« Hillary Clinton Should Take Her Name Out Of The Hat Now | Billy Glad's Blog | Can The MSM Elect McCain? »

The AP Calls Obama Out On Summits


We'll see whether or not the MSN has a "man crush" on Obama or not. 

The AP is calling him out on his reckless promise to hold an unconditional summit with Iran. 

A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.

On Wednesday Obama said, 'I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation."


World class flipping and flopping.  Reminds me of a fish out of water.  No politician should be allowed to get away with "explaining" away the fact that he said one thing to get nominated and another to get elected, especially when the security of our allies in the Middle East is at stake.

Will the rest of the MSN give Obama a pass?  I'm guessing they will.


234 Comments

| Leave a comment

Wow. This post appears with four recs, even before it has received a single comment. I think it's destined for the top of the charts.

user-pic

And yet, I don't know why. This is hardly news. What he said Wednesday, he has said numerous times before. If people can't understand the difference between "without preconditions" and "without preparations", then they're being willfully ignorant. Similarly, if people really assumed that when he said "without preconditions" he meant "without preparations" and then later back-pedaled, they're also being willfully ignorant. Even if GW Bush said this, I would not make such an assumption.

I agree 100%, and couldn't have put it better.

Come on, Alex - he just said, "That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity." What the hell is that but a huge precondition with a ribbon tied around it. "At my own time and choosing". So much for "in my first year". So now we have 2 fish flopping around on the shore and we have to decide which smells worse. And I'm a vegetarian.

Whi says fish is brain food? Thanks for clearing that up, Des.

user-pic

As I wrote in my comment to Billy, what you're calling a precondition is neither fish nor fowl. Preconditions in the McCain/Bush world is political concession, as in, stop building nuclear bombs or stop allowing your radical elements to send arms to the Sandinistas. Oops, that was Ollie North. Sorry. ...as in stop allowing your radical elements to send roadside bombs to Iraq.

The larger point here is that negotiations from a conflict resolution expert's point of view, of which Obama is well apprised, involve no preconditions except a negotiated time and place, and the willingness to negotiate is proof enough that there is some hope of success.

In the hawk's point of view, you wrestle the other guy to the table. In the conflict resolution expert's world, you spend a lot of time relationship building before you negotiate anything. Too many insular Middle East folks think most of us are screwing anything that moves and laying around doing drugs all day long. They have to get to know us through our leaders when all they've seen is a bunch of name calling and large-scale death threats.

Preach, I think I have a lot of insight into how and where to do negotiations, what kinds of preparations, how to make sure you're not suckered, etc. The point is the new candidate of change made these reckless claims about how he'd go in like a fresh breeze and start talking to everyone, and of course used that to blast the other candidate going WTF? So now it's back to negotiating as usual - not the neo-con "only if they give me everything I wanted in advance" type of negotiating, but still, it's a far step from Obama's original position. Similar to public financing - Hillary got blasted for not committing to it, Obama got all the praise, and then 8 months later - voila! Public financing out the window. I've got so many things stuck in my craw right now I have to shop for a bigger one.

Cough 'em up, kitty! Smack! Smack!

Eeeeeeeew..... I could use that one as a slipper.

I'm not here for the argument. I'm just one of those cardboard cutouts they put at the entrance to a funhouse. I'm carrying a small sign that reads "Proceed at own risk. Beyond this sign, not everything is what it seems."

user-pic

Sock puppets of the TPM world, unite!

How is this a flip-flop? It looks the same to me.

The actual question was:

"Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?....."

"I would," he answered.

I think a world leader should always be willing to talk, don't you?

user-pic

This one has been beaten to death for all that it is worth. It will help the McCain campaign about as much as the lefts facination with McCains Czecholsolvakia gaffe. (meaning it will actualy hurt their cause)

One must understand that the GOP's 'precondition' for talks with iran about it's nuclear program is that it discontinues it's nuclear program.

You type fast.

At the rate Barack is going, his ability and willingness to bullshit anyone and everyone for the purpose of achieving his political aims will surpass that of Bill Clinton even before he's elected. This man's in a hurry.

The differences which seemed evident between Bill and Barack during the primaries were as exciting then as the similarities between them since the primaries have been disappointing.

I'm no longer confident — at all confident — that the Barack I used to regard as a potentially great agent for systemic change is any more invested, personally, in systemic change than was Bill. I thought I was supporting someone who wanted to change the system, and in at least some ways to change it radically. But it seems not.

If Barack has passed the test for anything in the past few months, it's that of Manipulator in Chief. With Bill we had triangulation. With Barack I'm looking forward to quadrangulation, quintangulation, and onward from there.

There's nothing inherently wrong with "angulation," which is just a way of creating consensus. But to what end? Bill triangulated to favour the centre and the right, and so succeeded in further marginalising the left. That's all I've seen Barack do since the primaries ended.

user-pic

I won't claim he's perfect, but on this issue?!?

He's merely "refined" his previous statement by saying the obvious: "without preconditions" does not mean that he'd be going over there blindly. It's not something that really needed to be said, IMO, other than to counter the Republican (and other anti-Obama) spin. This is not Obama's spin. This is Obama's response to other people's spin.

Billy, are you collecting McCain troll points now?

No. I don't care who wins this election. I'm not into politics anymore, just into culture. The text of this post is the question about how extensive the so-called man crush of the MSM (sorry for the MSN typo, but most seem to have caught it) really is. I think this flip is a good test.

The subtext is the question of how reliable Obama's promise of support for Israel is. He has said a lot of things he didn't mean. He would filibuster the new FISA, he could never reject his pastor and his church, for example. Right now, he could never meet with Iran without preconditions.

Preconditions means, of course, that the Iranians would not have had to do anything first. He'd meet personally with the head of state of Iran and go from there. He has now assured Israel that he didn't mean what he said in the debates. He's using preparations to mean the same thing as preconditions. But the question remains, can someone who has said what people want to hear to gain the nomination be trusted not to say what they want to hear to get elected and then do what is convenient after he's in the White House?

I understand the Jews in this country favor Obama by two to one, while the Jews in Israel favor McCain. What's the difference, I wonder?

Billy: "I understand the Jews in this country favor Obama by two to one, while the Jews in Israel favor McCain. What's the difference, I wonder?"

I wouldn't claim to know, but I might hazard to guess that it has something to do with why the vast majority of Jews in Israel also support the undemocratic, racist, ethnic-cleansing policies of the Jewish state against Israeli Palestinians; or their support of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza; or their support of daily, military violence against Palestinians who are entirely innocent of anything; etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

You think they see it as a matter of survival, or are they just sadistic warmongers?

Both. And then some.

You think the situation will change when the European Jews die off?

user-pic

No, the European Jews are already dying off. The majority of Israelis, or plurality, come from Arab nations where they were actually or constructively expelled. They are some of the more militant and uncompromising Israelis. I don't know where the majority of the new Russian immmigrants fall in terms of the political spectrum.

Bruce, are you familiar with the work of Mubarak Awad? Opinion?

The Jews in Israel have a dog in the fight. The ones in the US have the luxury of betting on uncertainties.

The difference between planting an olive tree and watching it grow and paying to have an olive tree planted?

In someone else's back yard.

user-pic

survival of sadistic warmongers

For someone who doesn't care about politics, you sure pay a lot of attention to details.

But honestly? I can't take anyone seriously who 'doesn't care' who wins this election. Saying that just invalidates any other opinions you might have.

I know you won't understand why, but trust me. As a casual reader here, who has no idea who you are or what your agenda is, reading that just makes me disregard everything else.

Sorry to hear that. My view is that if the culture is a culture of ignorance, it won't promote candidates who truly represent change. You see differences between Obama and McCain I don't see. All I see is a culture of disinformation, ignorance, intolerance, and inertia. I see Presidents marketed like deodorant. I see the people who control the media controlling America and your mind. When I snap my fingers you will wake up and drop out. SNAP!

user-pic

He's lying. It's commonly called "sour grapes". His girl didn't get the nomination, so now he's refusing to play. BFB.

user-pic
I understand the Jews in this country favor Obama by two to one, while the Jews in Israel favor McCain. What's the difference, I wonder?
The most immediate difference is that few, if any, of the Jews in Israel have a vote in US elections.

Billy: "No politician should be allowed to get away with 'explaining' away the fact that he said one thing to get nominated and another to get elected."

This should apply especially to his supporters, but if those here are any example, they don't even see the difference. With such blind support, what incentive does Obama have to do other than to continue to bullshit his way to the presidency?

user-pic

No, actually, we do see the difference between "without preconditions" and "without preparations". Don't you?

Maybe I'm missing something, but if so, please clear it up for me.

What he said in the debates was without preconditions. Why don't you spell out the difference between preconditions and preparations for us, Ben? Then we'll know what you're talking about. Thanks.

user-pic

Really, Billy?

OK, here goes: they don't have to make any (political) concessions prior to us meeting with them. That's "without preconditions". However, there will be obvious safety requirements met. Obama will not be in harm's way. We might make arrangements for when and how long to meet. Those are preparations.

Only an extreme literalist would make an argument, for example, that "without preconditions" means that Obama would be willing to meet a foreign leader without a guarantee for his safety.

So your position is, Ben, that Obama will still meet with the head of state of Iran without any prior political concessions? Frankly, Ben, I wish it were. At least that would be consistent and trustworthy. The fact is, however, he has changed that position and will now require political concessions. Otherwise, AIPAC would trash him. Luckily for Obama, they understand what Obama is saying, even if you don't. For a long time I have suspected you're just a little slow on the uptake when it comes to getting the point of Obamaspeak. Now I know it. Of course, AIPAC, Israel and American Jews still have to decide if Obama's latest position can be trusted.

user-pic

It sounds like you're saying that Obama has a special language ("Obamaspeak") that one has to be able to understand. That we can't just look at his language and context like we would with an ordinary politician. Personally, I try to hold him to the same standards I hold other people. I don't see any back-pedaling here. I've re-read the article you posted, and I'm still not seeing these mysterious "pre-conditions" that have suddenly been tacked on. He's said he'll make offers (presumably at these meetings that were held without preconditions), and "if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort, it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up the pressure on Iran."

No preconditions works both ways. He's not going to agree to preconditions himself prior to meeting with Iran or anyone else.

I definitely rest my case.

user-pic

It's such an asinine argument. Billy knows damn well what the difference is. He's just pretending he doesn't because he thinks being exasperating and winning an argument are the same thing. If Billy can't understand the difference between a precondition and preparation, I'd say he needs to buy a freakin' dicktionary.

Aye, it's called sophistry.

Another lamer, acting out his avatar.

Precondition: A condition that must exist or be established before something can occur or be considered; a prerequisite.

Obama: "I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America."

So if a leader wants to meet him at a time that isn't of his choosing, what then?

What if Obama thinks a meeting would not promote the national security interests of the United States of America? What if just about everybody else did, but he didn't -- much as has been the case with Bush — what then?

Obama: "And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity."

What if he doesn't think he can get a deal? Or what if he thinks he can get a deal, considers it, but upon such consideration decides he'd just as soon play some pickup basketball?

No preconditions means no preconditions. What the hell are these — at my time and choosing; if I thought it would promote the national security interests; if I think that I can get a deal — when I say so, and if, if if — if not preconditions?

Come on, Ben, you don't need me to explain the obvious to you, so why am I having to do it? I'd appreciate it if you would actually answer that.

user-pic

It seems like you're being too much of a literalist here. You need to put Obama's statement in context. During the Bush administration, he has often refused to meet with foreign leaders without getting concessions first. That's what he means without "precondition". I thought that was fairly obvious the first time he said it, before he "refined" his statement at all.

Saying that they'd have to agree on a time and place seems like common sense to me, not back-pedaling. Would he also have had to clarify that he's not going to agree to meet naked, or would that also be imposing preconditions? I mean, really, common sense has to over-ride literalism at some point, doesn't it?

So holding Obama to his word becomes being too much a literalist. We should just take to lofty vague words and not try to pin them down to reality and context. This is bitter medicine, man - "We told you we were going off the cliff" "Come on, we knew it too, but you were so uptight about it - relax!!!"

Exactly. These clowns are trying for a gotcha moment, and they're coming back with the same junk as Katie Couric, and they're satisfied that this is indeed, a gotcha. Get a grip Desidero, Billy Gladd. Putting words in Obama's mouth and then arguing with those words, or your presumption of what those words that you put in his mouth mean, is not any kind of valid method of debate.

user-pic

Oh, and just to be clear, in case you thought I was avoiding this:

Obama: "And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity."

What if he doesn't think he can get a deal? Or what if he thinks he can get a deal, considers it, but upon such consideration decides he'd just as soon play some pickup basketball?

Again, this seems like common sense. He can't meet with every world leader every time they want to meet. He has to prioritize. Would you really want him to meet if he thought there would be no chance of any benefit from the meeting?

Would you want him to, or are you just interested in playing "gotcha" with his original phraseology? It doesn't seem like you to want to play such a game, so I really don't understand where you're coming from.

Do you want him to abide by his original statement, and be willing to meet anyone, anywhere, naked/clothed/whatever, or are you merely wishing he hadn't made the original statement? If the latter, please explain, because I don't understand how it would trouble you to the degree you seem to be indicating.

See JohnDoe's comment above. It was a simple, unambiguous question. Barack gave a simple, unambiguous answer. And he was applauded for it by me and others of like mind — including you, I imagine. As JohnDoe asks, "I think a world leader should always be willing to talk, don't you?"

If you can't see the difference between Barack's original, simple, unambiguous answer and the preconditions he's tacked onto it since then to undermine his demented critics, all I can suggest is that you look again.

user-pic

What are the preconditions he's tacking on now, in your opinion? Maybe that's what I'm missing. I've re-read the article Billy posted, and I'm still not seeing them. He's still willing to meet with these people, as far as I can tell. He's not going to force them to make political concessions before he meets with them, as far as I can tell. Other than saying they'd need to agree on details (place and time), what are these preconditions that concern you?

Somewhere, over the rainbow, bluebirds fly.

Yawn.

The word preconditions has a literal meaning, and there is one in the dictionary. But we are talking about a specific context here.

"Preconditions" in this context clearly means the other side has to make a substantive concession before the meeting takes place; or it will not happen at all if the concession is not made. Do you need examples or do you comprehend?

A reasonable understanding of this issue is that Obama would not require concessions on the subject of negotiations themselves before he would meet. Is that really so hard to understand. Is it really so hard to understand that this position in and of itself is what Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are opposed to.

You are being obtuse if you think that saying the meeting would have to be in the interest of the US, or be worth the time of the President, somehow violates the meaning of "without pre-condition". Obama was not announcing open casting calls. This is not hard to understand.

Hold that yawn, please.

Wow, since when did "no preconditions" mean at anybody else's fookin convenience. Are you actually trying to twist this phrase into some type of ironclad meaning that you impose?

And besides, since when did clarifying a point because some asshats keep trying to twist it into something become flipping?

No, we just don't have a problem with saying what is essentially the same thing in 2 or more phraseologies.

Billy: AP did not call Obama out, as you put it.
It is only the McCain campaign -- echoed here by you --that is alleging a flip-flop.
And you're both wrong.
Obama never "promised" a summit meeting with anybody.
He gave a straight answer to a primary debate question, then fleshed it out for reporters after critics jumped on it.
The elaboration he gave then was precisely the same as what he said today.
No flip-flop has occurred, period.

Read the article and the block quote. Straight from the AP. When you contrast Wednesday with a year ago, you're calling someone out. So I, the AP and the McCain campaign are all wrong. You, the echo chamber and the Obama campaign are right. I wish you the joy of that. But I don't live in Israel.

user-pic

Just to be clear, Billy, you're the one echoing here. This point was brought up immediately after the debate as that was when he first responded to the critics trying to spin his statement into some sort of literalist silliness. It was brought up then, and it's been brought up several times since.

That is an echo.

Which, from you, is quite entertaining. (Not that it's the first time, it's just that you love to echo your refrain about the echo chamber quite often.)

Ben, you missed the point then, and you're missing it now. I've always suspected the other Obamanuats find you a little embarassing. Nice, but not quick. No offense, but why not let someone else carry the ball for a while? I'm sure you're brilliant at what you do. Culture is just not your thing.

Nice pivot to the personal attack, Billy/Bully. Must be wonderful to know you are always the smartest person on the thread.

I consider his rather relentless pursuit of me down the thread to be a form of attack. I believe in dialogue. I don't believe in butting in constantly. Especially to promote the same misunderstanding of the situation. You tolerate him if you want to. I don't have the patience. He ended up saying Obama would still meet without pre-conditions. After all that jazz, he got Obama's current message exactly backwards. What should I do? Cover up for him?

user-pic

OK, fair enough, Billy. I will "pursue" you no further. I didn't realize you felt that way about me.

I appreciate that. No hard feelings. For us, talking is a waste of time.

As lawyers always say, first try to win using the law. If you can't win on the law, argue the facts. If you can't win on the facts, attack your opponent personally.

user-pic

You know you're right that culture isn't "my thing". What's that have to do with pointing out that you're creating the very echoes that you rail against?

You're comparing what he said Wednesday with what he said during the debate. But what he said Wednesday is not at all different from what he said the day after the debate. Also, as I already pointed out, what he said Wednesday (and the day after the debate) only contradicts with what he said during the debate if you're going to think that "without preconditions" means anytime/anywhere, as opposed to the more common sense assumption that he meant "without political concessions".

Except the "his own time and choosing" excludes cockily accepting that first year biz. Did he renounce that one the morning after?

Do you have a Ph.D. in culturology?

I give up. My comments never end up where they are supposed to. Both of them were meant for Billy.

I knew who they were for. If you don't like what I say, ignore me. Take a hike, bozo.

flaccid

This is just getting sad. Poor Billy.

Ah. Flaccid. Poor Billy. Must have hit bone. Sorry. I thought you were fully anesthesized by now.

Keep rubbing, I am sure you will get some response eventually.

Your mouth is the only stimulation any of us needs.

McJoker is getting the Clinton treatment by the media.

Nah, McCain's too good looking for that...

too bad it has been proven that AP kneels before Karl Rove:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807220006

Absolutely. The question is, does the rest of the MSM stand behind Obama?

If by "the rest of the MSM," you mean "The New York Times," "the LA Times," and "two shows on MSNBC."

And, as Larry says, will he at least get a ....?

IMHO - yes, but most of them "try" to remain impartial observers. What I do not "get" is the McCain whining about the media - if they did cover him more it would be revealed that he is:

oops - forgot the image (technical difficulties)

it was Homer Simpsons' Dad

here is the link

http://www.rdubphoto.com/12345.jpg

Why are Republican Leaders so afraid to talk to leaders of other nations; doesn't that make them come across as a bunch of nervous cowards who are afraid they will be outsmarted. I guess I can understand their reluctance since Putin completely outfoxed Shrub, and Janus McCain would get lost looking for an imaginary meeting place in an imaginary land.

The Republican Negotiations Motto:

Don't talk to them, those guys are smarter than us.

The last Republican who could get mileage out of the summits was Reagan. But he had the Soviets to play off of, and he was, by all accounts, intimidating in person. I think the idea of not talking to states like Iran is rooted in some conviction that we are so superior to them that the simple act of meeting with them, head of state to head of state, raises their stature. In this case, Israel will not stand for that. I said it a year ago and I say it again. Israel will never allow that summit without preconditions, particularly the condition that Israel's right to exist is recognized, to take place.

McCain whined about Obama not having been to Iraq for sometime.

Obama visits Iraq.

Since McCain whined about Obama not having visited Iraq, when Obama went there, the MSM decided that since McCain though that such a visit was very important, then they should cover it.

McCain now whines about the media covering Obama's trip, even though McCain was the original whiner that elevated the need for such a trip been a very big deal.

"Hey everyone, pay complete attention to the fact that Senator Obama has not been to Iraq recently.

Hey everyone, stop paying attention to the fact that Senator Obama has just visited Iraq." Senator Janus Whiney McCain

Where are all the comparison polls that show how every other nationality, other than Jews, rank Obama in their homelands compared to their American communities.

Why does Israel get to be the tail that wags the American Election Dog, but all other nations, great and small, better not interfere.

OK, time to give the people of Armenia, and their American communities, equal time and influence on our elections. Show the polling results from all nationalities, A to Z.

If that sounds like too much work, and smacks of too much foreign influence in our elections, then take the easy way out, just don't do it for any of them, including the foreign land of Israel.

The Jews chose to skip a few lattes or deli sandwiches a week and send that money to Washington. When the other ethnic groups do the same, they'll have just as much influence. Actually the Armenians do pretty well as do the Greeks.

user-pic

"The Jews" are a diverse bunch. If you speak of American Jews, we are even more diverse. Some of us loathe lattes and try to stay away from too many deli sandwiches for health purposes. I love you des, but geez.

I'm glad Obama clarified, refined, changed--or whatever--his position on this one. The original statement, I'd suggest, reflected inexperience, which can be rectified. Nothing at all wrong with that.

But his blatant reversals on FISA, handguns, death penalty, campiagn finance can't be attributed to inexperience--these are opportunistic moves of a politician. (Not to mention the disjunction between his progressive rhetoric and his support for corporate energy concerns, his fundraising from lobbyists, his public opposition to progressive Democrats, his softening stance on NAFTA.) These are what the MSM should be challenging him on.

liam, you get an A+ for boiling it down to foreign influence in elections and in foreign policy decisions.

I want the media and the pollsters to let us know what the Greeks, the Poles, the Chinese, the Nigerians, the Brasilians in our fair country think about our upcoming election and the candidates?


I hear nothing from the "traditional" media about aforementioned.


How does that point tie into the thread? Does it have something to do with whether Obama can be counted on to keep his word or not? What the polls show is that people with their lives on the line trust McCain to deal with the Middle East more than they trust Obama. My problem is I'm afraid people like Obama and you are going to trip and drop the fire into the river. No moral center, you see?

Liam, is that you?

Of course it is.

You just were not listening to what he was saying, or you heard what you wanted to hear.

Gail Collins from the NY Times wrote a very insightful column on the subject recently. She laid out how some people who are now claiming that they are upset because Obama has switched positions, just heard what they wanted to hear, instead of what Obama way saying all along.

Here is her column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?pagewanted=print


Excerpt: Use the link to read the entire article.


July 10, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Audacity of Listening
By GAIL COLLINS

We have to have a talk about Barack Obama.

I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.

I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about.

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

Here’s a helpful story: Once upon a time, there was a woman searching for a guy who was ready to commit. One day, she met an attractive young man.

“My name is Chuck,” he said, grinning an infectious grin. “I’m planning to devote my entire life to saving endangered wildlife in the Antarctic. In five weeks I leave for the South Pole, where I will live alone in a tent, trying to convince the penguins that I am part of their flock. In the meantime, would you like to go out?”

“I have just met the man I’m going to marry,” she told her friends. She had been betrayed by poor listening skills, which skipped right over the South Pole and the tent. Of course, after five weeks of heavy dating, Chuck flew away and was never heard from again.

On the one hand, I would agree with this. Obama's rhetoric has always been a collection of vague cliches that--like all effective rhetoric--is persuasive without necessarily being logical.

However, he has clearly reversed himself on several issues, if one were to put his words side by side.

Hey look, Bozo - half of us were listening real-time and said this was crap at the time - we didn't want that kind of compromise with Republicans who'd given up the Constitution, we didn't want reaching across the aisles just to please David Broder. All we got was scoffing and "he's so different". So your point is to tell his followers they were delusional and his detractors to get over it. Ain't that a kick in the pants. And what the fuck were you, deluded or skeptical or a unique universe all to yourself?

I'm not sure I follow your point. I'm just suggesting/agreeing that Obama has indeed been a cipher for a lot of people, and that he has also reversed himself on several issues.

My comment was to Liam, not to you - your post just got squeezed in between.

I was with the real Obama then and now. I am a centrist, and you are just a pissed off loser.

You're simply dishonest and proud of it. The "centrist" label is bullshit. You're just riding the wave and thumbing your nose.

I agree. It's hard to see how many of Obama's moves are centrist, rather than corporatist in context (lobbyists, campaign finance, ethanol/coal support, NAFTA).

You are the dishonest person. You are Billy Glad's Remora. You did not show up here by accident to lend aid and comfort to Right Wing War Mongering Bully Boy.

Now go back to your pretentious self absorbed spewing of literature through a wood chipper.

Time for you to trot out another one of your poseur proclamations. Time for you to once again worship your very needy delusional ego.

Amen, liam. This thread and some of the people posting are...I can't decide between delusional or outright liars.

Where does a consensus come from? Those on the left, of course. Right. Uh huh.

But bullshit suits them, I suppose.

I don't know. What does the National Enquirer have to say about that? The Examiner? Weren't you sourcing them earlier today? I thought I sent you back to the supermarket to do more research. Take a hike.

Fuck you. Get a sense of humor (and a clue, too). Dickhead.

Now your class is showing. You spread crap around and pretend it's a joke. Study the front page. If you want to take down a politician, do it with the truth, not lies. Back under your rock, dummy. You're not welcome here.

I post a fluff piece about Bush and I'm taking him down? If it was only that easy! If you want to be an apologist for the worst president in history, go for it. It just proves you're a bigger douche than I originally thought.

You don't like Obama, fine. But to attempt a hit piece under the guise of some intellectual cultural curiosity is BS ans nothing more. Liam (and others) called you on it (quite handily, too) and you cry like a three year old girl.

You want me gone? Suck it up, cupcake. I ain't goin' nowheres.

Deal with it.

Don't you have some Enquirer facts to post someplace? Fluff? You're really generous to yourself. People like you never take anyone down except yourselves. You and liam were made for one another. Why don't you buzz off and help him change his bag?

user-pic

Yes, "riding the wave" has it's appeal, i guess

You're both trying too hard.

The real Obama? As opposed to the figment of your imagination Obama? How amusing.

user-pic

Billy,
Your proof text for the flip:

On Wednesday Obama said, 'I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation." (Emphasis added.)

Down the thread you clarified that "he has changed that position and will now require political concessions."

I see no flip inasmuch as he was he has not required political concessions. Youj've asserted that he has now required them, but I see no evidence. What's the political concession, other than he wants to choose the time and place and have some hope that something constructive will happen. Of course, it's always possible, given the current shape of things in Iran, to have such hope. Perhaps you have some other evidence that makes your point, because your proof text doesn't seem to work.

Regarding his trustworthiness, You wrote,

He has said a lot of things he didn't mean. He would filibuster the new FISA, he could never reject his pastor and his church, for example.

He never said he would fillibuster FISA. He only said he would support a fillibuster. But there wasn't enough support within his party to even test his commitment to supporting a fillibuster. He said he would never reject his pastor or his church based on the kinds of things the pastor/church was accused of doing during the first Wright/Trinity flap. Then Wright essentially called him a liar, and the church got even more ridiculous and offensive. This is not a flip. This is a response to changed circumstances. We can debate whether any of the changed circumstances he uses to justify his changed positions are valid, but an unequivocal flip is when a poltician is responding only to politics and not at all to substance.

Also down the thread, you spoke to the issue of trust again, saying that, "What the polls show is that people with their lives on the line trust McCain to deal with the Middle East more than they trust Obama." I see no proof that Israeli's trust McCain more than Obama to protect them. If you read the questionaire, it's more about liberal conservative issues, not the fundamental one. Moreover, I see no correlation between having your ass on the line and superior wisdom about how to solve a problem. Maybe detachment is a more helpful position.

The fact that is most clear is that you will never be able to question anything Obama does or says. You simply don't have it in you.

user-pic

Maybe it's a good thing there are people like that Billy.

Somebody has to carry out the orders?

billy, you need to come over to a thread for a minute. really. click on my name and get to it...ok? at least take a look. might be important in helping a friend

If it's the thread I think it is, not much I can do. I stay away from the Ghenghis guy and his friends if I can, and I think they ignore me as well. Who is the friend I might help out?

user-pic

Something like that. I was thinking more of the election. I don't think the country can survive anymore compassionate conservatism.

Who was it that said: Obliterate them. Did that person renounce that chilling war mongering remark.

Who was it that said: hard working white Americans. Did that person renounce that racist shout out.

Who was it that said John McCain has crossed the commander in Chief threshold. Did that Lieberman like Republican enabler renounce that remark, which was made several times.

Looks like Bully Boy, and his faithful Remora, are only concerned by clarifications from one person.

They were never Democrats. They just though Hillary would be the easiest one to defeat. Having failed in that mission, of course they are now doing their best to help War Monger McCain.

What you do is stalk, quote out of context, make up quotes, and drool on yourself. This is not a political thread. Beat it. Go flog your candidate somewhere else. Or whatever you guys flog at the home.

Well well well. Bully Boy can not handle being given a dose of his own poison.It turns him into a blustering bullying BillO clone.

Mind numbing debate. Does anyone really care about what Obama said he was going to do or what he will do regarding Iran? Anything will be better than what we have now. Glad's interest culture is just a front for his deep seated dislike for Obama.

Nope. I'm interested in whether the MSM will give Obama a pass on this one and whether anyone can trust him to do anything he says once he has what he wants. A lot of confidence men count on the mark not being able to admit he's been conned. I don't like con men, and that includes Obama and McCain. All the same con, if you ask me.

My point the other day was how does McCain's abrupt veer to the right in 2002/2003 differ from Obama's abrupt veer to the right this year. And with McCain you can fall back on seeing him through years and years and figure that's the real McCain back there, for better or worse. For Obama, we don't have that track record, it's a few years here, a few years there, so that the change itself and lack of a position is what I identify him with. The poll today, more people see McCain as the the "safe" choice, is not a good omen for Obama.

We'll believe that when we same the same sophistry employed toward McCain, aye?

Barack Obama is going to be President of the United States and then we'll all wake up and say, "Why didn't we listen to Billy Glad?"

I'm almost certain you won't wake up. But the point is, it doesn't matter who is President of the United States. Whoever it is, they'll be in the bag for the media and corporations. Just as you are.

Olbermann says to tell you to screw off.

I await further instruction.

More seriously Billy, this quote on the corporations & the media being powerful enough to hold ANY President, plus your one upthread on the culture of "disinformation, ignorance, intolerance & inertia" - those "open out." I know you like to keep your threads on a particular focus, so I waited to add this. But - for me - this is more powerful line than the relatively closed debate on Obama's adjustments, whether he's trustworthy, etc.

I mean, you're labelled by many here as Hard Right on foreign policy. But when I read these other lines, I suspect the label you'd get is Hard LEFT - that corporations, media and the culture are so powerful that even Obama can't escape them.

For me, the pursuit of your wider corporate-cultural question is central, not peripheral. If we did pursue it, there's big gains to be made. i.e. Culture > today's narrow "political issues." When I pursue it, I find it culture/corporate thought comes back around and changes what I see happening,even on foreign policy. e.g. Even a crass first take on culture/corporations would suggest that corporate interests might have a view on what we should do in Iraq & Iran. My 3 cents. More culcha, baby. Bring it.

Bully Boy is promoting John McCain. he is no longer hiding that fact.

McCain has adopted all of George W. Bush's economic, social, and foreign policy positions, and has decided to put them on a heavy regime of steroids. He wants to make sure that struggling billionaires get more tax breaks.

McCain hates the troops. He just sees them as cannon fodder. When it came time to do the right thing, and vote for the new veterans benefits, he voted against it, and explained that he did not want to encourage the troops into thinking that they could have a future outside of remaining as cannon fodder to be blown to smithereens in the Bush/McCain Iraq follies.

Bully Boy wants you all to obey his ground rules, and only find flaws in Senator Obama.

You do not need to waste your time on that. If, like Bully Boy, and his faithful Remora, War Monger McCain is your cup of tea, then drink it.

If you are sick of the Bush McCain era then vote for Obama. Pointing out that Senator Obama is a fallible politician does not make Janus Whiney McCain a good alternative.

Bully Boy never examines that fetid body for ticks, do you notice that.

I think liam just took his dribble bath. Why in the world is he wasting time promoting Obama and tearing down McCain on a Progressive site? It's not like anything he says could be used anywhere else without getting you laughed at. What's it like in the echo chamber with someone like a liam leading the cheers? My heart goes out to you folks.

To repeat what I told snarkyspice up thread, my view is that if the culture is a culture of ignorance, it won't promote candidates who truly represent change. You see differences between Obama and McCain I don't see. All I see is a culture of disinformation, ignorance, intolerance, and inertia. I see Presidents marketed like deodorant. I see the people who control the media controlling America and your mind. When I snap my fingers you will wake up and drop out. SNAP!

Or maybe you won't. But if you can read what I said as an endorsement of McCain, you're in a deeper coma than I thought.

You are such a cynical elitist. We live in a culture of ignorance you say which I assume you believe produces ignorant people. Except you of course. Candidates who represent change are impossible. Every candidate for POTUS has to be a con man by the very nature of the process itself. Obama is a con man which means he must be a person lacking in character. You must imagine him contemplating what a bunch of suckers we all are. He conned his way into college. He conned his way into Harvard and then conned his way in being selected Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Can you believe that some of his associates actually said that he was one the brightest people to hold that position in recent memory. What a fake! Then he said, "I'm going to be a powerful politician someday so I'm going to con all those folks on the south side of Chicago that I care about them. Then I'll con my way to the state senate and con everyone in Illinois into making me a US Senator. What fools!" Now he stands on the brink of achieving what none of the rest of us could do in a million years. Billy sees him laughing at what a bunch of marks we are. Can you imagine America is going to elect a black guy with the middle name Hussein? Good God Almighty that guy puts P.T. Barnum to shame.

Very deep coma. No chance you'll hear anything except the master's voice.

You really get a kick out of being an asshole. Unfortunately, forums like this give you a chance to do your sick little dance. Get a job, move out of your parent's basement and you won't have so much time on your hands to pontificate.

LOL. I'll try to find a job. Thanks for the advice. Should I go to college first or what?

I know by your references to your experiences in the sixties that you are old. You are probably living off Social Security. They are hiring seniors at McDonalds.

Hmmm. Do you look down your nose at people who work at McDonald's? Feel superior to them? Think it's a put down to send someone to McDonald's to apply for a job? Think it's a put down to say someone is on Social Security? And you think I won't fuck over an arrogant asshole like you every chance I get? Amusing.

Bully Boy loves War Monger McCain. He has never said one critical thing about him. Bully Boy played the culture snob card on Ben, up the thread. This is the same Bully Boy who recently slobbered all over Gotalife. There is a fine cultural specimen for you, but since he attacks Obama, then Bully Boy is delighted to drop his panties for that cretin.

More silly fantasy world attacks. Billy did this. Billy does that. Billy Billy Billy. Talk about a man crush. Please. No more adulation. I really don't deserve so much attention.

Dude, the last thing you have to worry about isanyone having a crush on you - man or otherwise. Too bad Monica Goodling is taken. Maybe you can hold out for Ann Coulter.

Well, like I always say: Kick a troll twice and you've got a relationship. I'll add you to the list. See if I can find some warm milk and an old shirt for you to sleep on. Your fluff was the same kind of crap thugs have been using on Dems for a long time. Like I said. Study the front page. Stop wasting our time.

You're a legend in your own mind. Keep flattering yourself. I doubt anyone else would.

You should be nicer to me. I could help you with that pic.

Bully Boy's love note to Gotalife. Here is what he wrote. Notice how he now denies it. Bully Boy is a lying weasel.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/lets-flip-flop-on-obama-and-ru.php

Welcome back. Their anxiety level has gone off the charts in the time you've been gone. They began to go a little crazy as soon as they realized they had actually nominated him. Since then, it has gotten worse every day. A lot of whining and misdirected anger because they're stuck with someone who is running dead even with a cadaver tied to the most impeachable administration in the history of the US. They're getting Chuck Hagel to take him to Iraq and Afghanistan so he can say he's been there. He made the cover of the New Yorker and created the greatest outcry since Salmon Rushdie and the dutch cartoons of another historic religious figure. Where the hell have you been?
Posted by Billy Glad
July 15, 2008 11:32 AM


There is the clear proof that Bully Boy, the self proclaimed culture guru, dropped his panties for that cretin. Notice that lovelorn wail: "Where the hell have you been?". Bully Boy's heart ached for Gotalife to return.

I almost went and read all of these comments, but then I thought to myself, "why?"

I don't even get the point of this post other than to pretend there's an issue when there's not. What, did you think that based on his comment last year he would travel to Iran on coach and have lunch with Ahmadinejad at the airport anytime he got a phone call?

He's willing to meet with Iran before they make any changes. I'm sure some conditions will have to be met like:
1. I need to fit you in my calendar
2. I won't meet you in Iran
3. You can't try to kill me while we're hanging out, so your team will need to be searched
4. I prefer italian coffee, so make sure you bring some
5. We'll need three cigarette breaks every four hours

What he's NOT asking for before the sit down is:
1. Stop your nuclear program
2. Stop influencing progress in Iraq
3. Stop funding Hezbollah
4. Become a democracy
5. Give us cheap oil
6. Tell the world that you love Israel

That's what he meant last year, and that's what he means now.

And that's where you're wrong. He will, for example, not meet with the head of state of Iran unless Iran acknowledges Israel's right to exist. That is a precondition. Don't be so wet. If he hadn't signaled that already, AIPAC would have him for a snack. If you want to hang around here, get your game up a couple of levels.

Unfortunately for you, I actually listened to his AIPAC speech.

Here's what he said in front of AIPAC:
"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States."

He did say that he will not meet with Hamas until they recognize Israel's right to exist. But Hamas is not Iran. Hamas is officially a terrorist organization from our government's perspective. Much different from Iran, an actual country.

Time for you to raise your game. And get a new hat while you're at it.

Read that coordinate with our allies part again. Actually, read it standing up, and maybe it won't go over your head this time. Jeeze. Change your nick to nothinkum. Try to spend more time out of the echo chamber if you want to grow up straight and strong.

So..... Has morale improved sufficiently in here? Or will the beatings continue?

Honest to God. I said it yesterday. Every bloody day, you show up at High Noon, lookin' for something to shoot. And every day, some one shows up. Hell, more than one.

Anyway. As long as a good time was had by all. Carry on friends.

Sometimes he uses a bullwhip. Much more fun and artsy.

Billy Glad...poor little man still here? Still going onto dem sites and holding the bucket for Bush/Rove and McSame while they take leaks? and then your caught wiffing up the smell?
You claim you don't have an opinion in this election and aren't supporting either candidate then proceed to shove McCain down our throat by bashing Obama. Having some racist feelings of anger that the black man is whipping some white unethical man's tail? I mean come on! McSame leaves his crippled wife and kids for a rich woman 20 years younger who steals drugs from a children's charity...you want facts little man? I have tons of them regarding Johnny Boy and his lack of leadership. Compared to him? Obama is a breath if fresh air.

Here are just a few highlights from Barack Obama's career as a US Senator: specific pieces of legislation, what they meant and how they were passed.
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.
While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew heavily upon the wording of this bill.
The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.
First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.
Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.
The act created this Web site, which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs.

Want more Billy Boy?
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.
The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya.
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.
The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.
The bill has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."
The Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill
The Obama-McCain bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050.
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Introduced by Obama, this binding act would stop the planned troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008.
Explaining the bill, Obama said it reflects his view that the problems in Iraq do not have a military solution. "Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said.
Amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill
Obama worked with Sen. Kit Bond to limit, through this bill, the Pentagon’s use of personality disorder discharges in the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill.
This provision would add additional safeguards to discharge procedures and require a thorough review by the Government Accountability Office. This followed news reports that the Pentagon inappropriately used these procedures to discharge service members with service-connected psychological injuries.
"With thousands of American service members suffering day in and day out from the less visible wounds of war, reports that the Pentagon has improperly diagnosed and discharged service members with personality disorders are deeply disturbing," said Senator Obama. "This provision will add additional safeguards to the Department of Defense’s use of this discharge and mandate a comprehensive review of these policies."
The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision
Working with Sen. Hagel and Rep. Adam Schiff, Obama authored this provision, which would require the president to develop a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose.
A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
Bookmark this, follow the links, share with friends. Wash, rinse, repeat. Always repeat.


Is this post snark?

user-pic

That line about whether the post is snark is for the more childlike political blogs. Should you have a point pistolpete, perhaps you should offer it. How obnoxiously immature.

Consider it your point missed. And given the amount of serious dialog about the post it seems I have missed its point. I have a (non ad hominem attack) point, and for clarity it is this: The support given for the argument of a flip flop is thin to me, so what am I missing if its not a snark post and play along thread? I read the logic of conditions and thought seriousness was in question.

Picked this up from another site that lists"
JOHNNY BOY MCCAINS 99 WORSE MOMENTS:
99. Bush's willingness to talk directly with Iran.
98. Bush's new time "horizon" for troop withdrawals.
97. al-Maliki's endorsement of Obama's Iraq strategy.
96. Obama's headline-dominating foreign tour.
95. His disagreement with the majority of Americans on Iraq.
94. His lack of economic expertise and policy.
93. Obama's $52M June.
92. His $21M June.
91. 29% of the Latino vote.
90. 2% of the black vote.
89. Charles Keating (he'll be back).
88. Vicki Iseman (she'll be back).
87. Randy Scheunemann (he'll be leaving).
86. His band-aid approach to energy (more drilling, more nuclear, a $300M "prize").
85. His band-aid approach to healthcare (tax credits, more competition).
84. His band-aid.
83. Saying things like "I know how to win wars," despite his never having won a war.
82. His wife.
81. His ex-wife.
80. The Hagee/Parsley un-endorsement debacle.
79. An uninspired base.
78. Ape rape.
77. His bff, Joe Lieberman.
76. His claim that Czechoslovakia still exists (it doesn't).
75. His claim that Iran is training Al-Qaeda (they aren't).
74. His claim that Iraq and Pakistan share a border (they don't).
73. His claim that Somalia is the same place as Sudan (it isn't).
72. His claim that Vladimir Putin is the president of Germany (he isn't).
71. 71.
70. The images of 70,000+ screaming Democrats at Invesco Field.
69. Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" implosion.
68. His unwillingness to call the situation in Afghanistan "urgent."
67. Steve Schmidt's failure to right the ship.
66. A new generation of Evangelicals who don't care what James Dobson thinks.
65. "C-nt."
64. "I hate the gooks."
63. His plan to resurrect Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.
62. The writer's rooms of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
61. His tarmac birthday party with Bush -- as Katrina made landfall.
60. "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."
59. His belief that Americans are better off than they were eight years ago.
58. His "Frankenstein on barbiturates" oratory skill.
57. His beyond-pathetic "Pump" ad, which blames Obama for $4.50 gas.
56. His "Obama Love" ad, which blames the MSM for his terribly-run campaign.
55. His computer illiteracy (c'mon...this is 2008).
54. A tax plan that doesn't even TRY to hide the fact that it's geared toward the wealthy.
53. Bob Barr.
52. Ron Paul.
51. Rupert Murdoch.
50. His gay adoption/marriage high wire acts.
49. His immigration high wire act.
48. His torture high wire act.
47. His drilling high wire act.
46. His tax cuts high wire act.
45. Not churchgoing enough for some evangelicals.
44. Too evangelical for some independents.
43. His temper.
42. "I know what [Iraqis] want."
41. The starlet gap: McCain = Heidi Montag; Obama = Scarlett Johansson.
40. The Facebook gap: McCain = 173K supporters; Obama = 1.17M supporters.
39. His 1983-94 opposition to the Rev. Martin Luther King holiday.
38. His 2008 opposition to the Ledbetter Fair Pay [for women] Act.
37. His 2008 opposition to the G.I. Bill.
36. "100 years."
35. Viagra-gate.
34. His 0% rating from Planned Parenthood.
33. His 0% attendance record for the last six Senate Afghanistan hearings.
32. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
31. David Plouffe.
30. David Axelrod.
29. Republicans losing elections in traditional GOP strongholds.
28. His October 2002 insistence that victory in Iraq would be "easy."
27. His January 2007 insistence that he never said it would be "easy."
26. A resurgent Taliban.
25. Europe's Obamamania.
24. Kneeling at the feet of Jerry Falwell.
23. His penchant for gaffes.
22. 80% of Americans convinced we're on the wrong track.
21. The National Review calling his campaign strategy "likely to fail."
20. Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil "would be a big advantage to him."
19. Record turnout in the Democratic primaries.
18. A free Osama bin Laden.
17. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
16. A campaign hierarchy dominated by lobbyists.
15. Suggesting Obama is a "Socialist."
14. The Dow Jones down 2,000 points for the year.
13. Foreclosures soaring, banks failing, and inflation at a 17-year high.
12. Still pushing his ridiculous, Big Oil-friendly gas tax holiday.
11. Being out-raised by Obama 2:1...in West Virginia.
10. His "no" vote on SCHIP (healthcare for poor children) reauthorization.
9. His support for overturning Roe v. Wade.
8. His consistent opposition to minimum wage increases.
7. Obama's 50-state strategy.
6. Al.
5. Bill.
4. Hillary.
3. Mitt.
2. John McCain.
1. George W. Bush.

Why are you wasting your time with McCain crap? Do you think there is one person on this thread or this site who believes McCain can beat Obama? How could that happen? Obama is better than McCain. Don't you think you should raise that bar a little?

user-pic

Unconscious Humiliated Fury On the Occasion of Another Billy Glad Centered Conflagration

Licensed by the Church of Disentitlement
Conceived in pitiless sorrow
Burnished by a first-class education and intellect
Evoked by gross childhood disrespect
Punished by shame on shame
Abandoned to the midnight aloneness
Deadly to the soul.

I'm sorry about your childhood, but it doesn't excuse your mindless acceptance of authority.

Did anyone on this ridiculous thread ever finally mention the fact that Obama clearly stated during the primaries that he would talk with the "bad" leaders, but that his idea of preparation included talks between more low-level officials before he would talk with the big dudes themselves?

In other words, that's not preconditions, but it is also not just sitting down with anyone, at any time. I don't think anything that Mr. Glad and his various alter-egos had to say here really refuted Obama's original position or showed him flipping. However, it's clear also that Mr. Glad also likes to inflate small distinctions into major issues.

Mr. Glad may believe that Obama will have to get a recognition of Israel's right to exist from Ahmenajad before meeting with him or risk alienating Israel and American Jews. For all I know, he may be right, but if that turns out to be the case, for political reasons if Obama has to alter his position, then he does so as an intelligent politician. The job isn't to please nitpickers, but to bring peace to the world by whatever means we can. Dealing with issues in the Middle East will require quite a balancing act, if it's even possible, a good deal of diplomacy, some muscle, probably, and a lot more understanding of the region than any of the Republicans have shown.

Nobody in his or her right mind would stick to something they said during a campaign just because they said it and they were afraid that Billy Glad would turn into Billy Mad if they changed their approach. Only Bush and his ilk are incapable of changing direction according to circumstances. A real leader - the kind we need - is going to recognize the need to be pragmatic, or to adjust strategy according to the situation, and they will have to do so, despite the likelihood that they will be criticized for it. But, hopefully, they will have a good reason for doing what they do, and they will communicate that reason clearly.

Personally, I find these pointless and contentious discussions distasteful, but I was stuck traveling with time to kill and suffered through most of this discussion on my Blackberry, which for some reason doesn't allow me to post. By the time I got back where I could actually post, I thought it would be at least helpful to set a part of the record straight about what Obama did, in fact, say during the primaries, and how it's not substantively different from what Mr. Glad posted and claimed was a major flip. So it's a non-issue to me, and another phony cause célèbre to Mr. Glad.

The idea of preparation you cite was post-facto. Before he got slammed for it, Obama was all bravado - I'll just go meet them, talk to them, clean slate room for a breakthrough.

... viewer asked candidates if they would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea -- whom the United States has called rogue leaders. Obama said he would, adding "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
Now surely we had background talks going with these countries, but it was a disgrace we didn't have the face-to-face photo op.
The Obama campaign was quick to point to an April 23 quote from Clinton in which she said, "I think it's a terrible mistake for our president to say he won't talk to bad people." That, Obama representatives said, showed Clinton had changed her position.
Ah, the opposite of saying we won't talk is saying we have to talk. Failed freshman Logic 101.
"I would not commit myself on the front end openly to meet with (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, (North Korean leader) Kim Jong Il, (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez," Edwards told reporters in McClellanville, S.C. "I think there's a real potential that would be used as a propaganda tool."
So Edwards got the dangers of a simplistic answer there, why didn't Obama?
Obama said one of his first orders of diplomacy in the Middle East would be to "send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses." "They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point," he said. "But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."
Well, that's a lot of latitude and responsibility to pre-allot for people who may hate you and actively work to destabilize your interests.
In a memo from Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the campaign contended that Obama's comments played well with focus groups that watched the debate and "showed his willingness to lead and ask tough questions on matters of war."
Well, we'll see.

Taken out of context, what you say sounds reasonable. However, you have cherry picked your quotes and provided an analysis that may or may not be true. What I remember, clearly, is that Obama stated very clearly that the path to speaking with these leaders would start with low-level diplomacy and work toward face-to-face meetings. I think your characterization of it - regardless of Edwards' position - as a photo-op is characteristically demeaning, but irrelevant. If we are going to have real progress in the Middle East, we will have to listen and discuss the issues with the leaders of the region. Whether it is done in person or through surrogates, the process is what it is - a dialog. If it does not move toward dialog, it will inevitably move toward escalation and, probably, more wars. Is that what you want?

I am not personally convinced that we can solve the problems of the Middle East. Being free of oil dependency would help, though I suspect that those in our government who currently support Israel so staunchly and who meddle so aggressively in Middle Eastern politics would quickly lose interest if it weren't for the oil. All the high minded rhetoric seems insincere to me, but the problems in the nuclear age are all-too real.

I might be wrong, but I think Obama's interest in meeting with world leaders is to improve the situation, not to get photo-ops. He doesn't seem to have any problem with that aspect of his political life, now does he? Perhaps he really does want to do what's necessary to achieve peace, U.S. security and prosperity.

this ridiculous thread
Billy Glad would turn into Billy Mad
Mr. Glad and his various alter-egos

Some of your crap back at you. That's your snark before I answered you. Why you're a chump. You think that's appropriate comment just because you do it. You've turned out to be one of the biggest passive agressive assholes on TPM.

You know, raider, that alter ego crap is really bush. If I were running some kind of game like that, you wouldn't be able to figure it out. You just flunked out. The point is that after the debate Obama did a good job of shifting his position back and forth almost at will, leaving it to chumps like you to parse preparations vs. preconditions. Stick to the point about the media and Obama's trustworthiness or unburden the thread.

You're so superior. What's the point of anyone who is a chump and an obviously inferior being attempting to talk to the great BILLY GLAD? Enjoy your ego. It must feed you well.

I have no more time for your insults and bullshit. Other people may find you entertaining. I find you a clever, but one-sided "I am right and you're an idiot" debater, and a total ass. I've read many of your posts and your replies and in all cases your overweening sense of self-importance and your obvious joy in demeaning others belies your occasional protestations of just being here to have a discussion.

If you actually wanted to discuss rationally and show respect for others, I might feel differently. But as it is, I'm done with you. Spout your invective to your heart's content. I'm done with you and really more interested in making a difference than in engaging in this sort of trash.

Bye now.

How Republican of Billy to attack the messenger and ignore the message. You took the time to write a lengthy, well thought out post and you get back nothing but drivel. Telling, indeed.

Try lifting your chin a little next time.

Adios.

user-pic
World class flipping and flopping.

Oh, bullshit. He said he'd meet with them without precondition. Now he's saying he'll meet without precondition if it serves our interests. Did he really need to add the qualification? I would think you'd have to be a real moron to think that serving our interests wasn't implicit in his first answer. You think he'd meet with them if it DIDN'T serve our interests? Don't be daft.

user-pic

I have determined from this thread that the majority should rule at the TPM Cafe, and minority perspectives should be stifled. Billy Glad can grate on some but at least he has the balls to say things that are outside of the majority consensus. I will not write a post at the the TPM Cafe that is not consistent with what the majority of posters believe. I do reserve the right to comment. I don't have the balls that Billy Glad has, even though I have no doubt that I could write a kinder and more respectful minority view on this point than he chooses to.

As I genuinely respect liam for his/her unambiguous and unapologetic goal of electing Senator Obama (I know all about politics in the hardcore no bullshit way), even though I think he or she is obnoxious, so too do I respect Billy Glad for his refusal to enter the circle jerk, even though I wish that he would be more gracious to some of his detractors (although many of his detractors deserve exactly what they get from him).

Ultimately, I detest mob attacks, and I don't think this community is ready for honest discourse, and it's not Billy's fault. I've been around here long enough to know what I'm writing about. Some of you could have done much better.

Sound advice. If you'll give me the list of people I should be more respectful of, I'll be happy to try to comply.

user-pic

Billy:

The cream rises to the top. I think if there was less noise from the thought-control police drowning out the voices of reason, you would have no problem determining who it is that is deserving of a less caustic approach. Remember, He loves all the little children, each and every one of us. One of the problems around here is that there is a bevy of folks who who seem to be confusing who He is these days. It's unseemly and embarassing quite frankly, and if I'm around in 18 months I'm going to remind all of these right and wrongers of where they fell in the choir/circle jerk.

People should remember that this is a website to discuss political issues; it is not an arm of Senator Obama's campaign.

Bruce

I couldn't think of any either. I'm respectful to those who deserve respect. The rest of them are getting what they deserve and have earned for banal comment after banal comment. They don't have to read what I post, and they don't have to comment on it. Certainly, they don't have to recommend them. The further they stay away from me the better I like it.

This post has about thirty seconds of typing and insight holding it up.

I thought TPM folk were smarter than this.

I mean, look at Billy's responses. He's getting off on this. Put on your clothes people, and go home.

And this post is recommended.... why exactly?

Please see my comment at the top of the thread. When it first appeared (brand-new, first post on the list), without any comments, this post already had 4 recs.

Now where did those recs come from? I don't know.

After I posted a comment observing that the recs were sure piling up fast, they seemed to stop piling up -- until later in the day.

I'm not making any assumptions, just reporting what I saw.


THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!

The Republicans have quite thoroughly documented Obama's contradictions on the meeting-without-preconditions issue. Throughout 2007, Obama said repeatedly he would meet with the leaders of rogue states without preconditions. This statement is not a one-time-only aberration.

Republicans have also documented the PR blitz by prominent Democrats who outright lied for Obama in May 2008 (before the primaries were over, mind you): Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Harold Ford, Susan Rice, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, David Bonior, and of course, David Axelrod.

Democrats will have to deal with the fallout of this come November. There's no point in equivocating about what Obama "meant." That's just bullshit. Obama meant to get nominated.

Well Duh!. Are you now telling us that you were backing that other candidate because she did not mean to get nominated?

Fuck off, liam.

user-pic

rtbag, that Republican page you referenced is pure Republican crap. Propaganda of the lowest order. I can't believe you read that shit and weren't completely offended at how STUPID they think you are. The whole page is just a testament to how dishonest the Republicans are.

You're missing the point of why I chose them, which is why Billy calls this the echo chamber. No real debate occurs here when only one side is allowed for discussion.

I'll attempt to change the way I usually say things:

1. I believe if we want Obama to win in November, we can't achieve that goal by ignoring things that Republicans are saying about Obama. Remember how John Kerry was "for the war before he was against it"?

2. Obama's evolving position about preconditions has been documented. For people who don't have 100% blind trust in what Obama may do in the future, the doubts about his positions win out. When it comes to something as explosive as the Middle East, I believe doubts must be heeded. There's not much room for fucking up. Today, new housing units have been approved at Maskiot in the West Bank despite the U.S.'s strong opposition to it.

user-pic
I believe if we want Obama to win in November, we can't achieve that goal by ignoring things that Republicans are saying about Obama.

Agreed. We need to fire back, repudiate and refuse to allow them to lie or distort the truth. This is a close race. We need to fight for our man or their man will win.

user-pic

Your attempts to start a conversation seem to most often devolve into name calling and blanket, disrespectful dismissals of sincere and reasoned attempts to disagree with you. In my poem, I was trying to capture the torment that swirls in and through most of your posts. It looks like dark fun but feels tragic, a waste of a beautiful mind.

No politician should be allowed to get away with "explaining" away the fact that he said one thing to get nominated and another to get elected, especially when the security of our allies in the Middle East is at stake.
If you have "dropped out" why do you care about the security of our allies in the Middle East?

I give! It is obviously a pro-Obama conspiracy that the archives for comments from Election Central are nowhere to be found even using the Google. We've been over this before many times and dissected every new nuance added to Obama's initial openness to meeting with dictators. Can I detail item by item precisely where his positions have changed? Absolutely - please don't tempt me to rehash old battles.

Let's be honest here - this is what Hillary had advocated all along and was lambasted for by many who are now applauding Obama. The more important point for me as a pragmatic idealist is that Obama's new "nuanced" position is where he should be on every level and it is much more sound than that of John McCain.

There is no compelling argument to be made that his position on this has been consistent. Even the best debater cannot create reality where there is none, and so rather than address the issue we end up either denying reality or attacking the person pointing out the hypocrisy.
Billy is holding up a mirror and sometimes we don't like what we see. But the more we ignore reality or fail to acknowledge valid criticism, the harder it will be to convince others who have not bought into the Obama campaign yet.

Thanks, dijamo. This is the kind of comment I enjoy reading, whether I agree with all the details or not.

Not everyone thinks Obama's position is nuanced or much different from McCain's or even Bush's position.

"Not everyone" agrees on anything . Thank you Chauncey Gardner.

If you have something intelligent to say, then say it.

Is this how you define "something intelligent to say"?

Fuck off, liam.
Posted by readytoblowagasket
July 24, 2008 11:37 AM

I suspect you're capable of having a discussion, liam, but you haven't addressed a single issue I raised with the articles I linked to. You're just stalking now, so you deserve a "fuck off" when you stalk people.

I linked to 4 articles: 2 showing that the Republicans have documented Obama's (and the Dems') contradictory statements and positions over the period of a year, and 2 from Obama's trip to Israel. All 4 are germane to Billy's original post about Obama's flip-flopping and trustworthiness. The Israelis do not seem as enamored of our candidate as you are, and the sources I cited, the well-respected Haaretz and the well-read Times UK, are perfectly valid sources.

So, go ahead and discuss any one of the issues raised in the articles, instead of discussing me. Just once, I'd like to see you try, liam.

user-pic

If Obama was advocating for policies that Hillary supported all along, I'd be mad as hell. And I'm not mad as hell.

Here is precisely what Obama is advocating:

I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America.

That was most definitely NOT Hillary's position. It is intelligent and well-considered. Hillary's position was ignorant and short-sighted. And wrong. Clearly wrong.

That is a great quote from what Obama's position is now. What is different from Hillary's original position? And please note that Obama in speaking with Cuban-American voters since the campaign ended has said he will not meet with Cuban leaders unless they meet certain metrics towards democracy. Metrics = preconditions. There is no disputing that anymore.

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

user-pic

difamo,

You wrote,
blockquote>please note that Obama in speaking with Cuban-American voters since the campaign ended has said he will not meet with Cuban leaders unless they meet certain metrics towards democracy. Metrics = preconditions. There is no disputing that anymore.
I made an effort to track down the Obama speech you're alluding to, and read his speech in Miami that was reported on 3/23/3008. I see nothing of what you're referring to. Here's the relevant passage from his speech.

John McCain’s been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I’m looking for a social gathering. That’s never what I’ve said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

Billy et al are arguing that Obama's backtracked on his no conditions pledge. He hasn't. There's no proof of that I've seen. There's just abstract, toothless qualifications that can't be construed as preconditions in the sense that word was originally used by him and his opponents. His opponents mean concessions on substance. He's only talking about time, place, and a hope that something good will come of the meeting and that he won't get abused as Kennedy did or be used as propaganda as Hillary warns. There's no there here.

Hillary was out to bomb Iran, not talk to them. There's no similarity here except in the quote you brought in to this thread. That quote is grossly at odds with--not subtle different than--other things she has threatened to do and not do in the realm of international affairs. The differences in Obama's prior and current statements on meeting with leaders are insignificant nuances.

Adding in "time and place of my choosing" and "in our interests" is a nuance since Hillary was lambasted Hillary as having a "big brother" approach to diplomacy when she issued those same clarifications. There's no distinction left after the Cuban American voters quote. Saying we will not meet with the Cuban government unless we are in a position to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people = precondition. That whole argument of what equals preparation vs. what is a precondition goes out the window. Any distinction between Hillary and Obama's diplomatic policies ended there.

In terms of bombing Iran, Hillary said if Iran dropped a nuclear bomb on Israel, we would be in a position to obliterate them. Would Obama say differently? The Cold War ended without a nuclear bomb on either side because each side knew a nuclear strike would prompt retaliation in kind. Are you sure Obama would want to take that option of the table? I didn't hear him say that in Israel.

I don't believe the American people are looking for a candidate that has always been perfect or who has never made a mistake. Yes we can criticize Obama on various issues and still say he's a million times better than McCain.

And again post-debate, Hillary asked Obama to clarify what he meant by he'll meet without preconditions. The nuances to his original position continue to emerge and is virtually identical to what Hillary stated from the beginning. If you call Hillary's policy then "ignorant and short-sighted," what are you saying about Obama's now?

user-pic

Yeah, I know. We've been through it. You see it your way. I see it mine. What I've said all along is that Hillary never intended to put forth a position during the debate. Her intention was simply to mischaracterize Obama's position and create confusion about what he had said. She was clearly successful. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party will be stuck dealing with the residual damage from Hillary's dishonest attacks through election day.

Obama has said over and over what he would be willing to do. He has said he would be willing to meet with other world leaders. He did not "promise" to meet with them. He said he would be willing to meet with them. You can twist the meaning of that all you like, but being willing to do something and promising to do something are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Obama has not "flip-flopped" and to argue that he has is to accept a bullshit Republican talking point as the truth.

As luck would have it, this afternoon is going to be very busy. Perhaps a sign not to get into a protracted debate. We of course will see things through our own lenses. But the notion that Hillary was against establishing strong diplomatic overtures with Iran and Syria is AS FALSE as the notion Barack wanted to invite Castro over for cafe con leche and cookies. To criticize Hillary's position then is equivalent to criticizing Barack's policy now since there is no distinction left.

If I can just say one thing. I don't think many of us actually care passionately about the underlying point, which is pretty semantic.

I suspect what made this thread heated was the feeling that "we've been over this before many times," to quote djiamo. And also the fact that it's not really a live debate in today's news. (Billy's got this one AP clip to hang the debate on, but even he acknowledges that there's not much beyond that.) So to many people, it felt willfully trumped-up.

I'm not going to speculate about anyone's motives. My own feeling is, if it's not a live debate in the news, and we've already been over it ad infinitum here -- why bother with it?

But I don't want to tell anyone else what to do. Carry on.

Sorry about the typo. Djiamo => dijamo

user-pic

A fine post dijamo. You hit the nail on the head, and then some.

But the more we ignore reality or fail to acknowledge valid criticism
...then we'd be left to nothing but bitter invectives, a la Billy in this thread. He's capable of better; he's not elevating anyone's game with his post and series of replies. I think people mainly tend to shoot the messenger when they come in with guns a-blazin' to start with.

What is it about Democrats that makes them insist over and over that their candidates do things and say things that prove their purity to the left wing agenda, while causing them to lose elections?

Obama is trying to win an election. It is not a choice between a perfect republican and a perfect democrat, it is a choice between McCain and Obama, period. When Reagan and Bush and others moved their campaign rhetoric to the center in 1980, and 2000, I don't recall fellow republicans eating them alive for doing it. They both understood what was necessary to win the election and did it. Once elected, their inflexible right wing natures were evident and, frankly, pretty much all we ever saw -- before the election, they moved as hard to the center as circumstances would allow.

I don't give a shit whether Billy has confidence regarding how Obama will act when he becomes President. I don't care if Obama's current rhetoric bothers him. I just want Obama to win. This is an election between Obama and McCain. Not Clinton and McCain, not Feingold and McCain, but Obama v. McCain. Making an effective pivot into the future from the Dubya era is critically important, and, with McCain at the helm, it would clearly be a disaster of untold proportions - SCOTUS would be ruined for the rest of my life, another militaristic corporatist would be in the White House, and dealing with energy, global warming, environmental protection, the economy, the world -- would be handled as a continuation of a very sorry status quo.

At this point, I would vote for my dog if his election would ensure that the pivot to the future is not implemented through John McCain. Barack Obama is the most promising progressive candidate we have seen since RFK. Let's see if we can avoid eating him alive before hte November election. Sheesh.

user-pic

I hear you, and I agree with you in this sense, and that is that I am an unapologetic political yellow dog Democratic hack, and I am supporting Senator Obmaa even though I am smarting from a very tough campaign in which I supported Senator Clinton. But, and this is important, this is not a website that is set up to be an arm of Senator Obama's campaign. This is a website for junkies who crave poiticaal discourse. There is a real and material difference. If Josh Marshall tells us that the Cafe is an arm of the Obama website, then I will change my tune and consider posting elsewhere.

Bruce, I absolutely agree with you. Dissenting voices are very important and should be welcomed. But people who simply debate in circles and demean others as a way of appearing to be superior don't interest me in the slightest.

I don't always like what people here say, but I listen and consider it. I try my best to pay attention to the details, but not to get lost in petty bickering and the use of minor details to become major issues. This post is essentially taking something that can be seen by different people in different ways, but which in the end is not worth all this invective and turmoil, and turning it into a major cause. It's not that significant, and if we were all to state our positions, our justification for them and our beliefs about the importance of this issue, we could agree to agree, or agree to disagree, and be done with it.

But it turns into a combination of circular debating and insult, and at that point I have no further interest. So I appreciate your position and absolutely support it, personally. But, again speaking personally, I'm really interested in discussions that are intended to be informative and entered into with a spirit of sharing ideas and examining differing positions honestly. I prefer thecleverbulldog to billy - whoever he really is - because at least the bulldog doesn't pose as anything but what he is. I may think he's wrong, or even lying at times, but I can't misconstrue his position or intentions.

user-pic

Raider:

I appreciate your post. Please understand that think you are an asset here, and please don't think that my criticisms are directed your way. My only disagreement with you is that it is difficult to discern what is meaningful to debate and what is not. And perhaps I would give the benefit of the doubt on what is worthy of debate to a poster who is expressing what will clealy be a minority position at the Cafe.
That said, it becomes a problem automatically when the debating turns into a free-for-all spitting match. Time to work now, but I hope we continue to correspond.

Bruce


Thanks. Agreed.

Let's at least be honest about who steered the thread into a free-for-all spitting match - it was Billy. When anyone challenges or displeases him, he calls them stupid, ugly or worse. Is it any surprise that some people react defensively?

Really? You're the kind of asshole I despise. You think you can characterize people as stupid as long as you don't come out and call them stupid. So you and your friends write insulting, condescending comments, then squeal like a bunch of stuck pigs when one of you is confronted and insulted directly. What an arrogant snob.

user-pic
I don't give a shit whether Billy has confidence regarding how Obama will act when he becomes President. I don't care if Obama's current rhetoric bothers him. I just want Obama to win.

Totally, utterly agree--100%. There's clearly still a lot of sour grapes bitterness over Hillary's failure to win the nomination. Whatever. There are two candidates in this race and I prefer to spend my time supporting the Democrat and criticizing the Republican. I watched Democrats shoot themselves in the foot during the last election, and now it's happening again. Personally, I've never understood it. There's a Republican running against a Democrat. That's all I need to know.

user-pic

Then maybe you should spend your time elsewhere instead of making believe that you are discussing politics, when what you are really doing is seeking to stifle political discourse for base political purposes. Go play bunny on Obama's website. Go work for the campaign. You are a serial violator of the stated purposes of the Cafe. And, please, spare us the delusions of grandeur nonsense that our debating at the TPM Cafe is somehow going to help the Republicans. That's just plain nonsense and a veneer for stifling dissent.

As to bitterness, I have some, but it's not directed at Obama whom I support wholeheartedly. My bitterness is directed at people who acted like jackasses or worse during the primaries; it's directed at people who claimed a higher moral position during the primaries based on the fact that they supported one politician, Obama, over another politician, Clinton. I called bullshit then, I call bullshit now, and the bullshit I call will have no impact on Senator Obama's chances in the fall. In our little sandbox we really are not that important at all. Take it like a bunny cat should.

user-pic

Perhaps you should read your own post and take your own advice, K? In case you haven't noticed, I'm really not at all concerned whether anyone agrees with me or not. If you don't like what I have to say or how I say it, ignore me. It's really pretty simple. Just watch for the cat with the rabbit ears and click the imaginary "ignore this loser" button in your self-righteous little head.

I've got just as much right as you, officer.

user-pic

I generally do ignore you, and will continue to do so. There are several people with whom I choose not to correspond. I'll add the bunnycat.

But I call bullshit, again, to the extent that you would read my post as directing you to post elsewhere. It was a suggestion; post here as much as you want.

Finally, and for the record, I am extremely satisfied with how this thread has wound up since this morning. I think, perhaps self-righteously to some extent, that the Cafe as a whole is at least temporarily at a better place. And I do take solace in that.

Ciao Bunnycat.


user-pic
But I call bullshit, again, to the extent that you would read my post as directing you to post elsewhere.

I didn't even suggest that you had. At least be honest. Ciao.

user-pic

Fair enough. Ciao squared.

He prefers to be called pussy hare.

It's funny how well we're getting along at the end of this thread, compared to how horribly it began.

It's almost like there's something missing now -- some catalytic element that provokes people, and turns them against each other. Hmm. Go figure.

Yes, who in the world could that be?

I don't want to call anyone out by name, but he has been the bane of my existence since I started at TPM. Bobcat Ben Hocking :) Always the troublemaker that one.

It's funny how well we're getting along at the end of this thread, compared to how horribly it began.

Well, you're the person who began the thread, Alex39, so you can thank yourself for a horrible beginning! Next time try starting a thread with something substantive. I'm sure Billy considers your contribution to be pretty insipid.

Perhaps he does. But there are times when insipid has its uses. Cheers!

Next time we need some, we'll give you a call.

user-pic

J.M. Keynes:

When the facts change , I change my mind. What do you do ,sir?"

Oops. Sorry. Wrong party. Didn't realise it was for still "bitter" clintonistas.

user-pic

Good gravy. This is like the "depends what the definition of 'is' is."

Anyone with any intelligence understood what Obama meant the first time, and the elucidation of that position in response to disingenuous criticism, ie, a willful misreading of the intent, doesn't change anything about the underlying meaning.

Your post is interesting because this silly little "gotcha" is a perfect illustration of how deliberate oversimplification and mischaracterization avoids being the focus of our ire (not here, but in general). The faulty premise gets glossed over, and we're told to rebut the faulty conclusion. You want to stand back and discuss the meta, but you're advancing that which you purport to revile.

user-pic

If you're reading this post and not watching television, turn on the television. The scene in Berlin is amazing.

Watching it now - it is amazing.