Watch what he does, not what he says.

Note: It is with some trepidation and unhappiness that I write this. But I can't sit by and idly watch what is happening to Hillary Clinton and not speak out.

The incredibly rotten media coverage of this campaign reached a new low this weekend with the manufactured furor over Hillary Clinton's comments about the length of the primary campaign.  I'm not interested in rehashing the tired smears that went ricocheting through the media and blogosphere.

What disturbs me the most, however, is not the behavior of the media, from whom I expect very little after their treatment of Al Gore and John Kerry. My main anger is directed, sadly, at Barack Obama and his campaign, and their deliberate complicity in promoting and perpetuating this scurrilous smear, all the while pretending to be above it.

Yesterday, in a recommended diary here, Obama was widely praised for saying that he accepted Clinton's statement that her remarks about RFK were intended only to talk about the length of the primary contest. In particular, he said this:

"I have learned that, when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."

How very classy and gracious of him, compared with the evil Clinton. Except, as has happened before, he was beind dishonest. Or lying. Or being a hypocrite. Strong words, I know, but true. His campaign had already helped promote the story the day before--it had issued a statement saying "Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.". In the same 24 hours that Obama was claiming the high road, it turns out.

In addition, the Obama campaign sent the entire political press corps the transcript of a searing commentary about Mrs. Clinton by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

There's no getting around this. While Obama was pretending to be above it all, his campaign was actively pushing the appalling notion that Hillary Clinton is waiting around for him to be assassinated.

This would be low enough were it the first time. But it's not. Before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama was doing it again, this time about the notorious Tuzla issue, saying in a debate that we all make mistakes, but then pushing the story afterwards. As Slate's John Dickerson wrote:

At the next train stop, I'm going to stand behind Senator Obama when he speaks. When he's decrying the trivial distractions in politics, I think he may be crossing his fingers behind his back.

As the Senator's campaign train wound from one speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics to the next speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics, his campaign hosted a conference call to engage in the practice the candidate was busy denouncing. I suppose it would have been an even greater act of chutzpah for the Obama campaign to host the conference call while Sen. Obama was denouncing that kind of behavior, but not much more of one.

Obama campaign aides scheduled the call to talk about Hillary Clinton's fantastical story about her breakneck race to shelter under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. You might think this would be the last story the Obama campaign would be pushing, because in Wednesday's debate the Senator mistakenly suggested his campaign had only discussed the issue because reporters had brought it up, not because they were trying to take advantage of Clinton's extended work of fiction. To push the story again now would make Obama look even more insincere about that claim.

While the candidate was denouncing the distractions, his aides were promoting them. Three veterans of the Bosnia conflict joined for a conference call to explain just how crucial this particular distraction was, and why we should ignore Senator Obama's guidance and get obsessed with this issue.

Add this to Obama's claim that his campaign wasn't pushing the reprehensible notion that Hillary Clinton was race-baiting while his staffers were writing and distributing long memos about it, and we have a pattern.

It's one thing when these are about little things, but Obama's campaign has done this with some nuclear topics--accusing Clinton of appealing to racism, or saying that virtually unspeakable notion that she's waiting around for his death. These are hugely serious issues, and for me, close to unforgivable. If he wants my support in November, and those of many other Clinton voters, he'd better do something pretty extraordinary to make up for it.

Tags: Barack Obama, hypocrisy (all tags)

Comments

78 Comments

watch what she says...

For she is responsible for it.


"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.

How astonishingly... accurate.

by Casuist 2008-05-25 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: watch what she says...

I was just thinking - isn't that almost exactly what she said in her statement, too?

by Virginia Liberal 2008-05-25 05:53PM | 0 recs
Obama is a narcissist

And of course, yes, watch what they do, not what they say..

Like Bush.

We always forget that, because they are so skillful.

by architek 2008-05-25 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is a narcissist

Oh god.  What does this accomplish?  Hillary's surrogates have sent out numerous emails harping on statements, pictures, and sometimes inaccuracies.  So has Obama's.

IT'S A CAMPAIGN, FOLKS.

That's what campaigns do.  She doesn't get elevated any higher than he does here.  Perhaps once the campaign ends (sometime in 2015 by the looks of things), they'll stop sniping, and so will you.

But you look silly complaining that Obama took advantage of a Hillary gaffe.  Rezko, Weather Underground, Bittergate, "finger" scratching, shall I go on?  

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 06:29PM | 0 recs
links please?

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 06:35PM | 0 recs
by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 06:42PM | 0 recs
yep - i guess:

they BOTH really are politicians after all...

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - i guess:

One man looks at a dying bird and thinks there's nothing but unanswered pain.

But death's got the final word.  It's laughing at him.

Another man sees that same bird.  Feels the glory.  

Feels something smiling through it.

---
We'll all live to fight another day.  People are taking this too personally.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 07:26PM | 0 recs
let me explain why....

take a look at this:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/25/1 5433/6845/11#11

the damage that has been done to her goes far beyond politics as usual.

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: let me explain why....

Yes.  And I don't have the time to link to the plethora of "I'll vote McCain" or "I'll sit it out if it's not Hillary" diaries on the other side of things.

But let's keep it in perspective.  We're here on a political blog, and arguably one of the most pro-Hillary Dem ones out there.  Emotions are always heightened on forums and message boards, and more so on a place like MyDD.

This isn't a good representation of America.  This is a good representation of American highly political, savvy, involved, dedicated campaigners.  Some here will hold their threats, most I suspect won't.  

But this isn't something I worry about for the nation- for the regular folk, this site is like taking what they're thinking this news cycle and running it through a massive amplifier, with a bit of distortion on top.  We'll be ok.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: let me explain why....

Yes.  And I don't have the time to link to the plethora of "I'll vote McCain" or "I'll sit it out if it's not Hillary" diaries on the other side of things.

Are you even going to pretend that there were not a plethora of similar diaries from Obama supporters back when the outcome looked less certain for him? I'll never forget how even TeacherKen, the supposedly sober lifelong Democrat over on dKos, had a number 1 recommended diary there to that effect.

It's far too late to try to pin the present schism within the Democratic party on the poor sportsmanship of bitter and disgruntled Hillary supporters.

by Inky 2008-05-26 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: let me explain why....

Links?

I don't hear a single Obama supporter saying "I won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee".  Even the polls indicate this is a Hillary-supporter issue, DESPITE the fact the only way she can win is to jury-rig the process by seating delegates that weren't supposed to be seated and THEN having the supers overturn the will of the people.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-26 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: watch what she says...

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

If Hillary can't handle Obama when he has his kid gloves on, how will she win the general.

by stevema14420 2008-05-25 09:05PM | 0 recs
Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

Because I really think that no matter how you slice it it was. Just sayin'.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-25 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

It was inappropriate in that people could wildly misinterpret it for their own purposes. But all she meant was that the primary process has gone on for a long time, and there's nothing inappropriate about that.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-25 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

Actually the problem is that I could interpret it.  Not misinterpret.  The statement in its full context is objectionable.  Apologize (appropriately) and move on.

by niksder 2008-05-25 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

How is it objectionable "in its full context"? This I'd love to hear.

by Inky 2008-05-26 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?
"There are certain shades of limelight that can wreck a girls complexion"
Holly Golightly

by venician 2008-05-25 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

My grandmother is a HRC supporter, but she was very upset when she heard Clinton use RFK as an example of why she should go on...So I guess your your calling my grandmother's feelings inappropriate??

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

And she still supports HRC...for the record.

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 07:02PM | 0 recs
Well I am a grandmother too

and while Hillary may have been careless even tasteless in her remarks,  it does not excuse the lynch mob of torch wielding villagers that this who gaffe has caused.  I am sure the Republicans are licking their chops over this............it keeps us fighting over pettiness rather than uniting to help senior citizens.  That's my two cents!

by Sandy1938 2008-05-25 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Well I am a grandmother too

How one person reacts of being reminded of a tragic event may be different than another, but that does not mean that person's feelings about it are any less genuine.

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

Everyone is responsible for their own feelings. Her feelings were due to the way she interpreted what Clinton said, not to what Clinton actually did say.  And that is the same for everyone who made it into a big deal.  Because it was seen a certain way by a minority of people, does not decide the true meaning.

by Scotch 2008-05-25 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

<strikethrough>long insulting comment</strikethrough>

Not feeding the trolls. Not feeding the trolls.

by letterc 2008-05-26 12:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

dammit, strikethrough tags aren't recognized here?

by letterc 2008-05-26 12:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

I guess if you choose to see it as an insult, that is your choice.  

by Scotch 2008-05-26 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Was her statement somehow NOT unfortunate?

Honestly, I found your argument specious, wrote an insulting response, and then realized that was stupid and pointless and served no valid purpose and replaced it with the strikethrough. I should have just posted nothing, but it was just an itchy finger moment.

by letterc 2008-05-26 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

Oh get off it.  It's her fault she stepped in this gaffe.

She's the one who has taken him to the woodshed for his remarks time and time again, so she doesn't deserve any graciousness or understanding.

Though, he's given it to her.  

And yet still you folks complain.

by Deadalus 2008-05-25 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

He hasn't given her any reprieve. Sending out email to the entire press corps isn't giving her a reprieve.

Hillary Clinton stayed silent about Wright for nearly two weeks, and even then barely said anything.

He's engaged in the lowest form of politics, and he has his conscience to answer to.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-25 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

You want to engage in a discussion about who has engaged in the "lowest form of politics"?

Sure.

Hillary has peddled Hamas, Farrakhan, and Bitter-gate numerous times, shamelessly.  She went so far as to have an advertisement with actors expressing their offense at Barack's bitter remarks.  She dropped Farrakhan unsolicited in two different debates.  She brought up Hamas in one of the debates, again unsocilitied.

What did BO do when asked about HRC's Tuzla-sniper story?  He graciously refused to harp on it, and excused it as the result of tireless campaigning.

That's class.

Our guy has it--your gal doesn't.

by Deadalus 2008-05-25 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

Maybe you can do a chart showing the number of delegates per attack.  

by niksder 2008-05-25 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

hehe....We should do a chart of delegates per Clinton lie.

That's probably be about 1:1.

by Deadalus 2008-05-25 06:03PM | 0 recs
You know, this reminds me of the

Drudge picture situation. He said in the debate that he took Hillary at her word that she didn't circulate it, but I heard that he was back out on the trail a day or so later using the photo as an example of her attempts to be "divisive". I don't have a link for that, though -- did you read anything about it? I'd appreciate a link, if anyone has one.

by sricki 2008-05-25 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: You know, this reminds me of the

Oh yeah, I forgot that one. Another classic.

Another entirely manufactured "gaffe" that he piled on.

Right now, he and the Democratic Party need to do something big to show me they deserve my support.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-25 05:54PM | 0 recs
That one was so much worse, though.

Hillary had nothing to do with that incident, yet she got all the blame. Then when people finally discovered that freepers had sent the photo to Drudge, they just stopped talking about it. No apologies from the ones who were determined to blame it on Hillary.

by sricki 2008-05-25 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: You know, this reminds me of the

Orange, got any posts you can show me of other gaffes disturbing you near as bitterly as this one?  Sorry you've run into some confusion as to why you're a Democrat, but you might have to find your own reasons.  We can't do that for you.

by niksder 2008-05-25 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You know, this reminds me of the

Would an e-card do?

Hahaha...

WAAAAAAAA

by Deadalus 2008-05-25 06:05PM | 0 recs
rec

by ameridad 2008-05-25 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: You know, this reminds me of the

I don't think Obama is interested in seppuku, which is probably the only way he could satisfy you.

by Cochrane 2008-05-25 06:31PM | 0 recs
i know for a fact that he

accused her of leaking photos of him overseas 'to make people afraid.'  in Jackson, MS on march 10th and his campaign here"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8667.html

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 06:08PM | 0 recs
Yup, I knew I didn't imagine it. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-25 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: i know for a fact that he

The Clinton campaign issued an official response to the growing tempest - but the statement from campaign manager Maggie Williams did not respond to the central question of whether staffers circulated the photo.

by edg1 2008-05-25 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

In addition, the Obama campaign sent the entire political press corps the transcript of a searing commentary about Mrs. Clinton by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC."

Link Please.... I've heard this "rumor" before - and not with any confirmation.

by Virginia Liberal 2008-05-25 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

here:

Keith Olbermann, granted no friend of Senator Clinton's, went on a tirade about everything he considers her mistakes in this campaign. It's, without further comment, tough beyond measure. (Update: On Saturday morning, the Obama campaign also sent reporters a transcript of this commentary.

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

That link is to an opinion piece on a blog. The piece is written by a Hillary Clinton supporter. Where is the link that shows the email demonstrably came from the Obama Campaign? I can send an email saying Obama is great but that doesn't mean I speak for the campaign.

by edg1 2008-05-25 06:51PM | 0 recs
actually...

she is a reporter for the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http:/ www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/us/politics 26campaign.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26refQ3Dpo litics&OP=4e58a3fcQ2FAWKXAQ5BQ3CGQ5C mQ3CQ3C5OAOttQ3BAt(AOJAQ3AQ5CAQ5DQ3ChQ605Q60GQ5CAOJG.Q2AQ5 D.Q60_Q7DRQ245Q2Ah

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

There is also a Stephanopoulos interview with Axelrod in which Axelrod is saying "We consider this issue done, move on," and Stephanopoulos says, "But your campaign sent out an email of the Olberman special comment, I have it right here."

Eh, I should find you the link, but it was in one of the other anti-Obama troll diaries around here.

by letterc 2008-05-26 12:50AM | 0 recs
as always orange...

interesting, incredibly astute and highly rec'd.

by canadian gal 2008-05-25 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

You remember that correctly.

Then, after Obama conceded that Clinton had nothing to do with the ridiculous posting on the disreputable Drudge Report of a picture of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--supposedly an appeal to racial and religious fears--he now is telling the voters of Mississippi that in fact she was responsible for the photo's appearance, and that she did it in order to scare people--a charge he well knows to be untrue.  In the televised debate in Ohio on February 26, Obama said that "I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo.  So I think that's something that we can set aside."

But on March 10 in Jackson, Mississippi, he declared, "When in the midst of a campaign you decide to throw the kitchen sink at your opponent because you're behind, and your campaign starts leaking photographs of me when I'm traveling overseas wearing the native clothes of those folks to make people afraid ... that's not real change"

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=fd72d239-fb33-4493-be6a-2a869fa597d2

Btw, this is a great diary, OrangeFur!

by Inky 2008-05-25 06:02PM | 0 recs
Ah, thanks. Knew I'd heard that at one point! n/t

by sricki 2008-05-25 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

Ahh, a "woe betide me" diary on gotcha politics, ignoring the fact Senator Clinton's been more than happy to engage in this particular demagoguery. But we wouldn't want to spoil your spirited and righteous outrage towards Senator Obama for being such a jerk, now, would we?

by ragekage 2008-05-25 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

Oh no, you said something that wasn't steeped in supine adulation for Barack Obama.  I wonder how many "you're an anti-unity troll" comments will be sprouting up here.  

shakes head

Good diary, Rec'd.

by BPK80 2008-05-25 06:06PM | 0 recs
Obama and his campaign

is pure EVIL. Politic as usual, no hope, no change. just same ol same ol

by nikkid 2008-05-25 06:31PM | 0 recs
Um, pure evil? Really?

Don't you think that's a tad excessive?  I mean, I think his campaign is kind of phony (well, okay, very phony), but that does not, in my opinion, make him pure evil.

Come on, now.  We don't like it when his supporters take hyperbole to a whole new low; let's not do the same, okay?

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-25 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, pure evil? Really?

after what I have read on this site for the past 2 days condeming hillary...no it's not excessive - he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there.

by nikkid 2008-05-25 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, pure evil? Really?

Wait a minute.

I frequently argue that the way Obama's supporters behave actually is a reflection of him -- because he is supposedly leading a movement (as opposed to a political campaign), and his supporters are actually believers (as opposed to voters).  

This means that when they spew hatred and behave in an "old politics" way, they've misunderstood his message (in which case, he's an ineffective leader); or they've determined that his message isn't really about "hope and change" after all (in which case, he's a failed leader).

BUT...

I don't think that stupid things people say on the internet translate directly into Obama being evil.  I just don't.  And while I don't care for Obama, and think he's mostly hype and borrowed ideas, I do not think he is evil.  Nor do I think Clinton is evil.

I don't even think McCain is evil; he's just kind of...confused.

Dick Cheney?  Now, he is evil.

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-25 06:49PM | 0 recs
So you're making your characterization...

b/c of comments that he has nothing to do with.  Well, that's logical.  I know I always make decisions as bold as rating the amount of evil or good someone is by the comments of others who don't know that person.

by nklein 2008-05-25 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: So you're making your characterization...

no. b/c HIS campaign was responsible for stirring up the attack against Hillary re: RFK comments:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/us/pol itics/26campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slog in

On "Face the Nation" Sunday on CBS, Mr. Wolfson said, "It was unfortunate and unnecessary, and in my opinion, inflammatory, for the Obama campaign to attack Senator Clinton on Friday for these remarks, without obviously knowing the full facts or context."

The Obama campaign had also e-mailed to reporters a transcript of a harsh critique of Mrs. Clinton on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC.

On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos, the host of "This Week" on ABC, asked David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's top strategist, about sending the transcript.

"You say you're not trying to stir the issue up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. "But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list -- I have the e-mail here -- Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?"

Mr. Axelrod replied: "As far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward."

by nikkid 2008-05-25 09:46PM | 0 recs
These are your words, not mine....

"after what I have read on this site for the past 2 days condeming hillary...no it's not excessive -he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."

In what way is that blaming his campaign for anything.  And if you're really upset about Obama's supposed media manipulation of the RFK comments, then you must have been beside yourself with anger when your candidate did the same thing with the "bitter" comments.

by nklein 2008-05-25 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: These are your words, not mine....

but the difference is - she openly condemned his bitter comments. His campaign pretends it doesn't matter, but then sends out memos telling everyone to watch the video.....they lie.

by nikkid 2008-05-25 10:59PM | 0 recs
How does that change what you said? n/t

by nklein 2008-05-26 11:28AM | 0 recs
You know what this reminds me of?

Obama's comment that he "takes her at her word" sounds strikingly familiar.

Oh yeah.

The mass hysteria a month or so ago about Clinton's interview in which she was asked to deny that Obama was a Muslim.  And she said, "No.  No no no no no no."

Then she said no some more, but the "reporter" kept pushing.  In addition to saying no a dozen or more times, she also said that he wasn't a Muslim, as far as she knew, and that she took him at his word.

Remember how that was interpreted by some?  That it was her way of saying, "Well, you know, he might be a Muslim.  Wink wink."

In certain circles of the blogosphere, they still say "as far as I know" and "I take her at her word" to mock Clinton.

So, obviously, Obama's statement means that actually, well, wink wink.

Love love love the double standards.

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-25 06:33PM | 0 recs
Given up on Obama, Angry?

Have you gone back to supporting Clinton? That would be a shame as you made a lot of sense and wrote very eloquently about it when you switched.

by edg1 2008-05-25 06:57PM | 0 recs
In a word, no.

But a lot of people derived from that "infamous" diary what they wanted to -- namely, that I had stopped supporting Hillary and suddenly realized my preference for Obama.

I never said that.  I never meant that.

I have always maintained my preference for Hillary.  However, I reached a point at which it seemed mathematically impossible for her to catch up to his pledged delegate lead, and that Obama would be the nominee, and that I was trying to find a way to be supportive of him, despite my concerns and dislikes about him.  

This was important to me because I really want to go into that booth in November excited, rather than merely holding my nose.

But I never stopped preferring Clinton.

And I have been appalled, horrified, shocked, and disgusted by the constant mass hysteria of the ardent Obama supporters.  And I have been utterly disappointed by Obama's campaign.  

Most importantly, I am disappointed beyond words in the Democratic party.  I will still vote for Obama in November, but goddamnit, I am expecting a world of gratitude from the Democratic party, starting January 2009.  

That means a Supreme Court stacked with female judges; a complete fix of the equal pay laws; a legislative fix of Roe v. Wade so that unfettered access to abortion is a written law that does not depend on the varying interpretations of Roe; and a long list of other things Dems can do that I haven't thought of yet.

So, no, edg, I never switched, and I haven't "switched back."  

And frankly, it's sad to me that so many of the same people who praised me for my thoughtfulness, my insight, and my eloquence are some of the same people (I'm not saying you're one of them) have since called me racist, sexist, and stupid and told me to get the fuck out of "their" party.

So much for unity.  And so much for hope and change.  Sigh.

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-25 07:10PM | 0 recs
My apologies.

I don't think you're any of those things and I think anyone who said those things is flat out wrong.

FWIW, an Obama supporter told me to get out of "her" party even though I'm an avid Obama supporter but I disagreed with her on one point. These kids nowadays. They got no respect for their elders.

by edg1 2008-05-25 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: My apologies.

I'm sorry you're being kicked out of the party by your own team.    

Yeah, kids these days.  (Says the Mouse who is two months shy of 30.)  Can't make 'em show respect; can't win the White House without 'em.

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-25 07:27PM | 0 recs
29!!! You whippersnapper.

Just wait til you're my age (52) and your joints are creaking and your hair is graying and your skin is wrinkling.  Or better yet, let's hope they find the key to reversing aging before you're my age!!

by edg1 2008-05-25 07:57PM | 0 recs
And I still get carded...

Jealous now?

Hey, I'm pretty sure my joints have started creaking.  And I totally found a gray hair a month ago.

Not wrinkling yet, though.  That's what staying out of the sun will do for you.

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-25 07:59PM | 0 recs
Angry Mouse... I know this is off topic, but

I feel like I don't see you here very often, so I thought I'd go ahead and say this while you're here. I'm a Clinton supporter, and it took me a long time to get over my anti-Obama attitude. You wrote the diary about finally coming to Obama, correct? I wanted to tell you that it helped me. Not sure how, exactly, since I don't really remember what you said, but it made an impression on me at the time. So. Thank you for writing it.

Just wanted to let you know.

by sricki 2008-05-25 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Angry Mouse... I know this is off topic, but

Wow.  Thank you.  I'm flattered.

No, I don't participate much on MyDD (frankly, I don't like the interface).

I wrestle with the lions over at DKos, although sometimes that makes me a little too insane and I have to take a break and go play outside for a few days.  (You know, in the real world.)

by Angry Mouse 2008-05-26 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: And I still get carded...

Yeah, go ahead, rub it in. My wife got carded until she was about 40 and she still looks younger than 51. I tell her it's because I keep her young while she makes me old. :-)

It's hard to stay out of the sun here in Arizona. There's just too much of it.

by edg1 2008-05-27 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: In a word, no.

One of the things I want from the Democratic majority next year: reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment, with no god damned sunset date. Put it out there, let the states start ratifying it one by one. If it hadn't had a sunset date last time, it would probably by enshrined in the constitution by now.

I want Scalia to leave the court (voluntarily or not) some time in the next 8 years of Democratic rule, and I want him to be replaced by Lani Guinier.

by letterc 2008-05-26 12:38AM | 0 recs
politics as usual until now

I can ignore most of Obama's smears, they are politics as usual. The sleaze and smear more typical  of Republican campaigns. But the race charges were deeply divisive to the party. Using RFK's assassination to score cheap political points was obscene.

Obama's tactics have inspired his supporters to new heights of elminationist rhetoric:

[Eliminationism] always depicts its opposition as simply beyond the pale, and in the end the embodiment of evil itself -- unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus in need of elimination.

SC Rep. James E. Clyburn called Hillary Clinton's  reference beyond the pale, and Kieth Olberman recited a litany of so-called moral outrages, calling this reference unforgivable and concluding that she is unfit to participate in the contest.

by souvarine 2008-05-25 07:24PM | 0 recs
Question

How do you troll rate a diary?

hehehe... but in all seriousness... please.. can we all step back from the ledge?

I don't even care who wins anymore... .president clinton, president obama.. whatever... .let's just stop the circular firing squad

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 07:27PM | 0 recs
Troll rating BKP80 in Alaska thread

Why did you troll rate BKP80's comment in the Alaska diary? Although it contained claims of impropriaties in caucuses, it seemed like a reasonably substantive comment that didn't attack any other user.

by letterc 2008-05-26 12:29AM | 0 recs
Same goes with the puppetmaster Axelrod

Obama's Lobbyist Connection
By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Jun 2, 2008 Issue
When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved--but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then--but may soon get more scrutiny--is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Last week, Obama hit John McCain for hiring "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his campaign; Obama's aides say their candidate, as a foe of "special interests," has refused to take money from lobbyists or employ them. Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison--and under Illinois's loose disclosure laws, they were not required to. "I've never lobbied anybody in my life," Axelrod tells NEWSWEEK. "I've never talked to any public official on behalf of a corporate client." (He also says "no one ever denied" that Edison was the "principal funder" of his firm's ad campaign.)

But the activities of ASK (located in the same office as Axelrod's political firm) illustrate the difficulties in defining exactly who a lobbyist is. In 2004, Cablevision hired ASK to set up a group similar to CORE to block a new stadium for the New York Jets in Manhattan. Unlike Illinois, New York disclosure laws do cover such work, and ASK's $1.1 million fee was listed as the "largest lobbying contract" of the year in the annual report of the state's lobbying commission. ASK last year proposed a similar "political campaign style approach" to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a "grassroots" group of medical experts "capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position," according to a copy of the proposal. (ASK didn't get the contract.) Public-interest watchdogs say these grassroots campaigns are state of the art in the lobbying world. "There's no way with a straight face to say that's not lobbying," says Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes government transparency.

Axelrod says there are still huge differences between him and top McCain advisers, including the fact that he doesn't work in D.C. But his corporate clients do have business in the capital. One of them, Exelon, lobbied Obama two years ago on a nuclear bill; the firm's executives and employees have also been a top source of cash for Obama's campaign, contributing $236,211. Axelrod says he's never talked to Obama about Exelon matters. "I'm not going to public officials with bundles of money on behalf of a corporate client," Axelrod says.

by observer5 2008-05-25 07:32PM | 0 recs
yawn

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Watch what he does, not what he says.

"My main anger is directed, sadly, at Barack Obama"

That's a surprising turn of events. Not.

I admit, I liked the expanded version of this on Tinfoilis44 much better....

by catilinus 2008-05-25 11:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads