Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated x4: What did he do for $112k?]

[Updated 4x at end]

Barack Obama, as it turns out, is just another old-school politician in the finest quid-pro-quo Chicago tradition.

Although Obama has worked tirelessly to promote the image of himself as a 21st Century leader "dedicated to transparency and sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest," writes the L.A. Times, he traded favors with Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. during a time when Obama was struggling financially.  According to the Times:

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client -- a longtime political supporter.

Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell's firm that eventually totaled $112,000.

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

Obama's campaign, of course, vigorously denies even the appearance of impropriety:

"Any implication that Sen. Obama would risk an ethical breach in order to secure a small grant for a pingpong tournament is nuts," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief political advisor..

~snip~

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs...said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.

But the day after Obama wrote his letter soliciting state funds for Blackwell's company, Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.

Maybe he didn't "do anything wrong" (but see update) yet isn't this the sort of backroom wheeling-dealing Obama decries?  It seems especially hypocritical in light of his heightened attacks against Hillary Clinton as a "compromised Washington insider."  It seems that  Clinton was onto something when she replied that "Mr. Obama's message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him." Source.

While acknowledging that there were likely no technical violations in the tit-for-tat arrangement with Blackwell, the Times strongly implies that Obama does not, in fact, live up to the image he promotes...

Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector.

But Obama portrays himself as a lawmaker dedicated to transparency and sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Recently, Obama expressed regret over a property deal with Illinois power broker Tony Rezko after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. In an interview this spring with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama said his regret was not just because the real estate and restaurant entrepreneur was under criminal scrutiny, but because he was "a contributor and someone doing business before the state."

~snip~

Killerspin's owner, Blackwell, was a political supporter and friend as well. Both men lived on Chicago's South Side. Blackwell, a savvy and successful entrepreneur, was one of the first donors to Obama's early campaigns, including the state senator's failed bid for a congressional seat in 2000. In the presidential race he is credited on Obama's website with committing to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama's campaign.

When Blackwell sought backing for his table tennis tournament in 2002, other politicians...offered support...But Obama was the only one who provided a letter that became part of the initial application for state funds...In addition, he wrote a state Senate proclamation heralding the first tournament and an official letter that welcomed "table tennis friends" to the 2004 contest and thanked spectators for helping to "make Chicago the table tennis capital of this nation." (emphasis added)

Keep in mind, this is the politician whose campaign had the audacity to say:

"Sen. Clinton is the most secretive politician in America today. This has been a pattern throughout her career of the lack of disclosure."   Source.

There is nothing "new" about Barack Obama.  He may be younger than his peers, but Obama has been an obedient student of traditional Chicago politics, and he learned early on how to keep his bread buttered. Now American voters don't necessarily have a problem with conventional politicians.  But I'm pretty sure that people dislike hypocritical ones.

UPDATED 4/27/08 5:55 PM PST: This update, originally posted at 1:45 PM PST, included a citation to Andy Martin. Due to objections in the comment threads of this post, I have deleted that reference. The question, however, is valid, which is what legal “services” Obama provided to earn $112,000 from Blackwell's company. Is there a record? Note: I am currently researching this question and will update accordingly.

UPDATED 4/27/08 3:30 PM PST: According to The Huffington Post, Blackwell contributed $9,600 to Barack Obama as of Feb. 2007.

UPDATED 4/27/08 4:00 PM PST: Over at Talk Left, I came across this comment today in response to the LA Times story:

Being a lawyer myself (5.00 / 3) (#23) by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST: I would like to see Obama's time sheets for the work he did for EIK. The simple fact is that what most people call a retainer today is really an advance -- the money you get from the client goes into a trust account and as you actually do the work then that money can be moved from the trust account to your general account -- only at that point (after the work is actually done and billed) is the money the attorney's. A true retainer is a set amount of money given to an attorney to ensure that the attorney is available for whatever work you may have for him. The difference is that a true retainer is the attorney's money from the moment he gets it, and without any work being done. This true retainer arrangement simply doesn't happen any more, and in the rare case that it does, the attorney would have to be on par with Clarence Darrow. I cannot believe that Obama is/was such an attorney -- not so new out of law school as the timing of this story. So, while I can't say it is money laundering based on what I'm reading here, it does not pass the smell test for me and should raise some serious questions with the IL bar.

Cross posted at texasdarlin.wordpress.com



Display:


Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.82 / 17)

He's just another politician, nothing new.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:11:55 PM EST

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.56 / 16)

This is just a copy/pasted diary, like a half dozen others on this thread.

Nothing new.

This is a hackneyed attempt to try and smear Obama in the vain hopes something will stick, as this is Clinton's only way to win the nomination at this point.

Nothing new.

This is you ignoring any real issues or hard questions- a majority of Clinton supporters voted for you to represent them in an online debate between Obama and Clinton supporters, but I guess a real debate one on one, without being able to delve into rhetoric or ad hominem attacks wouldn't  be acceptable?

Nothing new.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 6)

Even if you don't like this diary, the LA Times article is worth reading. It contains lots of actual reporting, and leaves readers to draw their own conclusions.


by LakersFan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.71 / 7)

I agree; but the fact of the matter is that this is a hit piece diary on Obama, and nothing less.

I'm not sure who Tex is trying to convince; all she's doing is reinforcing what the diehard Clinton supporters agree with, and furthering the divide between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters.

The undecided few who lurk here are just as likely to view both sides with disdain. So my question is, what is Texas' motive here?

Personally, I think a lot of the die-hards who have abandoned all their journalistic integrity in a bid to smear Obama and praise Clinton are getting nervous, because if Obama wins the nomination, they'll never be taken seriously again. Tex obviously has lots of talent, but she uses it on trite hit pieces like this one.

Just my humble and frustrated opinion.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 8)

interesting...just yesterday you praised me as one of the most "eloquent" pro-Hillary writers and invited me to join your "mydd debate."

This is a valid and relevant issue.  Obama promotes himself as a new style politician.  Evidence is to the contrary.  And people should read the LA Times story.

You don't like it, okay.  But don't attack the messenger.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chinese Water Torture (2.00 / 3)

The constant drip drip of new information exposing the facade of the transformational, post-political, post-partisan candidate is starting to get painful now.

Let's stop foisting this transformational stuff on the American people already...please


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.16 / 6)

And I stand by that; and why you debase your talent in this way is beyond me.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop wasting your time, rg. (1.75 / 4)

I suggest you stop wasting valuable minutes of your life trying to influence the gullible patrons of this site.  This diary was recc'd by 36 people, which means you are working your ass off to change the minds of 3 dozen people, - some of which are for-profit-bloggers and provocateurs whose MO is to distract you from doing things that could actually make a difference.  Are 36 flat-earthers really worth the trouble.

These folks are beyond saving right now, and reality will eventually carry them along anyway.

Hillary has already lost this election, and there is nothing the dead-enders can do about it but howl at the moon.  So let them howl.  Let them devolve further into madness.  Enjoy it.  It's actually kind of funny.

For instance, look at the Ms. Edwards post on the rec list crying for an end to petty politics, and contrast that with the petty politics that fills the other 4 slots.

This is cognitive dissonance unmatched by even LGF or FreeRepublic.

If Jerome doesn't put his foot down and sort this place out, he will be the laughing stock of the liberal blogoshpere come November, if not already.

Rest easy RageKage knowing that you did all you could.

PAX


by dystopianfuturetoday on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop wasting your time, rg. (2.00 / 6)

Cognitive dissonance coming out of your mouth really drives home the meaning of those words.

Write a diary on how Obama is wrong in calling a Democratic leader a liar, dishonest, untrustworthy and secretive politician. Tell Obama to stop with character assasination and people with "cognitive dissonance" from your perspective will stop writing about Obama's crookedness.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

^See rage (1.50 / 2)

This is the kind of facile response that I'm talking about.  This isn't a blog, it's a church.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ^See rage (2.00 / 1)

LOL you mean your fake pride of being brave and coming here instead of Dkos to hear opposing perspectives is like listening to facile responses?

Well we have to bow to your bravery on an internet blog. Please come to this church for 20 years and you will see the difference.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Fighting cheerleaders is not brave. (2.00 / 1)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop wasting your time, rg. (2.00 / 5)

Beyond saving?  Your arrogance is astounding.  Did you even read what you wrote?

Just keep re-affirming each other.  Pay no attention to pesky little facts that pop-up ~ just insult the messenger. Let's see how far that gets you...and when all is said and done, and things go terribly wrong ~ No Problem!  You all will just blame the Clintons anyway.  But we all will pay the price for your divisiveeness.


by Mags on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to look up the (none / 0)

definition of cognitive dissonance.  ;-)


by macmcd on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rage: Its time for you to take a MyDD break, IMO. (none / 0)

Rage:

You are one of the Obama supporters that I've consistently respected around here, until today.  Until today, I never saw you as yet another typical Daily Kos Obama troll, rushing in to hijack diaries ON PURPOSE, ignoring the message, and personally attacking the messenger, ON PURPOSE, in a strategy to drown out the message and destroy the credibility of the messenger.  

I never saw it before from you, but I'm seeing it several times today, in different diaries.

For the first time as a member of MyDd that I can remember, I TR'd you today.  Then I TR'd you again, and then again, and that was all in a different thread than this one, in which I'm going through and TRing you some more.  And these are the only two diaries I've read today, which means there could be a lot more TRable behavior of yours in other threads.  

What happened?  How did I go from never TRing you at all, to several in the same morning before my first cup of coffee?  It ain't me, so it must be you.  

Its time for you to take a break.  You're slipping, dude.  You're turning into a troll.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually... (1.50 / 10)

I think you're exactly right.  Politics as usual is why she posted this.

By framing the Democratic Primary as either/or rather than both/and, it drives a wedge between the supporters of each candidate.

TexasDarlin seems to have a vested interest not only in Obama losing and Clinton winning, but also in making sure that the party is extremely divided.  What this means, I'm not sure.  Is she DLC and meaning to expunge the left from the party?  Is she looking for McCain to win since Hillary can't, so she could run again?  Is she just extremely shortsighted?  Impossible to tell without internet ESP.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (2.00 / 5)

By framing the Democratic Primary as either/or rather than both/and, it drives a wedge between the supporters of each candidate.

Umm.. it is either/or.  We can only have one President at a time.  That isn't TexasDarlin framing it that way, that's how our Constitution frames it.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Last I checked... (2.00 / 2)

The loser doesn't die, Bob.  If Obama wins, the long knives don't come out to kill Hillary Clinton.

It is both/and.  When Obama wins the general election, or if Clinton does somehow, the other will still be a powerful leader in congress.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's wonderful (2.00 / 3)

Meanwhile, only one can become President.  Last I checked, what we have been doing for the past year+ has been a process to select our next President, not our next "important person in Congress."  So, yes, it is and either/or choice.

The fact that you would even want to have an argument about this reminds me why I do not often try to engage in discussion with you.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm hurt. (2.00 / 1)

I don't mind debating with you, so what's with the dismissal?

Who cares who's president, in the long run?  I mean, I'd rather have Obama than Clinton, but in the end, what matters is digging ourselves out of this horrid situation that Bush's gotten us in, which I think either will do.  

We should feel blessed to have multiple strong leaders in the Democratic party who will be able to work in concert in the coming years.  The Republican did their best and could only scrape together one highly flawed candidate.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm hurt. (2.00 / 4)

I agree with the basic intent of your comment. But here is a perspective why Tex and other supporters will continue to write such diaries.

Write a diary on how Obama is wrong in calling a Democratic leader a liar, dishonest, untrustworthy and secretive politician. Tell Obama to stop with character assasination and you will see people being less angry towards him.

Till then Obama will remain a hypocrite in Hillary supporters mind.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is that really Obama? (2.00 / 3)

Is Obama calling Hillary and Bill names, or is he talking about factors that existed well before he was on the scene?

Are you saying that the Clintons aren't secretive?  How did it take so long for them to release their relevant documents if they weren't secretive?

Are you saying that the Clintons don't have a liberal attitude towards the truth... when they've been caught, and admitted to, lying on multiple occasions?

Are you saying that the polls haven't come out to say that Clinton's trustworthiness rating is below 40%?

How is it hypocritical to point out these issues?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that really Obama? (2.00 / 3)

Are you saying Obama's character assasination is poll driven?

There is a link between which views leading figures give credence too and how those views are polled.

Will you ever hear leading Republicans say Bush is a liar, divisive, untrustworthy? This is inspite of some of them being against Bush for so long especially on Iraq.

Obama campaign parroted the smears against Clintons, which were created by Republicans with the hopes of impressing the independents and cross over republicans. Do you see 50% (or in fact more) of the Democratic party has this perspective?


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:56:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts, not character assassination (2.00 / 1)

You can talk about something without it being attack, even if it's negative.

Those were the official exit polls for Pennsylvania, if I remember correctly.  How is that a Republican smear?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is that really Obama? (2.00 / 4)

These issues are spun out of whole cloth and perpetuated here and in the media.  We could do a nice montage of Obama's 'miss-statements' and call him dishonest and we could run a nice montage of Obama saying things about HIllary's character and say he's being Rovian.  That is the hypocrisy.  Obama and his supporters project this 'holier than thou' attitude that is sooo disingenuous.  He went negative on Hillary a long time ago ~ I don't know where you all were, but you sure like to pretend that it never happened.


by Mags on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 9)

Actually, I don't see pro-Clinton demonstrating any anxiety or nervousness.  Rather, it stems from Obama's proponents who understand intuitively that something feels off and wrong compared to the highs of February.  Generally, proponents of Obama despise having to address criticism about their largely unknown nominee.  I can't say I blame them, because it seems every stone that is turned over uncovers something that undercuts the romanticized illusion of a revolutionary unifier.  This is most evident from the expansive efforts to attack and silence any contributor who would raise questions about Barack Obama.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Raising questions is one thing... (2.00 / 2)

...and the constant smears on this site are something completely different.

We still occasionally get diarists... frequently recced diarists even... with fake concern over whether Obama is a marxist secret muslim terrorist Black Panther with acid for blood and burning pants.  

Of course that's an exaggeration, but not by much.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:26:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Marxism? (2.00 / 5)

There are many liberals who have no problem with marxism.  I guess you aren't one.  But fact is, Obama does have a lot of lifelong associations with extremely radical left-wingers.  Anything wrong with that?  No, but it doesn't necessarily appeal to a broader electorate, which is what's necessary to win the GE.  Eyes on the prize, guys.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marxism? (2.00 / 3)

He also has ties to some pretty right-wing folks.  His view of being president is that you're the president of the entire country, not just the people who share your politics.  Bush was in err when he insisted that he owed his presidency's efforts to the people that elected him, rather than the broader base of people who agreed to elect our leader democratically.

Bill Clinton also shared this view, as he was a centrist both in issues and in overall politics.  The difference between them is that Obama maintains left-leaning overall standpoints while bringing the right to the table to see who has the ideas that can work.

I don't see how Obama being friends with a firebrand minister, a marxist, or a pro-life Republican has anything to do with his own character, just as I don't think that the Clintons long rogue's gallery impugnes Hillary's character or electability.  

You go for public office, you are going to meet and interact with a lot of people.  You can't dive over tables and ram wooden stakes through the heart of people you find disreputable or you disagree with; we all get along as best we can, flaws and all.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

On ABC's This Week today, George Will pointed out that Obama has been on a losing streak since Wisconsin.  I'm sure he's frustrated that he hasn't been able to "close."


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.66 / 3)

It's always interesting when clintonites quote rabid right wingers. Why would Democrats care what the Repugs think? I guess only DINOs would really care. Frustration is what loser feel darlin, we're winning, and as hillary is unable to catch up, at this point it's only those who try and bury their heads in the sand, who are still trying to pretend that their candidate has turned in Huckabee.


by venician on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 6)

Lately, it doesn't matter who says it.  the other day someone attacked me for quoting George Stephonaupolus.  I was also attacked for quoting the NYT and CNN.  So, let me know who we're allowed to cite and I'll try to stick to that list.  The point is that George Will is not the only commentator who has said this.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.36 / 11)

But darlin, your own discusting hate filled blog is filled with nothing but right wing sources. Your alegiance to the Dem. party could be seen as quite suspect if all you do is parrot their talking points.


by venician on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 2)

I thought Obama wanted to listen to right wing view points based on the above poster. Then why is it wrong when someone else listen to opposing views and bring it to table for discussion?


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

And further upthread you rail against Obama for using republican attacks...

Hmmm. You would have thought NOT contradicting yourself on the same diary would have been quite an easy ask.

Obviously, not for some.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 2)

"filled with nothing but right wing sources?"

Let's see...

It starts with L.A. Times.

Then..

2. NYT

  1. MSNBC (oh right, you only like them when they say bad things about Hillary)
  2. Huffington Post
  3. Talk Left

I deleted Andy Martin.

Please clarify your comment.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Losing streak? (2.00 / 3)

A "streak" would imply that he hasn't won at all in that time.  Mississippi, Vermont, Wyoming, and, yes, Texas, would suggest otherwise.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing streak? (none / 0)

Hillary has received more votes in all of the high-profile contests since February.  Vermont, Mississippi, American Samoa, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and the Texas caucus barely made any blip on the national radar except among us, the hardcore politics crowd.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing streak? (none / 0)

yeah, those states don't count.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

A losing streak since Wisconsin?

Well....

There have been seven contests since Wisconsin and Obama won three, each with FAR larger margins than any of Clinton's in that period.  I don't know for sure, but I believe that due to these large wins and Clinton's smaller ones, he increased his lead of pledged delegates since Wisconsin. And he certainly has gained more superdelegates than Clinton since Wisconsin.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

I laughed when he said that because there was a 6 week break between OH/TX and PA.

And Obama got more delegates from TX.  Oh, nevermind.


by chewie5656 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to agree (2.00 / 2)

Both sides have their moments when they are nasty.

But I just don't see the type of anxiety from Hillary's camp as I do from most of you who come here to support Obama.  I mean, we realize we are the underdog, but we just seem a lot more confident about it.

Not sure why that is.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Hillary didn't come to this contest (2.00 / 1)

as a relative unknown with a tremendous gift for oratory. As she said in the Pennsylvania debate, "I know I have baggage, but it's already been rummaged through." When you come onto the scene as mostly a blank slate, loftily selling hope and unity, it's a bit unnerving for your supporters when your carefully concealed baggage begins to open a seam here and there.  


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that their reception elsewhere has been... (2.00 / 1)

I think that their reception elsewhere has been a lot less questioning than it has been here at MyDD. Obama has had a pretty clear coast up till quite recently, I think. The MSM was so obviously supporting him.

So, I think a lot of the folk who push Obama here are used to people agreeing with things they say even if they are somewhat ridiculous. I wonder what will happen if he wins the nomination?

I actually think a lot of the Obama supporters here would dissappear, because their goal might be that, Obama being the Dem nominee, only, and not his winning the GE.

We'll have to see.

That will be the test, for sure.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

What is the difference between a "hit piece," like this one, and a "substantive diary," like the umpteenth anti-Clinton Bosnia diary?


by dhonig on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

What does it signify when one shows outrage at the diaries showing Obama as another crooked politician and then calling Hillary a liar, divisive, secretive, not trustworthy politician?

Hypocrisy to the maximum.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

You are being intentionally obtuse ~ The difference is quite obvious.


by Mags on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 7)

Ragekage, you know what the main difference is between Obama and Clinton supporters on this site?  It's not our passion or commitment or eloquence.  It's that Obama supporters routinely direct their attacks at other bloggers and diarists, at Hillary supporters.  Whereas, Clinton supporters focus on the issues and the candidates.  That is why I will not be joining your "debate."  You guys don't play fair, so I'm not interested.

Your comment here is just one more example of that.  Re-direct your attacks and I'll reconsider.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Playground rules (1.66 / 6)

Common wisdom goes, the kid on the playground who is punished is not the one that throws the first punch, but the kid who defends him or herself and is spotted by the playground supervisor.

What you're doing is claiming to be the victim when ragekage notices that all you post is notorious slander.  

TexasDarlin, cut out the hatchet jobs and join the rest of civilization with fair and honest debate.  I guarantee you that you'll find Obama supporters more "fair" than you might believe now.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Playground rules (2.00 / 3)

Stop with your drama, sarcasm and personal attacks.  Your posts often contain all three.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I seriously doubt that. (1.16 / 6)

Pointing out that TexasDarlin is a slanderer is not a personal attack if it's true.

I don't post hatchet diaries that cause drama, that's largely the domain, at least on this blog, of radical Clinton supporters.  That's why the recc list is constantly full of hit jobs and sensationalism.

Look at my diary contributions.  When have I ever tried to start drama?  I try to diffuse drama by writing about true issues that everyone invested in the Democratic primaries have to face.  The closest you'll come to finding that was me listing all the standardized talking points from anti-Obama diaries on a given day for humor value.

If you don't like sarcasm, I'm sorry, bobbank.  Sometimes sarcasm is the most effective tool in explaining how a position is foolish.  Further, to suggest that Darlin or other Clinton supporters aren't being sarcastic in their false concern is disingenuous.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I seriously doubt that. (none / 0)

Well you can read my non-nested post bellow.

I didn't suggest anything.  I spoke to you very directly.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Playground rules (none / 0)

Drama and sarcasm are banned here? Didn't know that.

I know sarcasm is supposed to be the lowest form of wit.

But threats show no wit at all.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stop the personal attacks (2.00 / 3)


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:45:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

I don't know which MyDD you're in, Texas. I've called a cultist, I've been called elitist, I've been tarred for simply supporting Obama.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

Well in the heat of the moment, someone would have called you cultist, elitist, etc just like I have been called many things for supporting Hillary. We are adults and we can ignore such name calling. But trying to muzzle any efforts of highlighting Obama's negatives is hypocrisy when one campaign continues to disrespect and demean Hillary's character.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

I've got a clearer and more provable example of hypocrisy...

Calling Obama 'crooked' on several occasions on this diary thread and then demanding that Hillary's character not be disrespected and demeaned.

L'hypocrite lecteur, c'est toi.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

Texas, I love you, but issues such as him flipping Hillary the bird aren't issues.  It's "let throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks."

How about some Pro-Hillary diaries instead of all of the Anti-Obama ones?


by chewie5656 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:49:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you that flipping the bird was a non-issue. Obama is too smart to ever do such things. (And personally I think he is a good man with good moral values who wouldnt do such crass things).

But most of the other issues against Obama are valid concerns for Hillary supporters. Being a good man doesnt mean one can not be a hypocrite or a crooked politician, which is what I think he is.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

You're spot on..any question of BO's record gets a direct vicious personal attack..no substance just anger and vitriole..


by grego101 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

yes, his  pastor called him just a politician, which meant he was lying. I can understand why you want to speak for him Rage, he is having a tough time of it, even the media that likes him is seeing his flaws these days.  I like him the same, but he never was my first choice, so who cares about me.  His luster is gone, and it's probably too late for him to run on issues and solutions, anyway he couldn't best Hillary so he'd just be seen as second best. But, second best to Hillary is quite high.  He made it into the world series, got to hand it to a Chicago politician for getting so far.  


what a relief
by anna shane on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

Anna, you're right about Rev. Wright calling out Obama as just a politician.  LOL.  I don't think that part was scripted...


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.40 / 5)

You said Obama couldn't best hillary, but Anna, he has lready bested her. Do you not know how many states he's won, or delegates, or populare votes? You can't be that clueless, can you?


by venician on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny. (2.00 / 4)

I get a good laugh out of the fact that Wright is still being reduced to a soundbyte, when his meaning was drastically different.

This guy can't win with the media.  They hate that he's more complex than, say, Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Funny. (2.00 / 3)

Donna said that he is thinking of himself and his own reputation and thinks that's bigger than whether he's hurting Barack.  What would make him think he wouldn't be reduced to sound bites, everyone is, why would he think he could be an exception.  he's really doing Barack a big disservice, that had dropped out of the regular news, it was just being kept alive by McCain supporters in any nasty way. A lot of Hilary supporters don't hold Barack responsible for his pastor, and I kind of agree with him about how our foreign policy hasn't been lofty, we've caused quite a lot of harm.  He's too extreme for me to agree with entirely and too paranoid but he's not entirely wrong, and I can see that he's a nice man and means well. but he is not helping Barack.  Barack can't even blame Hillary for his pastor problem anymore, not that that was ever credible, now he has to blame his pastor, and himself for not choosing a smarter radical pastor who knew enough to keep his mouth shut.  


what a relief
by anna shane on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a sad life (1.50 / 2)

I, personally, and Obama and Wright I'm sure as well, don't want to live my life worrying about how banal, small people might misconstrue my words.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a sad life (none / 0)

than you have to stop worrying cause it'll happen.  How wrong of Wright to think of his own self while his parishioner is running for prez.  Seems Wright isn't above worrying, and wanting to se the record straight about him. Who cares, he's not running for prez.


what a relief
by anna shane on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Funny. (2.00 / 3)

Yes, I'm sure that's it.  The media hates Wright because he's more complex than Paris Hilton.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what he said, and admitting that Barack will say whatever he needs to say, as a politician, was not a gaffe.

And these are not the droids you're looking for.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you listen to the whole interview? (none / 0)

It's impossible to believe that Wright has any antipathy towards Obama if you listen to the whole interview.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/042520 08/watch2.html

The fact that you think that lying and being a politician are irrevocably intertwined is your own warped belief.  I believe that a politican can be honest and trustworthy.  Luckily, I seem to be supporting one.  What about you?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you listen to the whole interview? (none / 0)

I dont believe Obama is honest and trustworthy. And I will bet on this that if he ever becomes the President, his dishonesty will be the talking point of most Americans within 2 years of his Presidency. In fact, that is Obama's biggest fear and hence the words "fierce urgency of now". Because he knows his dishonesty and trustworthiness will be exposed the more he sticks arond in Washington.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was fast. (2.00 / 1)

Just a few posts up, responding to chewie5656, you said this:

I think he is a good man with good moral values...

But now he's dishonest and untrustworthy?

Your "fears" are based entirely on supposition and distortion.  "The fierce urgency of now" is a reference to the fact that the country is in serious trouble based on old-style politics, not because he's racing the clock against some major revelation of his duplicity.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you listen to the whole interview? (none / 0)

That's a little harsh, I mean its not like he's Bill "the meaning of is" Clinton.


by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

Yeah right... if this had come out about HILLARY you've be leading the charge of villagers up the hill to drag her down over this.

Face it - the diarist raises a fair question - what DID BO do to earn all that $$?

Until someone can provide documentation or proof of what went down we have every right to ask these questions.  


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.66 / 3)

Yeah right. If this came out about Hillary, I'd figure, who the hell cares? She's done more than enough for me to disagree with her and her campaign,  and this is stupid. Oh no, a Senator working for their constituents? Go figure.

But heck, I look forward to your chop job on the same subject, alegre. God forbid you answered any real hard questions about your candidate, or tried to heal the rift between Obama and Clinton supporters you helped to perpetuate.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait a minute (none / 0)

Wasn't there a big flap about her tax records not long ago, where no one had any real questions? She has allowed something like 30 years of records out, how about Obama?

I think this is a legitimate question. It wasn't that long ago.


by splashy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

While acknowledging that there were likely no technical violations

the diarist as much as admitted that there probably wasn't anything nefarious going on.

you can't prove that there was, you can only ask questions. And asking questions isn't all that good an argument. For that, you have to make a positive claim. For example: Barack Obama did something nefarious in exchange for getting paid. That's a claim, and one without positive evidence.

Make a claim, and I'll listen. But raising questions doesn't do much. For example: Is Barack Obama satan? prove me wrong! Did Barack Obama eat his puppy? prove me wrong!

These aren't good arguments, anymore then the bullshit over "is HRC running for 2012?" is a good argument.

Lastly, this:

Yeah right... if this had come out about HILLARY you've be leading the charge of villagers up the hill to drag her down over this.

is irrelevant. Seriously. But if it'll help you take me and my argument seriously, I'd encourage you to take a gander through this obama supporter's diaries and comments. You'll see I've spoken out against the bosnia nonsense, the 2012 crap, the HRC's fake tears bullshit, etc.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:00:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

ragekage-

I am not TR'ing you because I know you to be better than that.  But your post is trolling.  If you have a rebuttal, a counter-argument, or facts of your own to present, please do so.

I think this was one of TexasDarlin's better diaries - it did not have an extremely confrontational tone and it prevented you with a series of facts, backed by citation.

If you think she has something wrong, let us know.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time to start TR'ing Rage, Bob. I did. (none / 0)

I never used to TR him, but he's had probably a dozen of them from me today.  Rage is on a ragepage.... I mean rampage... against Clinton posters today.  He's being a typical Daily Kos troll.  He jumps into a diary as one of the first commenters, personally attacks the diarist, and hijacks the issues contained within the thread.

I never said this before today, but you have to call them like you see them.  As of today, Rage is nothing more than a typical Daily Kos Obama troll.

Hopefully, he takes a break and comes back normal again.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Time to start TR'ing Rage, Bob. I did. (none / 0)

You're abusing the user guidelines:

* Do not troll rate (rating as 0) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Abusing this privilege will result in all your ratings being erased and/or getting a warning, or being banned.

If you incite another user to do so, you're really in line to get reported.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)

I think he did that cause you accidentally TR'd him downthread.  I'm sure he'll remove it when it's brought to his attention.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)

No map, it was a complete accident. I never troll except for content free, abusive, racist or sexist comments. But thanks for the good faith. Much appreciated.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)

Hey. Did I? Wow. Total accident. Never trolled you, only mojo'ed you in my time here. I'll check my comments. Must have been a problem with the up down arrows. Consider it removed.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)

Some confusion here. PJJefferson trolled you on this diary. I can't find any instance of ever trolling you, Travis.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)

Ah. Found it. Damn those arrow keys. Especially when the thread is long. Mojo'ed you instead (which I meant to do)

I wish Jerome would use the extra money generated in these flame wars to update the software, don't you?


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So why, brit, did you then TR me? (none / 0)

No worries brit. As you can see I did the same thing in that thread, though I don't know how. How about we just blame the software! ;-)


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:46:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why point a rule out to me that I followed? nt (none / 0)

He's been personally attacking people all day, so I've been TR'ing him all day.  He can either take a break, come back, and be more civil like he usually is, or he can continue being a troll, and I'll continue to TR his personal attacks and thread hijacks.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why point a rule out to me that I followed? nt (none / 0)

Two wrongs do not make a right. You're still breaking the guidelines. What I read of ragecage's was attacking the diary, which is permissible. Retaliation, and conscripting others in that retaliation is not. You know that.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why point a rule out to me that I followed? nt (none / 0)

I do know that, but I must be reading different comments, or reading the same comments differently than you.  All I know is he earned every one I gave him.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And btw. For a guy capable of hijacking a thread (none / 0)

the second it is posted (Rage), his silence in objecting to my TR'ing him a full twelve hours ago is deafening.  And by extension, that means that you are defending someone who is so guilty of the charged offense that he didn't even bother to show up to defend himself.  Which raises questions about your judgment in defending him in the first place.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And btw. For a guy capable of hijacking a thre (none / 0)

Wrong! Whatever ragecage did in TR abuse, it wasn't flagged up in an open comment as yours is. So you've effectively confessed to trolling in this thread.

Look. People get into all kinds of arguments here. I'm not taking sides on this against you with ragecage. Just don't use the troll system to argue with your opposite. Prove him wrong, call him out, use some wit and invective. But the TR system isn't a point scoring system. All your negative ratings, given or taken, effect your status.

Ignore me if you want, but you'll just find your access to the site highly limited. Ragecage too if he's doing the same thing.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are we having the same discussion? (none / 0)

I'm scratching my head.  

You keep suggesting that I TRd Rage because I disagreed with something he typed about an issue, and I keep telling you that is not the case.  I TR'd him for personally insulting diarists and hijacking threads.  I'd rather not point this out again, so please read what I'm typing here.  If you can point to a TR I gave him because I disagreed with him on a political issue, point it out and I'll retract it.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are we having the same discussion? (none / 0)

I'm not trying to harass you here, I'm just trying to explain the abuse of guidelines.

The trolling rules here are notoriously flexible, but apart from overt racist/sexist abuse, the key guide is 'content free' posts.

Most of ragecage's posts I read were attacks on the diary sources and the content. Insults are hurled either way, but in this grey area of what constitutes 'insulting' the question of 'content' is key.

But that's not why you should be reported. It would be up to ragecage to do that and the admins to decide. My point is that you actively and openly incited someone else to troll a user, and the motivation for it, expressed in your post, was personal.

I'm sure it's a one off and you won't do it again. I'm also sure that if you think about the incitement aspect, you'll understand how that goes over the edge.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:26:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

TexasDarling...hit diaries as usual. (1.26 / 15)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On MyDD, Texasdarin' can be a star!!! (1.00 / 8)

Common sense does not apply in this tiny precious feedback loop.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe You Could Answer the Question Then (2.00 / 2)

What exactly did BO do to earn all that money - hmmmmm????


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe You Could Answer the Question Then (1.50 / 4)

You can't be freakin' serious. There's millions of dollars of holes in where the Clinton's income came from, and you dismissed that as irrelevant.

Really, Alegre, I gotta say, if you think anyone's going to take you seriously after the nomination, you need to take a serious look at the bridges you've burned. Heck, the only ones who take you seriously now are those who are completely and totally, Hillary-is-44-esque in the tank for Clinton.

So what's your purpose? You're not furthering any dialog, you're not convincing anyone to support your candidate, merely furthering the divide and playing the propaganda points from the Clinton campaign. Tell me what your purpose is, Alegre? What are you trying to achieve?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe You Could Answer the Question Then (2.00 / 1)

If Clinton is corrupt (as per you), does it allow Obama to be corrupt?

Are we choosing between 2 corrupt same old Chicago style politicians?


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair... (none / 0)

Hillary was never a Chicago politician, she just grew up there.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe You Could Answer the Question Then (none / 0)

Hey, Hillary's more a hybrid southern  "Huey Long" corrupt + NYC "Boss Tweed" corrupt politician.


by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 5)

This is the politician whose campaign had the audacity to say:

"Sen. Clinton is the most secretive politician in America today. This has been a pattern throughout her career of the lack of disclosure."  

I agree to your statement - The electorate does not know about BHO except his speeches. Now 10 months into the primary we are getting to know more about BHO . The MSM has clearly not done their Job.


by indus on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

Couldn't agree more.  But we are starting to see signs of buyer's remorse by the MSM, just in the nick of time, too.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 2)

Maybe it's time folks held up a mirror to the good senator when he points fingers at Hillary over this stuff.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

"He did it too!"

Really, do you teach your kids that's an appropriate attitude?


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

Do you even know what lawyers do when under retainer?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cross Posted To RedState (none / 0)

As are about half of these Obama diaries. How truly sad. After the primaries mydd will be home to the global warming deniers?


by bernardpliers on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WTFSoros?TR for calling a politician a politician? (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:38:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

I really wish you would stop trying to tear down the probable eventual nominee with this bogus act.

The fact of the matter is that there is much more politics as usual or worse available on Hillary Clinton, none of which is coming out because she is not the frontrunner.  Would you like to cover subjects like Clinton's support for sweatshops in the Mariana Islands and Guam?  There are many other examples where we could tear down Clinton.  What is the purpose of doing so?

Do you think this is some sort of childish game where whomever has more mud flung wins at the end?

This sort of politics leads to loss of democrats in the fall, it doesn't benefit Clinton (as it is sure to alienate Obama voters if it is successful) and it certainly doesn't help Obama.

This helps McCain.

I Challenge you personally, Texas Darling (I'll throw in Alegre, Linfar, and others), to stop treating this race like a game of gotcha.  Write something positive or don't write anything at all.

If you can't do that then you are begging to get Roe V. Wade overturned, Endless wars in Iraq, Iran and anywhere else the Necons want, an economy in the tank, and no healthcare whatsoever.

Please consider that your words do affect action.

PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.


by Why Not on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 0)

They're called politicians for a reason.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:23:34 PM EST

Is there some sort of daily talking points memo? (2.00 / 5)

Cause every day I show up here and the same subject has 3-5 (boring) diaries on the same subject.  Did I mention that it is boring and repetitive and redundant?  (see what I did there?)


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST

daily talking points mem (2.00 / 4)

no one's forcing you. If a diary makes the rec list, surely some are interested? I don't understand the whining, isn't there something more productive to do than whine about nothing?  


what a relief
by anna shane on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting once perhaps (none / 0)

but this has been diaried repeatedly...today...better...sooner...w hatever.


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting once perhaps (2.00 / 1)

And it looks like you have whined about it repeatedly too...today... better...sooner...whineever !!


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting once perhaps (2.00 / 1)

As with the remote on the TV, try going to another channel/diary if you don't want to read this.

Geez, don't people know they have a choice?


by splashy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (1.28 / 14)

What is plain to see now is that clintonites are now in the ANGER stage of their grieving process.

""Whenever one's identity and social order face the possibility of destruction, there is a natural tendency to feel angry, frustrated, helpless, and/or hurt. The volatile reactions of terror, hatred, resentment, and jealousy are often experienced as emotional manifestations of these feelings."

One only has to look at the rec. list to witness this pathetic stage first hand.


by venician on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST

Re: Obama: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

Since you used the term Clintonites, should I use Obamatons?

Anyway, do you think Obama supporters are angry, pissed off, egdy, acerbic because he seems like a loser now a days in the eyes of many Americans?


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (1.71 / 7)

It has come down to a precious few diarists here who just regurgitate something they've read from another diarist.  The diversity of content is underwhelming.


by gchaucer2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:58:18 PM EST

Re: Wow (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for the mean-spirited comment.

Actually I wrote this diary without even knowing about the other ones.  But surely you aren't suggesting that Obama bloggers make an effort not to be redundant, are you?  Maybe you should go back and count the number of diaries you guys posted about Bosnia...


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (2.00 / 2)

I actually took your bait. Three, on the day it came out, and two were substantially different.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

Then I guess it is just a mind meld -- so apologies for assuming you read the other diaries.  All still are underwhelming.


by gchaucer2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cripes, what's with the complaining (none / 0)

About not getting what y'all want in diaries?

You can click on others, ya know?

Just like using the remote on the TV, find another more interesting diary to read.


by splashy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:32:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chicago politics is the dirtiest kind of politics (2.00 / 5)

and Obama is just a typical Chicago politician


by observer5 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:31:22 PM EST

Oh yes. (2.00 / 2)

If Obama were just a typical Chicago politician, I guarantee you that we'd have a lot more juicy dirt to dish on him than his crazy preacher or comments about small town Americans.  There would probably be real scandals.

He came up in Chicago politics and is still clean.  That means he's tough and principled.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama (none / 0)

All successful politicians manage to convince people that they aren't a typical politician, you need to be a great politician or have a great staff to do this.

Obama is just one of a long line of gifted politicians who sell themselves as a different kind of leader.


by liberalj on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:58:42 PM EST

This diary is full of... (1.50 / 10)


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST

Awesome pic (2.00 / 1)

Nice one kage.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This diary is full of... (none / 0)

I love the startled looking cat.  I think a lot of people can relate.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The outrage... (2.00 / 2)

Wright and Rezko are no more in the news cycle. Lets drudge up more Obama dirt til one sticks on the front page.  


by optimusprime on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:38:56 PM EST

Re: The outrage... (none / 0)

Here's a thought: reminding us how many questionable or controversial things we've learn in just these past few weeks about Barack Obama kind of serves to undermine your position.

Autobots 4tw, painting yourself into a corner 4tl.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The outrage... (1.00 / 3)

how many questionable or controversial things we've learn in just these past few weeks

I think you mean questionable and contrived.  Don't associate yourself with trash like the diarist, Bob.  She was banned once for racist comments, and links to an anti-semite in her update.  I have no clue why they let her back.


Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't agree with that (2.00 / 1)

I don't think these things are contrived.  I'm not associating myself with anyone - I'm reading factual allegations and seeing that there has been no response to them on the merits.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree with that (2.00 / 0)

It doesn't take long for prejudice to out itself.

I'm reading factual allegations

Wrong! You win the booby prize. An allegation is the opposite of the fact - it's something which is unproven.

And like the bulk of these diaries, sourced from right wing blogs or some other completely compromised source, there is no substance. Of course, after a while, the smear of black separatism or left wing extremism vis-a-vis Wright or Ayers gets some traction in your right wing press. Big deal. Who's surprised.

Don't you guys ever have a moment's shame. Do you ever remember how Hillary suffered from years of such smears by the same sources you cite?

Or maybe you've all be so deformed by the republican attacks of the 90s that you've become like your enemy.

Good luck to you. This kind of politics ended with George W. Whether Obama wins or not, you'll still have to live with your shame and acquiescence in slanderous rumour mongering. History will pass you by. But your self disgust will be harder to escape


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree with that (none / 0)

Yep we are shameless. Afterall we are Hillary's supporters. What else do you expect from us? We are shameless, low information, racist, slanderous, disgusting people deformed by those shameless Republicans.

That is why a certain Barack Obama made us angry when he parroted Republican right wing smears and called Hillary a liar, divisive, secretive, untrusthworthy like the shameless Republicans did with character assasinations.

How dare he tried to be as shameless as us and Republicans?

(History will pass you by. But your self disgust will be harder to escape because you are nothing but a hypocrite).


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there an echo in the room? (none / 0)

Can't you do better than just rephrasing my words?

But no. Just as Hillary stole 'Yes, we will' and '35 years of change' you have borrow my sentences. But they don't sound half as good in your lame-assed phrasing.

Carry on with this last pitiful gasp that Obama is playing the Rove playbook. And that's actually one of the key plays - accuse your opponent of what you are doing. We all know what you're doing.

And you need to come up with some comebacks of your own, because these frail darts don't even make it through my computer screen


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is there an echo in the room? (none / 0)

You strike me as both angry and insecure and I've concluded that you are among the Obama supporters that I dislike.  Just sayin.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is there an echo in the room? (none / 0)

Like I give a damn


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't agree with that (2.00 / 0)

I think his point is that the allegations might mean a bit more if they weren't from the Klan's favorite little patsy.


by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:46:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The outrage... (2.00 / 3)

Now you are accusing the LA Times of drudging up stuff on Obama?  Didn't they endorse him?  Please, these are his skeletons; he has to be accountable for them.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The outrage... (2.00 / 1)

This is a front page story in today's LA Times.


by LakersFan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 2)

Why did you link to Holocaust supporter Andy Martin in your update?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

The source of the information does not necessarily invalidate the information.  I am continuing to do research and will update when I have other sources...


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 1)

I find it troubling that in a piece that hinges on guilt by association and innuendo, you use an anti-semite and NewsMax contributor as a source.

One could say it "raises questions"...



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait... (2.00 / 0)

Are you saying that TexasDarlin is suspect due to associations with neocons and white supremicists?  While I'm certain that TexasDarlin is a good and honest person, it does, in fact, raise questions about judgement if one thinks that such sources are valid.

But seriously.  I can find articles on the internet that say that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian black magic practicioner.  Yes, the source counts.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait... (none / 0)

I'm just putting the facts out there and people can reach their own conclusions.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait... (2.00 / 1)

U R hilee recked.

/snark


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual (2.00 / 3)

Hmmm.... Texas Darlin (who is in fact an affluent southern Californian who affects a cheesily 'folksy' persona on the internet and uses the phrase "common folk" with no trace of irony), has been banned from this site (I never did see why), recently posted what even she was forced to admit was a racist spam about Obama, and just the other day referred to Barack Obama as "uppity" is now using an anti-Semitic white supremacist to bolster her arguments?

All of these questionable practices, ethical discrepancies and troubling associations make one wonder about the Clinton campaign.

I am very glad so many Clinton supporters have made guilt by association a valid argument at this site, regularly and implicitly approved of by the administrators.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:05:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

$112K > $50K (2.00 / 5)

Any business person knows that you invest in something to get more money.  You're telling me that after an investment of $112K that Obama was so corrupt that he gave Blackwell a $50,000 grant.  Well, if Blackwell was renting himself a state legislator it looks like he should have gone after someone else, b/c he got a shitty return on his investment.  He retains Obama for $112 and doesn't even get half of that money back in government largesse.  Obviously Blackwell is not a good businessman or this diary is complete bullshit.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:53:26 PM EST

Re: $112K > $50K (2.00 / 1)

He got more than that. The first grant was $20k. The next year it was $200k, the next year $100k. If you know anything about grants, it's much easier to get subsequent years' funding after you've gotten the first.

From the LA Times article:

Though Obama's formal efforts for Killerspin consisted of writing a letter and a proclamation, the nitty-gritty of obtaining state grants fell to a former state Senate and campaign aide to Obama, Dan Shomon.

Shomon, working part time for Obama's campaign and for Killerspin, helped prepare Killerspin's initial grant application in 2002. Still working part time with Obama, Shomon helped Killerspin secure a $200,000 grant for its 2003 tournament and a $100,000 grant for its 2004 tournament.

You may not like this diary or the diarist, but the LA Times article is some solid reporting. You may want to read it for yourself.


by LakersFan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $112K > $50K (2.00 / 2)

So a part-time employee of Obama helped someone write a grant application and its evidence of Obama's further largesse.  Shomon wrote an application (which involved no formal or informal input from Obama) and it's evidence of Obama's corruption.  Do you know how poorly state employees are paid?  I'm sure Shomon was getting some extra cash as many state employees do.  There is no evidence that one has anything to do with the other.  Do you realize how easy it would be for me to do to Clinton the same thing you are trying to do to Obama?  Did you know Hillary received money from military contractors in her state, from Monsanto, from Norman Hsu?  Just b/c I can do it does not make it anymore true.

Why are you guys doing the Republicans work for them (I'm not saying you Lakerfan, btw we're killing Denver Nuggets; it's awesome)?  We have two ethical, excellent candidates.  Why do you guys get your jollies off attacking a Democrat?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: $112K > $50K (2.00 / 1)

All I've said is read the article. It's a good article with plenty of response from the Obama campaign, and you can come to your own conclusion about it. I don't know who the "you guys" are that you're upset with. Does that include the LA Times reporters? This is an actual news story, and I think they did a good job of reporting, without trying to sensationalize (which is sort of rare these days).


by LakersFan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice catch! (2.00 / 1)

Wow, I assumed that this was just another no-evidence, say- anything-we-can-to-make-Obama-look-bad diary, but in fact it's much worse.  As you point out, there's a gaping hole in its central premise.

Yup, the guy bribed Obama with 112K to pay for a 50K tournament; perfect mydd rec-list reasoning!


4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.
by ashriver on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ping Pong? (none / 0)

Maybe Obama should try his hand at ping pong rather than bowling.


by johnnygunn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:55:36 PM EST

Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 7)

This is a legitimate story.  There is legitimate reporting behind it.  Factual assertions have been made.  So far, I have seen the following forms of Obamite respose:

(1) Hating on the diarist without responding in any way to the factual assertions which have been made.

(2) Hating on Clinton.  (Somehow, this allows the Obamite to ignore reality for as long as needed.)

(3) Hating on the source of the information, without responding to the information itself.

So now that the Obamites have had their fun, are there any Obama supporters of sound mind in this place that can offer an explanation?  Do you think that this style of politics is consistent with Barack Obama's messaging?  Do you think some facts were reported incorrectly?

A legitimate question has been raised and not one of you has responded on the merits.  To me, this latest revalation reinforces two thoughts that I have had: (1) Barack Obama is hypocrisy, (2) There is still a lot about Barack Obama we don't know, and won't find out until John McCain tells us.  Now, if anyone would like, I am perfectly open-minded to hearing a refutation of this story, on the merits.

If you want to respond to this post with hate, I will put that through my Obamite translator, and it will come out like this: "we know our guy is a sham and we're really upset about it."


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:56:53 PM EST

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 2)

Yes, bob, there are legitimate questions, which I am currently researching.

Thanks for your comment.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (1.00 / 2)

Aren't you misusing the word 'research'

Research implies an openness to the facts, and attempt to find the objective facts.

Having looked at most your diaries I think the word your are looking for is 'besmirch'

One day you will feel guilty about this, becoming a conduit for the lamest, most unsourced, tenuous and tendentious smears you can find.

You know what this reminds me of more than anything: Whitewater.

Go there if you need to. You will have to live with the shame. It is the last gasp of triangulation: we are the enemies we've been waiting for.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

I actually feel honored.  We weren't able to see the birth of the unhinged Clinton haters in the early 90's that dogged him for decades.  This is the birth of the Obama haters and I have no doubt that they will continue on after the nomination is settled.  There will be no pivot to attacking McCain from this group.  We're watching history unfold before our eyes here.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

Absolutely agree.

As a foreigner who has lived and worked in the US for many years, with many friends in the democratic party, I was always amazed how the shift from being the party of the right to the party of the left was only really effected from the 60s to the 90s when the republicans took over the dixiecrats.

Now I realise, a lot of the things which would make you non centre left in the UK, tacit racism, thuggish anti intellectualism, right wing talking points etc are all well and alive in a lot of the pro Hillary blogs here.

Revisiting the 90s, when I was a Clinton fan, I realise a lot of my misgivings about triangulation, spin, PR etc are coming home to roost. Whatever their initial politics, the Clintons are so rooted in the system, so compromised, that they would prefer McCain to win.

It is a purging moment, and a painful one, because Clintonian triangulation was imitated here. Now I understand where Blair went wrong, because my party stopped being a grass roots party (I was a local activist) and became a top down, media and PR controlled party, run by people who actually despised the grass roots, and would prefer hanging out with other rich and powerful people.

What Hillary is doing, with Bill's help, in attempting to reframe the democratic nomination as some kind of swing state referendum, or PV counting MI and FLA, is actually a pure naked power grab that someone like Robert Mugabwe would completely understand.

A lot of Hillary supporters here say - you're not winning my vote with that line of argument. A lot of the more rabid ones say they'll vote McCain anyway.

Sometimes a party needs to lose those who only cling to power for powers sake. Enough of unprincipled politics. Enough of the million dollar deals and lobbyist spin. The party can live without it...

And your country will only thrive again without it.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 2)

I see you did not respond to the LA Times' reporting on the merits.  You are predictable though.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:58:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

Bob,

You're trying to tell me that there is some type corrpution involved.  Then why did Blackwell get less money out of the government contract than he gave Obama? Why does that make sense to you?  Where's the logic in that?

Why is it that the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times (two papers that have not been kind to Democrats in the past) have been effusive in their praise of Obama's ethics, transparency and campaign financing approach?  At some point, even your Clinton blinders should allow you to see that Obama is trying something new that should be praised.  He does not take money from lobbyists (I know that spouses and other relatives can donate, but Hillary's not even going that far) or PACs (which is the important thing b/c this how corporations indirectly fund candidates).  He has a established a grassroots network of contributers and volunteers that will help the Democratic Party for generations.

Yet all you guys want to do is bash on him with obvious slander.  This is Vince Foster stuff.  There's no logic to it, but since it's negative against Obama it seems like you defend it.  Is there any slander of Obama which you will not defend? (no snark, just a question).


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

Well your response is that this particular transaction doesn't add up in Blackwell's favor, therefore what has been reported is false.

I don't know if that is really sufficient - seems like fighting innuendo with innuendo to me.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (none / 0)

Not false, just not nefarious.  


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 2)

What I mean is: you're basically saying "I choose not to believe it because I choose not to believe it."  That's your prerogative of course.  It just doesn't help me, is all.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

Is he perfect?  No, of course he isn't.  Those that choose to believe so do so at their own peril.  Having said that, I do believe, as do a vast majority of people, that he IS far cleaner than the Clintonian politics we have been witness to thus far.  More than likely, as with everything else in the world, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle.  Is he a saint?  Of course not, but I do believe that his commitment to transparency and ethics far outreach those of his opponent(s).


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

Maybe I'm just not understanding the allegation.  It seems like one of those stories where they "raise questions" without providing any evidence of wrongdoing.  Can you summarize what the allegation is?

In any case, I checked the archives and there was no reporting about any of this in real time.  So we are left with the LA Times story that came out today and a statement from the campaign saying there was no quid-pro-quo.  

What exactly do you expect our response to be?  Especially when coming from a pack that has made attacks against the likely Dem nominee that consist of nothing more than absurd attempts to tie him to terrorism.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 1)

It seems that the allegation is Obama's accepting money in exchange for political favors.  So, (a) do you agree that this seems to have happened here and (b) do you think it's good?

Assuming you answer (a) in the negative, why?


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (none / 0)

It seems to me that for someone to make the allegation in the first place they should provide some evidence that a) Obama was paid an amount unusual for  that type of legal work and b) a deal was made that the work was in exchange for the advocacy.  I don't think that's asking for too much.

To the larger point of what so disgusts me about this kind of bullshit attack...

For decades I've watched the so called liberal MSM pull this on our leading Dems.  They did it for years to the Clintons, the cost Gore the election in 2000 pulling this shit, they assisted the swiftboating of Kerry in 2004, and in 2008 they are going to pull this shit on whichever Dem they think is leading in the primary and all through the election.  I know that's going to happen.

What disgusts me so much is watching it done on progressive blogs.  This sort of bullshit allegation where "questions are raised" but no actual proof is provided is disgusting.  It's a never-ending flow of bile and as each allegation is answered or fades away the next specious one comes flowing out.

You seem reasonable.  I'd ask you to take a step back and think back on the 90's and the 2000 election.  Pull up a few of the John Solomon hit pieces against Reid.  Then take a look at this bullshit and compare.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (2.00 / 3)

I don't have to think back to the 90's, map.

As I said elsewhere, it is ironic that, what "the vast right-wing conspiracy" couldn't finish, Obama and his supporters just might - the complete character assassination of the Clintons and the dismantlement of their legacy.

But imo the question is legitimate.  If you candidate's services were legitimate then it is a simple matter for him to explain what sort of work he was doing and ideally (since transparency is a core premise of his brand) show the timesheets / invoices /etc.

At that point, if you're correct, the issue is put to rest and we can have that much more confidence in him should we be our nominee.

I just don't find it disgusting, as you do.  It's not as if we are rehashing - this is new data.

I will tell you, though, that I'm learning to speak politicianese, and when Axelrod responds by saying "that would be ridiculous if it were true" that seems to mean "its true and i don't want to be on record as flatly denying it."  So, that raised my eyebrows.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's "Obamaton," thank you. (2.00 / 1)

Bobbank:

There were no charges levied in the diary, just the sort of innuendo that Clinton supporters decry when it's aimed at their candidate.

I don't go around linking to articles about Clinton's legal trouble over her 2000 Senate campaign finance problems centered around Peter Paul, because it's a distraction from the real issues, and a wedge to try and make people hate the Clintons or drive the Clinton supporters deeper into their bunkers.  

I don't want that.  Are there questions?  Sure, but they're not all that important to the White House race that's going on right now.  

This is a political blog, Bob.  It's not far out there to suggest that diarists here have political motives for putting out the information that they do.  I do.  Look at my diaries.  Math issues.  Digging for the honest truth about misunderstood issues.  A little levity here and there.  You want to question my reasons for posting all those, you're welcome to it.  I would hope that TexasDarlin is secure enough to answer for that as well.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's "Obamaton," thank you. (2.00 / 1)

You say no charges were levied, but they seem to have been levied in the very first sentence:

Barack Obama, as it turns out, is just another old-school politician in the finest quid-pro-quo Chicago tradition.

So, the allegation is that Obama accepted money in exchange for political favors.  And there are a number of factual assertions made to support that claim.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, okay. (2.00 / 0)

I don't think the thesis is held up by the evidence in the diary.

All the diarist has is a transaction and some tangental evidence to support a pre-biased conclusion.

I contest that this is all a political distraction and is just as unimportant as going through every one of Bill Clinton's pardons on his last day in office and determining if there was quid pro quo.

The evidence so far regarding Obama is that the guy is clean and that he's too smart to run for office if he had any skeletons in his closet.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know (2.00 / 2)

This is one of the disadvantages that an Obama supporter has in these discussions.

Most Clinton supporters understand she is a politician, accept that there are probably a few disagreeable decisions she has made, but have confidence that over the long run, on big picture items, she will steer us right.  So, if you tell us something about her closet, unless it's really egregious, we're kind of .. meh.

But so many Obama supporters give as their primary reason for supporting him things like - he's not negative, he's a new kind of politician, he's post-racial, etc., etc.  And these are all nice things but are mostly just the result of careful marketing: the Obama "brand" as it were.

I think he has his own merits to run on, but - for many of his supporters, its all about that brand.  And so I wonder about the cummulative effects of even relatively minor stories like this one.

One columnist that I was going back and forth with by e-mail had a good way to put it: his support is miles wide but only an inch deep.  Because he's an idea, moreso than a collection of policies and experiences, I worry that he could go -poof- just as quickly as he has risen.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (none / 0)

You're wrong.  People that write his support as a mile wide and an inch deep really understimate both Obama and his supporters.  Mistakes like that can cost someone an election.  Well... strike that.  A mistake like that did cost someone, someone with all the advantages and an air of inevitability, an election.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (none / 0)

should read "write his support off as"



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (2.00 / 1)

I'll be honest - I'm not convinced of how strong the motivation will be for many of these people if they no longer have boogey-man-Clinton to hate and dismember.  I know that ostensibly Barack's is a campaign about Hope, but the animating theme for most people I see is just a (misguided) hatred of anything remotely Clinton.  (Nevermind that most of Barack's policies are informed by disgruntled former Clinton staff, hence the unmistakable similarities.)

We will have to agree to disagree here - I'm certain there is no convincing the other on this one.


by bobbank on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (2.00 / 0)

I really, truly think that most Obama supporters don't hate Hillary at all. They hate the attacks, and the openings it gives the GOP.

Okay, maybe I'm projecting, but I don't know a single DEMOCRAT -- and that is key -- who was supporting Obama over Clinton back in Feb or before who felt that decision had much of anything to do with Clinton. I know I never really factored the family Clinton, who I adored, when I climbed on the Obama bandwagon. I assumed, always assumed she'd get the nod anyway, I just liked door "B" more than door "C."

Now, sure, it's all a big mix-up of resentment, disgust and other psychic poo, but her campaign meant very little to me back before every day was a charge from the trenches into no-manorwoman's-land.

But I think most people came to back Obama for reasons less to do with Clinton than Clinton supporters would believe. They've spent so much time denegrating Obama's support as a Kool-Aid cult that they don't notice how that slam clashes with the new one, that it's all anti-Clinton BS. It's like the people who complain about Obama's association with Rev. Wright, yet still think he's muslim. The rest of us just get a migrane.

Anyway, I doubt most Clinton supporters came to support her out of anti-Obama feelings. I think those came about when Obama started winning. If he'd lost Iowa, everyone would be talking about his as a Veep prospect, although it would likely go to Bayh or someone. You'd have great affection for the "kid."

There's a narcissism inherent in these things. To assume your debate opponant only disagrees because you agree is to be poorly prepared for rebuttal. You need to understand the pros of their argument as well as the cons of your own.

I think this is another reason why the Clinton campaign is failing/failed.

because of much having to do with "Clinton" at all. If anything, the idea of getting away from the decades of Bush/Clinton leadership of the country is the closest I see to Clinton being a vital part of the equation.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:52:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (none / 0)

I think it's demeaning to Obama supporters to imply that they support their candidate out of hatred for Clinton, and demeaning to Clinton supporters to imply that they support their candidate out of hatred/racism/whatever towards Obama.

However, both conclusions can be reached if you spend too much time in the hothouse atmosphere of political blogs. This here is not representative of either side's base, fortunately.


by tomchaps on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know (2.00 / 0)

Once someone parses this comment of yours, they end up with the following meaning: "Clinton supporters tend to be cynical hypocrites while Obama supporters tend to be hopeful for something better in politics".

Except of course that you're presenting hope as something bad, and cynicism/hypocrisy as something good.

On my part I'd rather have a politician that wants us to raise our expectations (even if he often falls short of them himself) than a politician that wants us to lower them and thinks that's all for the good.

Clinton seems to me now not only to be shameless in her own self, but to promote shamelessness in other people.


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (none / 0)

Okay, here's a response.

(1) What exactly is being charged here? As best I can tell it's that Obama was paid for some work and later on wrote a letter to that ended up helping his employer. This would be bad if (a) he were helping his employer to the detriment of his constituents (b) he was helping his employer to the detriment of his morals, or (c) he were helping his employer to the exclusion of other things.

None of these things is alledged, either in the Times piece or in TD's diary.

The times piece, as has been noted elswhere, was remarkably balanced, in that it provided Obama's response. What TD did is take this and use it as an example of the Obama = corrupt, Chicago politician.

It's out of proportion with the evidence.

Lastly, if he did end up engaging in some kind of quid pro quo, then that would be too bad. I would think less of him. I would still vote for him. I don't need--and I don't think many "Obamites" need--to have their candidate be perfect.

As for the hate that you're talking about. It's difficult for me, I know, to keep cool sometimes. It's difficult when all I see when I come to MyDD is hit diaries on the rec list. It's difficult when, in the comments, I get called an cultist or elitist or pick your own favorite anti-obama supporter slur.

So, yes, a lot of people don't care for TD. I don't care for TD's diaries. I don't know TD. She's obviously committed to a good Democratic candidate, which is good as far as I'm concerned.

But it can be hard for me to see this when I read these kind of triumphant guilt-by-association diaries.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reading Obamite response (none / 0)

The analysis in this comment really hit the mark.  Very accurate and very well stated.  Uprated.


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual (none / 0)

Surely this can't be true about Messiah Quid Pro Quobama.


Visit Pagan Power You know you want to!
by Pagan Power on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:22:36 PM EST

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated: What did h (2.00 / 1)

And I'm sure you're equally interested in what Bill Clinton did to earn the twenty million  Ron Burkle paid him last year.....


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:28:27 PM EST

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated: What did h (2.00 / 2)

Do your own diary if you want.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated: What did h (2.00 / 3)

I wouldn't want to get uppity.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated: What did h (2.00 / 1)

Just because because this diary descends into the gutter doesn't mean we all have to sully ourselves.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated: What did h (2.00 / 1)

By bringing up the point, it seems the person came out of the gutter (based on your terminology).

Having said that, I think BlueinColorado is more mature and didnt mean to talk about gutters unlike you.


by Sandeep on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before you launch a lame attack... (none / 0)

...better check out who I was replying to. Texas darlin not Blueincolorado who speaks perfect sense.

Really. I'm not offended fellow Obama supporter. Late at night I sometimes misread the thread too.

But ripostes should be quick and deadly.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You all are sad... (1.60 / 5)

Talk to me about Obama once the Clintons have released their 1/2 BILLION library donor list.  

On first pass this will look like an effort to change the subject but it's not.  If the topic is political favors for cash the favors from 500,000,000.  should be quite large.  

Here is the issue, while Obama is not perfect, no on e is, Clinton always trumps him in the bad acts scale, always.  


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:43:09 PM EST

Do you really want to play this game? (1.00 / 1)

What did Rupert Murdoch get in return for holding fundraisers for Hillary?

What is the Saudi government going to get in return for the $10 million they gave to "build the Clinton Library"?

Why won't Hilllary and Bill release the full donor list to the Clinton Foundation? Especially since they've been selling part of this mailing list for profit?

Why won't the Clinton's release Hillary's White House records?

Etc., etc., etc.

Another Texas Sweetie hit piece implying impropriety where there is none. Desperate times in the Clinton camp.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:48:44 PM EST

Re: Do you really want to play this game? (2.00 / 1)

um...actually this came from the LA Times.  Did you read their story?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see their name on this diary. (2.00 / 1)


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where is the money. (2.00 / 1)

Maybe i an not getting this right.  But what did BO do to earn 112k.  I think that is a legit issue and all he has to do is provide his billing records.  Much like BO supporters demanded that HRC provide her tax records.  Suggesting multipe she would not do this and then when she did the attacked her for making money.

So one simple question.  What was done for 112k.  And the billing and work records showing what he did to earn this money.

david


by giusd on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:28:32 PM EST

Re: Where is the money. (1.00 / 1)

I bet you're also terribly curious to know what Bill C. did for Ron Burkle to earn $20 million in one year?


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where is the money. (2.00 / 1)

Funny is Bill Clinton running for President?  But ok since it is ok to discuss such issues. How about what did MO do to earn 318k at the University of Chicago.  That my friends is 3x what an Asst Professor in Medicine makes at this non-profit Hospital.  I mean 318k for outreach.

Since when does an outreach person make 3x more than the physicians at a hospital?????

david


by giusd on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where is the money. (2.00 / 0)

Funny is Bill Clinton running for President?  M

He often seems to think so. So do a great many supporters of Hillary who, when I ask them to list some of these legendary accomplishments and victories she's always talking about, tell me about his presidency.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where is the money. (2.00 / 1)

And BO supporters never stop at smearing an ex-president of the US????  And for good reason.  BO supporters think they are taking over the democratic party and kicking out anyone who supports the Clintons.  Well i hate to break this to you but you might find your new party lacking in enough voters to govern.

But then some BO supporters would rather kick out the Clintons and everyone who supporters them than win in Nov.  Just saying.

david


by giusd on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where is the money. (none / 0)

How am I smearing him? I haven't heard anyone contest that Ron Burkle paid him twenty million dollars in 2007. You asked what Obama did to earn 112K five years ago. Why is not relevant to ask teh same question. Even politics aside, are you not curious about what "consulting" could generate that kind of money? I am.

And to use the Clintonites favorite hobby horse: Do you think John McCain wouldn't have asked this question if Clinton had been the nominee?


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

troll rated for sexism (none / 0)

see if you can figure it out.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: troll rated for sexism (none / 0)

Uprated him because I have no clue what you are talking about.  Cry wolf much?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes I see you do not and can not (none / 0)

get it.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: troll rated for sexism (1.50 / 2)

It's all you've got so you fling it at everyone you don't like?

I'll say it is a step up from your cluck cluck noises of the other day.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Didn't HRC have her Rose Law Firm... (2.00 / 2)

billing records scoured with a fine tooth comb?

OK, BO, ante up!  What are you afraid of?


by CoyoteCreek on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST

We have in fact jumped the Shark! (2.00 / 2)

UPDATED 4/27/08 1:45 PM PST: Blogger Andy Martin raises this question:

When MYDD has people I though were reasonable posting stuff from this guy, all hope truly is lost.  

Texas,

Do you know who Andy Martin is, he is Alan Keyes with more time to write.  

Here is onehits from newxmax..

Free Obama's White Grandmother

   Andy Martin
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/arti cles/2007/3/28/142319.shtml

With more hits like this..

MASSA" OBAMA "NOT SURPRISED" HIS FAMILY OWNED SLAVES

FROM BILL CLINTON'S "I SHARE YOUR PAIN" TO BARACK OBAMA'S "YOU SHARE MY SHAME."

FROM THE DEMOCRATS' "MARCH TO MONTGOMERY (1965)" TO THE DEMOCRATS" "MARCH TO HYPOCRISY (2007)"

CLINTON WON'T APOLOGIZE FOR HER IRAQ VOTE; OBAMA WON'T APOLOGIZE FOR HIS FAMILY'S OWNERSHIP OF SLAVES

No shame...

Sad..

Just so we know who you are now refrencing....here is a blurb from the Democratic party web site http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/il-go v_more_lor.php

Discussing your new hero from his appearance in a IL Republican debate.  

For perennial candidate and former Democrat Andy Martin of Chicago, it meant explaining a past that includes a 12-year mail fraud sentence that later was overturned, the Illinois Supreme Court's refusal to grant him a law license citing paranoid delusional behavior, and anti-Semitic comments made during the 1980s. ...

No shame...


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:39:03 PM EST

Re: We have in fact jumped the Shark! (2.00 / 1)

Your seeking moral intelligence on race from someone who last week said Obama was "uppity", and that was just the latest in a long line.


by BlueinColorado on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We have in fact jumped the Shark! (2.00 / 1)

For some reason these diaries reminded me of the album review scene from Spinal Tap, especially the last review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA0_jDd5j hM



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We have in fact jumped the Shark! (none / 0)

I can only think of one thing to say.

"But mine goes to 11".

david


by giusd on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I call on Texas (2.00 / 2)

Darling to http://rejectanddenounce.org/addsomethin g.php

Reject and Denounce Andy Martin!

/snark (kinda)


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST

Re: I call on Texas (none / 0)

I deleted the Andy Martin link.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updatedx3: What did (1.66 / 3)

Just when I think the bar can't be any lower....They throw table tennis at him....Do people know how desperate they look??


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:54:08 PM EST

Oh we haven't hit bottom yet. (2.00 / 2)

Check out the other rec'd thread where they're attacking him for being involved on the same charity as Bill Ayers which was trying to raise money for Chicago school children. Heavens. Mustn't educate the masses. How would we get them to be under-informed voters?


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh we haven't hit bottom yet. (2.00 / 1)

Why did you troll rate me??


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:35:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry. (none / 0)

I see that. I have no idea. I rarely troll rate anyone so I must have intended some real offender and got you by mistake. I've corrected and added mojo instead.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:40:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (none / 0)

In response to objections in these comment threads.  See updates.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (1.00 / 1)

Wow. You have to delete a lot of racist stuff, don't you?

Maybe it's time you took a hiatus from posting and took a long hard look at yourself.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (2.00 / 2)

Wow, is this all you can do to contribute to your candidate?

Why don't you write a candidate diary?

You people are just strange.  You object, I respond by addressing  your objection in a constructive way by removing the offensive link, and you still complain.

And oh by the way, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT RACE.  In fact, race has nothing to do with this diary.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (1.00 / 2)

But it has a great deal to do with the way you write about the race, doesn't it, SoCalDarlin?

This is the third time in two weeks you've had to delete something objectionable.

And before that you were banned.

Which of those statements is factually incorrect?

(I'm trying to help you see how far gone you are).


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (2.00 / 2)

for your information I didn't have to delete anything.  I made edits based on feedback.  but it doesn't matter what I would do, people like you will hate me no matter what because of my advocacy for Hillary.  I'll take my cues from her, and just keep on truckin.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:45:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (1.00 / 1)

Why were you banned?


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (2.00 / 0)

Well not everything is about race but clinton supporters on here sure have to delete a lot of racist links, I mean Virgina Dare, Andy Martin, etc. after a while a pattern appears.


by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:50:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (2.00 / 2)

Once again, I did not have to delete anything.  I read the feedback and made my own decision.  The source was problematic but the question that person raised was valid.

I'll repeat what I said upthread.  The list of acceptable sources shrinks everyday for Obama people.  I've been attacked for citing ABC, CNN, and NYT.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:55:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you read the feedback (1.00 / 2)

and realized that you would take an unmitigated amount of shit from reasonable people if you kept your sourcing to a racist hack "journalist" who has zero credibility amongst progressive Dems. If you didn't feel forced to delete it, then what changed your mind? Epiphany? Gut feeling? Somnambulism?


by bookish on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ANDY MARTIN link Deleted (1.00 / 2)

Now why would you hide-rate my posting of very simple questions? Unless you're afraid to discuss the very simple fact of your history of posting racist filth?

Why does the truth frighten you? If you're ashamed of your conduct, as you should be, why don't you change your conduct instead of attacking those who point it out?


by BlueinColorado on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:04:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

much appreciated (none / 0)

TexasDarlin,

Thank you, much respect....

mojo...


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:28:35 PM EST

Demands for billing records. Where've I heard this (2.00 / 1)

Something to do with the Rose Law Firm. It's fuzzy to me. Is this those same Republicans? No. Wait. These are supposed to be Democrats. I must meditate on this.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:45:10 PM EST

Great Diary, Texas Darlin'! (2.00 / 3)

I wrote a diary asking MyDD to remove the Troll
posts that are deliberately distractive.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/28/0103 5/6431

by internetstar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:13:28 AM EST

This is a bad story...and if it gets legs (2.00 / 1)

it will be used in the general for sure.

Since i am not a lawyer, i am going to email this story to a lawyer friend of mine and ask for his opinion and the plausibility of this story.

I will post his/my comment when he replies to me.


by likelihood zero on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:55:01 AM EST

Slick Chicago Politicking 4 Real (2.00 / 3)

Barack Obama and his henchmen are just going to bring us back to the smoke filled rooms of yesteryear where Big Ping-ping pulled the strings, and the rest of us had to chase after the balls.


by Mostly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:23 AM EST

I disagree (none / 0)

with Txdarlin's take in this diary but support her right to post.  My only issue (which was addressed) was linking a post from a particular blogger.

The fact that we are discussing a 8,000 monthly retainer for  Harvard Law, Harvard Law Review President, attorney is the height of silly season IMHO.  

I would remind, IL senate is a part time job for everyone.  

As I said, I disagree with the diary at it's core but do respect the original posters decision to remove the references to the blogger in question and her right to post her thoughts.  


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:59:58 AM EST

Re: Chicago Politics as Usual [Updated x4: What (none / 0)

Another content-less free diary.  Here's a clue for the junior journalists looking for quid pro quo: people who bribe politicians only do so if the amount of money that they expect to get in exchange will exceed the size of the bribe, typically by a large margin.

Let me know when you've found the beef.


by rfahey22 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST

what he do for $112k?] (none / 0)

Keep in mind, Obama REFUSES to release his state records.


by LindaSFNM on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST

OM fucking G (2.00 / 0)

1. The State of Illinois has specific record-keeping requirements for their State Senators and, naturally, business occurring in the legislature. It has been confirmed that Obama abided by these requirements flawlessly.

2. All of said records, i.e. anything to do with the IL state government, i.e. everything is available through the State of Illinois. Some documents require a FoIA request but there is no OK that Obama needs to or can give. The public record is, well, public record.

3. Cases, legislation etc. that were ongoing at the time of Obama's election to U.S. Senate were transitioned to his successor Kwame Raoul.

4. Obama does not have any remaining personal records. Anything that is not part of the official record (see #1) would have been discarded because it is by definition inconsequential. There was no staff that could handle these as mere keepsakes.

Is this really ground we need to cover again? Or do the haters keep making the same pointless arguments over and over again just because the rest of their case is so weak?


by bookish on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:43:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OM fucking G (2.00 / 1)

your subject is correct.

I understand you're embarrassed by Obama's lack of disclosure, but try dealing with the facts.

And, the State of Illinois does not disclose records publicly, they must be requested. Senator Obama must release his papers and records.  And he HASN'T Period.  Who gives a crap that on going cases are turned over to his "groomer".  

To actually claim Obama has no remaining records is a false statement.  Records are that, recordings of what one did.  You know, Like the first lady's records.  She isn't first lady now and just because there is one, doesn't mean her records are now the new first Ladies. lol  


by LindaSFNM on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're sorely misinformed (2.00 / 1)

about preservation processes at the state level. Just because you repeat something with increasing volume doesn't make it true.

As stated in my previous comment, some records are available publicly, others are subject to an FOIA request, but Obama is not in charge of processing those requests for the state of Illinois, no matter how much power you seem to proscribe to him. As for the internal day-to-day records of his office, there is no law nor practice that would suggest it untoward to dispose of those at the end of a given legislator's tenure.


by bookish on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0)

Why was TexasDarlin banned from this site in the past?

It's weird, most forums usually make bans permanent, not the kind of power to toy with, Ive seen it tear many forums apart.


Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:10:31 PM EST

Re: Why (none / 0)

Since you seem more interested in me than the subject of my diary, I'll answer your question:  I was temporarily suspended for posting a diary about the church scrubbing its website, which was based on a story reported that day by Jake Tapper at ABC News.  Admin. reconsidered my suspension because it was a sourced story, so they reinstated me but kept the diary off.  If you're curious you can find that old post on my website.

Do you have any substantive comments or rebuttals re. the content of this current diary?  It was based on a L.A. Times story, as you can see.  I think they endorsed Obama, by the way, and they are typically viewed as a credible source by Obama bloggers, aren't they?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What did he do? Did you read the Times page 2? (none / 0)

From the LA Times article:

"Blackwell said that "Barack worked extensive hours advising the company on compliance and human resource issues," negotiated contracts, reviewed confidentiality agreements and provided reports on topics requested by the company's senior management. Obama was not involved in soliciting city or state contracts for EKI, Blackwell said, and there was an agreement that he would not contact any government agencies."

Surely we should give more credence to the firm involved than to a random lawyer posting on the internet accusing Obama of money laundering? Why put "services" in quotes in update #3? The implication of this diary--that Obama was in the bag for the all-powerful Chicago pingpong lobby, and was paid for his political influence and not his actual work--is unsupported by the LA Times article that is the main source. It quotes many saying Obama's letter was entirely appropriate, there was no conflict of interest, and at best that he should have made clear in his itemized list of clients that EKI was such a dominant source of income. In other words, he was not as careful as he should have been to avoid the possible impression of a conflict of interest. That's it, folks.

The diary takes a real issue (a thin one, in my opinion, but a real one nevertheless), and unfortunately descends with each update into meanspirited and unfair speculation.


by tomchaps on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:10:01 PM EST

Pingpong scandal! (none / 0)

I lived in Chicago back then, and in Hyde Park no less. Following the success of the cows-on-parade public art project, Chicago paid to have pingpong tables set up all around the city to encourage people to randomly stop and play. It was a hoot. I'm sure Blackwell lobbied the city hard to have this done.

What does this mean? While I can't prove it, there is every chance that Obama played doubles pingpong on the streets of Chicago with William Ayers, Tony Rezko and Rhashid Khalidi, while Blackwell stood nearby chuckling evilly.

Think about it. It could have happened, and how would that play in the general election?


by tomchaps on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.