Oh, "Really?"

As all are no doubt aware by now, on Tuesday, Michelle Obama twice used what I think to any objective observer was a politically unwise choice of words to describe her pride in her country at the precipice of what may turn out to be her husband's ascension to the Democratic nomination for president. Depending on what media outlet you were watching or which right-wing gasbag you were listening to bash her, what Obama said was either this:

"For the first time in my adult life I'm really proud of my country"

Or this:

"For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country"

Why would she say something that so clearly would send anti-American dog whistle messages to those who, as Pat Buchanan put it, are "wired like" him and would be particularly pre-disposed to hearing that sentiment from a liberal, I have no idea. For me it brought back memories of the politically tin eared Teresa Heinz Kerry who really turned out to be a liability to John Kerry in 2004, but what was quite amazing (not to mention depressing) was that as the story played out on Tuesday, the conservative attacks on Obama's words weren't nearly as ridiculous as the liberal defense of them turned out to be. Obama fans rallied to Michelle's defense, essentially insisting that a. Obama's words were perfectly fine because she said the word "really" between "life" and "proud" and b. when confronted with videotape of her saying it without the "really," many insisted that MSNBC had edited the footage to remove it, because that word made all the difference, you see, and considering the media is almost as evil as Hillary Clinton, what other conclusion could one draw!? A really poorly written diary saying as much sky-rocketed to the top of the dailyKos Rec list until its author finally pulled the delusional piece of crap from the site altogether.

In reality, it turned out that Michelle Obama had spoken both variations at two different events on the same day, something that seemed fairly obvious to me when I saw the video of her saying it without the "really" (you can tell if video has been edited -- it clearly hadn't been) and heard MSNBC repeatedly report that Obama had used the words in multiple speeches. You can see two sets of comments side by side in the video below (h/t TPM):

Now some would at this point probably want to interject that there is also video where the "really" is garbled, clear evidence of editing by the evil media, which I think is silly because you can actually still hear what she said even in that version, but again this presumes that the "really" makes her comments any better, which it doesn't. Now, ultimately, Michelle Obama finally addressed what had become a pretty full-blown controversy at an appearance in Rhode Island yesterday, and I think she did it in a fairly effective way, not apologizing but just explaining what she meant, watch it below:

The reason I think it works is that, as Glenn Greenwald puts it, she was...

...able to render these attacks impotent, even cause them to backfire, because they and their propagators will appear to be so ugly and small and irrelevant in light of the type of candidate he is, the rhetoric he produces, the vision to which he aspires.

But there are a couple of concerns. First is the delusional nature of the defense of the comments by Obama supporters, who claimed not only that Obama didn't mean what the right was saying she meant but also that the "really" did make all the difference. First of all, since when does it really matter what she meant? A political gaffe need only exist in the eyes of the beholder and their ability to communicate their version of what the speaker meant. Secondly, the insistence that the addition of "really" in the comments made any difference at all and that the media surely had edited her comments to make it sound even worse really points to the problematic nature of some of the support Obama enjoys: many of his supporters believe the Obamas can do no wrong, period; imagine if such acrobatics had been performed to justify comments made by Bill Clinton this cycle? Never would have happened. The rush to judgment that results in anti-Clinton derangement is just as potentially dangerous as that which results from the pro-Obama derangement. I mean, really, so many of Obama's online supporters have alighted from the reality-based world and insist on defending Obama to any attack, regardless of the soundness of the argument but if he is the nominee, we're going to need to defend him against attacks in strong and logically sound ways and also hold him accountable when he screws up; this is why the blogosphere came into being, not to rubber stamp anything and everything a candidate says. If his legions of supporters are going to continue the blind allegiance, it's going to be really unhelpful in the fight ahead.

Secondly is the issue of whether the Obama campaign is responding swiftly enough to these attacks, or, as Jonathan Martin puts it, whether he is

...sufficiently aware of the danger that exists from the conservative Freak Show that did as much to beat John Kerry as George W. Bush did in 2004.

Now, as I said before, while Michelle's explanation of her remarks could have come sooner, I do think she effectively dealt with it, but what of the latest comments by Bill O'Reilly? From Media Matters:

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels"

Umm, what? As Keith rightly pointed out yesterday, and he still has his job?! I agree with Greg Sargent:

I mean, O'Reilly used the word lynching when talking about Michelle. Here you have a perfect opening for Michelle or a designated surrogate to deliver a toughly-worded -- and simultaneously high-minded -- response that nails O'Reilly directly between the eyes for his ugliness and pillories his wingnut colleagues for their phony piety and counterfeit patriotism. Remember how effectively Elizabeth Edwards  made hash of Ann Coulter when she called John a "faggot"?

The Obamas obviously have the rhetorical dexterity to do something like this and more. If they did, it would go a long way towards taking the steam out of questions being raised by their rivals as to whether they have what it takes to survive a general election. Seems like a missed opportunity."

Seems to me that this was the first of what could be many tests of the effectiveness of both the Obama campaign and the blogosphere to respond to attacks on his campaign and I have to say I'm not really overflowing with confidence by either's performance.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama (all tags)

Comments

244 Comments

Re: Oh, "Really?"

Once again Obama and His wife are given a pass by the media. What a sad day for this nation.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-02-21 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I, for one, have been ashamed to be an American for years now.  I can easily understand Michelle's sentiment, although I'm sure she's sorry it came out that way.  Obama's candidacy has made me hopeful (there's that word) that some day America can be a force for good in the world instead of what it is now.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not hopeful

"A really poorly written diary saying as much sky-rocketed to the top of the dailyKos Rec list until its author finally pulled the delusional piece of crap from the site altogether."

That seems to be "standard operating procedure" at the Great Orange Satan these days.

by KnowVox 2008-02-21 05:53AM | 0 recs
The same can be said of the...

Pro-Clinton derangement crowd. But since the author exists in that crowd then he can't see it himself.

by Erik 2008-02-21 06:00AM | 0 recs
Some delusional pieces

of crap do get posted on DailyKos from time to time it's true.  Here's one from a few weeks ago:

Your Rasmussen is wrong. (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:ghost2, campskunk, owl06
Latest nation wide polls

Real Clear politics: Democrats: Clinton 42.6%, Obama 26.1%

Rasmussen: Democrats: Clinton 40%, Obama 24

KnowVox on Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 04:47:05 PM PST

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:09AM | 0 recs
Read and weep

Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008
Based on polling conducted Feb. 18-20, 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now tied in national Democratic presidential preferences, based on Feb. 18-20 Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

The latest three-day average finds Clinton favored by 45% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters and Obama by 44%. Gallup interviews from Feb. 19, the first day following Obama's strong win in Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, do not show an increase in Obama's support that some might have expected as a result.

by KnowVox 2008-02-21 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Read and weep
With your candidate's 527 smear machine cranking up, it might actually win her Ohio by a point or two.  Ohio not the brightest bulbs on the tree.  Texas is a goner for her, most likely popular and for sure delegate count.  So, too little too late.  
Obama has today picked up a net of 8 or so superdelegates as well, who know a winner when they see one.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Read and weep

Ohio doesn't count and you're an expert on "smear machines?" LOL

by KnowVox 2008-02-21 12:51PM | 0 recs
Will you vote for Obama?

by Erik 2008-02-21 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Look at the bright side. They're both Democrats and they're getting a break from the press. If this keeps up...

by spirowasright 2008-02-21 06:47AM | 0 recs
Apparently the only news around here is Michelle..

Obama. That's sad for a supposed pro-democratic site. One little piece about McCain. And one huge piece at the top of the page attacking Michelle Obama. That's called Pro-Clinton Derangement.

by Erik 2008-02-21 08:06AM | 0 recs
Fortunately, all this noise will disappear
 March 5, as the last hardcore supporters stand on the taffrail of the SS Hiltanic as it slips beneath the waters for good and all.  
Then we can get to the business of grinding McCain into the finest of powder.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 11:56AM | 0 recs
Time To Unite, Folks...GOP Weakness=Progessive win

I would have fallen behind HRC if she had become the nominee, depsite my support for Obama.  Real progressives of loyal stripe would have done so.  

The new voters (youth and AA's, and some right-leaning moderates) for Obama, probably would not have followed my path...but that is not the point.

The point is that REAL, long-time supporters of progressive ideals and long term democrats who suppoted the Clintons WILL line up behind Barack sooner or later.  

For Baracks REAL people to antagonize Hillary's people now that there is no longer a legitamte path to the nomination for her is UNFAIR and Counterproductive...just as it is for Hillary's REAL supporters to attack Barack.  I think that this is a minimal problem though.

The truth, I beleive is that there ARE a number of GOP Trolls here who are doing the 'ol "Less filling, tastes great" inciting-a-fight bit.

As intelligent, thoughtful folks, let's stop falling for it. We need to unite behind Obama..all of us.  McCain just received a wound, furhter bolstering Obama's chances in November.  Let's not blow it by allowing Trolls to divide us!!!

If we unite, we will not only win the presidency, but will also make gains in the Senate and HOR to the point where Obama's agenda will be GOP-proof.  

I think we can ALL agree that this is just what we need.  A strong majority in the Congress to implememnt the Democratic/Progressive's agenda!!!  

Had it been HRC, I'd be saying the same thing today.  I am sorry for those of you who have put so much time, energy, and desire into Hillary's campaign...I have felt the sting of nomination defeat myself a couple of times... but when your candidate has lost their ability to compete with honor and certainty...it is time to brush yourself off, get up, and fight the good fight for yourself, your family and your nation.

Please Join me in Uniting behind Obama.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-21 05:12AM | 0 recs
No thanks

And I am a REAL long-time supporter of progressive ideals who won't be "lining up" behind Obama anytime soon.

I'll work my tail off for the Democrats down the ticket in my home state and elsewhere.  I won't put one ounce of energy into the Obama campaign and may just leave the president slot blank in November.

Ten strong Democrats in the Congress is worth the weight of one supposed Democrat in the Whitehouse who would sully and divide the party to gain the nomination.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: No thanks

grass roots organizer, eh?  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 05:45AM | 0 recs
Get the fuck out of here then...

If you ain't for the Dem nominee which will most likely be Obama then someone needs to kick this  off the site. I've asked this question several times of Hillary supporters and none have answered. At least this  has the balls to tell the truth.

by Erik 2008-02-21 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: No thanks

Yeah, ok.

I hope you don't mind your grandchildren getting drafted and dying in Iraq, then.

What, you forgot about the new "Hundred Years" War ?

Fake Democrat!

Back when Hillary was leading, I thought about voting for McCain....

Until he started talking!

by xodus1914 2008-02-21 06:14AM | 0 recs
I have a son in Baghdad right now

and don't even try telling me I don't care about his safety and future.

With much consideration, I would feel better with McCain as his Commander and Chief than Obama.  Much consideration above and beyond the knee-jerk reactions often expressed by persons with zero personal stake in the situation in Iraq.

I can't imagine voting for McCain, no less, no more than I can imagine myself ever voting for Obama.  I'll leave it blank and work for Democrats down the ticket.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

UNDERSTANDABLE.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

You're right, it is totally understandable, just as it was understandable that some people voted for Nader in 2000 (though I bet you would probably argue that was different right?), there is a certain percentage of the population that wont vote for any Democrat because they're "not pure enough" (seriously, grassroots obviously doesn't care about the issues because on those HRC and Barack are pretty much equal, except in foreign policy where she's Lieberman, and health care where her plan is politically unfeasible).  

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-21 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

my reasons for not supporting Obama have nothing to do with purity or issues.  I will not support him for reasons of ethics, character and ability.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

Ethics, Character and ability.
Ok. I'll equate ability with experience and let you have a point with Hillary on that one, since I'm sure that's what you're getting at.
Ethics? Character? Hillary is going to stand by let a 527  sink the eventual nominee and that's ethics?
Character? She lets her husband fight her battles for her , then she has to pull him back and now she has 10 losses  in a row.
Iraq? You mean that you would not vote for Obama, but somehow you think that Hillary would be better for your son than MCain? Do you know how similar Hillary and Barack's positions are ? They are close on everything except Healthcare, NAFTA and immigration. Of course, NOWadays, Hillary is against the war.
Or perhaps you think that Hillary would leave the troops over there even though she says she would pull them out, so she can sound like Obama.

And by the way, Barack actually wants to re-deploy into Afghanistan since that's where AL-Quida never stopped operating, and Bin Laden is still located.

So please, explain how Obama's ethics, character and ability is so bad, that you would run the risk of having Mccain in office, by not voting for Obama.

by xodus1914 2008-02-21 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now
BTW, do you know what a true 'Yellow Dog" Democrat is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_ Democrat
by xodus1914 2008-02-21 08:16AM | 0 recs
WHEN THEY THOUGHT

IT  WAS TO THEIR  ADVANTGE

BOTH OBAMAS AND THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN MADE A POINT ABOUT HOW IN NOVEMBER, HIS VOTERS MIGHT NOT BE THERE FOR HILLARY,BUT HERS WOULD BE THERE FOR HIM...

WELL THE AMAZING ARROGANCE OF THOSE REPEATED STATEMENTS HAVE HAD AN EFFECT...

AND THEIR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST..

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now
So, let me see if I have this correct:
Obama, out of Iraq in 18 months.
McCain  a hundred years
Hillary no answer
Your son must be in the green zone.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:39AM | 0 recs
OUTRAGEOUS!

you are a true dick!

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now
I'm recommending your comment so more people can see it.
It speaks volumes.
by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

hey,

youre one of my faves.

just know id punch that guy in the nose for ya if this here were real life, cause he surely isn't a real man, internet or no internet...

----

oh,tx,pa,wv,ky,in and pr

we will be fine...

and so will your boy.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:35AM | 0 recs
Thank you. n/t

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

Okay, the guy says he'll vote for McCain who has no problem with a hundred years, and his kid's in Iraq.  Where is the logic?  Perhaps between the two of you you can come up with something.  Or perhaps you agree with the invasion, as did Hillary and all her advisors.  Are you even Democrats?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

Moderator....

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

My best wishes for your child.  Although I cannot disagree more strongly with your position, it is at the end of the day a simple disagreement.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

I too, pray for your son's safety.
My son is also in Bagdad, until march of 09.
I will vote for the dem nominee as they are promising to wind down the war.
McCain is not. He has endorsed the bush policy in Iraq. I disagree with the bush policy.
Maybe you support the bush policy.

Lets just hope both of our sons get out ok along with their mates,ok.
Good luck.

by hawkjt 2008-02-21 09:03AM | 0 recs
by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-25 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I have a son in Baghdad right now

You feel better with your son being there for 100 years?

by logic is beautiful 2008-02-21 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Time To Unite, Folks

Amen. As a fervent HRC supporter, I want to echo your plea for an end to hostilities here. I want a Democrat in the White House next year. I would have preferred it to be Hillary, but I'll take Barack over John McCain any day.

Nevertheless, it's important that both Obamas learn that it doesn't matter what you meant, it matters what people hear or can be made to hear by the VRWC/MSM. If you don't say stuff in the first place that the opposition can distort or misconstrue, you won't have to explain what you really meant.

by Not the only Dem in KS 2008-02-21 05:35AM | 0 recs
Thank you

sane HRC supporter!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

I think its safe to say that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, and their surrogates, have made mistakes this season. Clinton is less well liked in the media, this is obvious. But then, she knew that, and the Clintons were supposed to have this great media machine... Its apparent that Bill has lost his grove. 92 or 96 Bill would not have fallen for these traps.

Every election is different. They will attack Obama. He will learn how to respond. Getting worked up about something Michelle said in February is not worth a story on the front page of MyDD... the OReilly thing, maybe, but get over the Michelle thing... please. We need to move on.

Even if you just talk about why Clinton is better, at least dont give in to the divisiveness the media wants you to beleive.

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Time To Unite, Folks...GOP Weakness=Progessive

you are dellusioonal...

thithing iis so far from over.

tx,oh, ky,in,wv,pr....ALL OURS

Automatic delegates...will fly to us after that..

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Time To Unite, Folks...GOP Weakness=Progessive

The Hindenberg flew for a while too.  State of the art in every way.  The obvious and only way to fly in comfort and style.  All the best people flew in it...

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:20AM | 0 recs
I LEFT OUT THE KEYSTONE - PA!!

tx,oh, ky,in,wv,pr....ALL OURS

Automatic delegates...will fly to us after that.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I LEFT OUT THE KEYSTONE - PA!!

Can I quote you on this March 5?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I LEFT OUT THE KEYSTONE - PA!!

yup

ive been 100% so far.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I LEFT OUT THE KEYSTONE - PA!!

You predicted ten straight losses?  If so, you are a true Glastrodamus.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I LEFT OUT THE KEYSTONE - PA!!

Automatic Delegates?! Seriously, you just suck down those talking points don't you.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-21 08:00AM | 0 recs
Excjuse me? "lost their ability...

...to compete with honor and certainity"?

Mrs. Clinton has shown more honor, dignity, grace and certainity than both Obamas will ever be able to show in their lifetimes.

I guess with you REAL WOMEN should just slink quietly back to the kitchen.

by Shazone 2008-02-21 05:54AM | 0 recs
About midway through Obama's

second term, when real progress has been made, you will come to realize how bitter and foolish you sounded at the time he won the nomination.  Just a prediction.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Excjuse me? "lost their ability...

Shazone.... where in ANYTHING I wrote in my plea for unity was there so much as an implication of sexism?!  

Really.

I in fact, went out of my way to highlight my respect for HRC.

WTF?

by a gunslinger 2008-02-21 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Excjuse me? "lost their ability...

Don't you know?

If you aren't a full throated supporter of Clinton you must be either extremely sexist or a cultist. There are no other possibilities.

It can't be that you respond to his message, that you think he will do a better job or even that you think he is more likely to win, and win big in November.

Clinton is clearly the chosen one and anyone who moves against that is a horribly evil person who doesn't belong in the Democratic party!

Right Seymour?
Right Shazone?

by JDF 2008-02-21 06:49AM | 0 recs
I think your comment about Mrs. Clinton...

having lost her ability to compete with honor and certainty was pretty disgusting.  And since you were telling us all how REAL people should behave it was my logical conclusion that you were talking about how REAL WOMEN should behave....back to the stove!

by Shazone 2008-02-21 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I think your comment about Mrs. Clinton...

Everything is about sex with you people... You probably will attack me now for ending my sentence with a "."

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I think your comment about Mrs. Clinton...

My comment was made REGARDLESS of gender or race for that matter.

HRC the CANDIDATE, notthe woman, no longer has a path to the nomination that doesn't include changing the rules (honor) or arm-twisting the party elite (certainty).

It was NOT logical to assume ANY comment on her gender or sex roles in that ANYWHERE. Not once was her gender mentioned or implied regarding her role as a candidate.

Shame on you.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-21 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I think your comment about Mrs. Clinton...

I'm sorry, but there was nothing remotely logical about that conclusion. Sexism is a real and urgent problem in our society, and flinging around irresponsible and baseless charges undermines those cases where that charge is warranted.

by Weirdsmobile 2008-02-21 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Time To Unite, Folks...

I was with you up until the point about "honor and certainty." I don't see any dishonorable about her campaign at this point.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-21 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Time To Unite, Folks...

How about the 527s gearing up to smear Obama?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:00PM | 0 recs
Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

She misspoke.  Who cares.  Why are we trying to go after our own.

by puma 2008-02-21 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

I'm an Obama supporter and while I understand what she said it's still trouble in a way that it wouldn't have been in any of the races they've been in before.

More troubling to me is that they need to respond rapidly to this crap and push back aggressively.  I know that smacks of "the old politics" but seriously, you can set the record straight quickly and forcefully without spinning nonsense or being divisive.

by dbt 2008-02-21 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

hypocrite.

you falsely slandered as racists bob kerry, andrew cuomo and both clintons with the media' help.

live by the media's sword, die by it.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

Where have you been old friend? I have missed your mindless wit and witless banter!

You might notice that the media, whose sword you seem to be claiming is flying swiftly down on to Obama's neck, is more interested in McCain and his real transgressions rather than Michelle Obama's admittedly terrible gaffe.

I will give you credit for one thing though- you hold a grudge like no other. And I admire that since I will be holding plenty of grudges for the behavior on this site in the future.

by JDF 2008-02-21 06:52AM | 0 recs
i claimed?

oh boo f-ing hoo

the MS media IS the obama campaign..

lord, get a clue!

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

She did not even misspeak. I finally heard the entire context (on Tweety's show) and she was  describing the 'politics' of this election which she then said 'made her really proud'.

I can not even find a transcript of the sentence before that clearly gave the context. That's how unfairly this has been covered.

It's always going to be easy for people with evil intent to distort the meaning of words. Reasonable people will see the truth behind the distortions.

by JoeCoaster 2008-02-21 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

Because she is not "our own" to so many on this board.  She is the enemy.  For some poor people, there can only be one "our own" and anyone or anything that stands in the way of their one and only must be eliminated by whatever means necessary.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

They should just rename this site MyHC

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

How sad for you.  Needless to say, THIS kind nonsense is why the GOP wins more often.    

I also didn't realize that Hillary Clinton fans believe she is...THE HIGHLANDER!

There can be only one!

What a joke.

by freedom78 2008-02-21 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why are we focusing on Michelle Obama?

Just realized I misread (I think) the comment to which I was replying.  

"Because she is not 'our own' to so many on this board.  She is the enemy.  For some poor people, there can only be one 'our own' and anyone or anything that stands in the way of their one and only must be eliminated by whatever means necessary."

My bad...thought you were implying that this is YOUR belief.  So...strike the "for you" out of my original comment.

by freedom78 2008-02-21 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"
Criticism of  Bill O'Reilly for this has to start in the media and blogosphere, not with the Obama campaign.  Why?  Because it's kind of a trap for the Obamas.  If they jump on this, they get accused of "playing the race card", and a pebble hits the "white voter backlash" pond and slowly ripples outward.  
If the media and blogosphere bring it up first (as Olbermann did fairly ably), it gives the story legs, and Obama can simply respond to it when asked.  "I don't think that kind of language is appropriate, and I do think he should apologize."
Then, O'Reilly really has nowhere to go on this.  He has to apologize, or else look like more of an ass than he already is.
by megaplayboy 2008-02-21 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I agree. The Obama campaign did just what they needed to do. What is being recommended is an emulation of the Clinton campaign's response to the "pimping" remark. They made MSNBC crawl and they felt good about themselves, but it isn't clear they helped their candidate.

Maybe a candidate can succeed without wallowing in this petty bullshit. Wouldn't that be something?

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-21 05:55AM | 0 recs
INDEED! I am so totally in agreement with that!

Todd writes: "Seems to me that this was the first of what could be many tests of the effectiveness of both the Obama campaign and the blogosphere to respond to attacks on his campaign and I have to say I'm not really overflowing with confidence by either's performance."

Well, Todd, there's a new ball game in town. Obama has told all who would listen that he is not about politics as usual.

It is possible that O'Reilly's reference to 'lynching' was inadvertent speech. On the other hand, if it wasn't, there is a very good reason for him to have done so. It is called taunting and abetting, with the explicit aim of creating a racial rift in the political discourse. Can't you see how such a discourse would benefit the GOP?

It is therefore fitting for Obama and his campaign not to rise to such filthy tactics (if indeed it were) from O'Reilly. Indeed, it shows such a level of maturity, of tactical superiority even, from a campaign that is changing the political landscape with every move it makes.

by Freedom 2008-02-21 09:07AM | 0 recs
Slightly disagree

I think Obama can say a little more than that without being accused of playing the race card:

"People want to know what I mean by change, and this is a perfect example.  It's long past time for us to stop doing and saying things that hurt each other and waste precious time, and start to work together.  We must do better than this, we can do better than this, and we will do better than this, because we are better than this."

by Lou Grinzo 2008-02-21 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Todd, your candidate has just presided over one of the most colossal collapses in political history.

Taking 1,000+ words to point out a poor choice of words from the wife of your opponent seems a bit childish.

by MJPacino 2008-02-21 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Thankfully Mrs. Clinton's spouse is so much more disciplined and never gets off message!

by stuckinsf 2008-02-21 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

To be fair, he is rather new at this game...

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I wouldn't call it a collapse--pre-primary polls are always very fluid--just look at Howard Dean, or how many different frontrunners the GOP had before Iowa.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-21 09:58AM | 0 recs
It was stupid wording

I think Michelle Obama has been an exceptional surrogate for her husband, and knowing a few people that have worked with her in various capacities (both professionally and in volunteer programs) - I think she's an extremely intelligent and capable person.

But this was just flat out stupid wording.

I don't think it's a huge deal, I don't think it will ultimately 'cost' any votes in the primary or the GE --- but I do wish she'd just say "It was a really poor choice of words on my part.  I'm sorry if they offended."

That doesn't excuse Oh, Really? - but I'm disappointed that she didn't just come out with a "D'oh!" mea culpa.   No one expects Michelle Obama -- or Barack Obama... or Hillary Clinton... or Bill Clinton... or John McCain to be perfect - but where I think you can actually score points in a situation like this is to just own up to a misspeak and move on.

by zonk 2008-02-21 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: It was stupid wording

she did try to clarify, but some people here have made their minds up, and nothing would suffice.

Im not saying thats you... just some people

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: She needs a coach

I don't know if she doesn't "have that instinct" -- she's been pretty solid thus far, and like I say below -- folks I trust say she's a real solid, whip-smart person who doesn't make lots of mistakes.

But you're right - she made one here.  I agree with you so far as how I wish she'd have handled it.

by zonk 2008-02-21 05:21AM | 0 recs
"Delusional"

Quit it. It just makes you sound like bitter sore-losers.

by Jumbo 2008-02-21 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

itss gonna be so fun to watch your type WAIL after we start picking up the big un states again...

tx,oh,in,pa,ky, wv....

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

You know what the best part about Obama wrapping up the nomination will be?

You'll either go away for good - or get yourself banned.

Either way, the air will around MyDD will be much clearer and cleaner.

by zonk 2008-02-21 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

oh you kossacks do love a good banning dont ya!?

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

In fact, I don't, Seymour.

You consistently go out of your way to inflame.  You rarely have anything substantial to add to the conversation.  You've never - so far as I can tell - discussed any issue or aspect of the campaign in good faith.

I've made comments I'm not proud of.  Most people have.   Most people also own up to them and have at least a moment of clarity here or there where they can act reasonably.

You don't.   You drop in to threads, play bizarro Jonah Goldberg, at best, hurling 'facts' like dirt clods, but more often, crossing the line into brazenly inflammatory rhetoric - then scamper away to spread your bile elsewhere.

We all have our moments.  The problem is when missteps become pathological.

by zonk 2008-02-21 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

Bad faith, win at all costs, scorched earth, lining up the fat cats with their 527s, Jesse Jackson references, unflattering pictures of tired candidate and wife, whatever it takes.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

waaaaaaah!

pansies.

this fight is just starting.

after you folks slandered bill and other good dems as racists, we dont give a flying f for your "feelings".

im not here to make you happy, i couldnt care any less if you never read my diaries, ii am here only to give ammo to my clinton comrades and im  proud to say its working.

just note that the machinist union prez the oher day used my obama as two faced Janus riff in his speech  that inflamed so many cultists...

makes a poppa proud!

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

No - you're here to spank your bile monkey.

by zonk 2008-02-21 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

if you mean enrage you cultists...thats just a side benefit...a perk if you will.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

Yeah, I'm enraged all right.

by zonk 2008-02-21 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"
It's all in good fun.
I'm sure they'll all be voting Obama in November after they simmer down, because they are all loyal Dems, right?  Don't want to be Iraq a hundred years and all that.  I know I would certainly vote Hillary if it came to that, because I'm not a traitor to my principles; that being choose the best candidate and hope for the best.
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 12:15PM | 0 recs
Amen to that

March 5th, the air WILL clear.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

I'm an Obama supporter, but I still recognize that there are delusional Obama supporters around. What I don't understand is how Todd, writing on MyDD, of all places, can pretend that the delusional supporters are all on Obama's side. This place is infested with delusional Clintonites who will mindlessly defend her every misstep.

All candidates have wacko supporters, and they've been coming out of the woodwork during this race. I do wonder how many of them are actually Republicans sowing dissension in our ranks.

by KCinDC 2008-02-21 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

Mr. Glass above would be an example of the latter.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

Todd also falls into that category with this diary.

by Erik 2008-02-21 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

There are crazy people all over the world. People suffer from delusions and dementia and hallucinations. Using language associated with mental illness when describing American voters is not elevating the dialog.

by Jumbo 2008-02-21 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: "Delusional"

Agreed.  One need only read on this site for an hour to see that the delusions go well beyond Obama's supporters.

by freedom78 2008-02-21 07:37AM | 0 recs
The "Real" Problem

I have to say, I think it's interesting that you focus on the admittedly somewhat inept resopnse of some Obama supporters.  I'll readily concede that the Obama campaign should have handled this better, and more quickly, but i was personally shocked to see how many "progressives" on this site and elsewhere were repeating the EXACT line of attack that McCain and the far-right were using against Michelle.  That's some pretty ugly stuff, in my view, and far more disturbing to me than any bungling by Obama.

Also, I would second the notion that Michelle's ultimately statement was quite effective.  When you're under the spotlight every minute of every day, sometimes what you say will come out garbled.  She explailned what she meant and now we can move one.

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

But she should apologize if the Obama campaign desires to pacify the right.  

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Apologize for what?  She misspoke and has admitted as much.  Apologizing would make this much worse, but I think you already know that.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Michelle Obama must apologize for her lack of patriotism.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

You should apologize for such a stupid statement, but that wouldn't really accomplish anything either.  

Seriously man, you're basically saying EXACTLY what Cindy McCain said yesterday.  That doesn't strike you as "interesting," given that this is a progressive site?  Good lord.

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Michelle Obama is not progressive.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Listen to her speak first, then tell me that she is not progressive.

by Freedom 2008-02-21 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Listen to her speak first, then tell me that she is not progressive.

by Freedom 2008-02-21 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Sorry for the double post ...

by Freedom 2008-02-21 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

I suppose the next criticism would be that she didn't apologize loud enough.  Good grief.  

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Also, you said an apology was necessary to "pacify the right."  Should I take your subsequent demand for an apology to mean you are part of "the right?"

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

No, you should not, for my concern is the liability she and her treachery poses to the Party.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Now it's "treachery," eh?  Hyperbole much?

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Tell you what MO can apologize for this and HRC can apologize for her vote that led to the deaths of nearly 4000 Americans in Iraq.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-21 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

But at least Hillary loves her country.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Yep, it's definitely more important to make sure you don't misspeak than it is to be right about the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last several decades.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

funny?  Does our behavior "disturb" you as much as the terms "Billary" or "Clinton Machine"?  Were you bothered by the months of attacks on and assumptions about Senator Clinton that came straight out of a Sean Hannity book or a Rush Limbaugh rant in 1997?

You have got to be kidding me.  The Obama camp has cribbed from the vast Right Wing Conspiracy for months, trashed the Clinton presidency using the same phrases, the same language, the same bullshit as the neo-cons, and NOW you're disturbed?

Whatever.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

I think you're off base with respect to Obama criticizing Clinton with right wing talking points.  Both sides have gotten a bit rought at times (HRC saying Obama wants to raise taxes by a bajillion dollars, Obama's health care critique), but it hasn't been anything like this.  And, I would note, I'm proud of Senator Clinton for not making this misstatement an issue.  That shows quite a bit of character, in my opinion.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

"I think you're off base with respect to Obama criticizing Clinton with right wing talking points"

I would have to say that borrowing from the republicans "Harry and Louise" advertisement (even going so far as using similar photography), which helped tank universal health insurance the first time, would qualify as using "right wing talking points".  

by AnnC 2008-02-21 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

You'll note that I included that example in my list of hardball tactics both sides have taken.

by HSTruman 2008-02-21 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

I take issue with that.

Like it or not -- the "solutions" HIllary Clinton proposes to enforce her insurance purchase mandates ARE quite likely to force some awfully hard decisions onto families.

To wit - she proposes "fixing the holes in Medicaid" as a way to make sure no one gets unduly burdened purchasing insurance they cannot afford.

Problem is - one cannot "fix the holes" in Medicaid at the federal level without federalizing the program... and nothing in her plan says she wants to do that, nothing in her statements hints that she would try.

While Medicaid is co-funded by both the states and feds -- each state INDIVIDUALLY develops its own medicaid program.   Each state decides - beyond a very bare federal minimum - who gets covered.  Each state decides - again, beyond a very bare federal minimum - what will be covered.

The minimums right now are laughably low.  So low that even the reddest of states generally cover beyond the federal minimums.  

They do so because it's a good deal.  States can essentially spend $1 in state funds for $2 in benefits.

Beyond all that - state participation in Medicaid is NOT mandatory.  States can choose to opt out.

So what "holes" will Hillary fix?

Will she radically bump up the minimums?  Will it be $40K per year earners?  Someone making $40K a year in a metropolitan area probably cannot afford monthly insurance premiums.  Will she include a geographic COLA?  

If she does bump the minimum to 3-4-5-6 times their current levels (which is basically what would be required to patch most of the holes) -- how will she then protect against a conservative governor and conservative state legislature deciding that they don't want to increase their state budget's health care expenditures by 3-4-5-6 times?

Will she make state participation mandatory?  If so - how does she expect to get around the constitutional issues?  In effect - making Medicaid mandatory makes for a de facto federal mandate on a state budget process.   There are cases currently winding their way though the court system regarding NCLB... but the difference is - the feds can argue that NCLB technically doesn't prescribe state budgeting... it just sets (unreasonable) federal requirements.  It doesn't REQUIRE states fund X dollars of education.  

Sorry - you can dislike it all you want - but there's an awful lot of truth to the "Harry and Louise" mailer.

A lot of Americans are going to be stuck between a rock and hard place... forced to buy insurance they cannot afford, or, pay some sort of penalty because they didn't buy something they cannot afford.

If Clinton wants to call for universal health care -- fine.

BUt she's not.

She's calling for universal health care INSURANCE purchasing mandates.

There's a big difference.

by zonk 2008-02-21 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

too bad...

obamaa started his campaign by attacking the clintons selling the lincoln bedroom and he has joined wth the msm ad used their lie filled script to try to destroy the clintons..

you aint seen nothin yet, hillarys supporters are gonna cut obama to pieces.

I would bet that hilllry brings this up tonght.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

You're right, I ain't seen nothin' yet.  I'm sure this has been the Clinton strategy all along-- get clobbered all over the map, then save it with a last ditch, 527-aided smear campaign.  

Let me know how that works out for you.

by JK47 2008-02-21 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

You know what the funniest thing is?  For all of Clinton's statements that the campaign is about actions and not words, all her supporters have to fall back on are idiotic word games like these.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

NO ONE expected the all white obama brain trust to use the race card after losing in nh and charge the clintons and all clinton surrogates as being racist.

THAT WAS

unexpected and unforgivable.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

Yeah, that had nothing to do with Hillary insulting Martin Luther King, on Martin Luther King day, no less.  I guess it's beyond the pale to pounce on a candidate when (s)he makes a boneheaded gaffe.

What's this diary about, again?

by JK47 2008-02-21 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

How did she insult Dr. King?

by devoted1 2008-02-21 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The "Real" Problem

idots liked this don't care for the truth.

mlk's aides - john lewis, andrew young and jesse jackson all said she was right about this and that the obama campaign played the race card...

but the cult aint listening...

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Has this site turned into a right-wing attack machine? If Michelle Obama were running for Prez, I'd understand it. Give her a break, she made a mistake and corrected herself.

by mecarr 2008-02-21 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Yes, I wonder if some of the people here were trying to tear down Hillary Clinton when Bill was running for President.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

whaaaaa!

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Ah, yes, the more experienced and wisened Clinton supporters.  Who can compete with a towering intellect such as this?

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 05:58AM | 0 recs
whaaaaa!

whaaaaa!

whaaaaa!

whaaaaa!

whaaaaa!

whaaaaa!

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: whaaaaa!

Hahahahaha.  You become more relevant with each post.  Scholars will collect your pearls of wisdom and study them for generations.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: whaaaaa!

A few more whaaaa's and he'll have enough for every state Clinton has lost in the primary season

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Jonathan Martin is right about this. The Obama campaign has no idea about how to handle the GOP freak show. If they were so flat footed on this one then I worry about them being able to handle the full onslaught.

Michelle made a mistake in her response too. She should have thrown it back with "Of course I love my country" as in "how dare you question my patriotism" but instead came off as trying to have it both ways.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-21 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Good point too bad they can't be smooth like Hill and be loathed be 50% of the country, seriously even after Novemeber I'm willing to bet that Obama could kill a puppy on national TV and have lower negatives than Hill.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-21 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Oh, "brother."  You do realize that the more hand-wringing that goes on, the more of an issue it becomes, right?  Do we really need multiple Youtube clips and thousands of words over a verbal slip-up?  This isn't the Kennedy assassination, and you yourself said that she has dealt with the issue.  But, of course, it provides for an indirect attack on Obama supporters so it becomes epic, front-page material.  Ridiculous.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I believe she should apologize for her statement.  

by truthteller2007 2008-02-21 05:27AM | 0 recs
The Obama campaign is all about words

It's not like they can change the subject and talk about Obama's record.  They can't afford to make many verbal mistakes.

by Upstate Dem 2008-02-21 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama campaign is all about words

Every campaign is.  An apology for a misspeak would have been a lot better.  Rationalizing a dumb mistake just gets you in deeper.

by mady 2008-02-21 05:38AM | 0 recs
Obama's record is superior to Clinton's

in each and every way.  If you're a progressive, that is.  If you're DLC/hawk/NAFTA/pro Iraq invasion, then he would have the worse record.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 05:52AM | 0 recs
Spouses

I'm afraid both candidates' spouses need some lessons in being supportive partners.  This is not their show, but they are two powerful people who seem to both have problems with relinguishing that to serve a different role.  First Bill with some of his foot in mouth stuff this campaign, now Michelle with that incredibly stupid and thoughtless statement.  They need campaign etiquette lessons or something.

by mady 2008-02-21 05:36AM | 0 recs
Contortionists.

I agree; her clarification was really quite effective in shutting down the criticism - or at least deflecting it, long-term.  I'm less concerned (at this point), about the Obama campaign's failure to come out strongly against Bill O'Reilly's statement.  Is there anything in the world that could actually shame Faux News?  

But you hit the nail squarely on the head when you discussed the foolish lengths to which many Obama supporters are willing to go in defending him.  I haven't seen so many progressives passionately opposed to mean old "government bureaucrats" and evil "mandates" "taking your money" since the last time the Republicans tried to privatize Social Security.  Well, come to think of it, I didn't see many progressives complaining about Social Security back then, either.  So I suppose I've never seen so many "progressives" going nuts about government regulation or mandates since ever, and while there may be reasonable political reasons to prefer Obama's plan (the: start with kid's health care, then expand; or: look, we can actually pass this one without crippling our ability to pass other legislation), many of his vociferous online supporters went crazy nuts yammering phrases I've not heard since the early 1990s.  

That bugged me.  It still does.  I'm not prescient, but I see two (doubtlessly, among many) possibilities: Obama gets the presidency, governs from the center-left, as his campaign and position papers suggest he will, and the 'movement' he has created abandons him when the reality of the slow-moving political process sets in, wounding him politically (hope turns to hate; you know, like Clinton-hate) and making genuine, progressive change less likely.  Or: Obama gets the presidency, governs from the center-left, and the blogosphere becomes a noise machine defending his every action.  

I think that some Obama partisans defend his every action because they are reactionary ideological puritans - the Nader "oh, they are all the same" cheering section of the left wing, who have at least come 'round to the idea that "oh, they are maybe not quite all the same" after eight disastrous years of GWB.  Ideological purity is so important to them (that is why they hate the Clintons - "compromisers, triangulators" - nevermind that Obama inhabits much the same space as Bill Clinton) that they cannot admit fault in their candidate as it would cause them full retreat back into their pure "single payer OR NOTHING!!!!!!" cynicism.  (Note: it feels like idealism - not cynicism - to them, but there is something very dismissive and disengaged about it.)  

I'm confident that those folks are a minority - a vocal minority, but a minority - among Obama supporters, but I suppose that time and tides will tell.

by mgee 2008-02-21 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: She needs a coach

she WAS scripted you dope - hence the addition of the 'really" -thats the problem

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:42AM | 0 recs
"dope"

Classy!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: "dope"

I love your name.

by Denny Crane 2008-02-21 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: "dope"

Hot dish all around!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I would consider reading some of the comments on this very site, such as those in response to Kid Oakland's recommended post. Seem to be very anti-Obama and not really responding to what the post said. I think the Clinton's have just as many operatives who defend the Hillary and Bill no matter what. Think: Lanny Davis. There are a whole string of them, but that's what operatives do.

I liked what Chris had to say about this obsession with talking about and getting angry at the supporters of candidates other than one's own:

"I also simply fail to understand how some people can get so worked up about the supporters of the opposing candidate, and not just the opposing candidate himself or herself. And I'm not talking about campaign surrogates or staff--I'm talking about raw hatred for the anonymous, grassroots supporters of both Clinton and Obama. There seems to be a widespread desire to shove your candidate's victory in the faces, down the throats, and up you know whats of supporters of other candidates. Further, it often degenerates into crass stereotyping of the supporters of your opposing candidate that can only be described as crude bigotry. Not only is this all very juvenile, but the desire to punish a group of anonymous people that you stereotype based on the actions of the few strikes me as the desire of reactionary conservatives, not progressives. And yet I find these comments quite frequent online from both Clinton and Obama supporters alike."

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=4027

by Panhu 2008-02-21 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

another kossack complainer here to both insult and "save" myDD...

zzz...

boring...

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 05:55AM | 0 recs
Michelle Obama won't wear well

I think the American public will tire of her arrogant, shrill nonsense very quickly.

She is like school on Christmas ... no class.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-21 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama won't wear well

Michelle Obama no class?  You have to be kidding.  The woman is a gem.  Compare her style and honesty to Bill Clinton's at your peril, fool.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 05:55AM | 0 recs
a true diamond in the very rough

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

my fave about her is that even after taking  a $200,000 "raise" from the "not for profit" UC hospitals directly after her hubbie "press leaked his way to the Senate", she still is on record bitching about not making as much money as her "peers".

Yeah, a real gem, a "real" garnet, what a stone..

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: a true diamond in the very rough

Your reality and welcome to it.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Todd,

'Seems to me that this was the first of what could be many tests of the effectiveness of both the Obama campaign and the blogosphere to respond to attacks on his campaign and I have to say I'm not really overflowing with confidence by either's performance.'

But, you're not exactly a neutral party.  You've a dog in this.  So it's difficult to look at your assessment and think that it is a valid one.

Flash in the pan.  Ho hum.  The McCain lobbyist story which came out effectively erases this from the public consciousness.  

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-21 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

It does, but look at what people here are focused on.  It's telling - they'd rather destroy Obama than go after McCain.  The circular firing squad continues.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

the hypocrisy amazes...

did you defend bob kerry, andrew cuomo and bill clinton when they were being slandered and falsely accused of being raacists?

thought not..

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

How the hell would you know what I did and didn't do?  I don't obsess over minutia like this, though clearly you're past the point of no return.  What, because a stupid line of attack was repeated against certain individuals, that attack should be repeated against others "just because"?  Vindictive BS is all you've got left.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 06:14AM | 0 recs
minutia like this....

slandering good dems falsely is "minutia"...

and they wonder why we call your type cultists...

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: minutia like this....

Thanks for proving my point.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: minutia like this....

And that's exactly what has been done to Obama's wife; and perpetrated by Clinton supporters as well.

Though I don't know why anyone cares what a shill for Clinton such as yourself would think about anything.  You normally have to have credibility to be taken seriously.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-21 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: minutia like this....

LOL!!!

at you......

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: minutia like this....

incisive and cutting, sir, I am truly wounded.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-21 06:47AM | 0 recs
The Obama campaign has a history of late....

repsonses....late explanations of votes and issues; late economic plans, late reaction to their stupidity on the stump.

What bothers me is that everything seems to have to be so scripted that they must be turning to someone (Axelrod??) to put words in their mouths for them.

Obama claims Words Count.

But those words should be their own - or, at the very least, their own thoughts.

by Shazone 2008-02-21 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Obama campaign has a history of late....

What... you want him to copywrite "hope" pretty sure thats a widespread idea

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

A social climber?  Really?  I would have said achiever if anything.  You can snipe from your basement if you wish.  No one can stop you, it's the internet, after all.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

the classic kossack basement insult..

how fresh, how new.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

I think Mom's got your lunch ready now.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

just what are you kos-nerds doing here?

come to insult and save the day?

did some nerd-king {with a truly low and awesome sign up ID} send your here?

But, it must really suck and b frustrating that you cant gang ban the "trolls' huh?

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

Speaking from bitter trollish experience, no doubt.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 06:54AM | 0 recs
dude

I find you net nerds to be embarrassing half witted compulsives

not

dangerous thought filled intellectual foes...

as if.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: dude

Very contemporary expressions....from the eighties.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-21 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

The problem with Clinton supporters is that you think Republican memes will hurt a Democrat in a Democratic contest.

Earlier Hillary's staff argued that Obama would raise taxes. Then they said that he's not tough enough to stand up against our foreign enemies.

Now they're saying he's not patriotic enough?

I think Hillary may be running in the wrong primary. lol.

I get the feeling that the Hillary campaign are just spinning their wheels at this point.

Her candidacy will be finished by March 5.

by obamania 2008-02-21 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

knok-knock..

hillary is WINNING among Democrats...

its those new and  old indie voters that are obamas strength.

Ill tell you what, there are a gazillion DEMOCRATS in pA who will never vote for Obama if they hear what she said.  I mean never, not in the primary or november.

hope hillary brings it up tonight!

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

To which party does the Indie's allegiance lie?

by devoted1 2008-02-21 06:28AM | 0 recs
by both definiton and declaration

NONE

and that will be the winning argument after PR and pre Denver with the automatic delegates.

Dems should select their nominee.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: by both definiton and declaration

Im sure Bill got no independent support in 1992, or Hillary in 2000.

By the way, Hillary lost among Dems in Wisconsin, even with all those demographic advantages she had

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

It may be that McCain did the Obamas a favor, but really, there have been only a few times I've been anywhere near proud of the American electorate in my adult life.  I can think of 1986 when the Democrats retook the senate and 1992.

by Drummond 2008-02-21 06:09AM | 0 recs
truly amazing...

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 06:10AM | 0 recs
Gotcha

I love how any little bump or ruffle that comes along is evidence that Obama will lose to McCain.  

Plagiarism-- he's DOOMED!  Look at what it did to Joe Biden!  The right wing will tear him to shreds on this!

Rezko-- he's DOOMED!  Wait until the Right Wing smear machine gets a hold of this!

Michelle's comments-- Obama is DOOMED!  He can't stand up to the right wing smear machine!

And on and on.  Every day, something happens to Obama that's supposed to be the death knell of his candidacy, and every time Obama emerges stronger and his followers more energized.

Obama supporters have very deep support for their candidate, I will admit.  This is a strength and not a liability.  They're not going to jump ship or stick their heads in the sand every time some petty new non-controversy springs up.

by JK47 2008-02-21 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Gotcha

We are in a land of "Concern Trolls for Hillary".  Michelle makes a gaffe and we should all be quivering in our boots because a few Republicans have jumped on it.  Many of you are doing nothing but living in fear of Republicans.  Any shrink worth a salt will tell you that living in fear is not the way to succeed at anything.  Fear is how we got Senators voting for Bush's authorization and then got beat in the next election anyway.  Fear is what led Al Gore to not use Bill Clinton or his stance on global warming in 2000 and guess what, he lost anyway.

Of course Republicans fight dirty, but fearing making a mistake or saying something that Rush Limbaugh will repeat on his show isn't a healthy way to go forward.  When Democrats stop playing into this b.s. and start doing what we think is right like in 2006 is when our party will thrive.  Pissing and moaning isn't going to get us anywhere.

by GobBluth 2008-02-21 08:21AM | 0 recs
Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

As it stands now, if he gets the nomination, I think Obama is going to have a problem attracting more than about 60-70% of Clinton's supporters, and it's for several reasons. Personally, I like most things about Obama. However, the large subset of his supporters, the ones who show absolute blind allegiance and think he can do no wrong, scare the crap out of me, and make me not want to vote for him. This same sort of thing happened with George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. I'm not saying Obama would be anything like Bush. I'm saying now is not the time for blind allegiance. All of us should be questioning every aspect of the candidates.

by zenful6219 2008-02-21 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

Well, then those 30-40% of Clinton supporters are idiots and they'll be to blame for a McCain presidency.  Luckily, I don't believe what you're saying is true.  I think Obama will do just fine with Democrats in the general election.  November is a long time from now.  When the GE rolls around, GOOD democrats will vote for Obama, should he hold on and win the Dem nomination.  The rest of you can vote for Nader or something, we all know how productive that is.

Look, I didn't like John Kerry in 2004.  He was probably my last choice out of all the Dems on the ballot.  I was bummed when he won the nomination.  That said, I voted for him, gave him money, and talked myself hoarse defending him.  Did he run the campaign I wanted?  No.  Did he disappoint me in some ways?  Sure.  But I'm a good Democrat and I hate Republicans, so I did what I could to help.    Maybe I would have worked harder and given more to Howard Dean, but it didn't pan out that way.

But I didn't take my ball and go home.  This is politics.  Sometimes your candidate loses.  That doesn't mean you go out and cast a revenge vote for Cranky McBombIran.

by JK47 2008-02-21 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

Yes, I've consistently backed primary losers (Tsongas, Bradley, Dean), but I've always voted for the Democratic nominee.  People who either sit out or vote for McCain have lost all sense of perspective.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

the handfull of nutters on MyDD hardly represents the majority of Dems...

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

99% of the time someone mentions a percentage it's bullshit. The only question you need to answer is, will you vote for Obama?

by Erik 2008-02-21 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

Of course my 60-70% is my own invention. I said it was my belief. That means it's completely unfounded. But, the Obama supporters I mentioned in my original comment should have no problem with unfounded comments, they do it all the time. Add that to the blind allegiance, and you have a recipe for disaster. I guarantee you, the Republicans will not be so blind.

by zenful6219 2008-02-21 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

Are his indys and left leaning repub going to come out in 2010 and vote democrat again so he can get the 60%+ majority he will need to get anything done in congress?

Somehow I doubt it.

by americanincanada 2008-02-21 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

I am quite capable of backing McCain... right now, BHO has not answered enough questions, largely because of supporters like you.

Unless he is asked enough questions (and provides answers that I can respect), my support WILL go to McCain.

And so, if you want my support, start asking questions.

Course, you will probably tell me to go jump in a lake (politely, of course)

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

Oh, just go jump in a lake

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Will Clinton Supporters Unite Behind Obama?

ummm... I was hoping for something more polite..

like...Oh, just go vote for McCain !!

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

No, no, no, no, no!  These were NOT "unwise" words.  About time someone with courage stood up against what now passes for the U.S.  Anyone here except the trolls (i.e. the now 19%, used to be 25%) "proud" of the U.S. these past 7 years?  Come the hell on.  We want to take back a Nation from criminals and you say these were "unwise" comments?  I'm amazed you would think that here.

She had the courage to stand up.  Hope she doesn't back down.  And I sure as hell hope you don't either.  Cause if we keep backing down from the truth we get more of George Bush being enabled by Reid and Pelosi.  The names will change but the result will be the same.  Very disturbed that this site would jump on the "unwise" bandwagon.

by scytherius 2008-02-21 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I'll admit that there hasn't been a lot to be proud of over the past 25 years or so, but I can think of at least two events that qualify as pretty damned significant. What about the end of the Cold War? I should think that would have sparked a little bit of pride in a younger Michelle Obama.  What about the longest economic expansion in American history brought about by Bill Clinton starting in 1992? As a Democrat, I'm particularly proud of that. I wonder if she shares that pride. It was stupid of her to repeat several times that, in her adult life, her husband being on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination, is the proudest she's ever REALLY been of America.

by zenful6219 2008-02-21 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

I must have missed the comment about voting for Barack because he was black.  Did she really actually say this?

However there are statements that do bother me.

"If you can't run your own house, how can you run the White House."  

"You only get one shot at us".   Now or never.

She'd have to "think" about supporting Hillary if Barack didn't get the nomination.  Makes me wonder when a Dem says this.

And then, of course, the latest slip about "For the first time in my lifetime, I am really proud of my country."   It seems that "I'm really proud of our country right now" would have been more acceptable.

by cameoanne 2008-02-21 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

the "If you can't run your own house, you cant run the White House" statement was in an article about how she and Barack run their own home. With two daughters, jobs, meetings, and such, and manage to spend time with their family and each other

It was misinterpreted by some as an attack on Clinton... when you only quote that line.

by Wiz in Wis 2008-02-21 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Hillary supporter could have

This "comment" was said at a campaign event in Atlanta by Michelle.

by cameoanne 2008-02-21 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

It was a stupid comment especially for someone who is usually deliberate in her speech.

Our "country" isn't the problem. The problem is and has always been our our government and its elected officials who lead us away from the ideals of our Constitution.

America as a Nation is something those of us who are sitting comfortably behind our keyboards SHOULD be proud of.

by devoted1 2008-02-21 06:27AM | 0 recs
delusional? derangement? Come on!

Your use of these words completely undercuts any argument you have. Just hyperbole to try and prop up your point.  As a mental health expert, i take exception to these words.  I take exception that you would use these words for people who are strongly supporting their candidate.  If you want to make an opposing point of view, go ahead and do so, but it should stand without having to use pejoratives that imply that Obama supporters are mentally ill.  

by petercjack 2008-02-21 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Adult Life. Assume that starts at 20, so 1984-2007.

How many were particularly proud of the Reagan/Bush country on this site? I was personally too young to have an opinion.

And the Clinton era? Where Congress tied itself in knots of sex scandals and impeached a President because he was of the opposite party. Where the President himself couldn't control himself when he KNEW his political enemies would run with it. And the country ate it up as Rightwing Power grew.

The Bush Era? Not. Fucking. Likely.

This has been argument since the "scandal" broke. I'm not parsing, I'm not trying to make up something. But there has been not a lot to be proud of in terms of the country. I'm proud of the PEOPLE on 9/11, but the Country? The country that afterwards went crazy giving up their freedoms, that plunged into a war in Iraq? The government that lied? The Re-elected Bush in 2004?

No. Not very proud at all.

But like M. Obama, with the voters coming out, with their desire to clean this up, I still have a little hope that I can be proud of it again.

And as to hitting O'Reilly, well I can see both ways. If you go after O'Reilly it detracts from the campaign. Perhaps they will, perhaps they should have. I don't know. But how many Democrats, after having this thrown at them, would be running around with flag pins or apologizing, or generally being spineless wimps. Seems like quite an improvement to me.

by MNPundit 2008-02-21 06:33AM | 0 recs
Let's Really Think About This

Folks,

The small percentage of "in your face" supporters of both BO and HRC ...the ones who enjoy sticking it to the others represent a very small perectage of their cnadidates voters.  Some of these folks are probably trolls anyway, seeking to divide us.

Are you going to let a mischief-maker, or a zealot effect your support of progressive ideals? Come on.  Will you let 50-100 posters on this site and others determine the fate of the nation?  

Unite.  Be logical. Be reasonable. Be smart. Be a team!

by a gunslinger 2008-02-21 06:35AM | 0 recs
Holy Crap!

The worst post ever from an increasingly silly and desperate staff. To pretend that there is anything to this or plagiarism or other stupid swiftboat talking points, is beneath what are becoming the far too frequent childish posts here.

Is this really the best you can do? Is this really the best arguments that supporters of HRC can come up with? Don't you see how impotent and bereft this makes the campaign look?

Wait the next one will be Obama is a bad candidate, and we have to support HRC, because Barack didn't wear a flag pin.

No wait why not just repost Billo's blog instead of writing your own; think of the amount of thinking it would save, think if the votes it would get Clinton, think of the beer you could drink if you didn't have to any work at all!

Well I am now convinced, landslide Obama cannot be supported anymore, Michelle doesn't love America enough. No sorry what you said was: Obama didn't stop Bill'o from making the "Hot Hot Claim About Seekrit Muslim Michelle Osama Doesn't Love America!!!!!!"

It's embarrassing.

"They have done such a bad job responding to stupid, infantile, desperate attacks, that they can't win a single primary."

Oh wait.

by inexile 2008-02-21 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Seriously?  This is what passes for a full blown controversy?  This is worthy of a front-page post?

I was almost really proud of my country for the first time in my adult life, but now those feelings are once again fading away...

by anayfack 2008-02-21 06:54AM | 0 recs
It's the patriotism, stupid

Michelle Obama's comment, and the poor immediate pick-up on it, will become just one more piece of the patriotism puzzle they will build against Obama.  Standing alone it's a ripple, packaged with other Obama moments and decisions it's a wave.  One big dumb statement and it's a tsunami.

Kerry could have buried the Swiftboat accusations with the right kind of outrage.  It wasn't in him.  And I'm not seeing the well-crafted backdraft needed from the Obama campaign needed to offset attacks on his patriotism.

He's running against John McCain for cripes sake, the campaign will be nothing but questions of Obama's patriotism.  And if you don't think patriotism is an issue with the general electorate you really need to turn off the computer and get out more.

You know all those people who buy all that junk in the gas station encrusted with eagles and stars and stripes?  Yeah, they vote.  And they really vote when a cnadidates patriotism is a front burner issue.

Obama has displayed what's becoming an obvious discomfort with patriotic rhetoric and displays, probably to appeal to his "disengaged" base.  he has a foreign born father, no military service, went to school in a foreign country, no huge record of public service, belongs to an Afro-centric church.  They are going to package that all together and hammer him until he bleeds. He'll be forced to ignore it and raise more questions or  find himself posed like Dukakis in a tank.  with all his talk about change and nothing of value coming out of this country in fifty years, with his aloof superior demeanor, he's painting himself into a corner.

This all might make the typical Obama supporter physically ill and intellectually outraged but you can't win the presidency while looking unpatriotic.  It's like watching a bus drive off a cliff in slow motion.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the patriotism, stupid

Yeah, but this just goes to show that Obama only wins in states that hold contested elections. Sure, he wins big in caucus states, he wins big in primary states, he wins big when turnout is low, and he wins big with record-high turnout. But what the Obama-worshipping media is overlooking is that in each of the 25 state contests Obama has won so far, his name appeared on the ballot. It's time to stop giving Obama a pass on this critical issue.

Remember, if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama's name will not be on the ballot in November. And only Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she can win when Obama's name is not on the ballot. In fact, she's undefeated in contests where Obama is not on the ballot, making her clearly the more electable general-election candidate.

by inexile 2008-02-21 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the patriotism, stupid

I did not say that I took this from openleft, it was my bad but is funny. It was reposted on openleft.com, by someone who took it from Rhubarbs' posting on The New Republic blog.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank /archive/2008/02/20/legitimately-huge-tu rnout-in-hawaii.aspx

This proves I am not fit to be president.

But thanks to Rhubarbs, TNR and openleft  formaking me laff.

heh

heh heh.

by inexile 2008-02-21 07:03AM | 0 recs
Ohh look Obama won Democrats Abroad BREAKING!

And it is another landslide for Obama.

Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, according to the International Chair for the Democrats Abroad, Christine Marques.

Marques tells CNN the results of the week-long vote were:

Barack Obama - 65 percent, Hillary Clinton - 32 percent, with the rest of the candidates pulling in less than 1 percent of the vote each.

Democrats Abroad will send 22 delegates to the Democratic Convention, with half a vote each, carrying a total of 11 votes.

This caps a perfect month for Obama. ooops sorry Landslide Obama.

For those of you who care this puts Obama within 35 delegate votes, including all sources, erned pledged delegates, Michigan 'delegates', Florida 'delegates' and SuperDelegates. Now that would mean seating Michigan's 80 delegates, even though HRC was the only one on the ballot.

And she was on the ballot even though all other candidates took their names off at the request of the DNC. She stayed on the ballot, even after repeated requests from Dean and the party.

This proves she is a "smart politician" and being a "smart politician" is why she loses in landslides.

by inexile 2008-02-21 07:22AM | 0 recs
fascism

"when fascism comes to america, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"

sinclair lewis

any questions?

by citizendave 2008-02-21 06:57AM | 0 recs
Lets call it demagoguery

and be done with it.  this is a non-issue being brought up by desperate campaigns.

by Moonwood 2008-02-21 07:00AM | 0 recs
Hey, Michelle! Ever Hear of Arlington?

So Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country until now when there is a possibility that she may become First Lady?

Blech.

I suggest that her Secret Service agents drop her off in the center of Arlington National Cemetery where she can be among the many Americans who so loved and were so proud of their country, that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for it.

by BigBoyBlue 2008-02-21 07:07AM | 0 recs
pride=war???

if it is pride that makes one march behind whoever is waving the flag without questioning said flag wavers' motives, then its no wonder that it falls in the deadly sin catagory.

i can do with a little less pride and a little more humility.

by citizendave 2008-02-21 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Said What She Meant

Ohhh yes now I see your point. Michelle doesn't love civil rights either of course. this will win November. I can't wait for the tv ads.

You are so republican.

America isn't sick of this at all!!! America knows that slime is what we need!

Slime will save the day for the republicans!

by inexile 2008-02-21 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Those 30% of GOP deadenders who will defend Bush to the death and will approve of him no matter what?

Yep, we've got them too. They are called Obamabots and Hillarybots. But the Obama kind are certainly more numerous these days. When you find yourself defending indefensible gaffes that not only will hurt Democrats, but you candidate over the word "really" you've got to sit down, look in the mirror, take a deep breath, have a cigarette, and think for a minute about the zealousness of your support and realize that it's a bit too much.

Bottom line is that if we are gonna expect our very own version of the 30% of dead enders following Obama down the cliff no matter what, then I want no part of your so called "movement".

by need some wood 2008-02-21 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Bottom line is that if we are gonna expect our very own version of the 30% of dead enders following Obama down the cliff no matter what, then I want no part of your so called "movement".

So what are Obama supporters supposed to do, switch to Hillary now because Michelle didn't show sufficient patriotism?  If Obama supporters don't buy into right-wing spin, they're "Obamabots?"

There's a difference between strongly supporting your candidate and being a "dead-ender."  If anybody is looking like dead-enders right now, it's the HRC supporters, clinging to the last shreds of the dream until the bitter, inevitable end.

by JK47 2008-02-21 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

who here is telling you to ditch Obama?

It certainly was not me. What I am saying though is there is no need to defend your candidate to the bitter end on something that is just indefensible--which is what this post was about. There is a reason why people think a certain strand of Obama supporters believe he can do no wrong--because they have proven over and over again to defend things that couldn't be defended.

Michelle fucked up, a clarification was in order, which she did to her credit and we can all move on. Trying to defend her comments through a torturous logic which was plainly stated my the OP here is what people object to.

It points to a larger issue that if Obama were president and he did something that was wrong, a mistake or simply indefensible that we would see some 30% of people excusing it like the Bushbots keep doing despite what's happened over the past 7 years. That is scary coming from a so called reality based community.

by need some wood 2008-02-21 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

This site is pathetic.  I see the McCain story takes a back seat to my Obama bashing here.  Top story about HIS WIFE making an obvious mistake.  Let's dig into it so friggen deeply and make her seem evil.  All for what?  So we can push Hillary as the candidate we'd rather have.  After all, she's never made any mistakes speaking.  She doesn't have any skeletons in her closet.  No, we don't want to talk about the candidates here, just their spouses.  We want to be smear merchants against a Democrat much like the Swift Boat jerkoffs.

This is not only my last post here but the last time I will EVER visit this web site.  I hope you're all eating crow in a few weeks when Obama is the candidate and Hillary is back home trying to keep Bill's dick in his pants.  

by crackerdog 2008-02-21 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

I personally find it amazing (and amazingly disheartening) that we have McCain over a barrel in the press today and this site is dedicated to tearing down the wife of the Democrat who will knock McCain silly in the GE. Please everybody, keep your eyes on the prize here!

by wasder 2008-02-21 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Although it saddens me that I cannot speak for Todd or Jerome, a large number of the posters here are Republicans trying to create a scene or produce material for Bill'O's shower dreams of "OUTRAGE!!" and "Breaking Seeekrits!!!"

Do not be disheartened.

Obama just won Democrats Abroad in a landlside. The voting has been going on since before SuperTuesday, so it's not as a result of the 'bounce' or momentum of a "Perfect February for Obama"

by inexile 2008-02-21 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

"First is the delusional nature of the defense of the comments"...

BHO is the presumptive frontrunner, and we have simply refused to ask him any questions.  We may be the ones we have been waiting for, but we also get the government that we deserve.  

We are in big trouble unless we start asking questions.

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

What possible questions are there that haven't been answered?

You keep threatening to vote McCain unless some "questions" aren't answered.  What are they?

by SKI 2008-02-21 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Here is a short list

(a) is he a free trader, or a protectionist.  If he is a free trader, why does he bash NAFTA like it is the work of the devil.  If he is a protectionist, why doesnt he say so ?  His website says that NAFTA is flawed, and that he will fix it.  What are those fixes, and what are the flaws.  If NAFTA is merely flawed, why does he talk about it as beign the work of devil ("NAFTA has not put any food on the table").  What is the difference between a "fair" trade agreement that "opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs" and  all trade agreement that opens up foreign markets to good american jobs.

(b) he wants to launch military operations in Pakistan (an ally) and negotiate with Iran (an enemy..nominally).  What is he prepared to give away to Iran (the point of negotiating, after all), and what will he do about OBL's popularity in Pakistan (a country with nukes) if the US is seen as being a hostile enemy.  What is he prepared to do if US action destabilized Pakistan to the point of state failure.. a very likely outcome.

(c) Will he guarantee a pull out of Iraq in 18 months, or 4 years, or 8 years ? (which he has answered as No).  If no, would he be okay if the occupation continues for another 100 years, or can he guarantee an end in (say) 25 years... or 15 years ? or 10 years ??  If No, why does his website say that "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

(d) Given that the only 2 ways to end a war are victory or defeat, is he prepared to utter the word "defeat" in order to bring the troops home.  Or would he rather fight on, as long as there is a chance for "victory".  What does he mean by "victory" ?  What does he mean by "defeat".  Is he prepared to watch OBL celebrating the great American defeat on CNN, just to bring the troops home ?

(e) What steps is he willing to take to balance the budget.  Is it necessary/advisable to balance the budget ?  And note: I do not want to hear "end wasteful govt. spending +  reverset Bush tax cuts on the wealthy etc."... these are way too inadequate at this point.

(f) What steps is he willing to take to balance the trade imbalance with China.  Is it necessary/advisable to do so

(g) What steps is he willing to take to curb CO2 emission.  Is it necessary to do so ?  Note: asking Detroit to make cars that use less oil, and supporting a market based "cap and trade" would gets him an F from me...if that is the only thing he has to say.

I can go on and on...

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

And oh, on Iran...I should add that  

"If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."  (this is from his website)

is a patently silly thing to say if he is claiming a radical new policy of negotiating with Iran: it is no different from current US policy towards Iran.  In fact, I believe that Condi Rice used almost the same language about 1 year back.

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

One critical difference is that this Administration said we would start to talk to Iran AFTER they  capitulated to all our demands.  That isn't negotiations.

by SKI 2008-02-21 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

Obama's position (as per his website) appears to be identical...that isnt negotiations either.

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, "Really?"

(a) is he a free trader, or a protectionist"  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/econom y/#trade

"Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

   * Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
    * Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
    * Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs."

(b) he wants to launch military operations in Pakistan (an ally) and negotiate with Iran (an enemy..nominally) what will he do about OBL's popularity in Pakistan (a country with nukes) if the US is seen as being a hostile enemy.  What is he prepared to do if US action destabilized Pakistan to the point of state failure.. a very likely outcome.
He doesn't "want' to launch attacks in Pakistan - he said he would launch special operations aimed at Al Qaeda, even in Pakistan, if Pakistan can't or won't do so itself.  This, BTW, is standing US policy and was recently carried out in terms  of the Predator Drone attack that killed a top AQ operative in NW Pakistan.  Amazingly, no destabilization from that attack. <rolleyes>.  OBL isn't actually that popular in Pakistan as the recent elections showed.

For Iran: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreig npolicy/#iran

Will he guarantee a pull out of Iraq in 18 months, or 4 years, or 8 years ? (which he has answered as No).  If no, would he be okay if the occupation continues for another 100 years, or can he guarantee an end in (say) 25 years... or 15 years ? or 10 years ??  If No, why does his website say that "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Guarantee that 100% of all troops will be out? No.  
Plan to pull all combat brigades out in 16 months? Yes.

(d) Given that the only 2 ways to end a war are victory or defeat, is he prepared to utter the word "defeat" in order to bring the troops home.  Or would he rather fight on, as long as there is a chance for "victory".  What does he mean by "victory" ?  What does he mean by "defeat".  Is he prepared to watch OBL celebrating the great American defeat on CNN, just to bring the troops home ?
Was Korea a Victory or Defeat? <rolleyes>
What is wrong with declaring victory and leaving?
OBL will declare victory whether we stay or leave.  I REALLY don't care what he or AQ claims.  It isn't worth lives and treasure.

What steps is he willing to take to balance the budget.  Is it necessary/advisable to balance the budget ?  And note: I do not want to hear "end wasteful govt. spending +  reverset Bush tax cuts on the wealthy etc."... these are way too inadequate at this point.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal /

Barack Obama's Plan
Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

   * Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
    * Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
    * Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
    * Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
    * End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient

   * End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
    * Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

(f) What steps is he willing to take to balance the trade imbalance with China.  Is it necessary/advisable to do so
I don't see a policy on his website specific to China but, personally, I can't see how anyone would rationally expect to "balance" trade with China.  Why is this a question for you?

(g) What steps is he willing to take to curb CO2 emission.  Is it necessary to do so ?  Note: asking Detroit to make cars that use less oil, and supporting a market based "cap and trade" would gets him an F from me...if that is the only thing he has to say.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy /

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

   * Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
    * Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Look, given that every actual issue you raise except the trade balance with china is on his website, I am left with no other conclusion that you really aren't interested in actual answers and are merely a "concern troll." People who want answers (and are interested enough in poltics to post here at MyDD), know how to visit a candidate's website.  

by SKI 2008-02-21 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

Very nifty use of html, btw..wish I knew how to do that.  You must be young (or just technically savvy, old geezers like me tend not to be technically savvy).  And thank you for calling me a concern troll...very effective strategy (sarcasm) of insulting someone when you can't answer a question.

My questions were based upon a thorough reading of his website (in addition to the things he has said)... I thought you were smart enough to figure that out, but you must have missed that.  So..to explain, all the quotes I use are either his words from one of his speeches, or directly from his website..  

So let me repeat my question ...this time I will focus just on trade (the first question I had, or else I believe you will lose me altogether (again).

Is he a free trader or a protectionist ?  According to his website, he believes in fair trade, which he defines as one that "opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs".  What is the difference between "fair trade" (as he defines it), and all existing trade agreements which also open up foreign markets to support good American jobs.  ?? Opening up foreign markets to good American jobs is the purpose, after all, of all trade agreements.  And they all have labor and environmental provisions (Yes, including NAFTA!).  

Obama will "Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers."

What are the flaws that he sees in NAFTA, and what are the fixes that he is proposing.  He also said that "NAFTA has not put any food on the table"... is he implying that NAFTA has not created any jobs, or than on balance, it has created fewer jobs than it has shipped overseas ? (And this is relevant because most economists agree that NAFTA has created quite a few well paying jobs).

He says he will "fight trade agreements that undermine our economic security".  Can he name one such trade agreement that has undermined our economic security (even NAFTA, that he demonizes, has created quite a few good American jobs).

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

Given that when I went to college the web didn't exist, I really appreciate being considered young.  I certainly don't feel it.

You keep trying to ask black/white, either/or false choices.   Trade policy isn't an "on/off" switch where it is completely "free" or "protectionist".  We can promote opening markets without ignoring the impact of trade with countries that aren't required to protect the economy or have basic labor laws.  We can use trade agreements to promote policies that work to our advantage in more than stock market profits (not that profitability is wrong but it isn't the sole factor to be considered).

If you don't know what "fair trade" is, you haven't been following progressive politics for the last 20 years.  If you truly don't understand the economic debate between the two, I suggest reading Daniel Drezner's  book U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair (available as a free PDF download: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/ attachments/CPCTrade.pdf)

by SKI 2008-02-21 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

I do not care to read books that may or may not reflect Obama's definition of fair trade... Daniel  Drezner is not running for President.  I think you are being silly in asking me to do that instead of answering a simple question.

I am asking a question of you  (and of your candidate, by extension)... what do  you mean by fair trade, given that your definition of fair trade includes every trade agreement ever signed (including ones championed by confirmed idols of neo-conservatism such as Al Gore...remember him ?)

I am asking a black/white question because your candidate's position on trade (and on several other issues) is not self-consistent.  I am truly confused... is he a protectionist, or is he a free trader (or, if you will...what are his preferences between the two extremes).  His web site spouts a lot of words which do not say anything.

As to whether past trade agreements have not worked to our advantage...as you seem to be implying (and your candidate has definitely stated directly).. most economists would disagree with you.  In the 7 years after NAFTA was signed, for instance...8 million jobs were created, and the economy went into "full employment".. it was not possible to create any more jobs.  And yes, a chunk of these new jobs were directly as a result of NAFTA, and yes... some of them were well paying jobs.

I could also mention that you have not addressed any of the other questions: what are the flaws in NAFTA, and what are the fixes.  Why does he say that "NAFTA has not put any food on the table"...yada yada yada

by SevenStrings 2008-02-21 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

I guess the irony is lost on everyone that Todd criticizes Obama for his lack of rapid response, but he's so busy tearing down Michelle Obama that the opportunity of a lifetime to damage McCain slips right through the cracks.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

I'm starting to wonder about the element of self-perpetuating tittilation that accompanies blog sites. I'm having a profound bout of nostalgia for reading newspapers and writing and snail-mailing letters to the editor.  Why does common sense and a sense of mission go out the window when the need to "keep it going" hits.  Why does this all tend to degenerate into hostile blather.

You would think that with this election coming and the need (I would think shared by everyone on this site) to elect a Democrat paramount, people would be guarding their worst impulses a bit, but I guess blogging does not lend itself to self-censorship.

I suppose my age is showing but enough adrenaline is enough.

by mady 2008-02-21 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

My above post, spelling, "titillation."

by mady 2008-02-21 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

To all you Obama supporters, do you really think that he will win Red states in the fall??  Read this article for some enlightenment: http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Arch ive/Winter08/2008Election.html

by illuminati 2008-02-21 07:38AM | 0 recs
nah

Rove is in semi-retirement doing some media commentary and last I heard he was taking up oragami and fly-fishing.  I'm 110% convinced he plays no role in this election year.  The guy's taking a rest and hey, he's earned it.

The rest of the GOP?  Well, they've resigned themselves to losing the Whitehouse.  They had a good run, time to let the other guys take the heat for awhile.  And look at the poor things, running around in circles like blind rats, nothing I can imagine would ever drive them to the polls in November.

Besides, Obama's message of Change and Hope is really resonating with Republicans.   Bush has been such an embarrassment to them they are ready, willing and able to support a liberal agenda.  I think they call it "Neo-con Shame". It's definitely going to be a big factor in November.

i talked to twenty people until their eyes bled about how awesome Obama was and they all agreed they love him and will vote for him every chance they get. And anyone who doesn't?  Is stupid so they don't count them in November, I read that somewhere.  

It's going to be a landslide!  Yes We Can!  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 08:17AM | 0 recs
It's official ... MyDD is no longer relevant

I can't believe there's still so much hand-wringing over here about a ridiculous media obsession over an innocent remark by a candidate's SPOUSE.

I guess you have nothing else to pay any attention to with your candidate in the crapper.

by sam2300 2008-02-21 07:44AM | 0 recs
Right-wing talk radio

Right-wing talk radio is already savaging Michelle Obama over this.

When you consider that for all the talk of sticking a fork in Hillary, Obama has yet to begin winning the majority of white Democrats anywhere.

Screw-ups like this gaffee of his wife's don't help and actually serve to underscore Obama's blackness. The majority white electorate was almost to the point of accepting Obama as one of them, but his wife's frank black woman speak blew that apart.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-21 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Right-wing talk radio

a. Why do you care what right-wing radio is doing?

b. What evidence do you have that a majority of white voters are racists?

by illlaw1 2008-02-21 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

Right on Todd, I just about completely agree with this assessment (and I've been supporting Obama).

One thing though, I'm a little inclined to give Obama the benefit of doubt in dealing with the media, only because it's worked out for him so well thus far.

So I have to believe that the Obama campaign made the decision not to pursue the O'Reilly comment out of pure strategy... maybe they want to keep their inroads among white men, some of whom might backlash if they see a rally to a "P.C." cause?  Maybe they think that they've got enough defense from their supporters without needing to issue something official? (hell maybe BEP's can make a video again)

Maybe they just want to keep looking noble by ignoring race-baiting?

I don't know.  But though I kind of wanted to see that card played, I'm not mad that Obama didn't play it.

by Cloudspitter 2008-02-21 08:02AM | 0 recs
Yes really

All the blind patriotism that suddenly sprun up on this site is hilarious. You'd think it was populated by moronic republicans from Redstate rather than liberals who have a deep understaning of the flawed country that we live in. People should have been defending her comments as they stood not ridiculing them. Well intelligent liberals should have. People should know that nothing this nation has done right hasn't been accompanied by this nation doing something wrong. WWII? Internment. 9/11? Racial profiling & Iraq. Civil rights? Took too long. Not enforced. Fought against to this day. This country has "C" average at best so far and only Bush and his supporters are proud of that sort of grade.

Pathetic.

by illlaw1 2008-02-21 08:13AM | 0 recs
Pay no attention

to the 150 million people who disagree with you.  They are one huge non-issue.

Get out of Madison often?

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-02-21 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Pay no attention

Ah the intelligent reponse of a sheeple.  Or more accurately a response only a sheeple would think is intelligent.

I'm a black civil rights and immigration attorney who has never been to Madison. Sorry Mr. Rove.

by illlaw1 2008-02-21 09:17AM | 0 recs
I, as a lover of irony...

... almost spit my coffee out, Danny Thomas-style, with this line, Todd:

Seems to me that this was the first of what could be many tests of the effectiveness of both the Obama campaign and the blogosphere to respond to attacks on his campaign and I have to say I'm not really overflowing with confidence by either's performance.

I searched and searched and searched for a front page post here at the vaunted liberal blog, MyDD, about O'Reilly's outrageously racist comment and I came up...

...empty.

Not a peep. No wonder you're not "overflowing with confidence by either's performance."

You and MyDD devote a long front page post to claimed piss-poor reaction to O'Reilly's comment, yet you and MyDD did not respond at all to the comment.

Is this still a respected liberal blog? Why the silence and only a comment on the lack of reaction?

Thanks for the laugh. As a lover of irony, this place is a treasure trove.

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-21 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I, as a lover of irony...

That, or he's implicitly criticizing himself for writing the very article in which he criticizes others.  Meta BS.  I guess this website isn't a part of the blogosphere.    

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 08:27AM | 0 recs
Maybe Todd should change the headline, then.

Something like:

                  I fucked up! I didn't call out O'Reilly's vicious, racist smear!

That'd be the day, eh?

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-21 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Todd should change the headline, then.

Yeah, but that's basically what we're looking at here.

by rfahey22 2008-02-21 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Todd should change the headline, then.

Tood took responsibility for the lack of response on MyDD to O'Reilly's outrageous comment?

You could have fooled me...

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-21 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

Been waiting for a new post for over 3 hours. Hasn't this non-story run its course? There is a debate tonight, after all, as well as a shit storm surrounding the Johnny Mac allegations.  How about some updates?

by MJPacino 2008-02-21 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: She needs a coach

She and Bill have stuck their feet in their respective mouths too many times during this campaign.  Is there a spouse-training school for prospective first ladies and gents?

And yeah, agreeing with another post in this thread, definitely some anger issues with both candidates' spouses.

by mady 2008-02-21 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;
Todd:
While Democrats fracture further over meaning of words by Michelle Obama,
Checkout HinesSight.com, lead article:
BAMBOOZLED: GOP WANTED OBAMA
by CLK 2008-02-21 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

This is disgusting! You are more concerned about winning political political points than to defend a woman against the word "lynching".  I thought this was the Democratic party.  

I think I'm done with this web site.  You guys can keep attacking and hope that McCain wins in November. Because we know by now that it ain't going to be Clinton.

by drjk 2008-02-21 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

Todd Beeton has no problem identifying delusional Obama supporters on another blog while he has said nothing about the fanatical Hillary supporters on MYDD. And over what? A PR gaffe? Michaelle Obama sure needs to think twice before she opens her mouth. But come on. Such a long detailed front page on this?

by Pravin 2008-02-21 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

For all the Chicken Littles fretting about Michelle Obama's comments, may I remind you:

There is a gigantic sex scandal circling around John McCain.  It is dominating the news cycle.  

McCain is a pathetic candidate.  Obama is going to annihilate him in the GE.

by JK47 2008-02-21 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, &quot;Really?&quot;

No, it doesn't matter that much whether or not she inserted the "really", and yes, later that day she said the same thing without it, but doesn't it bother you that Fox purposefully re-edited out one word from the middle of the sentence in the original quote?

On Air America radio last night they played two versions of the Fox edit: one from earlier in the day and the other from used by Alan Colmes. In the earlier one, you could clearly hear the snip, but in the Colmes re-edit you couldn't hear it at all. That disturbs me, that they would purposely edit out a word for no other reason other than to make the statement seem worse than it actually was. Yes, Michelle didn't help things by dropping the word herself a couple of hours later, but that kind of media manipulation is dangerous. Where would it stop? For example, using Fox's masterful editing technique:

"I don't think the Iraq War was a good idea"

could become

"I [snip] think the Iraq War was a good idea"

or

"I'm not going to raise taxes"

becomes

"I'm [snip] going to raise taxes"

There's a real question of journalistic integrity in this story here, and we should get to the bottom of it. Why did they feel a need to edit out one word out of that sentence?

by dmc2 2008-02-21 09:29AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads