by PlainWords, Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:02:52 AM EST
The truth is finally starting to come out, no thanks to American "journalism." Canadian TV just ran a big story about Obama lying to Ohio on NAFTA. The Obama campaign secretly contacted the The truth is finally starting to come out, no thanks to American "journalism." Canadian TV just ran a big story about Obama lying to Ohio on NAFTA. The Obama campaign secretly contacted the Canadian ambassador and told him not to worry about what he says on NAFTA in Ohio. "Don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric..." See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4J
Also, David Gergen backed HRC's version from the debate saying that she was never a fan of NAFTA. See the video here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/27/
And here is the whole story on who really did the race-baiting, from Sean Wilentz in The New Republic, 2/27/08, "Race Man: How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton":
by Trickster, Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST
Hard to tell who's lying about what these days, with all the smoke flying around the national media. But is anybody really lying? And who's blowing all that smoke?
There's an ad floating around the blogosphere featuring Lorna Brett Howard, a Chicago women's right activist. In the ad, Howard appears to be on the verge of tears as she goes on at some length about the dishonest campaign Hillary Clinton has supposedly been running about Obama's record on choice.
It's not a bad ad. If it were a little shorter, and specifically if it didn't get kind of bogged down in Howard's recitation of her resume, it would be pretty effective, I think. Even as is, it probably works OK for wonkish long-attention-span types.
The real problem with the ad, though, is that while Howard isn't afraid to call Clinton a liar, she never actually quotes Clinton at all. Instead she just characterizes Clinton's words in a speech and in a Clinton campaign flier, and goes from there to say that the words she characterized but did not quote were a lie.
Thank you very much, but on serious accusations like that I'd rather have you TELL ME THE WORDS you are claiming to have been a lie. That way I can judge for myself.
by American1989, Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 08:19:18 PM EST
An interesting article on Washington Post.
"While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there."
"his time living and attending school in Indonesia, and the fact that his paternal grandfather, a Kenyan farmer, was a Muslim"
I think he is a Christian and a man who believes in the Bible, but he has Muslim blood?
by Jason Williams, Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 09:24:05 AM EST
10,000 US researchers have signed a petition meant to shed light on Republican interference in the scientific process. Their statement sites instances of scientists in federal agencies being asked to change data to reflect current policy. From BBC News:
The [American Geophysical] Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.
The claim is a direct attack on the Republican congress and it's misuse of scientific data to support initiatives, and their disregard for scientific integrity. The guide sites specific instances of censorship and misrepresentation, and claims the practice has been increasingly prevalent in recent years.
Among the 10,000 signatures are those of 52 Nobel Laureates, and previous scientific advisers to administrations dating back to the 1950's. The Union does say they have hope that the incoming Democratic Congress will turn the tide.
by drlimerick, Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:07:34 AM EDT
Over at Digby, tristero recounts a conversation with a liberal hawk that ends with the punch line, "Tristero, you're not a trained wonk. Why were you so right in '02 and everybody else was so wrong?" (read the whole thing)
I've wondered about this myself, resulting in this query. It's well known that Bush is not a reformed alcoholic, he's a dry drunk, meaning that even if his claim to have stopped drinking is true, he retains the sociopathic behaviors of the active alcoholic. The old joke about alcoholics totally applies to Bush: "How do you tell if an alcoholic is lying? His lips move."
I grew up surrounded by alcoholics and spent many years married to a dry drunk. (I'm not whining, it's just a fact.) It's a truism that the children of alcoholics (including me) develop a preternatural ability to read people and sum them up intuitively, instantly, correctly. It's an essential skill if you must depend on someone inherently erratic and unreliable. I took one look at Bush in spring of 2000 and started giving money to McCain, then to Gore.
And I've been dead right about Bush ever since. It can't be things I know -- I'm better informed than your average CNN watcher, but not in a league with the majority visiting this and similar blogs. But still, I just knew, in real time, that he was lying about Iraq, he is up to his elbows in the Plame affair, he's been organizing U.S. security forces into a personal Gestapo since the beginning (remember how the Homeland Security Department is set up to make it easier for the president to install his allies, and fire his enemies?). I'm convinced that he won't voluntarily yield the White House except possibly to his brother.
Whence, query: Are family members of alcoholics or dry drunks overrepresented among progressives who knew, just knew, that Bush was lying in 2000, or 2001, or 2002. . . ?