« The Vast Majority Of Working Class Americans Will Not Vote For Senator Obama In The Fall | Billy Glad's Blog | Hillary's Case »
Yes, We Can!
You're driving your daughter to school this morning, about a five minute drive, and she got ready with plenty of time to spare this morning for some reason, so nobody is tense and you have a couple of minutes to talk.
And because the weather is still cool, you're thinking about something that is always in the back of your mind, about how this is a school where some of the kids don't have warm enough gloves and maybe don't get breakfast and their families don't have health insurance. Stuff that's stuck in your mind, because you figured out you can send a couple of extra pairs of gloves to school in your daughter's back pack, but you haven't figured out what to do about the breakfast and the health insurance.
And then your daughter says: "Yes we can," but the way she says it reminds you of something besides Obama.
"What's that?" you say. "Dora the Explorer?"
"Bob the Builder," she says. "Can we build it? Yes, we can. Or maybe it's can we fix it? Yes, we can. But it's cool because the country is broken. Right?"
And you know where this is going. So you're ready when you pull up in front of the school and she says: "So. Are you going to vote for Obama?"
"I don't know," you tell her. "Maybe I don't trust him."
She opens the door and says: "100 years. I could be in Iraq, Daddy."
And you watch her cross the street and run to catch up with some friends and you think to yourself: "This is going to get a little complicated."
And because the weather is still cool, you're thinking about something that is always in the back of your mind, about how this is a school where some of the kids don't have warm enough gloves and maybe don't get breakfast and their families don't have health insurance. Stuff that's stuck in your mind, because you figured out you can send a couple of extra pairs of gloves to school in your daughter's back pack, but you haven't figured out what to do about the breakfast and the health insurance.
And then your daughter says: "Yes we can," but the way she says it reminds you of something besides Obama.
"What's that?" you say. "Dora the Explorer?"
"Bob the Builder," she says. "Can we build it? Yes, we can. Or maybe it's can we fix it? Yes, we can. But it's cool because the country is broken. Right?"
And you know where this is going. So you're ready when you pull up in front of the school and she says: "So. Are you going to vote for Obama?"
"I don't know," you tell her. "Maybe I don't trust him."
She opens the door and says: "100 years. I could be in Iraq, Daddy."
And you watch her cross the street and run to catch up with some friends and you think to yourself: "This is going to get a little complicated."
Advertisement
I'm surprised no one seems to have picked up on this sooner. I'm a big Bob the Builder fan, and I wrote to the Obama campaign the first time I heard him use the line and said, "You've got to be kidding."
May 12, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama/Builder 2008!
May 12, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain/Bush legacy vs. Obama/Bobby Builder
Sounds like a winning tix for Obama...:)
May 12, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob the Builder is a hardworking, white American. I don't know about college educated. But he would definitely help with Clinton's core constituency.
May 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Bob's British. He just gets a voiceover in an American accent for broadcasts in the U.S.
Is being a cartoon handyman yet another of the jobs Americans won't do?
May 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those who are not familiar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IWKhYQarJU
May 12, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, surely you're no stranger to being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Seems like I've had to do that my entire adult life.
Sure, this time around I feel like I don't have to make that choice, that I can vote for a candidate that I genuinely feel good about. But even if I didn't feel good about him, the choice would still be clear.
What did you do in the past when the thought of voting for either candidate made you throw up a little in your mouth?
May 12, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll confess that I've stayed home. I voted for John Kerry. Before that, it was Jimmy Carter. I skipped the ones in between. Not voting for Gore was a HUGE mistake, and I definitely learned my lesson.
May 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Nothing between Kennedy and Kerry. That's quite a confession.
Well. Go forth, my son, and sin no more.
May 12, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. Got that wrong. Carter and Kerry. That's even harder to figure.
May 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My prior philosophy was that I only voted for people I truly believed in. I'm happy this year that I can do just that. But if I'm faced with a lesser-of-two-evils choice at some point in the future, I'll definitely vote. No more George Bushes. I am chastened.
May 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
history, a problem?
You have to think twice about the presidents since JFK.
Change the shirt and read a book
May 12, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reject and denounce "throw up a little in your mouth."
Stop the madness.
May 12, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, Ric Ocasek gets a little creeped out by our man-boy love and now you are rejecting and denouncing me?
May 12, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, baby, you totally turn me on but not when you throw up in your mouth.
May 12, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so that kinda made me throw up a little bit in my mouth too.
May 12, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to stop the madness, shirt. I just want to stop those collars from blinking. You have no idea how stupid you look.
And yes, I look stupid.
Stop the war, stop the blinking collars.
May 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the blinking collars. I can't figure out how to do it?!?
May 12, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pro-shirt and con-shirt supporters are bitterly divided, but no one has the votes to clinch it.
May 12, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been commented on several times around blogs across the internet. It's old news....
You trust Hillary Billy? With Bosnia(lies for no reason)... and Mark Penn secret deals on Trade...Bill Secret deals on trade...Hillary where her campaign contributions come from (big donors)....IRAQ VOTE (and her defense of that vote)
Now, Im not picking on her or you, but you said trust...thats a little laughable dont you think?
Im sure you dont.....Anyhow, Cheers, keep those magnifying glasses out....oh and most of us dont think OBama is a god, just a man who tries to live well........In essence, dont see whats so complicated at this point.
THE POST THAT STARTED THIS THREAD HAS TO BE EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MCCAIN.
May 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's stories contain more exaggerations than Hillary's from what I've made out. Hillary was at least in Bosnia and the other foreign countries - I was even at one of her speeches and left her obviously stumped as I asked some dadaist question or other. I also flew into Bosnia on a similar noisy ass plane, and can imagine that a few weeks into the ceasefire that impressions were still rather tense - even if the airport itself was secure, she was hopping around the countryside in helicopters. Again, probably safe, but still tense.
Anyway, Obama's exaggerating his Business International job, his father being a "goat herder" when he was a clerk, etc.
So yeah, Hillary travelled the world and Obama handed out get-out-the vote pamphlets. (Don't get me wrong, Hillary did that a dozen or so campaigns as well).
Anyway, I think we start getting into dry heaves, not just "throwing up in my mouth a little". Blog-administered chemotherapy, anyone?
May 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serious?
Really, a lie she repeated 3 times, that was topped by her husband explaining it away with she was tired? Then, a person asks her the question in a debate, and she says, she was tired again...lol... You really cant see the difference?
I quote you here:
"I also flew into Bosnia on a similar noisy ass plane, and can imagine that a few weeks into the ceasefire that impressions were still rather tense - even if the airport itself was secure, she was hopping around the countryside in helicopters. Again, probably safe, but still tense."
Really, your running for President and you cant remember if you landed "UNDER SNIPER FIRE". To top that you repeat the lie 3 more times, nevermind the fact that the President would send his wife and daughter. You excuse that away with she misspoke. Hey, do you think she may ever be tired as President, what might she forget then. Sad, I we Obama supporters are delussional..lol
Obama traveled the world as well. Please stop the intellectual dishonesty. Truth is Hillary has the experience of being the Presidents wife. I have more respect for people who openly admit that, and say they believe that gives her the experience edge, then every reason she used in this campaign to defend her touting of it...
Fact is Mark Penn and Bill making private profit deals on trade, the lying for no reason she has done. Making Obama explain relationships, while her relationships are shaky if you use that line of reasoning...yes Rendell's comments on Farrakhan in the past....Rev Right being sought out as an advisor during Monica times....not disclosing that is a lie, when she talks about him being there for 20 years......all, ALL of that speaks to being trustworthy. Not to mention not reading the N.I.E...and voting for the war....attacking democrats that defended her like move on..call people elitist when she is the epidemy of elitism...lol.....That is why I think its laughable when talking about trust worthyness......This is not complicated at all.
May 12, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody asks Obama about his embellishments (to be fair others may be doing some of this for him). How many times have I heard "Summa Cum Laude" when it was Magna, Constitutional Scholar/Professor (like he did research in this, or simply taught 3 courses a year including Constitution), his mother being on foodstamps, etc. If I point out his grandmother was a bank VP, I get one guy continually coming back claiming this pays about the same as a grocery clerk. To the Obama crowd, he came out of nowhere when Hillary was a shoo-in "inevitable" candidate, even though his polling numbers were better than McCain's and almost as good as hers by the time he declared. For me it gives a not pleasant feeling. Others may like the spin, who knows.
May 12, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now your mixing things. Fact is, I dont know if his Grandmother was on food stamps or not. Whether or not she was a Bank Vp at one time does not mean she never was on food stamps.Im 36 years old, and for the first time in my life filed unemployment.
I truly dont care, because the point is Obama was not a privledged child like Hillary was. Now that does NOT mean she didn't work hard or her family didn't. I dont make those statements, but to confuse the two of thems backgrounds as if they came from the same place is just dishonest. Now, to box me or people alike into a corner which makes us think that politicians dont have to exploit things, then I say is cheap. I think the things you state about Obama are true misspeaks, conversely I thought I explained why what Hillary has done is not a misspeak at all. I accept that you may not see the difference as she is your candidate of choice.
I will give it to you like this again. She chose to defend her reason for the war vote. A stance that allot of people, well I for one were to ignore if she had just owned it. We understood she is a woman, had to portray strength. We understood that because of that she choose to play politics. Now, that wound would have healed with a little bit of ownership...(See Edwards)... She will not accept responsibility for anything. Things not going well, well its because she is a woman. People are betraying her, the media is to hard on her. Picture sports, or a general, a Ceo,ect..ect. would they cry foul, or accept what comes with being in a leadership position...anyhow Im off topic. The difference is she continues to be deceptive rather than be honest. Again, its not complicated at all.
May 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he was very much a privileged child like Hillary was. His stepfather was a Shell manager/golf fiend, his grandma was a bank VP and grandfather a store manager, and he managed to go to a prep school from the time he was 10. Deal with it. Your candidate is a yuppie, no matter how hard he wants to play it. Even the goatherd story is betrayed by his father's first wife, who notes Barack Sr. was a clerk in Nairobi for 5 years when he moved to the US. And the reason Barack and Michelle didn't repay their college loans earlier is obvious - they're subsidized at low interest rates, so there's incentive not to pay them back anytime soon. But Michelle plays this like life has been so hard on them (her father making $42K/year base in the 70's not counting external pay/benefits - not oh so suffering). Anyway, yuppies playing bitter - always warms my heart.
May 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he is not, and for the umpteenth time, you guys are amazing......See you in November!
May 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the student loans, certainly they had little incentive to pay them off earlier. But they also could have paid them off earlier if they did not choose to work in civil rights, non-profits and government positions.
And for the record, Bill C also chose public service in lieu of the earning potential of his Yale Law degree, and deserves to be commended for that, as does Hillary for the good work she did (although she was well-paid at the Rose Law Firm).
May 13, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he was very much a privileged child like Hillary was. His stepfather was a Shell manager/golf fiend, his grandma was a bank VP and grandfather a store manager, and he managed to go to a prep school from the time he was 10. Deal with it. Your candidate is a yuppie, no matter how hard he wants to play it. Even the goatherd story is betrayed by his father's first wife, who notes Barack Sr. was a clerk in Nairobi for 5 years when he moved to the US. And the reason Barack and Michelle didn't repay their college loans earlier is obvious - they're subsidized at low interest rates, so there's incentive not to pay them back anytime soon. But Michelle plays this like life has been so hard on them (her father making $42K/year base in the 70's not counting external pay/benefits - not oh so suffering). Anyway, yuppies playing bitter - always warms my heart.
May 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly delusional... But if you believe hard enough, you can convince yourself of anything.
May 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had to create an account to respond to Professorgate, because it is so laughable to any law student.
Obama referred to himself as a professor, which is accurate, both in a technical sense ("professor" is a proper general descriptive label for his position; all of his students would call him a professor), and in an ordinary sense (he taught Constitutional Law). It's not an embellishment by any stretch of the imagination; it is the most ordinary term used to describe what he did. Further, you couldn't
The irony of you citing Professorgate is that the only person involved who lied was Clinton. She said that he lied when he called himself a professor, which isn't true. She was in a position to know that it wasn't true, and that claiming he lied could only succeed by confusing laymen about terms like professor, Professor, Senior Lecturer, etc.
Obviously it wasn't a lie, but you might still be concerned that the sliver of people who are well enough informed about law professor employment to draw a distinction between full-time, tenured professors and all other professors - but not well enough informed to look up Obama's CV - would be misled about his specific position on the tenure track, because being on the tenure track raises favorable inferences with respect to ability. In this case, you can rest assured that he had the highest qualifications. He was constantly courted by one of the premiere law schools in the world to accept a full-time tenure-track position teaching the subject. In other words, there are no meaningful inferences relevant to his candidacy that you could draw from a belief that he was a tenured professor that aren't actually true.
Please, never use the word "spin" again in reference to others so long as you cite Professorgate to demonstrate Clinton's honesty relative to Obama. Otherwise I won't know whether to laugh or vomit, and might do both simultaneously all over my keyboard.
May 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have no sense of decency. They lie so easily.
May 12, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor is both a title and an honorific. It is not regulated by law. It's a red herring and not an issue at all.
We are honored to have a candidate who has taught Constitutional Law. IANAL, but to me the "rule of law" is essential. And it's restoration in this country cannot be postponed.
May 12, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The University of Chicago said he was a professor. And put out a press release saying so.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
But I guess your criteria for a professor is much higher than what a prestigious law school has.
Man you are so grasping.
At least he didn't fail the bar, then follow the future spouse like a puppy all over the place, then finally get around to passing it. Then what does she do? Go to work for the crooked Rose Law Firm and sit on the union busting Walmart.
Yeah your gal is a real winner.
May 12, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The University of Chicago covered his ass.
In prior press releases, they referred to him as a Senior Lecturer.
The important point is that his fans now think of him as a "Constitutional Scholar" and a Professor, rather than someone who taught 3 courses a year.
Hillary was a Professor at Fayetteville, teaching for 2 years. But Obama gets credit for being on a faculty when he was just teaching courses, and Hillary's experience is dismissed. All of this became an issue when Hillary's past was being negated and washed away and every Obama vote drive was elevated to an MLK-inspired first for Civil Rights.
May 13, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was a Senior Lecturer. And he was a professor. Senior Lecturers are indeed party of the faculty. And "just" teaching 3 courses at one of the top law schools in the country, while also practicing law and serving in the state senate?
Obama had a largely middle-class upbringing, true, but his grandparents lived (and his grandmother still lives) in what has been described as a non-descript high-rise apartment building. He went to an exclusive private school on a scholarship, and has written about his awareness of this privilege.
My guess is that Obama's family was also basically middle class while in Indonesia; I certainly don't hear anything in the stories about that time that indicate any particular privilege. I also suspect that there was some unhappiness there in his personal life--why else did he end up in Hawaii with his grandparents--but Obama doesn't choose to talk about that.
I don't know the details of the goatherder story--I'm not aware of Obama saying his father was a goatherder as an adult. In any event it's quite likely that his father told him he was a goatherder. I honestly don't understand how you can compare what is at most some fluffing like this with the whole Bosnia thing.
Remember Hillary first told the Bosnia stories when the line was circulating that as First Lady she went to a lot of teas. Hillary told the sniper story and finished with the snide line "I don't remember anyone on the tarmac offering us tea." She then went on to tell that story again and again--even in prepared remarks AFTER Sinbad was publicly saying she was wrong.
Then of course she was called on it, never apologized, said she misspoke because she was sleep-deprived (really, all of those times, and when you wrote the prepared remarks?). And then Bill went completely overboard with his "She said it one time late at night...." crap. Honestly, that's some sort of wierd compulsive lying going on there.
May 13, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just teaching 3 courses in a year is not the same as participating as a professor. People are confused - with good reason.
May 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one confused. What the hell does "participating as a professor" mean, and what does it have to do with whether he can rightfully be called a professor. Did you ever address your profs in college as "Lecturer"?
May 13, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the University of Chicago Law School:
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
May 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Like teaching at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville is in an way equivalent to teaching at the University of Chicago. She could've been distinguished professor at Fayeteville and it would still mean less on an academic vitae.
May 13, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How many times have I heard "Summa Cum Laude" when it was Magna"
Yeah, how many times? Link, please.
May 13, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you looked at the Pollster graph since 2006? How can you say with a straight face that they were polling "almost even" when he declared?
May 13, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, you know you are being disingenuous. You have brought this up before and have been corrected. He never said his father was a goat herder. It was his grandfather.
Come on. I can see why you identify with your candidate.
May 12, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ask his many fans, they think his father went from goatherder to scholarship in Hawaii. Try it, ask around.
May 13, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That hardly makes Obama a liar simply because other people are confused.
The same cannot be said for Hillary whose lies come directly out of her own mouth.
May 13, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you knew the truth (it was his grandfather and not his father) and yet you twisted it to say that Obama was lying.
I guess you are a genuine Hillary person after all.
May 13, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee and I believe that will be the case. It has nothing to do with trusting the guy. Keep it simple, or else things can get complicated. Find the saints in church I say! Trust? I have never trusted a politician in my entire life. Is there any reason to start now? I ask the question meaning no disrespect to Senator Obama.
By the way, everyone should read yesterday's NYT's article about Senator Obama and his elevation through the whole Chicago poitical scene. Then let's talk some trust; lots of Lani Guenierisms going on in this young man's brief eminently political career, from Palestinian professors to the man who has been his spiritual mentor. Trust? I take solace in knowing that the guy I'm likely to wind up voting for knows how to play the game so very, very well.
Whom do I trust? The people--some of them, enough to avoid a lifetime of cynicism.
May 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again. So because he has earned more trust to me personaly than any other politician ever has in life, that means we are unable to to disern the difference between that and being fool.
I thought it was stated to keep it simple. I do, give credit where credit is do. The man has not acted untrustworthy in my eyes, a politician at times yes, but that's the game the people have accepted for so long. Trust in him at least making a dent in that old way, yes I trust him to do that!
May 12, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean:
Sorry, my friend, but it's just not about you. If you trust the guy, that's really great. Trust away; I just care about the end result, sans McCain. If you want to tell me how he is going to change the old ways, go for it, post and post again. I am under no such illusions; I just think he will be more accountable to people in the middle and people on the left than John McCain will be. Sorry if that doesn't sound sexy, but don't shoot me because I'm not even the piano player.
Bruce
May 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, My Friend...It's not just about you either.
My only frustration is you think we are saying two different things when we are not. Unless you are implying what I hate about his detractors that I think that he is to be worshiped like a God. If You dont think being more accountable to the people MEANS changing the old ways, then I guess we...well, I just have nothing to say about that!
May 12, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean, I agree.
The thing that I think people are missing is you don't have to trust. The thing I love about Obama is sunshine and accountability.
Check out his senate page for all of the legislation he has championed to provide an open government.
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/
From google for government, where we can look up what is going on, to broadcast via internet all committee meetings. Even giving the citizens a 5 day weigh in where we can comment on bills sitting on his desk waiting to be signed into law.
He has vowed to go over and even reverse GWB's multitude of signing statements and reverse and OLC opinion that does not strictly adhere to the constitution.
This is what Obama thinks about executive power. From the Boston Globe Interview:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
That is a lot of sunshine folks, the best disinfectant. Even if you do not trust him fully, if you follow his IL senate record as well as his US senate record, you can see he is as good as his word.
This is 10000 times better than Hillary "Lobbyists are real Americans" Clinton or "100 years in Iraq" McSame.
May 12, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, he's gonna make a dent. When someone would say they were impressed by something or someone, my father used to say, "An impression is a dent, and a dent is a hole, and hole is nothing. Don't be so impressed!"
When I was 13, campaigning for Bobby Kennedy, I was convinced he was the second coming of Christ, and that he was going to change the world. I still have great respect for the man, and wish he had had the chance to try...but as an adult I recognize that he was far from being a saint, and that his best chance for really changing anything would have been in the Senate, not the Presidency.
The same is true for Obama. As President, he'll have to work within the system as it is. There are over 500 lawmakers who are comfortable with the way things are, and they're not likely to grovel at his feet. In fact, he's young, inexperienced and cocky, and that will invite major resistance from seasoned oldtimers who will be standing around corners with their feet out trying to trip him up, democrats as well as republicans. They will succeed. Believe me, the love affair between Kennedy and Obama will end in divorce.
May 13, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bruce,
Furnishing the link to the NYT article you mention:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html
as I had the url easily available.
Though some of the Obama worshippers will undoubtedly think the article to be evil, the article actually brought me myself and I more "hope" about Obama's executive potential than I previously had.
BTW, Bruce, turns out the Senator started wearing a flag pin today, :-) was just noted by Olberman. And probably not coincidentally, the sound bites I've noticed from him the last few days have to do with our fine men and women in uniform and how great America is. Think Axelrod has been seeing some serious patriotism problems in those polls, or what?
I'm actually glad to see it, shows savvy that I worried was missing. Previously my thought on this was: if one considers things like flag pins and patriotic rhetoric "silly" or unimportant, then it shouldn't be a big deal for one to use them, because it's not like you're flipflopping on some grand moral principle important to you. Shows a willingness to bend to reality as to the electorate. It's like when Mom wants you to dress nice for a special dinner, you do it for her even though you prefer to eat in your sweats. I'm a committed globalist and cosmopolitan, my first loyalty to NYC, but I don't see a damn thing wrong with some people expecting some iconic signs of nationalist patriotism in the person asking for the job of not just running that particular nation but being its representative to the world. You don't get to be Prime Minister of France by saying you prefer the EU to France and the French that love their country are all jingoists. I think this "flipflop" of patriotic stuff will allay some of fears of some white working class that are nervous about his cosmopolitan image.
May 12, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. A personal note for you, hot off the TPMCafe presses:
I believe you once sought that admission but couldn't get it. Well, now you have it. :-)
(In my definition, he's saying he's a troll, pure and simple.)
May 12, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser, my reply was posted below by mistake.
May 13, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. That's it. Come on in, Billy! You know what they say....kids are the best judge of character.
Caroline Kennedy couldn't resist her kids. Neither could Claire McCaskill.
;-)
Hop on board. There's plenty of room.
May 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's already on board. He's just hanging tough until the results are verified.
May 12, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want an open convention. Maybe a street fight or two.
May 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would certainly steal the spotlight from McCain. I'm all for it. Show Limbaugh what chaos really is.
May 13, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe,
Maybe we can get a "Beat It" style dance fight going!
May 13, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you really do. I lived through the last one. It really wasn't a good thing. It's your money, though--spend it how you like.
May 13, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
McSame vs Kool aid.
Much ado about nothing.
Nothing will change.
May 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because I'm easy come, easy go,
little high, little low,
Any way the wind blows
Doesn't really matter
to me . . .
Nothing really matters
Anyone can see
Nothing really matters
to me . . . .
May 12, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
a crap-speak panderer tries something new.
May 12, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but you gotta love Freddie!
May 12, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
GL - with the straight up dope!
Honestly - I think Gotalife would agree with me - the more people we can convince to stay out of the democratic process the better - because nothing will change.
Everyone should just give up. Total cool aid. He needs to lead.
Total cool aid. Total (cool aid).
May 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't help it: Your avatar made me laugh, gotalife.
May 12, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is funny, gotta be real. To bad they didn't come home against Obama...(dam..lol) I like the Hillary as Elmer the best though!
May 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, the koolaid one is weeeeeeaaaaaaak...I thought he still had the Chicken one....Boooooooo!
May 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Hillary Fudd is funny too.
May 12, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
NB: Not Hillary Fudd's comments, of course, just the avatar. Fudd's comments tend to be extremely obnoxious.
May 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny Blow, I was going to say the same thing about gotalife...:)
May 12, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goatlife, calling Goatlife!
I can't post this enough. I encourage everybody to take a look at the most recent Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com today. It's outstanding graphics make it worth a visit. I love the sinking Hillary and especially enjoy the new shark.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190987/
Do you think Hillary will be invoking SNL anymore in her campaign:
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=250052
May 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This explains a lot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080512/hl_nm/hookah_college_dc_1;_ylt=AoZRyww1rOliaRo76MPSjuIE1vAI
May 12, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude!
May 12, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly not your stupid posts.
May 12, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kids are a good barometer of what's really big in American culture. Back when I thought I had my three- and five-year-olds limited to PBS and a few Nickelodeon shows, I remember discovering that they both knew not only the Golden Arches but the whole McDonalds' menu.
On the one hand, I don't like being pushed around by that sort of giant movement. On the other hand, I do like knowing what the movements are.
Billy, I suggest that as you think about the race, you add your daughter's comments as evidence. Not that Obama's right, but as evidence that the Obama campaign has some pretty amazing methods that are how politics works.
May 12, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kids say the darndest things..
May 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing will change for you, Goatlife.
loser.
May 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn plagiarizer!
I think he's started a trend
The latest big thing
I first noticed the political rhetoric shift in Mark Leno's campaign for State Senate out of my district. On or about 2-3 days following the Iowa primary Leno beat Clinton to the punch in becoming
THE CHANGE CANDIDATE.
His opponents took up the slogan as of course did Hillary at least for a couple months, before she became Rosie the Rivetter and Annie Oakly
It's always a good sign when these framing changes occur that is if your candidate brought this on. Well now it appears that indeed EVERYBODY is talking about change.
This has gone TOO far
The Caucus: House G.O.P. Adopts Change Theme
Of course who can forget the seminal political spat of the season, perhaps one of the most earth shattering of Tuzla's Reign of Terror -
OBAMA Plagiarist-gate
May 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://political-fallout.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-plagiarizes-bob-builder-in-nh.html
All I want is someone to post a youtube mashup of Bob doing a call-and-response with supporters at on Obama rally.
May 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on in brother. It's about time.
May 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daughter Glad sounds like a smart one. Maybe a kid worth listening to.
Yes We Can Mashups: http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/04/yes-we-can-mash.html
May 12, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh, my life is now complete. Thank you.
May 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is going to get a little complicated."
Yep, too complicated for "Yes She Can" or "No We Can't". It's about time our government expected more of us and we had a leader who didn't either pretend like they could solve our problems on their own or that they didn't exist.
Billy, do you want a principal at your daughter's school who told you "I'll get all those kids breakfast and health insurance" or "that most of the children are doing fine" or one who "asked you to join an effort in the community to find a solution together"?
May 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generally agree that a democracy is truly one only with extensive and enduring participation of its citizens.
However, I think this is exactly what Mr. Glad writes, no?
May 12, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blockquotes got messed up. But you get the idea.
May 12, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm comparing the "Yes We Can" to "Yes She Can". I'm not talking about personal responsibility. What I am suggesting is that "Yes She Can" is a much more ridiculous slogan unless you believe she can actually solve all our problems on her own. If so, maybe Obama supporters are not the ones drinking kool-aid or watching cartoons (Bob the Builder). Some Hillary supporters are hitching a ride on an invisible jet and believe she is Wonder Woman.
May 12, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it Annie Oakley that sang: Yes I Can, Yes I Can.
Perhaps that is why Hillary has recently morphed into Annie Yokely.
May 12, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some Hillary supporters are hitching a ride on an invisible jet and believe she is Wonder Woman.
No doubt.
I am guessing they would make a similar claim of some supporters of Senator Obama.
Thanks for explaining.
May 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly Hillary's airplane. Get you there on time.
Fly Jefferson Airplane. Get you there on time.
Fly Translove Airways. Get you there on time.
May 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, please forgive me for going a bit off-topic, but I do have one minor point of disagreement...
It's about time our government expected more of us
I feel that I and my fellow citizens could expect more of me.
I think my government has very little right to expect anything from me whatsoever except perhaps for the "basics", like living within the law, etc.
May 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a big disagreement here I think, but seems like we should be doing more than putting an american flag bumper sticker on the SUV we drive to the mall during a time of war, increasing poverty, and global warming.
May 12, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!
May 12, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
American citizenry is hard work.
Hell, Billy, as long as you keep an open mind, think about the choices hard, and do so with that little Noggin fan at the forefront of your thinking, you can't make the wrong choice.
May 12, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just tired of hearing that we need health care insurance, when what we really need is health care. Insurance is legalized extortion.
We have been forced to purchase insurance for EVERYTHING & it's a scam that's bleeding this Country dry. Life is a series of risks that begin the moment we're born. Pretending we can remove those risks from all of society is the biggest fairy tale being told. Cut out the middle man (Insurance industry) & we could easily take care of our people.
May 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I have always hated any insurance for profit. Before I ever thought of politics.
May 12, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the great post.
This is going to be good. ;-)
May 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Farmer Pickles should be Obama's VP pick. That way the Dems can win the white rural vote that has so frustratingly eluded Obama.
May 12, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has far more white voters than Hillary has black voters. So you figure the logistics out from there, smartazz.
May 12, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking in terms of Obama vs. McCain. Why are you bringing up Hillary, Spud?
May 12, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow is Obama's next chance to prove he can connect with working class Democrats and Independents.
May 12, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tomorrow does not prove that he cannot connect to them in enough numbers to beat McCain, it only proves whether more of them prefer Hillary to Obama in a particular state.
May 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? What's happening tomorrow?
Link.
May 12, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when they are already being advised subtlely that they shouldnt...errr wont vote for him...Yes, lets see how that plays out.
How bout, this is the stuff Im tired of.
May 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the voters in West Virginia understand what's going on, just as the voters in Indiana and North Carolina did. If there is anyone left in America who can still cast a dispassionate vote, they must have just woken up from a coma. Tomorrow WVA will weigh in on the question of the week. Can Barack Obama win a large enough percentage of working class votes to carry the election in the Fall? Besides. It will be fun to see what happens when she doesn't have to spot him 20% of the vote going in.
May 12, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im Dizzy, cant wait to get off this ride!
May 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hope they have woken up from their coma since voting Bush in 2000 and 2004.
May 12, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so too...but doubt it.
May 12, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, because if Clinton's the nominee, West Virginia and Kentucky will go blue in the fall. She'd crush McCain in those states, borne to victory on a wave of support from those "hardworking Americans, white Americans."
What? That's not what the polls say? But I thought that winning a plurality of white bigots in the Democratic primary dictated electability in November! I must be confused ...
May 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, churlish of me not to say -- good story, Billy. It's true I think you're wrong about almost everything (I'm sure the feeling is mutual), but you tell a good story, and your daughter sounds really cute. Hope she convinces you!
May 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Barack Obama win a large enough percentage of working class votes to carry the election in the Fall?
Hi Billy,
I had thought the question I am supposed to ask was can he win enough "...working, hard-working Americans, white Americans..." in the Fall?
You know, those "...whites in both states who had not completed college..."
May 12, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, he's got one hasn't completed college vote anyway.
May 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We talked about this lack of a belly for a fight before, didn't we? It seems your daughter has gotten the best of you. Did you know that your daughter is attempting to bring an outside party into this situation? Did you know that? What happened, ass whoopings got sold out in Texas? I must say, this has become a great disappointment to us all. Perhaps they need a good talking to, if you don't mind my saying so. Perhaps a bit more. My girls, sir, they didn't care for the Overlook at first. One of them actually stole a pack of matches, and tried to burn it down. But I "corrected" them sir. And when my wife tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I "corrected" her.
May 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said before, she's gotten the best of me for the moment, Mr. Grady. Only for the moment.
May 12, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm relieved to hear that, Mr. Torrance. Very relieved.
May 13, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spooky...
May 13, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I was not sure that I should post this comment or not, because I was concerned you might take it the wrong way. So, just to clarify, I have read enough of your posts to know that 1) you don't simply "forget" or accidentally overlook things. 2) you have excellent intellectual honesty.
So I am hereby calling you out on your somewhat-rose-tinted parsing of Senator Clinton's recent language.
May 12, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she was stoned.
May 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clintons don't inhale. ;D
May 12, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever your feelings about whether Obama is the better candidate, in the end, I don't think it should be that complicated. It's not just Iraq, although that's a deal breaker right there, it's whether you want a President who believes government can and should do something for kids who don't have warm gloves and maybe don't get breakfast, whether you want a President who believes government has a responsibility to ensure that its citizens have access to healthcare, whether you want a President who will appoint more Scalias, Alitos, Thomases and Robertses to the Supreme Court who will do away with a woman's right to choose and allow the government to continue running roughshod over individual rights and continue limiting access to the courts and defering to Presidential power until..., whether you want a President who does not want to privatize (read: gut) social security, whether you want a President who would restore some fiscal responsibility instead of more and greater tax breaks for those who least need them, etc. I could add to the list; these are just the first things that come to mind.
I can understand your feeling that Hillary might have a greater chance at achieving these things. I can even understand having some mistrust of Obama's qualifications. (And I can surely understand not wanting to give the satisfaction to the more extreme, hysterical Obama supporters on this site who have basically accused your candidate of consorting with the Devil). But unless you don't think these issues really matter, when it comes down to it, it's pretty simple.
May 12, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I said "Hillary may have a greater chance of achieving these things" I didn't mean to imply that she had a greater chance of achieving the laundry list of potential McCain nightmares. I meant to refer to the common agenda she basically shares with Obama.
May 12, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you feel about Zbigniew Brzezinski, Armchair?
Or about Obama's dismissals of both Samantha Power and Robert Malley?
I ask because people, including Billy's 8-year-old daughter, tend to sum up U.S. foreign policy in terms of Iraq alone. Since Obama is the presumptive nominee, shouldn't we make decisions beyond Iraq?
May 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like maybe Iran?
May 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Took the words right out of my mouth.
May 12, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anna, leave this mindless thread while there's still time. You are beset on all sides by lame snark from the era when Hillary mattered. Run!
May 12, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the warning, gotawife. Glad you have my back.
May 12, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello Readytoblow...
I'm not following where you're going with this. What is it about Brzezinski that should concern me? Is it that he has defended Walt & Mearsheimer? Ditto Samantha Power. Other than her ill-advised comment about Hillary, is there something about her views that I might find troubling? As for Malley, I know him as long time Clinton administration official and negotiator in the Camp David talks. Since then, I've read some of his pieces in the NY Review challenging the widespread assumption that Arafat alone was responsible for the talks' failure. While I wasn't entirely persuaded by his position, nothing I've read or heard would lead me to reject Obama because of their affiliation. Nor am I terribly upset by his meeting with Hamas; as director of the Mideast Crisis Group (I think that's what it's called), it seems like something he should be doing. I'm quite certain he was not doing so as a representative of the Obama campaign. Indeed, Obama jettisoned him as soon as word got out - an understable move from a political perspective.
I believe that as President Obama would return us to the centrist foreign policy consensus that obtained until Bush II took us so drastically off course. Sure, he'd probably stand a tad to the left of Hillary, but nothing I've heard from him indicates that he'd deviate from the mainstream Democratic Party principles on any of these issues. He might be more likely than Hillary or McCain to press Israel to make concessions in the peace process - something I don't think is such a terrible idea - but will maintain America's longstanding support. Most of Obama's foreign policy advisers are former Clinton Administration folks and while there are many views represented, Obama himself seems centrist and cautious. The image of him sitting down to tea with Ahmedinijad is a gross exaggeration. McCain on the other hand may even stand to the right of Bush on these issues.
May 12, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I wasn't alluding to Hillary (and Power's comment about her) at all. I'm not comparing Hillary and Barack.
I'm looking for Barack's overall foreign policy philosophy, some of which can be discerned—at least in part—from the people he chooses as his advisers.
I don't have a problem with Malley meeting with Hamas, either, but I do have a problem with Barack jettisoning him.
Some of Barack's hawkish advisers trouble me. Several of Barack's hawkish speeches bother me. A lot. As much as McCain's hawk talk.
May 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The below article from Foreign Policy in Focus examines the teams chosen by Hillary and Obama. Below is from the summary:
"On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort."
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
May 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the article link, whoffman. It's fine for a list-of-names starter piece, but contains info I can easily Wiki. It's too superficial and Iraq-centric for me to really answer my concerns about Obama.
Can you ease my mind about this article by Joe Mowrey called The Audacity of Hypocrisy? It's about the troubling issue of Islam in Obama's "race" speech.
Or can you help me reconcile Obama's Afghanistan strategy while he receives counsel from Brzezinski? I just can't wrap my brain around the irony of that one.
Thanks!
May 12, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can find more analysis of the candidates foreign policies, including Iran, at www.fpif.org.
Mowrey's article is crap in my opinion, no basis at all for his conclusions. See Obama's recent statements on Israel:
"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.
I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described."
Can you explain the contradiction you see with regard to Obama's Afghanistan strategy and where he has agreed with Brzezinski? Obama has been clear that he does not agree with Brzezinski on everything:
"I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce ... for a speech on Iraq." He also said that Brzezinski would not be Secretary of State or a senior advisor to Obama as president.
If you have some real (not troll) concerns post your own blog with specifics and we can discuss further.
May 12, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have real (not troll) concerns. Don't have time to post a blog about them yet, but that's a good idea. Thanks.
May 12, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready,
This article might be of interest.
From Foreign Affairs Magazine back in July:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
May 12, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting Jeremy Scahill interview with Democracy Now! about Obama's Iraq policy, including a) keeping the Green Zone intact, b) maintaining the embassy, and c) increasing military spending, troops, and mercenary forces.
May 13, 2008 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mowrey is a Palestinian rights activist (hence the "heat" in his article). If you think the Palestinians are crap, you might think Mowrey's opinion is crap, too. Or you could consider that he has a fine-tuned ear for Arab and Muslim slurs and slights. Me? I'm sticking with Mowrey on this one. Why? Because when Obama got into trouble for his pro-Palestinian sentiment ("Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"), he equivocated and squandered the chance to take some leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Right. Using Obama's own words, I've pared down his statement on Israel to the bare-bones pandering, cliched, status quo, or oatmeal essentials:
1) anti-American militant jihadists
2) inexcusable actions
3) we have a national-security interest
4) I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.
5) my job in being a friend to Israel
6) hold up a mirror and tell the truth
7) if Israel is building settlements
8) without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process
Okay, but so much for showing leadership. If you haven't noticed, every American politician says this! Am I supposed to be impressed?
In that same interview, Obama throws Jimmy Carter under the bus (of course).
Also, Obama says he connected with the Jews after reading Philip Roth! Oy.
Sorry, no time. You can read up on his role in Afghanistan yourself circa 1979. Maybe you'll see the sad goes-around-comes-around irony, maybe you won't.
That's weird. Brzezinski's name appears first in all references to Obama's foreign policy advisers that I've seen.
May 13, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, WHAT?!!
Senator Clinton tells the world that she is prepared to OBLITERATE another nation in a situation where the USA is not even under attack, and you are worried that Senator Obama is hawkish?
What on earth has any individual on the Obama team posited that comes within a fucking hand grenade of even THINKING its morally acceptably to MURDER tens of millions of fellow human beings because their government attacked another country?
And HELL YES we should make decision beyond Iraq, but we sure as shit shouldn't make any more decision LIKE Iraq!
May 12, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please calm down, Slouch.
I'm not talking about Clinton. How many times do I have to say that?
I'm talking about Obama. And yes, I want someone/anyone to answer about Obama's hawkishness on his own terms. Not in comparison to Clinton. Not in comparison to Bush. Not in comparison to McCain. Not called "centrist" without defining it. And not about his speech against the invasion of Iraq. I want some depth.
I bet no one here can do it.
That's because Obama's a hawk. A hawk is a hawk. I know one when I see one.
Some hawks just have more poetic rhetoric than other hawks.
May 12, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, really? Then why did you draw this line in the sand?
Incidentally, if you've got a right to ask me answer for Senator Obama's "hawk talk," I don't see how its out of line for me to ask you to answer for Senator Clinton's "hawk talk" whether your talking about her or not. I'll even make it easier on you: I don't care WHO you compare it to. McCain, Tancredo, Stalin, whoever. Use whatever tools you need to to define her "centrist" stance on Iran.
But you're right, I can't answer for Senator Obama's hawkishness, especially when said hawkishness is defined like this:
I am simply at a loss for words to explain your subjective assessment that Senator Obama and his team are hawks. Since I haven't come to the same conclusion, until we have a specific example or two to chew over, you win. You've stumped me, just like you knew you would.
May 12, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to stump you or trick you or draw a line in the sand, Slouch. Probably I have not asked the right question yet. Please bear with me.
I thought TPM would be the best place to ask questions about Obama, but it doesn't seem to be critical enough for me. Personally, I learn more from a critical analysis than I do from rave reviews. (That's likely because of my training.) I learn more about Sen. Clinton when she's criticized than when she's praised. I've learned a lot about her since I started reading TPM. :-)
To shift gears to a different medium to better illustrate my point: I learn more about making art when I study another (art)work's flaws.
Or, to shift again: we can learn from history when people make mistakes.
Anyway, I get frustrated asking questions about Obama and getting diverted to a discussion about Clinton instead. Sorry if my frustration got in the way. Your bolds, caps, and exclamation points may have been hard for me to ignore.
When I say I want someone/anyone to answer about Obama's hawkishness on his own terms. Not in comparison to Clinton, I mean I want someone to point me to a critical analysis of Obama's foreign policy stance. I don't want to hear criticisms of Clinton as an explanation of Obama saying, "I am not opposed to all wars." I want to know what he means specifically by "carrots and sticks" (of course I know what it means in general).
Maybe no such analysis or criticism of Obama's policies exists yet. I have not searched exhaustively, but I have read what little criticism there is of him. It's dribs and drabs. Mostly the writing about Obama is fawning. I have no use for fawning. Even Juan Cole is untrustworthy when it comes to Obama, because he's incapable of being objective. I want objective. I prefer the hard reality to the turn of phrase. (With George Bush we got neither.)
In the meantime, I have taken it upon myself to study Obama's speeches, to listen for pandering, to be watchful for code words and emotional manipulation. Just like I have done for Clinton. Just like I will do for McCain (when I can stand to—haven't gotten to that point yet). But it's slow going.
From my reading and from my own interpretation of Obama's words, I think he is a hawk. I have said so before. I have said all three candidates are hawks in my book. In my book, someone like Dennis Kucinich qualifies as a dove, Obama does not.
Now I forgot my question.
May 12, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Gasket,
First, I must apologize for flying off the handle earlier. I had been at work twelve hours without lunch. I was grouchy.
Second, part of my current trade is communicating through typography, motion, and color. I am used to having literally hundreds of tools for emphasis at my fingertips. As such, I tend to over-use the communication options here to break up the static text. Often, I'm not really yelling, I'm just stressing the parts I feel are important.
I'd love the link to your analysis of the speech you are discussing with Anna. Having now read the speech I have some points I'd like to discuss.
Not tonight, I have to digest this dung heap of a day and determine how to make tomorrow different.
PS, is your training in Journalism? I used my GI Bill for J-School, but I was too busy teaching myself my current career to nail down all of the credits my senior year.
May 13, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
No J-school. English (and creative writing) major. Then on-the-job journalism training on magazines (graphic design, environmental, science/nature); eventually moved into books. The now-ingrained habit is looking at things critically (meaning, like an editor), whether it's literary or scientific, for adults or kids, images or straight text.
"Criticism" has a negative connotation to some people; for me it's more like seeing how a jigsaw puzzle goes together, if that makes sense. When I'm lucky I can apply that "puzzle-seeing" (for pleasure, not professionally) to visual or narrative arts, like theater.
I know what you mean about working in color, etc., I have to watch my own tendencies to overemphasize blog text! ha! What's your current career, Slouch?
Here's the link to the Booman thread. My analysis (some of which you've already read) evolved as he asked me questions. However, I could only get through the first 29 paragraphs of The War We Need to Win before I freaked out! (I explain why in the thread, but I hope it becomes clear.) Scroll up for Booman's OP. ;-)
cheers,
rtbag
May 13, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute, Slouch. What she said was if Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon, we would retaliate for Israel and obliterate Iran.
I'd like you to answer this one by one.
Do you understand that the situation we are talking about is one in which Iran has just attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon, possibly destroying Israel's ability to strike back?
How many Israelis would have been killed by Iran in the attack?
What do you think our response should be?
What do you President Obama's response would be?
May 12, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
Millions. In addition the situation would probably include an unfathomable number of non-Israeli deaths. Almost all of the slaughtered would be, by almost any moral calculation, innocent lives.
I won't pretend to know what "our" response "should" be.
I can say what I think our response shouldn't be: Vengeful, indiscriminant, and arrogant.
The pragmatist in me realizes that while "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" may make for good T-Shirt sales around Ft. Benning, it's shitty foreign policy. It's the mindset that got us into the quagmire we're in now.
The idealist in me knows that its wrong.
I did not duck the question of how horrific the initial attack could be. I will not accept that the loss of millions of innocent lives somehow justifies the taking of more innocent life on a massive scale simply because we can and we're pissed.
This is not to say that I believe military action would not be justified. The USA would have no choice but to neutralize the threat. People who had nothing to do with it would die in horrible ways. But a response like obliteration is not the only answer.
I won't presume to know how Senator Obama would respond. My personal assessment is that his principles are similar to many of my own: Sometimes force is necessary. Excessive force is wrong. Using the US Military for revenge is wrong. I trust him to act within a set of moral boundaries that more or less line up with the way I see the world.
I don't expect you to accept that answer, but that's what I've got.
May 12, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally accept it. But do you believe we would do it? Do you understand and believe that if the Iranians were crazy enough to attack Israel with nuclear weapons we really would retaliate with nuclear weapons? Belief is everything in deterrence. If you don't believe it, maybe the Iranians won't believe it. If they don't believe it, they might try.
May 12, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy/Slouch:
Here's a thoughtful take on Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comment courtesy of Wampum.
When I think about Hillary accepting the premise of the question, and then uttering the words of deterrence, I consider her as fearless, not nihilistic. (I realize only Hillary supporters will understand why I say this.) Barack capitalized on the media spin Hillary threatens to 'obliterate' Iran, as he should have. But that's more political gamesmanship on Barack's part than sincerity. When he gets his turn in a debate with John McCain, he'll do the same thing Hillary did. If you don't believe me, let's watch and see if I'm right. I expect I will be.
May 13, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at The Obama Doctrine over at The American Prospect.
May 12, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
anna am,
Thanks for the American Prospect piece; it's more detailed and complex than most articles, which is what I'm looking for.
I'll try to explain why it doesn't relieve my anxiety about Obama, however.
I did an analysis of Obama's August 2007 speech The War We Need to Win on Booman Tribune once. I'll provide a link if you want, but for now, I'll just provide some excerpts. Obama's speech contradicts the premise of The Obama Doctrine at American Prospect. The Doctrine is summarized as:
First, the "relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda" is not dovish. This "both and neither" answer is a cop-out by the author, Spencer Ackerman.
Second, Obama's War speech in particular is all about the politics of fear. He uses the exact same fear-triggering words and language that Bush uses, and he uses them in the same way Bush has in the past. I can hardly bear to read the speech myself. Here's part of my critique, fwiw:
Yes, it's a speech about terrorism. But it's more than that. Obama, like Bush, throws in all the hot-button and patriotic issues he can: 9/11, bin Laden, Pearl Harbor, the Iron Curtain, al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, the Taliban, Syria, North Korea, terrorist cells in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. He pushes the lie about Congress's role in giving Bush permission to go to war. He says:
I want a president to talk about achieving peace. I want peace to be mentioned more than once! But obviously, that's not the type of president we get to choose in 2008.
For me, The War We Need to Win, "I'm not opposed to all wars," and other pandering speeches (about Israel, primarily) are why I define Obama as a hawk, not a dove.
May 12, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see that link.
I'm reading the speech right now.
May 12, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket, I hear you and while I'm an Obama supporter, I don't like the hawkish posturing either. I will check out the speech you link to definitely, but there have been other comments that give me pause, and while I still think Obama's take is the best we've got right now, in that he seems (at points) to get what the problems really are and his comments are often suggestive of a paradigm change, I'm way tired of all these people posing for history in their big boots. But can anyone get elected without it? Look at the roasting Kerry took for suggesting intelligence, international crime enforcement and special ops to combat terrorism.
May 13, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Kerry got fried.
Thanks, anna am.
May 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
gasket, thanks for the critical commentary and the link. I think there's at least a little political positioning in that piece, since Obama needs to appear "strong" and "patriotic" -- and, rightly or wrongly, this country associates both with military strength. In making the argument that judicious use of force is more effective than reflexive use of force, he still needed to prove that he's capable of using force at all. (And yes, that is a concession to the "American imperial framework.") It would interesting to see the polls, if any have been done, but I'd bet the American people are about as likely to elect a pacifist president as they are to elect an openly atheist one. Anyway, that was more a comment about the tone and the diction of the speech more than the content. The content itself deserves much more involved thought than I have time for right now!
May 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
also, rtbg, i agree with whoever it was who said that this merits it's own post.
May 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"its", dammit. hate it when i violate my own pet peeves.
May 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, I wasn't editing you! Thanks for the comments, CaliforniaPaige. When I get some other projects under control, I'll try a blog post. Can't keep up right now. ;-)
May 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice sci-fi work Billy.
May 12, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy's writing actually has its own voice in my head, like a police story, à la Georges Simenon, but in English.
May 12, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you cast a vote in the general, you're not just voting for a candidate, or even the candidate's advisors, but for the mass of other people pulling the same lever. Because the candidate you elect is going to have to govern in a way that keeps his or her constituents happy.
This means that your vote can never be pure. You're always voting with and for *someone* you don't like. But it also means that Obama supporters should have no difficulty voting for HRC in the general, and vice-versa. Just ask yourself whether you're likely to have more in common with the people who will be voting McCain, or the other people voting Democratic.
It shouldn't be tough.
Glad to have you (and your hypothetical daughter) on board, Billy.
May 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an explanation that resonates with a ring of realism and truth. Again, find the saints in church. I get hives when folks start telling me there's something new and different in Washington, D.C.
May 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because the candidate you elect is going to have to govern in a way that keeps his or her constituents happy."
There you have it.
May 12, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJC4Fh_EImc
May 13, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the kind of things Democrats were saying in early 2004.
May 12, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
May 12, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you liked this comment, you may also enjoy this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqAJwkeBvoU&feature=related
or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYGtVDyWDcc
I highly recommend the book of Proverbs, as well.
"Prov.23 [29] Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?"
May 12, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for realizing that the worst thing you have to deal with is an intellectual complication. Your daughter ROCKS! The fact that you raised her to think for herself speaks volumes.
May 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only when she gets out the door on time.
May 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy: Much prefer the new avatar picture to the one of that wicked intense actor you used to have.....
May 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which wicked intense actor?
May 12, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh-oh... That's the one. He's back...
May 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
desidero -
seriously. if you look back on this nomination and see things the way that your posts claim, then i, for one, don't really care to convince you to return to the deomcratic tent. if you watched hillary repreatedly slamming obama, and obama, for the most part, handling her with kid gloves, and decided that obama was being mean to her, then, please, continue your drift to the other side.
sometimes, there is a right and a wrong, not simply two interpretations.
hillary has run a dirty, low-brow campaign. hillary and her surrogates have repeatedly injected race and gender into the discussion. hillary said that she had no reason to doubt obama's claims that he's not a muslim.
if you're the kind of person that watches this and gets all warm and fuzzy inside, then it's time to stop pretending to be liberal and simply move into rove's camp.
you'd feel much more comfortable there, and they'd agree with you on a lot more.
May 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
gee, 16 months of stupid shit Rove comments. Oh no, Obama's camp never did nuttin'. It was just little Miss pantssuit inevitable.
Sorry, that's a wrinkled up narrative. Nobody paying attention buys these cheap goods. Go peddle it to the MSM, they're always looking to recycle a slur or an invective.
May 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats it Desidero...The are you going to believe your lying eyes or your rationalizations take has convinced me to vote for Hillary....Hillary 08'
Now, how do we get rid of this popular vote and delegate count thats stopping us.
May 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the voters seem to be voting pretty well for Hillary. It's actually the convoluted delegates and superdelegates process that's favoring Obama right now over popular vote, ironically enough.
But a small clue stick - it's not Hillary's job to explain Obama's ethnicity or dig him out of holes that he dug himself into through weasel words. She didn't set him down in that pew, and she answered as well as she needed to about the situation. He had 16 years to come up with an answer. He's been blowing holes in her since day 1 with his "Barry had a speech" line on the AUMF. So why the fuck didn't he come up with a similar line for Rev. Wright and whatever else ails him? Obama's little BFF Jesse Jackson Jr. went out and did BO's dirty work on race in South Carolina - don't expect that I have to be some naive pollyanna not to notice. So if you like the guy, fine, but he butters bread the same as anyone else, and there will be no new day, new way in Washington - it'll just be his cronies instead of somebody else's cronies. Which doesn't bother me. I'm only concerned that he's competent enough to run a government, which is alarge sight different than a campaign. Ever heard about the dog that caught the car?
May 12, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol..So if Obama is winning using the seem primary rules they have been in the past, the the voting system is convoluted....Ok got that, and Oh what I heard Bill Clinton say about South Carolina and Jessie Jackson, was because Jessie Jr went their and when I went to sleep at night, he snuck into my dreams and brainwashed me of it. Oh, and Obama has a huge lead in the Popular Vote, so not sure what thats about......You guys hipocrisy knows no bounds. I want to know this. As a Democrat who Im sure is all about equality, tell me desidero, what was so offensive to you about what Wright said? After you answer to that, please tell me what you think about Older white people when they say something that is offensive, do you give them a pass because they are old? If I get an honest answer I will be shocked.
As far as Hillary's Job...well you just lost me there.
Besides, I told you you, Am I going to believe my lying eyes and ears, or you and her campaign talking points? You convinced me, whats the plan to get us the nomination....What pictures of him in lingerie with a teenage boy?.Or something more serious like His pastor once ran a stop light? Come on, whats the plan?
May 12, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning using the same.
There.
May 12, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how des's mind works.
That is true. Running a government is much, much harder than running a campaign. So you could say that running a campaign is kind of like a trial run on a small scale.
Let's see how "ready from day one" candidade ran her campaign. Oh better yet, lets make a comparison.
How Hillary ran her campaign like GWB ran the Iraq war:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adament that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men'and appointed incompetent loyalists to high ranking positions (solis doyle, mark penn, etc).
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
Give you chills, doesn't it?
By contrast Obama's was a lean, mean, well oiled machine:
From the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Any intelligent person, judging from how poorly and shortsighted the Clinton Campaign was/is compared to Obama's excellent organization, would choose the latter.
May 13, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You meant to say From an Op-Ed Piece by Frank Rich.
Sorry, that's cheap and dishonest, mageduley. Not to mention, it took up a lot of space.
Op-ed pieces are exactly that: opinion pieces.
In other words, who gives a shit what Frank Rich says about running a government!
Next!
May 13, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your right, Frank Rich is only one guy. Lets look at some others:
From The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
May 13, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or this from Capital Eye, the folks that run the Center For Responsive Politics and opensecrets.
A pure data site, it can disseminate what a candidate says versus what the reality is.
According to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, however, Clinton's assertion doesn't quite hit the mark. While some lobbyists certainly do represent "real" people and large corporations, those who are contributing to the 2008 presidential candidates—including the senator from New York—aren't on Capitol Hill to talk about the issues of nurses or social workers, or firefighters or cops. By matching lobbyists who have donated to the presidential candidates this year with their clients, the Center found that these individuals are instead largely advocating for big industries such as pharmaceutical, automotive and computer companies.
Clinton has not received a single donation from lobbyists working for the two largest trade groups representing the working-class Americans she cited in August, the American Nurses Association and the National Association of Social Workers.
Clinton's lobbyist-contributors represent a $225 million slice of the Washington influence industry, for that is how much they billed their clients, either individually or as members of lobbying teams, during the first half of 2007, according to the most recent disclosure reports available. Clinton contributors who lobby for pharmaceutical companies and interests billed more than any other industry, $30.7 million, or 14 percent of the total. They represent such drugmakers as Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the influential trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).
http://www.capitaleye.org/capital_eye/inside.php?ID=315
And yet she has the freaking nerve to say "Yes I will take money from lobbyists, because like it or not, those lobbyists represent real Americans, like nurses and social workers."
Obama had this reply to her outrageous assertion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQK84pmCfBY&NR=1
May 13, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this, a look inside the Clinton Campaign from the Washington Post. Or is WaPO just another anti-Hillary publication as well? (you must be running out of credible one)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621_3.html?sid=ST2008030600084Is this how we would like our government run?
May 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
mageduley, fyi, I used to love Frank Rich for being a lone, persistent, and harshly critical voice against Bush-Cheney in the MSM.
I stopped loving him when he decided to eat Democrats for Sunday brunch.
May 13, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this Atlantic piece when it first came out, mageduley. It's interesting. Thanks.
I personally think Hillary should be allowed to fuck up without being compared to George Bush. There is no question Solis Doyle crashed and burned. There's no question Mark Penn is overpaid. There's no question Hillary's campaign has tripped, stumbled, and fallen on its face. I'm not denying it.
But it has also recovered, competed, and learned from mistakes. Not enough to win the ultimate prize, apparently, but good enough for real life.
Obama's campaign has stumbled too. Obama has canned a bunch of staff simply for stupidity. Axelrod is despicable. Bill Burton is shockingly inarticulate. Hillary's campaign forced Obama to spend out the wazoo! Is that what you want in a president? Someone who throws money at a problem to fix it? How about a fair comparison here?
George Bush does not learn from mistakes, btw. He doesn't have to. He's in a protected and rarified class. No one deserves to be compared to him.
May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready, I was simply disputing Des's assertion that:
I was merely answering the question of competency. If you compare the two candidates, one of whom thinks she is better on the economy, I think the comparison has merit.
May 14, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, we get better drugs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080512/hl_nm/hookah_college_dc_1;_ylt=AoZRyww1rOliaRo76MPSjuIE1vAI
This finally explains Virginia and Wisconsin.
May 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Here's what she really meant to say. "working, hard-working Americans, fucking white Americans..."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=txrikNFX-8E&feature=related
May 12, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone wakes up in here, give me a holler. You folks gotta do better. He's not interested in softballs anymore.
May 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just realized what the West Virginia primary reminds me of. Florida and Michigan.
May 12, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wish!
May 12, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I really think West Virginia is another case of his not outspending her 2 or 3 to 1 on TV ads and mailers, drumming his message into people's minds until they think he's the better candidate.
Stepping back from the ads and the glitter, you can see she's the better candidate.
She should do pretty well tomorrow.
May 12, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
She will undoubtedly do better than well but the press seems to have already decided it's a nonevent, and if they do blow it off, it won't mean much -- have to turn on the lights and the turn the music up to keep (get) people interested and that doesn't seem to be happening. Could be wrong about that. They might make a story of it and try to revive the "race for nomination" to boost ratings, but right now Obama as nominee seems to ruling the news cycle, though of course only time will tell.
May 12, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton is the best candidate but Obama got the delegates is going to rule news cycles in the next month or so.
May 12, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol...No you can see she's the better candidate. Thing is, I dont think you can see anythig else sir.
May 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whats that mean Cypher?
May 12, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not supposed to ask that. He(/she/it) is a cypher!
May 12, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a weakness for the muscle-dude. I like him.
May 12, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likewise, I think..
Muscle dude, not sure if you talking bout past posts, or the picture..doesnt matter though!
May 12, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
ahhh!
May 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's bored. Looks like only bionic soy will get him going.
May 12, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an opening here if someone wants to really talk about what he wrote, especially the end. But it's too meaningful for me to deal with. I'll just check by now and then and test the temperature.
May 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher is Billy is Cypher is Billy
May 12, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If not, he's a lot worse off than he knows.
May 12, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's so obvious. cypher stokes billy, cypher shares his taste in threads and friends, both claim past tx political involvement, both claim organizing get out the vote skill, cypher's diction is fake and fades in and out, sorry i don't agree that billy's worth comparing to faulkner or hemingway. cypher tries to lure people into the billy-desidero yellfest threads.
it's like in no way out when costner knows hackman is the killer but hackman doesn't know costner is the agent.
cypher would be the easiest character around here to fake, don't you think?
May 12, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I do think very easy, gotawife. But please note, I said no way Faulkner, and Hemingway's not my meat actually, so that's an easy toss for me.
May 12, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
then do it.... but at length
May 12, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's what you are missing..
if you read my posts, i have three styles. Informative when talking culture and history, but when writing fast, comes off with a lot of mistakes. The third is just collapsing into nothing....whatever
Those are my three styles. You will find them in my various posts.
It hasn't occurred to you that I really like Desidero and Billy. They are the most interesting people here. If you follow my writing, you will find some long pieces on Obama, American history, opera, whatever. These are my interests.
If you want to talk IDEAS in any of those posts, get back to me and we can go to that thread and discuss more than this crap.
OK. Standing offer. Discuss. Ideas. We can lay aside this "debate" and get real anytime.
May 12, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Billy, this has gotten a bit out of hand.
OK. For the last time you crap thinkers. I can't spell or punctuate when I'm typing fast.I don't write the same rhythmic structure as does Billy. Compare the styles. He has one. I'm all over the place.
He's organized. I'm chaotic. Going back and forth between these modes is quite difficult. But you what, crap-thinker? If you think it's possible, why don't you try it?
I have my own games, certainly, but those games do not include Billy.
May 12, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, Billy, Billy.
Are you a poser?
On your thread, just yesterday, you said:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/clinton-rules-telling-the-fat.php#comment-2806094
You also said you were going to campaign in OH for McCain and donate to McCain.
I'm calling you out, Billy, Billy, Billy. Are you going for Obama or McCain?
Either is cool, but I personally think you are getting to a place of being a pathological liar. That or just an attention queen. Pick a personality and stick to it, Billy, Billy, Billy!
As you know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
And to the TPMers here, re: Billy Glad:
A waste is a terrible thing to mind.
May 12, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all just about attention.
May 12, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best Ironic Comment Award!
May 13, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one. Yeah. I think I will work for McCain in Ohio or Indiana, whichever one he has the most solid lead in. Unlike the Kennedys and others, I don't let my kids tell me how to vote. If I do let one of them decide for me, I'll let my son decide. He's old enough to vote. I may change my mind if Obama comes closer to Clinton on some key issues.
May 12, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Billy,
Before you go out and campaign for McCain, I feel the need to inform you what the republicans (not neocons) are talking about. This from a southern talk show host.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uFauzE_cqw
While this guy won't vote for Obama because of his "Liberal Stances" I am betting there are many many centrists who will.
May 13, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think I will work for McCain....I may change my mind if Obama comes closer to Clinton on some key issues."
Having a little cognitive dissonance, there, Billy?
May 13, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which key issues would matter to you?
May 13, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Billy! Really loved it.
But on a slightly tangential topic.
On my way home tonight, I decided to do some TPM-ing on my I-phone.
As a result I have some GOOD and BAD news to report.
The BAD NEWS- Desidero's cool morphing
chimp/skull/cousin it thing doesn't morph!
The GOOD NEWS- Genghis' shirt finally stopped
flashing!
May 12, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have an iPhone? How did I look? DId my blue come through?
Could you make out that stuff on my head?
May 12, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher, you look great, an indigo butterfly.
May 12, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
but not blinking, right? jus' a blob of fucking blue
i'm good
May 13, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, the whole world looks better on an iPhone, don't it? ;-)
May 12, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has changed my fuckin' life!
May 12, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's easy to do for English major types like Billy. His own writing's a pastiche of bunches of dudes from the library shelves -- makes me think of Malamud some of the time, which is a compliment, but also Mailer, which isn't. He's internalized Hemingway so it doesn't really come out like Hemingway at all, but you still think Hmingway sometimes. Very interesting, and that's a compliment too.
Anyhow, I bet Billy could do anyone you asked him to do -- except maybe Faulkner. That would be a stretch, and probably the Brits like Amis and Ishiguro would be too. But it would be no sweat for him to create the rhythms and cadences of someone he'd like to come off as a natural, but unexposed and untutored, writer type. He can write, and since he can, he can create anything he wants to whenever he wants to.
On the other hand, if you are a different person and you'd just like to be his left ball, well, I guess that's okay too.
May 12, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant this for Cypher, his post above.
May 12, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you the critic? Why don't you show us how it's done? Just a little. If you get the difference between these writers, go on and give us a show, dear. We crave nuance today.
May 12, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What planet do you live on? Critics aren't writers. They're critics. Ever read any of Harold Bloom's poetry?
May 12, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly what I meant. Let me go one word at a time so I can make my offer for you to put up or shut up.
You have indicated that you have some expertise about writers. I am asking you to show us how someone would write in these different styles.
Put up or shut up? Make good or make tracks? Take the bet or book? What's it gonna be-- shower lady who reads books....
Don't turn this around as an attack on me, OK? I'm sort of looking forward to how you might do it.
Please
May 12, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understood you. No change in answer.
May 12, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't do it then? Cause if ya could, I know you would.
Ya see. This is what I call crap-think. Statements made with a Wikipedia tag, a passing reference to a book read at school. A critique made so easily, yet withdrawn so quickly.
Not even going to continue about all those writers you know?
May 12, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
i told you this thread was dangerous
or at least dangerously inane
May 12, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You only think you are thinking. You are not.
May 12, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cogo ergo cogo
May 13, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I read Mr. Glad's piece, I think he is pondering his own nature through this choice. What is more important - his principles or his daughter's future? Would voting for Obama make that future better? He has said recently that he wants to help McCain win a state. I think that he believes that would be an act of honor. He certainly has no enthusiasm for Obama.
He thrives on anger, specifically the fun of it through the provocation here. But he has realized that his anger may not be the right energy at this moment to protect his daughter. He has said recently that he would appear to defend Mrs. Clinton's reputation. I think that is changing. He has to defend and protect his child. Can he do both at the time?
I am a person on a journey to quell anger and see it as another form as desire. Neither can release me from endless questions with no answers. Beyond anger and its fickle cousin desire there is love. Perhaps that is a song he would rather sing now, his daughter's fate his highest concern and the ultimate meaning of his mortality.
I offer these thoughts with respect, thinking that the piece above was intended for the reader to ponder.
May 12, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
how many aliases do you have, billy
nice gotalife reference on the avatar (bird head, folks), it's great that this new one knows your history so well
May 12, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
ya see...this kind of thing ain't interesting
it's crap-think
i'm bored by this
shower lady
show us your stuff and quick
May 12, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask your other ball to do it.
May 12, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
One good thing I think Hillary has done is redifine what I think of "Reject and Denounce". I was looking at Genghis's comments and had to think that phrase has never made me laugh as much as it does now......Ohhh the sillyness of Mrs. Clinton.
May 12, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean, my muscled friend. Why not think about Billy's love for his child and tell me what you think about that? I like you because you lay your feelings out with no place to hide. You are a dude with feeling. I'd be interested in how you react to Billy's feelings about his daughter rather than what is already clear about your political positions.
And dude, I have always wanted to ask you about your picture. Are you ready to go to a picnic? Seriously. You seem relaxed. Who took the picture?
Cypher
May 12, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cypher..
Yes I do lay my feelings on the line, and have no shame in that....Cypher question, why do you keep telling me you like me? Isn"t that a little feeling eeee...or ly...lol...
Ahhhh, ehh tu Cypher. Really.....Im your puppet dude....lol...
Get someone else to comment on his relationsh