home

Does Anyone Care About The Rules?! Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:36:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

You are entering a world of pain. An apt metaphor for the current primary fight. This is an Open Thread.

BTW, Jeralyn is on MSNBC now, talking about the Limbaugh/Dem for A Day stuff.

< Self Interest | NY Governor Used Cocaine, Doesn't Apologize >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Does Anyone Care About The Rules?! Open Thread | 210 comments (210 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Go Jeralyn! We Love You!!! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST


    I'm sure glad! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    somebody is talking about "Dems for a day"!
    Thank you Jeralyn!
    Is there a transcript?


    Parent
    MSNBC transcripts (none / 0) (#140)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    are available from their web site...the next afternoon

    Parent
    I just found the video with Jeralyn's segment (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by andrys on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:39 AM EST
    Jeralyn's segment is here.

    Parent
    thank you! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST


    Parent
    msnbc also shows Dan's segments (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by andrys on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:25:49 AM EST
    There's usually video of the segments on Abrams' show.  MSNBC does a great job with these for all their shows.  If only they'd repeat those shows at night in the West Coast where all we see are prison documentaries which are like a sort of hell in this life, repeated without end.

    Now they start repeats at 11pm with the increasingly puffed-up Keith Olberman (I can hardly tell him from O'Reilly anymore in demeanor), midnight with Hardball, 1am Dan Abram's "Verdict"

      Side note: I find the 'Verdict' idea as main focus as going toward more simplistic b&w thinking, so I'm a bit sad about that.  It can be fun as a side focus but as something for the whole show, it has seemed more superficial.  

      I'm enjoying Dick Gregory's show but must tape it as it is not repeated here at night.  What a waste.

    Parent

    ugh. Bowling. I once drank too much and (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    let the ball go before the thing that holds the pins up had moved. Then I picked up a ball that was too heavy and fell face first down the lane. I never have liked bowling since then.

    Why did no one warn us that Jeralyn would be on? I'm watching my fifth straight day of basketball and missed it.

    I don't think I can quote a single line (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    from that youtube.

    I need to watch TBL again.

    I cannot believe (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    I watched a segment on NBC Nightly news tonight that had Tweety and Brian Williams discussing Hillary's campaign and treating that story at Politico over the weekend as if it were fact and quoting it ad nauseum.

    My problem is (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:01:08 PM EST
    why are Obama and his supporters so hell bent on Hillary stepping down?

    Have they really looked at how they come across?? They are saying - the only way our guy can win is by Hillary stepping down!!

    Is that a sign of a winner?
    Is that showing confidence in their ability to win on their owwn?? -
    Do they really think that McCain will step down too??

    So if Obama can win - then let him show it by winning in PA - if not - politely - zip it.

    Parent

    i think they do think (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST
    that they can make mccain step down. going back to his first elected office that's how the "obama roolz" seem to work.

    Parent
    Must be because it worked (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    with Illinois politics -

    where Obama's mentor Lewis got other legislators to back off so amendments etc all of a sudden ended up with Obama's name on them

    His so-called flury of legislation - the work was actually proposed by others

    Parent

    Danger Kitty has been trying... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    that training thing with me to get up earlier and earlier to feed her and let her out on the porch.

    Thus far, I've rebelled. But her pattern gets a bit more determined the longer I refuse to move.

    Parent

    it is called behaviour modification (none / 0) (#122)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    your behaviour is what is getting modified

    Parent
    lol!~ that's exactly what it is. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    Time to turn the tables on the kitty. I never give in to my cats in the AM. from the day I bring them home, the last activity in the morning before I leave is to feed them. And since I keep my own sched, that gives me even more flexibility. I had a friend that would get up at 5:30 on the weekends because that's when she fed the cats during the week. That doesn't work for me  ;)


    Parent
    Unless the house was on fire (none / 0) (#158)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:42 PM EST
    no way - ever - would I get up at 5:30am on the week-end.

    Parent
    I was shocked she did. (none / 0) (#163)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    and she did it for about 10 yrs.

    not an option here, unless it's a sick kitty or bottle feeding. but day to day, my cats can suck it up until I'm ready to feed them  ;)

    Parent

    exactly what part of the politico story (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cy street on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:11:45 PM EST
    do you disagree with?  what path to the nomination does the house of clinton believe there is?

    the two references you mention are but two of many.  nancy pelosi is not on the panel at msnbc.  by her measure, delegate swapping, back door strategies are not going to get it done.

    i know.  she is one of them.

    not really.

    by the rules set up by your dnc, this race is finished.  there are states to go and i hope each is contested respectfully.  but this is holland after the fall of berlin.

    a skirmish here, a skirmish there,
    the campaign is done,
    let the culture war begin again.

    Parent

    Hope (none / 0) (#156)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:08 PM EST
    Are you actually a supporter of the candidate for hope without understanding what the word means?

    Parent
    Middle Name (none / 0) (#185)
    by faithandhope97 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    Wow! I may have to change to a different one.
    I have been using this one since 1997.  Faith is my sister's name.  I am proud to say that I am a "Clinton For President" supporter.

    Parent
    Then don't worry about it (none / 0) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:21:44 PM EST
    start thinking about the general election.  Tell your candidate to do the same.

    Parent
    How about the rule that says (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:54:14 PM EST
    We are entitled to vote for our government leaders, and those votes will be counted as we intended.

    Doesn't anyone care about that rule?

    Unfortunately, That Rule Does Not Seem To Be (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    real important to the Boys in the Blogs and the Media.

    It is a personal favorite of mine though.

    Parent

    nah... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    DNC and Obama have already disenfranchised FL and MI, why not a few more states?

    Could it be that they're afraid to lose some the last remaining big state?

    The momentum is gone - in terms of the voters so they are resorting to their one true friend this whole election...the main stream media because the main stream media wants HRC out.

    Parent

    I'm glad SOMEBODY does (none / 0) (#206)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    As for the rest, when the election results are official, you get what you pay for, I'm afraid.  I say it's time to get what we fight for, because without the fight, the neocons laugh while we berate ourselves for not reaching the American people, etc etc etc.  What a farce.

    Once again, I ask you all:P  When you go to vote, be it primary or general election, ask yourselves how you can be SURE that your vote will be counted as you intend.  If your answer is in some form of "I guess I just have to trust the experts, 'cause I just dunno" then you will never know if you are being robbed of your vote.

    Given the dirty tactics of BOTH political parties, do you really think some honorable urge NOT to steal an election if they can get away with it will come to the fore?

    Dream on.

    Parent

    The Rules are getting fuzzier by the minute (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    The rules have been redefined so many times by campaign surrogate, DNC members, the campaigns, and pundits that it getting confusing for us lowly plebs. Who has the definitive rules on choosing the dem nominee? Or is it a free for all?

    Some of the rules ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
    Voters can vote for whoever they like, unless ...

    They're not qualified to vote in the primary ...

    Or they live in a caucus state and their first, second, even third choice of candidate isn't allowed to count.

    Or they live in Texas and have to vote twice.

    Pledged delegates are supposed to vote for their candidate ...

    But they're not required to.

    Super delegates can vote for whoever they like ...

    But everyone will tell them they aren't supporting the will of the people if they don't vote a particular way.

    ---------

    Historians still aren't sure if a "thumbs up" meant a gladiator should be saved or killed in ancient Roman gladiatorial combat.

    Parent

    Thanks for clearing that up for me. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    I feel so much better now that democracy will prevail.

    Parent
    My impression is that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:43:26 PM EST
    Illinois residents can vote in Iowa.  Especially if they are students, but that isn't really required.

    Who knew?  Not moi, until recently.  WTF?

    Parent

    Since my parents were born in Illinois (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST
    was I eligible for the IA Caucus?!  ;)

    Parent
    You forgot about WA ;) (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    Hold a Caucus one day and then a Primary 2 weeks later that also has vote by mail. Make the Primary a beauty contest and count the Caucus because that's got the lower number of participants.

    Parent
    Of course ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    I said "some of the rules." I could have gone on for days.

    But I should have included that one because it is so ridiculous.

    Parent

    I had to clue a WA friend in. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:19 AM EST
    Apparently the perception some had was that the primary was a beauty contest, but you had to be a delegate to caucus. She went and got the rules and spread the word. Her and her hubby  did both. I find it interesting they had such a high primary vote even though it 'didn't matter'. At least the TX primary did to an extent.

    Parent
    Rules? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by judyo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:19:05 PM EST
    Playing by the rules, or the law is so pre-Bush.
    Get with the "pogram"

    I have to say (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    I am utterly sick of hearing how the Democrats are going to lose in November.

    If the Democrats lose in November they should be disbanded as a party and a new party should be formed.  A party that isn't determined to shoot itself in the groin rather than succeed.

    Short of finding pictures of McCain with an Al Qaeda prostitute, what else exactly do the Democrats needs to convince themselves that they have all the advantage?  Economy is in the toilet, war is unpopular and going nowhere, Bush has record low approval ratings while McCain is in full liplock with the guy,  the world is begging for a Democrat to resurrect some sort of sane foreign policy.  WHAT MORE DO WE NEED?

    The only way that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama don't win in November is if emocrats turn their back on the party because they are pouting about their candidate losing.  I say this with the full understanding that there is a reasonable chance of Hillary being the nominee.  I may not be enamored of her but I will be voting for her NO MATTER WHAT!

    Country over politics, people!  Whatever virtues John McCain may have once had, have been coopted by his willingness to kowtow to the extreme Right that believes that the best solution to the Middle East is killing more Muslims, that the problem with Vietnam was that we didn't kill ENOUGH Vietnamese, and that turning our enemies into glass is preferable to ever accepting even the slightest setback in our foreign policy objectives.

    John McCain is NOT preferable to Barack Obama.  John McCain is NOT preferable to Hillary Clinton.  Not in any way.  His LIBERAL positions are well to the right of both candidates.  His pandering positions are downright frightening.  He will hand off economic policy to guys that will make us wish for the days of Jude Wanniski.  

    I understand that politics are a passionate business.  But don't lose sight of the bigger picture.  Your rights and the human rights of people around the world depend on that.

    This ends my open thread rant.

    Hear hear (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Amen to that indeed (none / 0) (#128)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama smeared "typical" white folks (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    as racists.

    Do I want a President Obama telling me that I'm a racist because I think it was LBJ and not JFK,  whose work and experience led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

    I have survived Republican Presidents, but Obama would be the 1st Democratic President to "agitate" a racial war to get elected.

    Parent

    Do whatever you want (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    it's very easy to be offended by B.S. crap during campaigns if you want to be offended.  

    I have absolutely no idea how you were involved in that discussion.  

    The fact that you think that Barack Obama is the one that is making this campaign about race suggests that you are completely blinded by your biases.  

    Was Barack Obama the one that could talk of nothing else other than race during South Carolina?  How bout Mississippi?  How bout Reverend Wright?  Was it Barack Obama that was sending out mailers to Jewish voters suggesting that he opposed Israel and that he secretly was a Muslim?  

    Agitate a race.  Unbelievable.  The fact that you choose to respond to my comment by bringing up race speaks more to your personal views than what Barack Obama has said or done.

    Parent

    And you ignore the racial "agitations" (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    When JJJ (co-chair of Obama's campaign) mentioned that he didn't see Hillary cry for the Katrina victims, what was that?

    When Obama SC Press Secrectary was peddling 4 pages of alleged racial comments by the Clintons, what was that?

    When Obama said Hillary was dissing MLK, what was that?

    There's more, but what's the point? You'll just ignore them, too.

    fwiw, Obama was in a position to quote - transend race - unquote but instead he agitated  inflammatory racial dialogs just like Rev Wright does in his sermons

    Parent

    Right (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:24:39 PM EST
    you want to hold Obama accountable for everything that is said by ever person who is associated with his campaign.  You do the same for Clinton?  Somehow I doubt it.  

    When Obama said that Hillary was dismissing MLK's contribution he was giving an opinion.  The fact that you think that is equal to a charge of racism speaks to your own hypersensitivity.

    And of course I daresay you have no problem with the incessant charges of sexism being levied at Obama.  Yeah, I didn't think so.

    Parent

    Obama knows what he's doing (none / 0) (#121)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:41:33 PM EST
    his opinion of Hillary's LBJ comment is reflected nonstop on DK as "Clintons are racists."

    What charges of Obama's sexism?
    I'm aware of Obama's "claws" and "emotional" remarks about Hillary.


    Parent

    Here's how I put it somewhere else (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    You'll have to bear with me here:

    There's a Door and behind that door is Obama, his supporters and me supporting Obama.

    On that door is a sign.  That sign says "The Clintons are racist."

    I will not walk through that door.

    There's another door.

    Behind that Door is Obama and me supporting Obama.

    There's a sign on that door.

    The sign reads:  "The Clintons are Liars."

    I will not walk through THAT door, either.

    If Obama would like to situate himself behind a different door, then we go from there.

    And I'll add, as far as these considerations are set down by myself for the sake of setting SOME boundaries, I don't care if she loses.  I would like her to win.  But her losing alone won't keep me from supporting Obama.

    This wouldn't be sour grapes cause Clinton lost.

    That would simply be one person deciding that if the Obama movement becomes the official and dominant movement of the Democratic Party and that movement INCLUDES telling Republicans that hating Clinton is OK by us (Democrats), then I'm done.

    Simple.

    So it'll be hard choices time soon for Obama.

    Hard choices time for his supporters as well.

    What's the movement gonna be all about?

    Parent

    Well given the fact (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM EST
    that you have already stated that you hate Barack Obama, I'm guessing that there isn't much to be done for you.  You've chosen petulance over party AND country.  

    If I were to pick and choose "supporters" of Clinton as an excuse to oppose Clinton it would be very easy. I could waltz over to No Quarter and get my outrage on.  I could rationalize my anger by pointing to a bunch of Internet crazies that are willing to say anything because there are no repercussions for crossing the line.  

    But I see no reason to tar Hillary Clinton for the actions of nebulous supporters.  Instead I judge Hillary by Hillary and Obama by Obama.  I don't take surrogate comments and use them as a cudgel to beat Hillary up with.  Her surrogates aren't running for President, she is.

    OK.  Back to listening to some Colbie Caillat.  What a great voice she has.  

    Parent

    Some of us feel a bit bamboozled, now that (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:30:46 PM EST
    we know how thin Obama's resume actually is.

    Parent
    My conditions (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:06:16 PM EST
    Are reasonable.

    I do hate Obama.  That is unreasonable.  But Obama can change.

    I hope he can change before he wins cause if he changes after he wins, then it's going to ring a little false.

    But even then, if he can change the trajectory of the movement, I'm on board.

    So far, as it's been explained to me... by Obama supporters.... the independents that Obama wants to attract are ready to say they were wrong about Bush, but they're not ready to say they were wrong about Clinton.

    I don't really care if you call me petulant or whatever else you want to call me.

    Parent

    I think Edgar's point is ... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
    that Obama still has some work to do to get his vote.  I think that's true for a lot of Americans.

    And that's Obama job as a candidate for public office.

    He doesn't have a right to anyone's vote.

    Parent

    Trying to come around... (1.00 / 0) (#93)
    by smb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:21:09 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter I think that there is something behind the reality the many Obama supports would have a hard time supporting Clinton in a general. I think for me it is the fact that even though both candidates have slung mud at each other, Clinton has thrown some things out there that put her desire to win over party and country. Specifically the pushing of the idea that Obama is not a patriotic American. This to me is the atomic bomb of politics, and completely unwarranted in a primary campaign. The only way you bring this is if you don't care what happens if you lose, and it pretty much precludes Clinton from playing any part in an Obama general campaign.

    Additionally the Wright "controversy" is only an issue that can be used in the primary, the Reps have the same issue on their side with Dobson/Robertsons post 9/11 comments and McCains disavowing them and then accepting them back with open arms (publicly).

    Unless this is some sort of Clintonian hazing ritual its pretty hard to see the good that can come for our party and country from her attacks. The hazing though in some ways helps as it puts issues behind him that the press will not want to bring out of the archives when the Reps go at it.

    Someone please convince me that what I am feeling is not an honest assesment, point something out that Obama has said that is destructive to the party/country, that wasn't in response to something Clinton threw at him?

    Parent

    She didn't push that (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:18 PM EST
    So I didn't read past that part.

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    That's where it lost me too.

    Tell you what guys, reread Edgar08's "doors" post upthread.

    Now understand, if you want Clinton supporters to support your guy, you and he have to convince us by not trashing and lying about the Clintons. That is the baseline, the very minimum we will accept. No trashing or lying about the Clintons, or I am not going to listen to anything else you say.

    If Obama cannot win, and if you cannot talk about this campaign, without trashing and lying about the Clintons, then as far as I an concerned, he has not earned my vote and you are not worth paying attention to.

    Parent

    Subtlety (none / 0) (#146)
    by smb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:08:30 PM EST
    What Bill Clinton said the other day was a subtle but very effective tactic to enforce the meme that Obama is not partriotic. Watch for yourself, and tell me you don't read anything into it. It is obvious who he is besmirching when he talks about two people who love their country... and then says instead of "all this other stuff", clearly referring to the current to do about the Wright stuff and thus Obama. I do give him credit for the delivery, its clearly designed to accomplish its task of suggesting Obama does not love America while at the same time not out and out saying it. Straight out of the Rovian handbook.

    For those of you who don't seem so utterly shocked by this suggestion, can someone explain how this kind of thing can be tolerated in our party.

    Watch the video here.


    Parent

    Pure BS from the Obama camp - again (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST


    Parent
    I watched it. You're wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:34:01 PM EST


    Parent
    What do meaning you take from what he said? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by smb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:31:31 AM EST


    Parent
    What ??!?!?! (none / 0) (#137)
    by smb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    Bill stood up in front of a crowd on Camera and out and out said that Hillary and McCain love their country and purposefully contrasted that to Obama. That is what it is... Secondly, do you have any evidence to prove that its not her that is pushing it? From watching the pundits in the last weeks, the ones who keep flogging the issue seem to be supporters (aka operatives) of Clinton.

    Is say operatives because they are, and this is true for all candidates...

    On your comment title, are you arguing on purely technical details. She didn't push it, but Bill did? Even then I don't see the difference.

    Parent

    The patriotism comment (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:04:14 PM EST
    is a lie and has been debunked earlier.  Spreading lies does Obama no good.


    Parent
    Bill didn't mention Obama at all (none / 0) (#190)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:03:24 AM EST
    and people who were there didn't take his comment, which made no mention of Obama, to mean what you seem to WANT it to mean.

    See here

    Parent

    If you think Wright (none / 0) (#147)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    is an issue that will only be used in the primary, I suggest you read the latest from Christopher Hitchens on Slate.  This is just a preview of what will be used in the general against Obama.  Even Joe Klein on Anderson Cooper's 360 admitted the Wright controversy has done damage but it will take the upcoming primaries to find out how much.

    The Republicans will brush right over the Dobsons/Robertsons/Hagees/Parsleys because none of them are a the spiritual mentor or family minister of John McCain.  They won't be letting any of the religious right hold them back on capitalizing on Wright.  

    Parent

    Obama said (none / 0) (#148)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    typical white woman
    I found that racist and sexist and I forgave him.

    Remember, it's McCain we are trying to defeat, not each other.


    Parent

    No, he said "typical white person" (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    I don't know why this keeps being misquoted.

    Obama was stereotyping white men, too.  All whites.

    Parent

    What puzzles me about that .... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:12:08 AM EST
    statement is that he doesn't even sound like he knows what he said.  I've heard it a number of times.

    And it's odd that a man who's thought so deeply about racial identity (he wrote a book about his own personal journey through it), and who's campaign has read racism into the comments of others, would not even notice immediately that he'd misspoke.

    I'm willing to cut him some slack on the comment.  Candidates talk a lot, and are bound to say stupid things.  But it seems a much more racially charged "gaffe," than Bill Clinton stating a fact about who won some previous elections.


    Parent

    He wrote it himself. (none / 0) (#194)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:55:51 AM EST
    (was the title of a dk post)

    Obama wrote the speech himself.  It was on paper, not an off the cuff remark.  Then, later on, in interviews he used the exact same phrasing as before.

    My conclusions:
    Obama has a tin ear for potentially derogatory stereotypes.
    Whoever looked over the speech has the same.
    Obama had the chance to change or drop the wording and didn't.

    It was deliberate, for whatever reasons.

    Parent

    Well... feelings are not going to quiesce (none / 0) (#14)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    as long as the campaign continues.
    "McCarthyite"? Please.
    Anyway, McCain's strength with Democrats is not due to the Clinton-Obama primary fight; rather, it's due to years of careful work by McCain.
    I don't know any Republican who is as well-liked among Democrats as McCain. I think he is MUCH more popular among them than Reagan ever was.


    Parent
    The McCarthyite comment (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:56:01 PM EST
    was over the top and unnecessary.  So was the Judas comment, particularly given the timing.

    The McCain love affair for Democrats will end the moment the Democrats pick a candidate.  

    Parent

    There is a HUGE difference (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    between a clown like Carville calling anybody anything and a general acting as an official Obama surrogate comparing a former U.S. President to Joe McCarthey.

    Parent
    Well...did he not say it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    standing next to Obama, or was it some other outrage

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    Ohhhhh, an OFFICIAL Obama surrogate.  Do they get jackets or just cards?  What is the certification process to be an O.B.S?

    Parent
    Yes, official. Obama was right there, just (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    as he was when Chris Rock made some "white woman" dig at Hillary and Obama smiled.

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM EST
    ...for starters, General McPeak is Obama's campaign co-chair. He clearly was a campaign surrogate selected by the campaign to respond to Clinton's "attack." Carville, on the other hand, is joke that is on cable news incessantly commenting and cracking "jokes" on everything under the sun.


    Parent
    Obama handed him the mic. (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14:14 PM EST


    Parent
    But that is just the thing (none / 0) (#70)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST
    why don't either Hillary or Obama start going after mcCain NOW.

    Neither is winning any points by going after the other - so go after McCain big time - destroy him while he is just coasting along.

    No reason to wait - get it over with now that he has no more money - and actually 4 million dlrs in the hole.

    Parent

    Clinton's already doing that (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:45 AM EST
    Clinton Takes Jab At McCain on Economy, Policies at Blue Bell, Pennsylvania event, praises McCain and their work in Senate together, but adds "As he himself has said, he doesn't know much about the economy."

    Also stressed that Democrats must unite once there's a nominee, saying "none of the things I talk about will happen if Sen. McCain is elected."

    LINK

    Anyone who was really paying attention to what Bill Clinton said the other day, instead of conjuring up some idiotic smear on Obama's patriotism in their head, would have realized that he was doing the same thing: going after McCain on issues.

    Now maybe Obama's doing the same thing, I don't know, but I do know his campaign is consistently trashing Clinton's character, which isn't going to help him  win him back Clinton's base, if he should win the nomination.

    Parent

    We're just getting out of winter... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:37:54 PM EST
    ...we still have spring... all summer... and then the election in the late fall. As elections go, this has been pretty mild. It will be resolved by June 1, which give whoever the nominee is plenty of time.

    Parent
    We're just getting out of winter... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    ...we still have spring... all summer... and then the election in the late fall. As elections go, this has been pretty mild. It will be resolved by June 1, which give whoever the nominee is plenty of time.

    Parent
    I heard your the first time .. =) (none / 0) (#129)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST


    Parent
    if the DNC and kerry and kennedy and daschle (none / 0) (#75)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    and pelosi nominate obama, i can only assume they want to lose the presidency in november.

    Parent
    The states went to Clinton (none / 0) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:20:19 PM EST
    Kerry.. Clinton.... Mass... Clinton... CA.... Clinton.  We'll wait and see what happens with Daschle's state.

    Parent
    Country over politcs and party (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    That is why some of us will not be voting for Obama.  In my opinion, he rates number 3 of the candidates still in the race.


    Parent
    according to survery USA in Mass. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    Obama just pulled even with McCain....he has lost a ton up there. Hillary is way ahead.

    Only the rules that favor Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    are valid, I guess. Markos/americablog, ect. are getting hysterical about how "Hillary must drop out" There are many pimary races that have gone past March- are they afraid the Obama campaign will crumble under continued scrutiny? BTW- screaming "racist" at every bit of criticism may have helped win a primary, but it will not fly in the general.

    Funny thing is, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:17:20 PM EST
    yeah, she "mis-spoke" about her experiences visiting a war zone.  It's her fault for either embellishing or remembering incorrectly.  

    But I find it amazing that Bo has never visited Europe. I mean, her experiences in Bosnia are still more than BO's.

    Having said that, she was still wrong, I can admit that.  

    Me too -- (none / 0) (#104)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:28:12 PM EST
    but honestly if you have travelled a lot - there are cities and countries that melt into each other.

    You remember something from one country -- but it actually happened in another country.

    It would be my guess however that maybe some of these people that are in a total snit -

    never travelled further than down their own street

    Parent

    She remembers it was dangerous (none / 0) (#142)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    She remembers that there was a potential for sniper fire.
    I forgive her.
    The Obama trolls think they this proves she's a liar.
    But Obama claimed ignorance of Wright's sermons.
    That's really unlikely isn't it? Does that prove he's a liar?

    No.

    The Obama followers are really working against him. They are just plain nasty to Clinton supporters... which is close to half of the voters. These trolls need to stay off his side if you ask me.


    Parent

    Unfortunately the media (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    is also an Obama troll.  The news was slobbering all over the story tonight.

    It took them weeks to cover Wright.  After Faux covered it and covered it, begrudgingly they covered it so they wouldn't look like they were hiding it.

    But the Bosnia thing?  Slobbering, drooling, pant, pant, gotta cover this story, now, today, this minute.

    It was pure, putrid, ghastly sickness.  The visceral hatred of the Clintons by the media also fuels my "present" vote in the general election.  Cause, yeah, I know Hillary is the better of the 3 candidates, but with the hatred, she isn't going to win.  No way in h*ll.  But I won't vote for Obama. Among all the other reasons I've given today, I won't reward the hate of the bloggers and the media.

    Parent

    I make up my own mind (none / 0) (#153)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:15:58 PM EST
    on which way I vote.  But there are very few pro-Obama commenters here that could even come close to giving me pause to think about voting for Obama.  I don't follow the logic in attempting to create more division between the two camps but it seems to be a hobby or sport for some.

    Parent
    They should comapre travel itineraries (none / 0) (#157)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2ycf2f

    nice recap of some of hers here.

    Parent

    change of pace... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    Troop levels to remain high through 2008 - Think Progress

    Today, Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker presented plans to President Bush recommending that troop levels in Iraq "remain nearly the same through 2008 as at any time during five years of war." The New York Times reports that it "now appears likely that any decision on major reductions in American troops from Iraq will be left to the next president."

    Face it...HRC isn't quitting
    Barama can't win it outright

    The war keeps going on and on and you KNOW McCain isn't going to end it.

    Today was the last day to register in Penna (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:40:11 PM EST
    A Yahoo News Headline
    PA Democrats pass four million mark in voter registration
    which is a record of registered Democrats. They got 121,000 new voters and 161,000 new Democrats.And there was a 1% decline of Republicans. The thing is, all the Republicans that I know who changed did so to vote for Hillary. And in the GE too. Amazing how involved the state has become. My neighbor even got the site address to get her daughter in the Czech Republic her absentee ballot for Hillary. I really hope she does well here. And I saw my first BHO ad. Now we have a month of those. Thank goodness for cable.

    Thank you ! (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by faithandhope97 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:47:49 PM EST
    I have been lurking here for a few weeks now, this is my first entry.
    First of all I would like to say thank you to Jeralyn, Big Tent Democrat and the many others on this site that have been so respectful of the differences of opinions. I have learned so much about the election process, good and bad.  One only has to come to this site to get an unbiased and very informative lesson.  
    I like many others, am saddened at the way this election has turned so ugly! But what saddens me the most is that many of these young men and women, who are first time voters, are going to be very, very disappointed in the outcome and leave this election with an extremely harsh view of the election process. What a shame!
    Thank you again for this great site!

    Welcome... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Memo to all Dems (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST
    Enough with the forced apologies, denouncing , renouncing and faux outrage.  They all wanted to be in politics, so they can take it.  Stop wasting your and our emotional energies on the psychodrama.
    This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns - no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot - but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round.

    Stanley Fish

     

    Obama trolls (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    Obama trolls parrot the right wing talking points about HRC.
    We HRC supporters won't do that will we?

    We're trying to defeat McSame aren't we?

    Context (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:13 PM EST
    BC was talking to a group of veterans--bringing up love of country is par for course.  Actually, when is it ever not appropriate when running campaigning for president.

    BO's camp reaction reminds me of the insecurity of someone who walks into a room when people are laughing and assumes they're laughing about him.

    The McCarthy reference was extremely over the top and disrespectful--the man was PRESIDENT for 8 years!  And why did McPeak have to read it off a piece of paper anyway?

       

    James Carville... (none / 0) (#12)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM EST
    I said something about Richardson in a colorful way.. and I am glad I said it.. it was my personal view and I stick with it.

    I don't know how you can say that you won the popular vote when you don't count the FL/MI.

    .. this guy is on something!!!

    and I'm not apologizing! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM EST
    or resigning!

    Parent
    Carville for Pres. He (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    calls 'em like he sees 'em and is endlessly interesting.

    Parent
    He was amazing (none / 0) (#166)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    on 30 Rock.

    Parent
    "Sniper Fire" Lie Story Gaining Traction (none / 0) (#15)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    I'll post this quickly and then run out with my head down to avoid sniper fire:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

    On CNN (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    now, mispoke...  per CNN they both do it....

    Parent
    Why isn't there equal hullabalu over (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:51:22 PM EST
    Obama's street urchin claims?

    2/27/1990 Philadelphia Inquirer article it has the opening paragraph:
    Barack Obama, former street urchin and the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, drapes his long, lean body over a squeaky swivel chair and puts his feet on top of his cluttered desk.
    Then it goes on to say:

    He thinks it all goes back to the years when he was a nomad of the streets and his friends were a pack of urchins living in Jakarta, Indonesia.

    And later:

    But the lessons he had learned on the streets of Jakarta kept haunting him.
    "I knew I wanted to work in an urban situation, to help people recognize that they could achieve things, change things."

    Am I missing something -- I don't remember ever hearing this before. It was my understanding that his step father was a wealthy oil company executive and that they had lived a large home, had servants, ect.

     

    Parent

    Obama better hope and pray (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:53:11 PM EST
    that when he said he was not at church any of the times that the Rev Wright had his "special" sermons - that he remembers it right - and not that uh-oh he was there that one time

    because Obama followers  -- then this is going to be karma big time.

    Parent

    I am hoping on that one---big time! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Real nice, MarkL (none / 0) (#81)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:12:30 PM EST
    ...hoping that a Democrat who will almost certainly still be the nominee lied as the only way to win... shame shame.

    I don't "hope" that Clinton lies.  I don't hope that McCain lies.  If they do, they deserve to be discussed and criticized.  But that's not how I hope my guy - or my party - wins.

    Parent

    Almost certainly the nominee? I do not think so (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    I believe that after losses in upcoming primaries, his nomination will be very much in doubt.
    But I don't want Obama as the nominee because he is unqualified. That is the bottom line.
    If he's caught in a significant lie, that would be the best way for him to go.

    Parent
    Yeah that would be like (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    saying that you were in a hot war zone when in fact you were on a puff PR tour.  Oh wait.

    Parent
    And which "misstatement" would be more (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:04:19 PM EST
    significant?
    If Obama lied about Wright, he is finished. Kaput.
    Gary Hart didn't go away as fast as Obama will if he's lying (which of course he is---the only question is whether he'll be caught).

    Parent
    I think Obama is kaput (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:09 PM EST
    in any case.  Wright will be a part of the cause.  

    Parent
    I agree 100%... (none / 0) (#78)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    ...if it comes out that Obama was at one of those sermons and he lied about it, he is done. By now he's had a chance to search his memory.

    But again, you're talking about a potential lie.  I'm talking about a demonstrable one.  Again, landing in a hot war zone and then remembering the details as well as Clinton did, and those details turning out to be demonstrably false, well, what else can we call it?

    Parent

    No, you're talking about a demonstrably (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:16:43 PM EST
    inaccurate statement, which is not the same thing at ALL.
    Where is the intent? You cannot infer it. It's a trivial issue.. no reason to lie.
    You apparently don't remember the business with Gore and Texas and Fema. I do. This is exactly the same. I won't stand for more smearing of that sort.


    Parent
    It most certainly is not... (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:24:31 PM EST
    ...trivial when you're basing your campaign on "experience" (which she got because she went to Bosnia under sniper fire, which she remembered so incredibly clearly).

    Obama can plausibly make the claim that he was running for US Senate two months before he declared.  I think Clinton was running for president months before she declared.  I don't think John Edwards ever stopped running for president since he was first elected senator of my state in 1998.

    Look, Clinton lied, and you've all conceded that.  My work here is done.  I didn't start this thread to defend Obama, and generally (as I usually do) admit he, too, is a flawed candidate.  But I have not seen him tell such a clear whopper as this yet, because other statements can be considered "spin" and "interpretations" of reality.  Saying that you were running from a plane under sniper fire and that there was no ceremony is not an interpretation of an underlying reality (like a US Senate run), but an invention of one.

    Parent

    You are welcome to leave; you have proved (none / 0) (#102)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:39 PM EST
    nothing but your desperation, hanging onto an incredibly trivial charge.

    Parent
    Mark, you can leave too... (none / 0) (#110)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:33:27 PM EST
    It's not desperation to point out that your candidate's opponent told a lie that goes to the heart of her campaign:  experience.

    I am, though, supremely confident that Obama will be the nominee.  I know, I know - that's just conventional thinking, the "math myth."  Of course, seeing as Clinton can invent realities about things that happened in Bosnia, perhaps she can change 1+1 = 2 to 3.

    Obama has survived the Wright disaster and stemmed the bleeding.   He's going to win the pledged delegates and the popular vote and will win the nomination.  He will, though, be seriously damaged by the Clinton campaign, especially if they're so selfish as to take it to Denver.  I wouldn't put it past them.

    Again - I'm glad that you admitted that your candidate lied.  That's a good first step on the path back to reality.

    Parent

    But her foreign policy experience is not based (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:36:16 AM EST
    on whether she or the plane she was in was under sniper fire. The foreign policy experience is in actually going to Bosnia in the first place, something that was proven by the same "gotcha" video. It's so sad to see Democrats using the same kind of cra**y smears as were used against Gore in 2000, ala the FEMA trip and Love Canal, and all the rest of the tripe that got served up that year.

     

    Parent

    some info for ya (none / 0) (#174)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:04 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2ycf2f

    some of her trips are summoned up in it.

    and I can't fault her on what she said. I forgot until the other day when I was reading some background on her, that I had worked on a video for her Vital Voices program. {blush} And it sure as heck wasn't the first time I forgot a product or project I worked on. Less embarrassing to make these discoveries when alone than face to face with a former client . . .

    Plus, she still has some pretty good experience behind her on foreign and national issues.

    I think she should just take out a full page ad listing all her trip itineraries/speeches/etc. Try googling her name with a WH year. . . .

    Parent

    Obama has already said (none / 0) (#97)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:24:46 PM EST
    that he was NOT there at any of those so very "special" sermons

    If he has something else to say - he better be the one to say it himself - now.

    Parent

    what is it comes out after he is nominated.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    that he was in fact in attendence during those sermons...What then...Are you willing to gamble the presidency on that fact that the GOP don't have that little bit of film in their treasure chest....

    Parent
    I'm glad you know (none / 0) (#79)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:10:43 PM EST
    Obama so well. OF COURSE he's lying.  Because there are a handful of speeches by Wright that were really nasty.  Obviously that proves that it is a weekly event and thus he must have heard it.  

    Just because they had to go back 7 years to a specific sermon given the week after 9/11 certainly doesn't mean a thing.  I'm sure it is a weekly event.  That's why there are all these countless YouTube clips popping up now.

    Parent

    There is more than one sermon with 9/11 (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:07:37 AM EST
    used in it. Don't know when the second sermon happened. What's troubling is there are more than the few MSM kept looping. Fox showed other clips one night. I have to think they may be holding something back. It also doesn't help that the Church was selling these sermons to the public, imo.

    Parent
    Even in the video (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:14:07 PM EST
    That is supposed to prove how safe everything was, I didn't see a band, or a ceremony, I didn't see tea being served either.  I saw a First Lady in flack jacket.

    So.  You know.  Whatever.


    Parent

    Just for clarification (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:32:14 PM EST
    corkscrew landings were the norm for Sarajevo.  More that one passenger had been hit by ground fire, thus the corkscrew landings and sitting on bullet proof vests.  This has nothing to do with Clinton, it was just the norm.


    Parent
    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#112)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:34:12 PM EST
    ...but the heart of the lie was running from sniper fire.  That didn't happen.

    Parent
    somehow this doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:45:05 PM EST
    get my lie detector going, since this is what she wrote about it in her book.

    "Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," Clinton wrote.

    "That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

    Seems more harmless to me than you are alleging.  I've never known of a politician who didn't embellish at some point.


    Parent

    I didn't see a flak jacket... (none / 0) (#103)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    ...on Clinton when she and Chelsea strode across the tarmac to the little girl.  You're right, no tea or band.  But no sniper fire or running for cover, either.  

    And frankly, I think the little girl meeting her was a kind of ceremony of sorts, something semi-official (put on by the Bosnians) for a photo-op.

    Parent

    If anything (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:45:17 PM EST
    The video itself proves that she was doing things most first ladies never would have done.

    Here's a picture of the kinds of areas Clinton was travelling through in Bosnia at the time.

    http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/363/clintobosnia2vx3.jpg

    I don't see any blast walls.  With a perimeter of soldiers deployed it makes sniper fire a lot less likely, but it was a known risk in those areas.

    You know.

    I'm not surprised.  When you're out there doing things no other first lady has done before, when you're out there meeting the people who have been through the horrors and they're thanking you for bringing peace to their little area of the world, goddammit you better have your facts straight cause god knows some one out there has the video to punish you for your good deeds.

    At the time, I'm sure the video that is now held up to debunk a Diplomatic Trip that was, in fact, less dangerous than it was made out to be 10 years later, was probably specifically shot to show how peaceful it was for reasons that made sense back then.  You think one video tells the whole story.  Yeah.  It serves your purpose.

    I know the currencly of punditry is "Gotcha" moments, time will tell if that currency purchases for America a better future.

    Parent

    She had more than one take off/landing there (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:48:02 PM EST
    she took a couple of side trips that the entertainment didn't join her on. And Sinbad's story was a tad different at the time.

    Parent
    I still think Obama's attempt ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:58:19 AM EST
    to puncture Hillary's experience won't work.  

    First, even people who hate Clinton thinks she wasn't the average first lady. That she had what amounted to a cabinet position.

    And, second, it just sounds like Obama is shouting Hillary doesn't have as much experiences as she says, but guess what?  I have even less.

    Parent

    "but guess what? I have even less." (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:52:14 AM EST
    lol!~ yeah, I can't believe they are going there. I've been posting this link often:

    http://tinyurl.com/2ycf2f

    It's from her campaign, but even so, doesn't look like a bunch of 'tea sipping' to me. Also, when I was cruising around looking for Bosnia info, I came across other 'trip' articles that were very interesting. I think her campaign just needs to grab a few itineraries and match them with the news reports at the time. Take out a few full page ads and call it a day on Foreign Policy vs Obama. ;)

    If the 2 do a head to head comparison, well . . . I know who I want in the GE. I think some of the work she's done does give her an edge on McCain as it's (from what I've seen on him) more universal vs Armed Services focused. A better balance so to speak :)

    Parent

    It's amazing... (none / 0) (#195)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:11:24 AM EST
    ...how her supporters are doing a better job of defending her than her own campaign.  I wonder why they are not bringing it up.  They are essentially conceding the point by saying she "misspoke" (which means she said something that was untrue).  You're trying to find a truth where there is none.

    Parent
    Something wrong with trying to find (none / 0) (#212)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    truth?  Yup, I did start digging around to see what was out there. I don't see the media giving full quotes etc and what one campaign says about the other tends to be suspect also, lol!~ It's interesting digging around. I do it on both sides :)

    Parent
    Remember Texas, Fema and Gore: (none / 0) (#17)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    That story was talked about ad nauseam. It was one of the important pieces of evidence Gore was a serial liar, according to the pundits.
    This story is very similar. Whether she was accurate or not has no import at all; there's no reason to think she was lying, since she had repeated this story before. Instead, she mixed some things up---big deal.
    She went to two army bases by helicopter that day. Those trips match her recollection more closely.

    Parent
    No, she specifically cited a C-17 (none / 0) (#18)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:38:44 PM EST
    ...not a cargo plane.

    Look, a lie's a lie, and she told one to embellish her "experience."

    Parent

    So every inaccurate recollection of an event (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:39:54 PM EST
    more than 10 years in the past is  a lie?
    What did you eat for breakfast 2 years ago?

    Parent
    Absolutely, a lie's a lie (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:46:21 PM EST
    Of course, Obama said in the debate that he was in a "high stakes" race for the U.S. Senate when he made his famous speech against the Iraq War.

    Trouble is, he gave the speech in October 2002, and only declared for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. Which wouldn't be all that bad if the very same lie weren't repeated on the web site the Obama proselytizers tell us to go look at when we want to talk about policy and they want to continue their conversion narratives.

    Naturally, I understan completely and accept the reality that a 10-year-old mis-recollection by Hillary is of earth-shattering importance, as opposed to a direct lie by Obama that goes to the heart of the case for his own superior judgment, but those are The Clinton Rules!

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#37)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    ...another problem with Obama.  I'll admit it.  He's not perfect either.  He's a politician.  I don't think this is a lie, because he was prepping for a senate run and position himself in his anti-war community at the time.

    I'll take these responses as "I know Clinton is a liar, but so is Obama."

    Parent

    Oh please.. he was running for the IL (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    Senate at the time. It's a bald-faced now, and you know it.
    Of course he has been caught making a couple of whoppers in the debates too.


    Parent
    No, actually, I don't... (none / 0) (#63)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    ...because he declared for the US Senate 2 1/2 months later.  He could easily claim that he was positioning himself for the senate.

    BUT there's a huge difference between using one word "US" (which changes everything in your opinion) and inventing all sorts of details about running on tarmacs because of incoming sniper rounds.  

    Please...

    Parent

    He announced for the US Senate in Jan. 2003? (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:41 PM EST
    really?

    That reminds me of something I've been wondering. Has anybody ever looked at the other speeches at the event Obama attended?

    Parent

    I meant, a cargo plane... (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:40:08 PM EST
    ...not a helicopter.  She spoke of a C-17 and how everyone on the plane had to sit on their bullet-proof jackets and it made a special kind of landing, etc etc.

    Whatever.

    I'm not sure she's a serial liar, but she is here quite clearly a liar.

    Parent

    Um, no, its' not "quite clear" at all. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    Apparently the plane DID make corkscrew evasive maneuvers. If she was shot at later, when on the helicopter trip, then both things would have happenend.
    To call her a liar over a really trivial matter like this is going to piss of DEMOCRATS---people who remember what happened to Gore.

    Parent
    Oh man.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST
    ...look, she lied about this.  She fabricated.  She "stretched the truth". She embellished.  Whatever you want to call it, she recalled with some detail something that demonstratively did not happen.

    No, it's not that big a deal, but like every other thing we scrutinize in this campaign, this deserves its 15 minutes.  And now, apparently, it's getting it.

    Gosh, I'm sure Obama has lied about something. He exaggerated his drug use, apparently...

    Parent

    Ah, it's not a big deal---but it's the only thing (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:46:42 PM EST
    left for you. Gotcha.
    Since it's not a big deal, you can drop it now.

    Parent
    I SAID.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:54 PM EST
    "not THAT big a deal."

    But it's A deal, to be sure.

    So you didn't "get me."  Please read more closely.

    Parent

    Pathetic... (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:57:26 PM EST
    ..here I am admitting my candidate's problems (although no one has brought up a demonstrable lie), even though Obama was not the subject of this thread.

    Here you are making all sorts of excuses for what is, on the basis of the available evidence, clearly a lie.  She did not run on the tarmac under sniper fire. She walked across the tarmac with her daughter and kissed a little Bosnian girl.

    Parent

    I object to your insistence that it was a lie, (none / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:00:32 PM EST
    when it could simply be an error.

    Parent
    Yeah, not that big a deal at all.. (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:56:12 PM EST
    you're very excited about this!

    Parent
    No, I posted a news story... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:00:01 PM EST
    ...that's all.  I didn't jump up and down.  I didn't say that she's a serial liar.  But I did call her a liar in this instance.

    You all, who started spouting out irrelevant things about Obama (in effect conceding that you think Clinton lied), seem quite exercised by it.

    If John McCain had said this, you'd be all over it.  Oh  wait, you think - like Clinton - that he loves his country and has, unlike Obama, the experience to be president.  Right?  Talk about hurting Democrats.

    Parent

    huh? I wouldn't care a fig if McCain told a (none / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:08 PM EST
    little fib about something like this.


    Parent
    Did you care? (none / 0) (#85)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    When he went into the marketplace surrounded by heavily armed marines to proclaim progress in Iraq?  I sure would.

    I care if Clinton lies, Obama, or McCain.  But I'm glad you've at least moved to calling it a "fib."

    Fib: a little lie, but still a lie.

    Parent

    Did I care? Some. Did I think it had any (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:29:45 PM EST
    political significance? no.

    Parent
    Yesterday (none / 0) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:01:33 PM EST
    someone did some Lexis Nexis searches and found a bunch of articles that substantiated Hillary's story.  Who remembers the thread and who posted it?  

    Parent
    I don't remember, but the reporter (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    was Ron Fournier, so you should be able to find it.

    Parent
    My comment (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:52:54 PM EST
    that can be found here

    There was a guest on Cooper Anderson this evening, didn't see who it was since I heard it on XM radio, who talked with a reporter that was with Hillary on the flight.  The reporter confirmed there was sniper fire and they did have to land using a special maneuver for safety.  Hillary has used some facts and added a little to them for extra measure.  The irony is that she also could have stuck more closely to the facts of the story which did involve some risk.  She traveled to outposts in a blackhawk and was in an area that was less safe than the other entertainers that traveled with her for the USO show.  

    Has Obama ever visited Iraq?  I honestly don't recall.  

    Parent

    Thanks.... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:55:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary may have conflated the 3 landings (none / 0) (#183)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
    in retelling the 12 year old story

    She visited American forces at three bases in northeast Bosnia



    Parent
    I don't think he has... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:11:35 PM EST
    Nor has he run Afghanistan over-sight meetings as part of his sub-committee chair duties.

    She added something...meh...prolly actually did remember one other instance where she had to move quickly and folded them together. She's been in a few places where Secret Service was the small part of her security detail.

    Parent

    It wasn't a material "lie" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:13 PM EST


    Parent
    About a month before Iowa (none / 0) (#162)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:26:32 PM EST
    Obama was strutting around telling audiences, "I'm the only one who beats all the Republicans."
    Uh - no.  There was one poll that stated that.
    All others had John Edwards beating the Repubs.

    Here's another Obama lie (and truthiness): "I opposed the war from the start, but Hillary didn't oppose it until after she became a presidential nominee."

    The Truth is Obama opposed the war when he couldn't vote. But like Hillary, voted to fund the war until after he became a presidential nominee.
    Gee - I wonder why voters are surprised to learn that for 2 years, Obama voted to fund a war he "opposed."


    Parent

    Obama keeps "misspeaking" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:45:22 PM EST
    about how involved he has been with Rezco.

    And he has younger synapses, doesn't he?  

    Parent

    No argument there from me... (none / 0) (#32)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:46:58 PM EST
    ...he hasn't lied about Rezko, as far as I know, but he's been evasive and vague, to be sure, and it's not something I'd defend him for.  It's a problem.

    So, if to a different degree, is lying about the danger she did (not) face in Bosnia.

    Parent

    Hmm.. so this really doesn't matter to you? (none / 0) (#36)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    Please, show us how much this DOESN'T matter to you.

    Parent
    Both matter to me... (none / 0) (#40)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    I am the first to admit that Obama's got a Rezko problem, although I'm not sure he's lied about it (yet).

    Why do you Clinton people have so much trouble say, "Oops, she got caught in one...."  I think you know that, but instead decide to switch the subject.  The thread was about Clinton, not Obama.  You want an Obama thread, start one.

    Parent

    Why does the Clinton story bother you? (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    Suppose she did lie (which I don't believe---I think she was in error). How does that make her a bad candidate? Is Obama now unelectable because he said he was a "street urchin" in Indonesia?

    Parent
    Mark... (none / 0) (#196)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:18:10 AM EST
    ...did I say it makes her a bad candidate? Once?  Why don't you go back and look at some of my posts, you one-sided shill, and you'll see that I support Obama, but think Clinton would be a fine nominee.  I've even said that I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would (have been, it's too late now) the best choice.

    So, relax.  I pointed out that she told a lie here, it's relevant in so far as all candidate's utterances - especially ones that make a key point about the rationale for their candidacy - are relevant.  It's worth discussing.

    You all immediately jumped on Obama (switch the subject) and brought up things that were entirely irrelevant to this thread.  You did a lousy job defending her, and eventually conceded that she lied, but said "So did Obama."  Maybe, maybe not, although the supposed "lies" you brought up are not nearly as clear cut as this one.

    What is with you people?

    Oh, I remember, you're the one who wants Obama to fall by being caught in a lie.  That's what you're hoping for.  Nice politics.

    Parent

    And if it turns out that on that day she (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:49:21 PM EST
    DID run from sniper fire at an army base, what then?

    Parent
    Well, if she did... (none / 0) (#41)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    ...don't you think she'd have reiterated it, instead of sending out her people to say "She misspoke" and it's not really a big deal, etc etc?

    I'll be the first to say:  "No, she didn't lie" if evidence refuting what we have now (which seems pretty clear) comes out.  Until then, from what I've seen, I'll stick with "She told one."

    Parent

    Well gosh, maybe it's not easy to find out (none / 0) (#44)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:03 PM EST
    all the facts about something that happened 12 years ago in a war zone.

    Parent
    It is easy... (none / 0) (#65)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:04:01 PM EST
    ...we have video.  You can watch it if you'd like.

    She landed.  She walked off the plane.  No sniper fire.  No fog.

    Parent

    We have video of her visits to the army (none / 0) (#96)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    bases?!

    Parent
    If it makes you happy (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    you can sing a round of liar liar pants on fire......go ahead.  

    Parent
    You don't get it... (none / 0) (#73)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:09 PM EST
    ...this, like everything else candidates say, is worthy of scrutiny.  I am willing to concede that Obama MAY have told a lie when he said he was running for "US" Senate in October 2002.  I don't think so right now because I think that someone who declares two months later can legitimately claim that they were positioning themselves for the race beforehand.  Was Fred Thompson not running for president when he was testing the waters?  I'd say he was.

    BUT you can't concede that this isn't 1) a demonstrable untruth that goes beyond simply misspeaking and 2) something that's worthy of attention.  If it were Obama, or McCain, you'd bring it up, right?  And that'd be fair.

    Parent

    You're right, I can't concede that. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:08:50 PM EST
    How many trips did she make? LOTS. Did she mix some events up? Seems so. Does it matter. no.
    Hey, did you read that the Irish Prime Minister says that Hillary was very important in the peace talks there? Isn't that great!

    Parent
    Lies (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:16:04 PM EST
    Obama's entire community organizer with his soul in the community is basically a lie.  A community organizer would not let the community swing when the Rezko properties were lost, and lie that he did not know.  Obama's record in the Illinois Senate is basically another lie.  He was not the great bipartisan and he did what he did the 7th year.  Obama's position against the war is a lie.  If you pick a random sample of Obama supporters, they will tell you that Obama was in the Senate and voted against the war.  He encouraged the lie and the campaign has not corrected it.  So, get over this one.  We have to live with all the other lies.  

    So, just go and watch some old Sinbad movies and get all warm and fuzzy.  

    Parent

    Those are not lies... (none / 0) (#89)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:19:22 PM EST
    ....those are "spins" and "interpretations".

    I'm amazed that you need to be told such a thing.  Here's a spin:

    Obama was a bipartisan legislator in Illinois and the US Senate.

    Here's a lie:

    Clinton had to duck and run across a tarmac where there was no ceremony in Bosnia because of sniper fire.

    The first one is not a lie, but a positive interpretation of Obama's career based on some bipartisan work.

    The second one is a lie BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL.

    Parent

    Get over yourself...she talked about this today (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:33:36 PM EST
    So what, like I said yesterday...read the article and move on.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996. She later characterized the episode as a "misstatement" and a "minor blip."
    The Obama campaign suggested the statement was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.
    During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
    AP story

    Parent
    That is spin.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EST
    ...Stellaa... you're learning!  They're trying to brush this aside as a blip. She "misspoke".  How do you misspeak about being under sniper fire?  That's something I'd remember.

    The fact is she invented details that did not happen.  She did so very clearly, as if it almost came naturally.  She imagined it.  

    Get over it.  She lied.

    Parent

    You are obsessed.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:45:52 PM EST
    She still has more foreign policy experience than Obama.  

    I told you get up on an empty bucket and start singin:  Liar liar..pants on fire, nose is longer than a telephone wire...

    Do it 20 times...and you will feel better.  

    Then tell me that Obama did not lie about seeing Wright talk about white people?  

    Parent

    Isn't the video of Hillary (none / 0) (#143)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:04:11 PM EST
    landing in Tuzla - and not the more dangerous outposts she visited without Sinbad?


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:41:10 PM EST
    You are correct but I have the impression sar75 is not interested in that information.  

    From the comment I made yesterday:

    Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal "thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
    ...
    But this was a day of celebration and celebrities - a day for the U.S. troops helping to uphold the Bosnian peace accord. Mrs. Clinton hosted a USO show with comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow and briefly addressed the gathering.
    ...
    But the highlight of her trip were visits to two fortified posts outside the U.S. base in Tuzla. Even President Clinton, restricted to the base by bad weather in January, did not see as much of this war-wracked region as Mrs. Clinton did Monday.
    ...
    Riflemen rushed to the brush line as the helicopter landed and surrounded her as she walked into the post. Located in a "separation zone," the U.S. outpost nestles between two tree lines. Just months ago, one was Serbian territory, the other Bosnian.

    Security was tight - fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to Tuzla - but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks on the trip.
    Lexis - By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press, March 25, 1996

     

    Parent
    Than why on earth... (none / 0) (#197)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:21:54 AM EST
    ..are her campaign staff not making this point?  They're not.  They're conceding the point that she "mispoke" (re: made it up).

    No, it's up to the courageous Hillary-shills on TalkLeft to defend her in a way that her campaign can't.

    Guys - she lied. It's not the end of the world.  I never said it is.  It is relevant, however, because it speaks to a core component of her campaign.  

    YOU all are the ones who are making a big deal out of it by trying to refute the reality of what we can all see on a video (and what others who took the trip confirm).  No sniper fire, no running from tarmacs.  It's simple.

    Parent

    it appears she embellished (none / 0) (#207)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:20:34 AM EST
    just as Obama did before Iowa when he told audiences (on YouTube) he was the only Dem in polling that beat all the Republicans.
    Edwards supporters knew it wasn't true.

    Parent
    please feel free to circulate the link (none / 0) (#208)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    describing Hillary's landings and visits to the more dangerous outposts outside Tuzla.


    Parent
    good grief (none / 0) (#187)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:52:02 AM EST
    She said they LANDED under sniper fire. Its been confirmed by others. She misremembered whether the ceremony had been cancelled or just cut short. She wasn't claiming that she was under a hail of sniper fire after she got off the plane. You've created this fantasy of what she said, that isn't what she said.

    Parent
    No, Tree.... (none / 0) (#198)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:22:42 AM EST
    ...she said she had to run for cover with her head down on the tarmac.  Go back and listen.

    Denying reality is really not an attractive trait.

    Parent

    direct quote (none / 0) (#209)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

    You are the one misremembering the quote. She didn't talk about a hail of sniper fire when she was on the ground. She talked about the landing being under sniper fire. Others have confirmed that. Let me repeated that. Others have confirmed that the plane landed under sniper fire. She misremembered on this occasion that there was no ceremony, instead of it being cut short. You continue to act as if this was her attempt to embellish her experience, but it makes no sense for her to do this. Her "experience" is going to Bosnia. One doesn't get extra foreign policy points for sniper fire.

    You brought this OT subject up and continue to belabor it. Its no better than all the cr** that was thrown at Gore in 2000. You should be ashamed, and ashamed of saying that you're "not sure she's a serial liar, but...". Welcome to the worst of the Republican party smear artists. Sad.

     

    Parent

    Hint: DK diaries today (none / 0) (#210)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    are predominately on this subject.  

    Parent
    Well gee (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:38:57 PM EST
    as long as it was a misstated PARAGRAPH, then it's no big deal.  

    Parent
    You have a serious comprehension problem, (none / 0) (#100)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:45 PM EST
    my friend. Inaccurate statements are not the same thing as lies. If you say this one more time, I will rightly accuse YOU of lying, because you have been corrected on this matter.

    Parent
    Lies... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:35:34 PM EST
    he has to make it up and would never clarify, instead lie some more.  

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#68)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:29 PM EST
    All pols lie and misspeak. G Bush lies, Cheney lies,Bill Clinton lies, Hillary lies, Obama lies, and etc., and etc. The difference is Obama's pretense of somehow being transformative and different-- which I suspect is also a lie.

    Parent
    Or the false claims about his IL Sen. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:15 PM EST
    record, where he was given the work of others to take credit for, so that he could run for the US Senate. THAT matters, because it means his experience is highly overstated.
    Hillary Clinton was in Bosnia.
    By the way, I think the photo of her and the little girl is just beautiful.

    Parent
    Map: of foreclosed properties in O District (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM EST
    This is a great graphic of the Obama District and the Rezko properties that went into foreclosure.  But, Obama did not know.

    Believe it or not!!!
    Map

    Parent

    Lies are okay (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:20:15 PM EST
    When your name is Obama.

    Parent
    I grew up in that district (none / 0) (#167)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:37:20 PM EST
    It's a fairly large dense area.

    I would suspect that this relates more to 'willful intent not to know'

    I think in older political discussions, this is called "laissez-faire" - which probably also would adequately describe the methodology employed by him if he were president too.

    It's worked well for GWB...

    Parent

    But remember (none / 0) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:42:20 PM EST
    this is a man who is "committed to the community" and the Saul Alinsky standards of organizing.  It's not just any State Senator.  It's someone who worked for a law firm that did affordable housing legal work for some of those projects.  Someone, "who walked the streets" when Hillary was a corporate lawyer".  I guess no one talks in that community.    

    Parent
    I suppose if you're piling on (none / 0) (#176)
    by white n az on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:04:35 AM EST
    He wrote letters in support of government grants for Rezko's firm to purchase/upgrade some of these properties.

    Again...

    Willful Intent Not to Know

    Laissez-faire

    It's not an accident...it's a strategy.

    Does this suggest that he is insensitive?
    Yeah, but I felt that way already.

    Does this disqualify him?
    No, probably not all that untypical for politicians, sad to say.

    It was weird to realize that I grew up in his district when I looked at the map. Thanks - enjoyed that part.

    Parent

    It was a beautiful photo-op... (none / 0) (#199)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:25:18 AM EST
    ..and still a brave mission.  And a useful one.  She was a great first lady and would be a great president (I just prefer Obama).

    There.

    But she lied about key details that ANYONE would remember, especially if you had to duck for cover for your life!  Come on!  I'd never forget that.  It's not like a US soldier in Iraq who has to duck every day.

    She made up a fib to embellish her trip.  She got caught.  Her campaign seems to realize this.  You are all slowly coming around to it too, but throw up all sorts of smoke about Obama,

    Parent

    ROFL.. this really is all you have left. (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by MarkL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Are you comparing my breakfast... (none / 0) (#23)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:41:17 PM EST
    ...two years ago with having to run with my head down after a dangerous landing into a war zone, and not getting met by a sweet little Bosnian girl.

    Please.

    Next!

    Parent

    I take it you can't remember. lol (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:44:00 PM EST
    You think that memories are MORE accurate when under stress? Um, guess again.

    Parent
    You're so silly Mark! (none / 0) (#200)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:29:18 AM EST
    Oh my God!  YESSSS - I do think memories of being under stress like this once in a lifetime being shot at by snipers (which did not happen) would be clearer than whatever I ate for breakfast two years ago.

    Remember, it did NOT happen.  Had it happened, and she got some details wrong (We were running for cover and I didn't meet anyone) would be entirely different.  But it didn't.

    So, yes, I can't remember what I had for breakfast two years ago.  I do remember eight years ago being alone and lost in a tough neighborhood in Cairo (as a tourist) and feeling nervous.  I'll never forget it.  If I were being shot at, I'd remember that too.  But I wouldn't make up details of being shot at or having to cover my head and run because someone told me I was.

    Parent

    I don't know the plane difference, but she (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:11:24 AM EST
    was on more than one there. In another post here, someone had posted articles that backed up side trips she took there that did not include the entertainment. She went out to see troops, iirc. One plane had a female pilot and she went up to the cockpit.

    And Sindbad the Obama supporter has changed his story since then. Back then it wasn't about the next meal, but Bloods and Crips.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#182)
    by Fredster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:22:21 AM EST
    What the hell do you think a C-17 is?

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm

    Parent

    A cargo plane (none / 0) (#201)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:07 AM EST
    I think I um knew that.

    Parent
    Hey come on... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:40:56 PM EST
    just because we're losing doesn't mean it doesn't mean its all over.... IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER

    Which show (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fredster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    was she on?  I hardly watch that network anymore.
    Ha. Forgot how good that movie was. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:52:53 PM EST


    Nice marmot (none / 0) (#211)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:00:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Jimmy Dale Gilmore! (none / 0) (#164)
    by phat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:33:41 PM EST
    n/t

    Please read (none / 0) (#192)
    by jen on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:46:01 AM EST
    Nobama linked to this article in the comments at No Quarter. Although it is from March 5, I had not seen it before this. Very revealing and pretty downright scary!

    The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand

    by Pam Martens @ Black Agenda Report

    Despite Barack Obama's claim that his campaign represents a mass "movement" of "average folks," the initial core of his support was largely comprised of rich denizens of Wall Street. Why would the super wealthy want a percieved "black populist" to become the nation's chief executive officer? The "Obama bubble" was nurtured by Wall Street in order to have a friend in the White House when the captains of capital are made to face the legal consequences for deliberately creating current and past economic "bubbles." Wall Street desperately needs a president who will "sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street." Who better to sell this "agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change?"... Much more...
    New Blue Majority (none / 0) (#204)
    by jes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:28 AM EST
    poll for any members of Open Left who want to have input on whether they should endorse Obama. The poll currently has only two questions: endorse Obama now or wait until after PA. You must be registered to vote.

    Current tally:

    • Endorse Barack Obama now - 505 votes (93%)
    • Wait until at least after Pennsylvania - 38 votes (7%)

    Not sure if dKos or Swing State will be redoing their polls.

    Does Anyone Care About The Rules?! Open Thread | 210 comments (210 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment