is not all that. Get over it.
All we want is equality, but some people are carrying on like that expect a sudden burst of black suicide bombers.
Do I believe Obama heard some softer terms along those same lines? Yes, I do.
Do I believe Obama sat there 20years listening to hate speech? No, I don't.
May 25, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Reverend Wright. Perhaps you think it was morally right of him not to disown his preacher immediately, but the claim that he did not hear such hateful sermons after attending the church for years is VERY difficult to believe. Anyone that takes Obama at his word here without a doubt should re-evaluate their logic. Imagine
Re: Reverand Wright -- as to Sen. Obama's claims that he "did not hear such hateful sermons after attending the church for years," if someone wants to dispute that statement, I suggest that, rather than "re-evaluate their logic" (your logic is based on assumed but unproven facts), that they instead investigate the facts and determine whether - factually - he is lying or not.
Almost all of Wright's sermons are transcribed, audiotaped or videotaped, so it would be quite easy for someone to come up with truly (in context) outrageous statements and prove that Obmaa was present when they were made. (And, yes, I'd insist on similar proof before condeming HRC for listening to something and not raising objections. Either she did or she didn't. Either Obama did or he didn't. Those are fact, not matters of opinion.)
--- Campaign financing: he pledged that if he is the candidate he will meet with the Republican candidate and explore the possibility of their both using public financing. He is not yet the candidate and neither you nor I have any idea of precisely what he will do when he is, in fact, the nominee.
----- Rezko. Please tell the Chicago Tribue, the Sun Times, and who knows how many other investigators with the media, Clinton campaign and the Republicans that they are "disgustingly illogical" in believing Obama's explanation when nothing during their years of investigation, or Rezko's trial, has provided any proof to undermine his explanation. The fact that someone continues, despite all evidence to the contrary, to yell "Smoke! Smoke!" does not prove that there is a fire.
And if those of you who are thinking of voting for McCain or not voting will not pay any attention to the FACTS behind your allegations (your "logical" conclusions) of shameful behavior, then what the heck would you have us do to convince you that perhaps you're wrong? I honestly don't see any option other than "writing you off" and hoping there are enough open-minded people who will vote for him anyway.
No, Obama is not perfect. Yes, he is a politician -- one needs to be to succeed in politics after all, even statesmen. But if you can't see - refuse to see - that he is head and shoulders above the leaders - in intelligence, judgment and integrity - that we've had in recent years (decades!) and other two with whom we are competing, then what is the purpose in paying any attention to you? Far better to have conversations with people who will actually think with an open mind and look at the facts before they make up and close their minds.
May 25, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I didn't realize your reply was to me.
My assertion that Obama didn't listen to 20years worth of hateful sermons is based on 2 things:
1 - Nothing we've heard is hateful.
2 - Rev. Wright is a scholar who's received honorary degrees. He's a black pastor in a predominantly white denomination. If he preaching anti-white or anti-semitic rhetoric ever, his denomination probably would've given him the boot.
And here's another thing: I think some Americans are to sensitive about criticisms about America. Criticizing the govt, even commenting that the entire country is dominated by rich, white men, isn't anti-white or anti-anybody hate speech.
May 27, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every account I've read on the subject has been consistent in stating Obama was convinced by several party leaders to make the run now.
Chris Dodd & Tom Daschle, to be specific along with several others. There is no doubt that Obama (of the 3 remaining candidates) is by far the most honest. He's won me over with a straight line of how we go about changing Washington. Not how he goes about it. Apathy has been our demise & the cure for apathy is public involvement which one quick look at his campaign will show that's why he's succeeding. I have no reason to doubt that if we engage the political system with anywhere near the same energy as this campaign is running we will succeed.
May 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I look forward to reading your thoughts on how HRC has been treated so poorly compared to Obama. I really don't see it."
Honestly, do I need to present examples? Obama is such a media darling (while the MSM detests Clinton) that there were multiple news articles as well as skits from SNL criticizing the MSM for its lack of objectivity in covering Obama. Consider the examples I've brought up in my previous post. Now consider how Obama was "vetted" on these issues. What do we know about his connection with Wright? He gave an answer (that actually changed over the course of time) and while most of the media ate it up, some pundits were brave enough to say that his explanations were incoherent and more investigation was needed. Rezko? Again, I am thoroughly unconvinced by his explanation. Look, the point is, HRC has baggage but she has admitted it repeatedly. She is not running on the platform of "changing old politics" while hypocritically acting as an old politician: she is running on her intelligence, experience, and her policy.
Obama on the other hand has tried to retain his holier-than-thou image despite his multiple dirty connections, and when he's been called out, he's either commenced to lecture the nation on why we need to "transcend such issues and look at the big picture" or he's given a lackluster response that was accepted by his supporters and the MSM (since the MSM is full of his supporters) while Clinton supporters and the nation at large are left unconvinced.
"What is this all about? Some sort of call for Obama supporters to take part in a collective Cultural Revolution-style Maoist "struggle session" to denounce anti-Clinton thoughts or sentiments? I certainly do not have any hopes that Clinton supporters are going to admit that her tactics have at times been wrong."
What? On the contrary, I and many Clinton supporters will admit here and now that her tactics have been at times wrong. We know she is ruthless. That is beside the point: Obama and his supporters continue to act like legitimate character (and association) issues are either not issues or have been cleared up, when this could not be farther from the truth. I don't like liars. Clinton is a lying politician, but she doesn't claim otherwise. Obama is the worst kind of liar to me: refusing to even address the issue and treating us like we're idiots when he does give an explanation.
"I was pretty sure that the Philadelphia speech was an admission of faults, and yet also an explanation of them. He wasn't 'lecturing', he was showing leadership. He took the Wright 'scandal' and rather than shunning it, he embraced it and elaborated to provide the context which the YouTube clips had so willfully ignored.
On a different point entirely, I'd like to point out that I feel that much of the 'shock' surrounding Wright's comments was entirely manufactured. When I think of Bush and Cheney, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Iraq, Wiretapping, Rendition, Torture ... yeah, "God Damn America" isn't too far from the truth."
I read the speech. I did not see it as such. I would have thrown my support (and vote) behind Obama then and there if he had been man enough to admit that he had heard such sermons, that he had lied about this issue before out of desperation, and that he now no longer holds any such beliefs. Given the comments by his wife and his association with such a man for so long, I see a stark contrast between the man Obama that is portrayed for political gain and the real Obama.
"Do I believe Obama heard some softer terms along those same lines? Yes, I do.
Do I believe Obama sat there 20years listening to hate speech? No, I don't."
Here is where we disagree. While I will agree with some of those "hateful" statements by the Reverend (but adamantly disagree with others), Obama lied. He continues to lie and then attempts to change the subject. Clinton supporters may be less educated, but they do not lack common sense and they do not believe he had never heard such comments.
Look, I'm all for politicians doing what is necessary, within bounds, to gain power so that they may later do good. Obama is a Chicago politician. Most of us can guess why he joined that church and stayed there for so long (while Oprah evidently went to enough sermons to realize something was very wrong, and consequently left). So long as he does not hold Wright's more extreme views, I am willing to leave this issue alone. But his lack of character comes from his blatant deception in a time of distress. Say what you will, but I was far more impressed by Clinton's admission of error concerning the Bosnia issue in the Philadelphia debate. If I had seen something like this from Obama, I would have gained respect for him.
May 25, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton hasn't admitted a thing. She has refused to release the names of donors to the Clinton Library and refused to talk about Bill's shady overseas dealings. And I have yet to see her make a real apology - which includes admitting she was WRONG - on ANYTHING, including the Iraq war vote, the Bosnia lies and the fact that her unfortunate statement about RFK might have offended the Obamas as well as the Kennedys. She may admit she has baggage, but she reacts like a cornered animal if anyone even attempts to take a look at it.
May 25, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it would be useful for you to give more specific examples other than the same tired list of speculative wrongdoings related to Rezko...what have those enterprising reporters who thought it merited more digging uncovered?
If HRC's Bosnia response seemed honest, e.g. the "I remembered it differently" than the file footage of her arrival, then the standard for judging these two candidates is indeed different. Obama has not outright lied and then tried to tell the world his memory was just fuzzy. If you don't take him at his word or perceive him as a genuine agent of change, well, fine. That's the great thing about America. People can vote for whomever they choose. But, the HRC camp might consider engaging in their own "struggle session" and admit that Obama has certainly run a different style of campaign from the last 4-5 presidential elections, and has run a much better overall campaign.
But as the most recent apology-turned-attack from Clinton regarding her statements about RFK shows, she is blinded by her own raw ambition; she makes a horribly insensitive remark then cries victim when the press or the American people react negatively to it. What did Obama do? He took her at her word that she meant no offense. What a disingenuous jackass he was for doing that, right?
There are two of my father's standard Oklahoma expressions that come to mind about this situation.
For Obama:
"No good deed goes unpunished."
For Clinton:
"She'd bitch even if they hung her with a new rope."
May 25, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also prefer my politics straight, no chaser.
And I much prefer political games that lead to more votes being counted, not fewer.
May 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
more votes - like the ones in IA, NV, ME and Uncommitted in MI?
Oh, only votes for Your candidate.
May 25, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How are those votes not being counted.
Although now that you mention it, IA, NH, SC, MI & FL all have something in common: they all held their respective primaries or caucuses earlier than allowed by DNC rules.
May 25, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The total vote numbers for IA, NV, and ME are unknown because the caucus system tallies only a proportion of county-level delegates to each candidate, based on their respective support in each local caucus. If we wanted to estimate total vote numbers we have to compare the proportion of support to estimated turnout.
The Uncommitted Michigan votes aren't included in any popular vote metric, since they aren't attached to any particular candidate other than "Not Clinton".
Just since you asked.
May 25, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank for the response. I haven't looked it up for NV or ME, but I remember that for IA it wasn't difficult to estimate how many peopled participated in the caucus.
May 25, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great anecdote, and greetings to a fellow Mass Dem, spent most of my adult life in Cambridge-Boston. My only gripe is that you dismissed Paul's beliefs as crazy - have you ever looked seriously into his allegations about the Fed, Wall St and the nature of our politics and economy? I have discovered compelling factual documentation and records of substance to support them, published and annotated in print and also available on the net. This "crazy" meme serves to undermine the astounding truth that he and his fellow Libertarians are trying to bring to light.
For example, most of us passively accept the explanation for current dangerous levels of "inflation" as increasing global demand and a weakening dollar. The math won't ever work out unless one tracks the insane churning out of the global supply of dollars even as trillions of it are moped up by nations like China, Japan and Taiwan as savings and reserves. Who has been "printing" dollars, and to what end? Ever ask yourself if you would believe Ron Paul's answer?
We all dismiss this at our own peril - look up Weimar Germany to understand how debt and the unbridled issue of paper money destroyed a entire nation.
Today, the damage will not be limited to just one country because of the global nature of the dollar economy.
Listen to Paul! He's the Paul Revere of our age.
May 25, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He also opposed legislation banning guns in schools. Come to mention it, he wants to do away with Public Schools entirely.
May 25, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good post. Thanks.
But I'd like to make two observations.
1. MassDem: "1. Ron Paul - Don’t get me wrong, this guy is crazy, and other than his position on the war (sort of) I can't think of a single thing he said that I agree with, but was there ever a moment where you thought he was lying? Crazy and dead wrong, sure - but not dishonest."
Someone his age, who promotes much of the politics he promotes, could not do so if he weren't chronically, strenuously, shamelessly dishonest with himself. One cannot hold certain political views and be considered honest. Ron Paul is not an honest person. How could possibly be an honest politician?
2. MassDem: "As you think about who will get your vote, or as you look back on who you voted for, ask yourself how many times they lied to you - How many times did you have to justify your candidate's words by thinking 'they have to say things like that if they want to win.'
"Maybe they don't. Maybe if they tell the truth, they can win anyway. I hope Barack proves me right."
There are many truths they cannot tell — not if they want to be elected. We know this. What many of us don't know, or would simply rather not confront, is that the main reason they cannot tell the truth is that so many voters don't want to hear it. The extent of the omission of truth on one hand, and the "debate" over non-issues on the other, is, more than anything else, a reflection of the level of ethics of so many Americans. Would any other democratic country in the world have elected Bush for a second term?
May 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello? Hello? January 2006? You mean he changed his public decision since January 2006? Or perhaps he was already considering it and said he wasn't because he needed time to sort it out? Or perhaps he was already planning to run but didn't say so for tactical reasons?
Yeesh. This is navel gazing at its silliest. Obama is a politician. If you thought he was pure as the driven snow, you drank some really weird kool aide. Clinton is a politician. Do you really think she's completely written of the VP slot?
May 25, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is spot on! There is a southern radio host who is an independent, who expressed this view poignantly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFauzE_cqw
(a view from outside our progressive bubble)
While he says he won't vote for Obama based on his liberal views, there will be many many moderate independents and conservatives who will.
May 25, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wondering, is anyone willing to say that Hillary Clinton is honest?
Or, is she more honest than Obama?
May 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was waiting...I guess not
May 25, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. She's honest. Just like all of of us.
Have you ever been dishonest?
May 26, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, and great comments. For the most part, it stayed intelligent and sane.
I hope the personal style of blogging becomes more and more accepted.
Recommended.
May 27, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed your post, MassDem. I hope you don't mind if I tell your anecdote when the appropriate situation presents itself--like when I'm around Republican members of my own family! It's a great story!
Thanks for sharing.
May 27, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink