2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Sabrinaset]

The "bigot press" hates Obama because he's a Black Democrat? Are these the SAME media people who are so in the tank for him that even SNL pokes fun at Obamamania? You know, I'm ... I don't know what to say.


Well, I could say "potatoe" ...

[Paul McEnery]

The "bigot press" hates Obama because he's a Black Democrat? [/SIZE]

Yes. They do. Are you really claiming otherwise?

And remove those quote marks. You know who I'm talking about.

Those sites you linked to, for a start.

[Sabrinaset]

Well, the bogotry thing was something you started ... well, I mean, you go on about bigotry and fascism ALL THE TIME ... those are your words, not mine.

Breitbart? No one here that I recall has ever said a word about them being bigoted or fascist or ... well, anything about them, actually.

The Power Line one? Why SURE Paul ... here, I'll replace it with the even worse, completely bigot-filled, far right-wing and fascist CBS News.com! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/27/politics/main4130449.shtml)

(AP) The Barack Obama campaign said Tuesday the candidate mistakenly referred to the wrong Nazi death camp when relating the story of a great uncle who helped liberate the camps in World War II.

The Democratic presidential candidate said the story is accurate except that the camp was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.

"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II - especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically."

The YouTube one. It's his own words.

[section 8]

Are "Bushisms" an exorcize in bigotry as well?

Obama made a mistake, (bush makes more, far worse mistakes) but they are all in the news for the sam reason.
when a high ranking public official speaks and a gaffe is made, more often than not, it's funny.

[Sabrinaset]

Are "Bushisms" an exorcize in bigotry as well?

Obama made a mistake, (bush makes more, far worse mistakes) but they are all in the news for the sam reason.
when a high ranking public official speaks and a gaffe is made, more often than not, it's funny.

It is, actually! And Bush ... well, he doen't actually make mistakes per se. You see, what he really is is one of those randomization language programs that spit out words which seem like nonsense in order to suit the occasion ... so to call what he says "mistakes" is a mischaracterization, since there's absolutely no intent anywhere. The biggest mystery is why it is when he turns his back, you don't see the string that gets pulled, or how long that string is so that the words come out for so long a time during speeches.


Oh, here's some MORE news ...

Wolf Blitzer: Will the DNC move the goalposts? (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/27/blitzer-coult-the-dnc-move-the-goalposts-this-weekend/)

Bill Clinton says his wife is the victim of a cover-up! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26/bill-clinton-says-wife-is-victim-of-a-‘cover-up’/) Oh no!

(CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to “cover this up” and “push and pressure and bully” superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

The former president said Sunday that the media had unfairly attacked his wife since the Iowa caucuses, repeating an often-used charge that press coverage had made him feel as though he were living in a “fun house.”

[Samurai]

oh c'mon! you know if Clinton had said it youd be torching her ass right here and now.
don't pretend Obama is "off limits" just because He is your man.

and i've said it before, life on a campaign trail is physically and Psychologically exhausting, so it is understandable that a cnadate would make the occasional "gaffe"

But someone needs to point out these historical errors and set things right, or else he'll keep making the same mistake over and over. For instance, he talked about his grandfather "hearing stories from the troops who first entered Auschwitz" at least as far back as 2002:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/05/its_nothing_new.html

It's Nothing New

Thanks to a link from one of my Obama-admiring commenters (thank you, Robert), we learn that Obama's tales of Americans liberating Auschwitz didn't start this weekend. He was telling similar stories about his grandfather back in 2002, in his now-famous Iraq speech, which I'd never previously read:

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka.

The first troops to enter those two camps (in Poland) were Soviet troops, so unless Patton was leading them, this can't be true.

As I noted in comments, you'd think that if he's going to be telling these kinds of stories, he'd at least attempt to make them plausible (e.g., Dachau and Buchenwald). My guess is that he's unfamiliar with the actual history of the war, and just invoked two of the most notorious camp names to make his point. Whether his grandfather (or "uncle") actually told him tales of concentration camps will probably never be known.

It's interesting that no one has ever noticed this historical discrepancy before, considering how such a big deal has been made of that speech. This should also knock the legs out from under arguments from the Obama camp that he didn't really say "Auschwitz," and that it was CBS and other news sources putting the word in his mouth.

My guess? He's just making this stuff up. Because it sounds good to the ignorant rubes, and he's a good speechifier. It's all part of that "new politics" we've heard so much about.

http://www.luoamerican.com/baldilocks/


A much more serious gaffe is this one:

Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic.

(All emphasis mine.)

As many have noted, Auschwitz was not liberated by the Americans, but by the Russians--and if you know that Auschwitz is in Poland, you know your geography and you know from which direction the Soviets entered Germany and from which direction the other allied troops entered the country, this makes sense. Armed with such knowledge, it's a difficult error to make.

The question is this: does Obama possess factual knowledge about anything involving American history?* It seems that nearly everything he says about it produces a gaffe.

It's almost as if Obama is playing a role. Badly.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades)

UPDATE: Lord Nazh notices that Obama also claims that his grandfather enlisted right after the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by Imperial Japan. However, the Kansas WWII Veterans Record shows that his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, enlisted in the military on June 18, 1942. Is the delay explainable or was this another badly learned line?

And Paul, why are you still defending the Auschwitz mistake when a) even the Obama campaign admits he meant Buchenwald, and b) since Auschwitz was in Poland, all the way on the other side of Germany from the American lines, no American troops probably visited the camp before the end of the war, and almost certainly not before the survivors were cleared out and hospitalized. So, he was traumatized by visiting an empty camp after the war ended (even more so than the experience of fighting in WW2 itself), is that what you're claiming? And that the infallible Obamessiah got it right the first time, and his people are now lying about him making the mistake?

[Charles RB]

It's news that Obama accidentally gave the name of a different death camp, even though his uncle did actually liberate one?

This is chickenshit, especially after Clinton deliberately lied that she personally was part of the Northern Ireland peace process.

[KevinTBrown]

It's news that Obama accidentally gave the name of a different death camp, even though his uncle did actually liberate one?

This is chickenshit, especially after Clinton deliberately lied that she personally was part of the Northern Ireland peace process.

BINGO!

But, hey, let's all deal with distractions and ignore, oh I don't know, the real issues....

[Paul McEnery]

And Paul, why are you still defending the Auschwitz mistake when a) even the Obama campaign admits he meant Buchenwald, and b) since Auschwitz was in Poland, all the way on the other side of Germany from the American lines, no American troops probably visited the camp before the end of the war, and almost certainly not before the survivors were cleared out and hospitalized. So, he was traumatized by visiting an empty camp after the war ended (even more so than the experience of fighting in WW2 itself), is that what you're claiming? And that the infallible Obamessiah got it right the first time, and his people are now lying about him making the mistake?

I'm not.

I'm attacking your bastard friends in the fascist media for stirring up shit.

And, since you're now stirring up shit yourself -- oh noes! how could that be -- I guess I'm attacking you too.

Back to English 101 for you!

[Sabrinaset]

It's news that Obama accidentally gave the name of a different death camp, even though his uncle did actually liberate one?

This is chickenshit, especially after Clinton deliberately lied that she personally was part of the Northern Ireland peace process.

I dunno about the rest of the blogosphere, but I did use the words "small gaffe" in describing it, and tried to equate it to not knowing which hill my brother ran over in Iraq ... it's really more amusing than anything else. And his campaign admitted he screwed up, so it's not really a big deal and will quickly fade away. In fact, the fact that he quickly admitted he screwed up, as opposed to Hill who had to be forcibly dragged into sorrrrta admitting she was lying ... well the comparison only makes the Hilldebeast look even worse, as far as I can see. Still looks like I'm voting for him atm.

It's actually somewhat MORE educational to watch people blow up over something kinda small. Looks like Obama is a sacred cow to some people. They can't even bear it when a mistake is reported.

[Paul McEnery]

I dunno about the rest of the blogosphere, but I did use the words "small gaffe" in describing it, and tried to equate it to not knowing which hill my brother ran over in Iraq ... it's really more amusing than anything else. And his campaign admitted he screwed up, so it's not really a big deal and will quickly fade away. In fact, the fact that he quickly admitted he screwed up, as opposed to Hill who had to be forcibly dragged into sorrrrta admitting she was lying ... well the comparison only makes the Hilldebeast look even worse, as far as I can see. Still looks like I'm voting for him atm.

It's actually somewhat MORE educational to watch people blow up over something kinda small. Looks like Obama is a sacred cow to some people. They can't even bear it when a mistake is reported.

No.

This is why I'm pissed.

This is a deliberate smear job aimed at alienating the Jewish vote.

And that's disgusting.

[kingdom2000]

Sab shows that the smear jobs work to. The american sheep tend to eat them up in general. And what would republicans do if they didn't have smear jobs. Run on the facts? Please. Either way McBush is laughing it up.

[LtMarvel]

It's news that Obama accidentally gave the name of a different death camp, even though his uncle did actually liberate one?

This is chickenshit, especially after Clinton deliberately lied that she personally was part of the Northern Ireland peace process.
There are people who were apart of that peace process who praise Hillary's efforts.

Since they do and they were there. I'd say your statement is a bum rap.

[Charles RB]

It's actually somewhat MORE educational to watch people blow up over something kinda small. Looks like Obama is a sacred cow to some people. They can't even bear it when a mistake is reported.

You might've noticed Samurai quoting a blog outright saying "I think Obama made up that his uncle was at a death camp in order to get votes" in response to a tiny mistake - stuff like that is more what'll piss people off (plus "they're turning THIS into news?!").

[Charles RB]

There are people who were apart of that peace process who praise Hillary's efforts.

Name them.

And then name her efforts.

And then give a reason why they mysteriously never come up in summaries of the peace process over here.

EDIT: Have found the former SDLP leader supporting her, while the former UUP leader says otherwise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7299380.stm):

However, former UUP leader David Trimble has likened her role to that of a "cheerleader".

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around," he said.

[Buzz Dixon]

UPDATE: Lord Nazh notices that Obama also claims that his grandfather enlisted right after the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by Imperial Japan. However, the Kansas WWII Veterans Record shows that his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, enlisted in the military on June 18, 1942. Is the delay explainable or was this another badly learned line?Lots of people rushed down to the recruit stations the Monday following Pearl Harbor. The induction centers simply were not able to handle them all.

My father enlisted after Pearl Harbor and, by luck of the draw, got assigned almost immediately to a transportation company. The first units the U.S. military formed in the aftermath of WWII were support units. There's no point in training soldiers to fight if you can't feed, house, supply, and transport them.

Obama's great uncle was a combat soldier. I'm sure he rushed down after Pearl Harbor, had his name taken down but was not inducted, and was then told to go home and wait further notification. The time line fits.

(My father, BTW, got nasty letters from his local draft board several months after his enlistment wanting to know where he was and why he hadn't reported for his draft physical. While on leave he showed up to his draft board wearing his Army uniform, asking them, "Where do you think I've been and what do you think I've been doing?")

[Buzz Dixon]

Brand new question: How come nobody, not even Hillary's own camp, are discussing her possible veep choices?

[LtMarvel]

Name them.

And then name her efforts.

And then give a reason why they mysteriously never come up in summaries of the peace process over here.

EDIT: Have found the former SDLP leader supporting her, while the former UUP leader says otherwise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7299380.stm):
First item on Yahoo! search (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6430)"Hillary Northern Ireland."

Don't really understand what your mystery summeries are.

[Buzz Dixon]

First item on Yahoo! search (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6430)"Hillary Northern Ireland."You're quoting one of Hillary's own web sites as a fact check?

[Sabrinaset]

Sab shows that the smear jobs work to.

Work to what? Oh ... you mean "too", right?

The american sheep tend to eat them up in general. And what would republicans do if they didn't have smear jobs. Run on the facts? Please. Either way McBush is laughing it up.

Hmm ... this ought to be good. Let's see ... do I ask Kingdom2000 why I would be considered a sheep, since the "smear" actually had me comparing Obama to Hill in a good way? Do I ask Kingdom if a smear backfiring because I actually was able to articulate WHY, by comparing Obama's response to Hill's when caught in a mistake (and if I have to clarify, I personally believe Obama made a mistake, while Hill was flat-out lying)would prove someone is following the herd? Or that I was still voting for Obama atm? Or how exactly the smear job worked?

Nah ... I know Kingdom doesn't have a good answer to anything, so I won't force him to make up a bad one. But I have to look for a silver lining here, so I'll just say that at least Kingdom isn't calling me a Republican anymore. Good job, Kingdom! Well done! http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1233_hand_clapping.gif


Oh ... Charles RB: I hadn't even really noticed what Sam posted until you pointed it out while I was typing. Yeah, you're right there. And as far as this making news, the only thing I can figure is it must be a slow news day or something.

[Charles RB]

Isn't it strange that the "Hillary brought women together in 1998" claim the Fact Hub link mentions does not have supporting evidence, as well as her role being dismissed by several involved in the peace process? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581150/Nobel-winner-Hillary-Clinton%27s-%27silly%27-Irish-peace-claims.html)

And again, it sure is strange that such a pivotal figure in the peace process would mysteriously go unmentioned in summaries and histories of it in the UK, where the fucking thing happened.

[Charles RB]

Brand new question: How come nobody, not even Hillary's own camp, are discussing her possible veep choices?

Has the Obama camp started yet? (Or McCain)

[Sabrinaset]

By the way, I'd like to point out that if I were into guys, I would have a huge crush on Charles RB right now.

[Buzz Dixon]

Has the Obama camp started yet? (Or McCain)Officially, no; but there's been a lot of speculation and watching of comings-and-goings re possible veep choices.

Suffice it to say, there's a lot of speculation re McCain and Obama's veep choices.

About Clinton's...























[crickets]

[Sabrinaset]

Officially, no; but there's been a lot of speculation and watching of comings-and-goings re possible veep choices.

Suffice it to say, there's a lot of speculation re McCain and Obama's veep choices.

About Clinton's...

http://www.cagle.com/working/080516/schorr.gif

[Crowley]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080516/schorr.gif

that's brilliant.

[KevinTBrown]

First item on Yahoo! search (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6430)"Hillary Northern Ireland."

Don't really understand what your mystery summeries are.
There's a link I posted in the Mega political thread months ago disputing her involvement. The people disputing it were those actually involved with the process. All she was pretty much involved in was meeting with the wives (at a tea party I believe) of those who were working towards the peace.


If you want to look for it in there, have at it.

[Sabrinaset]

There's a link I posted in the Mega political thread months ago disputing her involvement. The people disputing it were those actually involved with the process. All she was pretty much involved in was meeting with the wives (at a tea party I believe) of those who were working towards the peace.


If you want to look for it in there, have at it.

Here's the post Kevin is referring to, along with the appropriate link. I tried reintroducing the teapot picture since all I could see was a red X. I hope that was the picture that was originally there.

I just want to retract all those horrible things I said about Hillary Clinton. She obviously does have the experience in dealing with foreign nations. I saw this picture of her in deep discussions with the people of Belfast in 1995:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00658/news-graphics-2008-_658481a.jpg

It's quite obvious to me that she did indeed garner the necessary "on the job" training needed to be President by being married to one.



;)




Oh, and here's an article that should be read as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

[FalconX2000]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080516/schorr.gif

Absolutely awesome.

[Charles RB]

You're quoting one of Hillary's own web sites as a fact check?

...it's one of Hillary's? Seriously?

Ouch.


Suffice it to say, there's a lot of speculation re McCain and Obama's veep choices.

About Clinton's...

Bit damning, that. (Then added to everything else and you get the First of the Fallen standing behind Hillary going "guess where YOU'RE going!".)

By the way, I'd like to point out that if I were into guys, I would have a huge crush on Charles RB right now.

Every girl's crazy about a sharp dressed man.

[Buzz Dixon]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmate/2008/tmate080527.gif

[KevinTBrown]

Appropriate picture there, Buzz, especially after reading this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Splitting_the_baby.html#comments

[LtMarvel]

So we have people who were there who disputed her involvement and those who were there who praised her involvement.

Since it's not cut and dried, I stand by the bum rap pronouncement.

[Paul McEnery]

Appropriate picture there, Buzz, especially after reading this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Splitting_the_baby.html#comments

I particularly liked this comment:

GOING ALL THE WAY TO CONVENTION.GO HILLARY.WE WILL NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA.DNC ARE YOU LISTENING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?.OBAMA WILL NOT BEAT MCCAIN.

[KevinTBrown]

And, yes, Hillary is definitely a real winner here, folks:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_writes_supers_I_can_win.html#comments

:rolleyes:

[Buzz Dixon]

And, yes, Hillary is definitely a real winner here, folks:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_writes_supers_I_can_win.html#comments

:rolleyes:I think I've posted this before, if not on this thread then elsewhere, but what the hey...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

And what about the Obama mash-ups?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3dNFtQOjkk

[Crowley]

McCain has a BIG problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LWU3V5JTLM

[KevinTBrown]

McCain has a BIG problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LWU3V5JTLM

Nope, not distracting enough....

Gee, I hate his ties. What does he have against red ties? He should wear more red ties.


There.

That'll help.


:tongue:

[TCJohnson]

I am so frickin' close to voting for McCain.

The Obama campaign has called me up for the past two weeks, at least 15 times a day, on my work cell phone asking me for money. I keep asking them to stop calling me, I keep telling them they are not getting any of my money, especially now! But they won't stop calling me.

This is pissing me off.

[KevinTBrown]

I am so frickin' close to voting for McCain.

The Obama campaign has called me up for the past two weeks, at least 15 times a day, on my work cell phone asking me for money. I keep asking them to stop calling me, I keep telling them they are not getting any of my money, especially now! But they won't stop calling me.

This is pissing me off.
Just tell them the next time they call, they can talk with your lawyer or remove you from their list. And then give them the number to your lawyer.....

I had a similar problem with Kerry's campaign last election

[Sabrinaset]

Okay, let's put this minor story to bed once and for all ... from the fascist Reuters newswire: Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true) ... okay, this ought to be enough for everyone except someone like Kingdom2000 who think pointing out an honest mistake is a smear campaign, or who willingly delude themselves into thinking what they do even when the facts (and campaign spokesmen) say otherwise. What's the word for people like them? Oh yeah ... sheep.

And now, on to OTHER election news ...

Hillary visits Mt. Rushmore. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90UORH03&show_article=1)

http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/5/28/D90UORH03/D90UORH03.jpg

Uhm ...

Hillary says she's leading! (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/28/politics/fromtheroad/entry4130842.shtml)

During an evening rally in Montana’s largest city Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton explained to the crowd why she should be the Democratic Party’s nominee, but what ensued was a list of overstatements and exaggerations as she made her case. “You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,” she said.

McCain says he has more money than Obama (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-camp-claims-it-has-money-lead-2008-05-27.html)

Kerry for Secretary of State? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_secretary_of_state)

[Paul McEnery]

Okay, let's put this minor story to bed once and for all ... from the fascist Reuters newswire: Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true) ... okay, this ought to be enough for everyone except someone like Kingdom2000 who think pointing out an honest mistake is a smear campaign, or who willingly delude themselves into thinking what they do even when the facts (and campaign spokesmen) say otherwise. What's the word for people like them? Oh yeah ... sheep.


No it isn't.

This was a bullshit story cooked up as a smear campaign.

Apparently, you don't give a toss about the fact that it was an off-the-cuff and off-the-record remark not intended for public consumption; and you don't get the fact that the smear was not even against the important part of the off-the-cuff and off-the-record remark not intended for public consumption; and you don't get that the forced correction is irrelevant to absolutely everything.

This is completely slimy, and it's beneath you to play dumb about it.

Oh, and the extra part of the playing dumb here, which pisses me off even more:

1) Reuters stopped being an unbiased news service decades ago. They still trade on their old record, but they don't live up to it.
2) As is demonstrated by the childishly slimy headline, which you are playing dumb enough to repeat:

Wrong.

Not inaccurate. Not mistaken. Not a slip of the tongue. Wrong.

Do you see the difference? Wrong has moral connotations. If you don't read the story, it sounds like he's taking the blame for it, that he did a bad thing.

When the real story is: yeah, I said Auschwitz when I should have said Buchenwald.

The far-right press is utterly fucking disgusting for making anything of a minor slip of the tongue.

In an off-the-cuff, off-the-record remark that wasn't for public consumption.

And you're bloody thoughtless for continuing to do so.

[Sabrinaset]

No it isn't.

This was a bullshit story cooked up as a smear campaign.

No, it's Obama making a mistake and him owning up to it. Okay, it's also about the people who see conspiracies everywhere. You know, you've talked about people who support Bush despite the facts being tossed out about him. It looks like W isn't the ONLY politician with these kinds of followers.

He made a freaking mistake over something that's pretty minor, and admitted it. Because he did, everyone is pretty much moving on to whatever the next issue might be. If he hadn't, this *possibly* could have become an issue with legs , but because he said "Yeah, I screwed up," it's over now. Get over it as well, Paul. Geez, I've admitted as much that it WAS a mistake several freaking times, and you just can't let it go.

So Reuters is next on the "Can't use as a source" list. Hey ... what about CBS, Paul? I listed THEM as a source a few pages back, too. What about Obama's OWN CAMPAIGN MANAGER??? No, wait ... he's a fascist bigot too? When does it end here?

What's next ... a list of approved sites to read from?

I think I'll skip the line about "If you don't read the story," because that one is just too easy.

[Charles RB]

So we have people who were there who disputed her involvement and those who were there who praised her involvement.


We'll ignore that whole "barely, if ever, gets a mention in the UK whenever the Northern Ireland peace process comes up, as it repeatedly has and still does" thing then, I guess.

[Samurai]

No, it's Obama making a mistake and him owning up to it. Okay, it's also about the people who see conspiracies everywhere. You know, you've talked about people who support Bush despite the facts being tossed out about him. It looks like W isn't the ONLY politician with these kinds of followers.

He made a freaking mistake over something that's pretty minor, and admitted it. Because he did, everyone is pretty much moving on to whatever the next issue might be. If he hadn't, this *possibly* could have become an issue with legs , but because he said "Yeah, I screwed up," it's over now. Get over it as well, Paul. Geez, I've admitted as much that it WAS a mistake several freaking times, and you just can't let it go.

So Reuters is next on the "Can't use as a source" list. Hey ... what about CBS, Paul? I listed THEM as a source a few pages back, too. What about Obama's OWN CAMPAIGN MANAGER??? No, wait ... he's a fascist bigot too? When does it end here?

What's next ... a list of approved sites to read from?

Here is your list of Paul's Approved Sites to Link To:

http://www.socialistaction.org/
http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://socialistworker.org/
http://www.wsws.org/
http://socialistparty-usa.org/socialist/

You'll notice none of THEM mentioned this story, and thus, this story is unfit for human consumption!

[KevinTBrown]

Here is your list of Paul's Approved Sites to Link To:

http://www.socialistaction.org/
http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://socialistworker.org/
http://www.wsws.org/
http://socialistparty-usa.org/socialist/

You'll notice none of THEM mentioned this story, and thus, this story is unfit for human consumption!

Pot. Kettle. Black.





I'll let Paul deal with the crap you spew.

[Crowley]

oooh I can't wait to see the acrobatics Sam and Bri do to try and explain this, let alone Rush, O'Reilly etc.:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/mcclellan-media.html
McClellan: Media During Run-Up to Iraq Were "Complicit Enablers"

May 28, 2008 11:12 AM

Some excerpts from Scott McClellan's new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception that may not get the same wall-to-wall coverage as his comments about his former colleagues at the Bush White House?

His scathing criticism of the media, particularly during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Writes McClellan:

"In the fall of 2002, Bush and his White house were engaging in a carefully-orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage. We'd done much the same on other issues--tax cuts and education--to great success. But war with Iraq was different. Beyond the irreversible human costs and substantial financial price, the decision to go to war and the way we went about selling it would ultimately lead to increased polarization and intensified partisan warfare. Our lack of candor and honesty in making the case for war would later provoke a partisan response from our opponents that, in its own way, further distorted and obscured a more nuanced reality. Another cycle of deception would cloud the public's ability to see larger, underlying important truths that are critical to understand in order to avoid the same problems in the future.

"And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it… the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth--about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict--would get largely left behind…"

McClellan writes that while he thinks most reporters are personally liberal, the "vast majority--including those in the White House press corps--are honest, fair-minded and professional" when it comes to letting their political biases impact their coverage.

"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should have never come as such a surprise. The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so because their focus was elsewhere--on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war.

"In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Towards the end of the book, McClellan suggests that network news is stuck in the past and needs to change.

"The network that can find a way to shift from excessively covering controversy, the conventional horse race and image-driven coverage to give a greater emphasis to who is right and who is wrong, who is telling the truth and who is not, and the larger truths about our society and our world might achieve some amazing results in our fast-changing media environment."

So the former White House Press Secretary says "the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

I LOVE IT.

[section 8]

Here is your list of Paul's Approved Sites to Link To:

http://www.socialistaction.org/
http://www.sp-usa.org/
http://socialistworker.org/
http://www.wsws.org/
http://socialistparty-usa.org/socialist/

You'll notice none of THEM mentioned this story, and thus, this story is unfit for human consumption!

i'm going to break my silence once more,
i've been following the Clinton/Obama pissing contest since jumpstreet, and i've yet to see one story that WAS fit for human consuption.
( but that's just me i could be wrong)

[KevinTBrown]

oooh I can't wait to see the acrobatics Sam and Bri do to try and explain this, let alone Rush, O'Reilly etc.:



So the former White House Press Secretary says "the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

I LOVE IT.

"Liberal media" is a misnomer, IMO. They tend to go with however the people want it to go.... This time, however, they're not switching, they're staying dead on with the conservatives and now they're getting hammered for it.

The sad thing is, that people care more about sound bites than real news. Hence the reason "distraction" works. That's exactly why the "swiftboaters" got away with what they did, no one did any actual reporting or investigating. This year, to a point, the same shit is happening. Hell, if it wasn't for YouTube, God knows what we wouldn't know about.... (i.e. Hillary's sniper fire story)

[Paul McEnery]

No, it's Obama making a mistake and him owning up to it. Okay, it's also about the people who see conspiracies everywhere. You know, you've talked about people who support Bush despite the facts being tossed out about him. It looks like W isn't the ONLY politician with these kinds of followers.

He made a freaking mistake over something that's pretty minor, and admitted it. Because he did, everyone is pretty much moving on to whatever the next issue might be. If he hadn't, this *possibly* could have become an issue with legs , but because he said "Yeah, I screwed up," it's over now. Get over it as well, Paul. Geez, I've admitted as much that it WAS a mistake several freaking times, and you just can't let it go.

So Reuters is next on the "Can't use as a source" list. Hey ... what about CBS, Paul? I listed THEM as a source a few pages back, too. What about Obama's OWN CAMPAIGN MANAGER??? No, wait ... he's a fascist bigot too? When does it end here?

What's next ... a list of approved sites to read from?

I think I'll skip the line about "If you don't read the story," because that one is just too easy.

No, let's go back to that line and look at it seriously. The point is, the headline spins this as a smear. And many people never read past the headline. Which they're likely to just read as a link on the side of the page, or as something posted on a bulletin board like this. All of which goes to building an impression.

And yes, bias in news media matters,

As for the rest of it:

Yup, still playing dumb.

You're still acting like the right wing press weren't trying to make something of this when there was nothing there at all. The man simply misspoke during remarks that weren't prepared for publication over a non-substantive matter of fact. It didn't bear reporting about at all, let alone the baying of the hounds.

That other people have since reported on the reporting, or have been forced to respond to the reporting doesn't say anything about the original shit-stirring over what was always a non-story.

[Paul McEnery]

Pot. Kettle. Black.





I'll let Paul deal with the crap you spew.

I'm not touching that one with a bargepole. This is very much a battle between people for whom truth matters and people for whom nothing but partisanship matters. And the partisans will always assume that anyone who is not for them is against them, because they can't think outside of partisanship.

[FalconX2000]

Wait a minute, why is the media being called liberal? All the big TV networks besides MSNBC have been gradually drifting to the right for years. For each Huffington Post there is a National Review Online and Washington Post. Radio has been making a comeback recently with Cenk and Rachel Maddow, but the far right still is hanging onto the highest ratings for politics as far as I know. Has there been some tectonic shifts in newspapers that I'm unaware of?

[Charles RB]

Hell, if it wasn't for YouTube, God knows what we wouldn't know about.... (i.e. Hillary's sniper fire story)

But that expose was aired on a TV news story first (and someone put a copy on YouTube), wasn't it?

[Buzz Dixon]

More YouTube fun:

The Truth About Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dljboY5t2Dw

Young Hillary Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1LLTYkn4I

[PatrickG]

But that expose was aired on a TV news story first (and someone put a copy on YouTube), wasn't it?

The expose came in response to online comments made.

[kingdom2000]

Okay, let's put this minor story to bed once and for all ... from the fascist Reuters newswire: Obama admits reference to Auschwitz was wrong. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true) ... okay, this ought to be enough for everyone except someone like Kingdom2000 who think pointing out an honest mistake is a smear campaign, or who willingly delude themselves into thinking what they do even when the facts (and campaign spokesmen) say otherwise. What's the word for people like them? Oh yeah ... sheep.

Actually the difference is I ignore such mistakes as not relevant issues and thus not worth discussion. The fact you can't even ignore mistakes like that is just proof of your sheep status. If you where as focused on what was important as you pretend to to, debating such gaffes that have no impact on future policy wouldn't be worth the effort that you currently put in. I notice though that you pounce on every single one like a cat to string. McCain's on the other hand don't seem worth your attention. Guess I am saying apply the same filter to the Dems nomineees as do to McCain's and then maybe I will see about your sheep status.

[KevinTBrown]

More YouTube fun:

The Truth About Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dljboY5t2Dw

Young Hillary Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1LLTYkn4I

The Hillary video is marked as a "private video".

[Buzz Dixon]

The Hillary video is marked as a "private video".Y'know, I could be a jerk and not supply a link, causing any number of people think there was some NSFW footage on her, but...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/young-hillary-c.html

...see if that link works.

[KevinTBrown]

Y'know, I could be a jerk and not supply a link, causing any number of people think there was some NSFW footage on her, but...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/young-hillary-c.html

...see if that link works.
Annnd..... nope. :wink:

Saying the video is no longer available.



Hmmmm, what is she hiding now??? :eek:











:tongue:

[Sabrinaset]

Actually the difference is blah blah blah baa baa baaa.

Nice try, but you're still a tool. I'll try to use small words so you can understand.

If it was a smear, it didn't work on me... and if it didn't work on a blonde, it didn't fool anyone. I said it was a minor gaffe, and it was. As his own manager said. I know you never read my posts to actually see what it is I believe, so quoting myself would be useless, as it would destroy your simple us vs. them worldview. Heck, the fact that I've said more than once that it was a small news blip, there's not much TO debate, and Obama handled it very well ... well, nuff said.

Since you're pretty much a liar who insists I believe one thing when I say I believe something else, your opinion as to what I am really doesn't matter. Still not sure how me saying I still will vote Obama at this point and that he handled this very well, better than Hill did her problems, proves a smear campaign works when you point me out as an example. Feel free to explain that.

Oh ... there's not much TO say about McCain at this point. He's laying low ... all the news is about Obama vs. Hill. I would have thought that obvious ... so I guess I better point that out to you.

Wait a second ... you're Briarreos!

[Crowley]

Nice try, but you're still a tool. I'll try to use small words so you can understand.

If it was a smear, it didn't work on me... and if it didn't work on a blonde, it didn't fool anyone. I said it was a minor gaffe, and it was. As his own manager said. I know you never read my posts to actually see what it is I believe, so quoting myself would be useless, as it would destroy your simple us vs. them worldview. Heck, the fact that I've said more than once that it was a small news blip, there's not much TO debate, and Obama handled it very well ... well, nuff said.

Since you're pretty much a liar who insists I believe one thing when I say I believe something else, your opinion as to what I am really doesn't matter. Still not sure how me saying I still will vote Obama at this point and that he handled this very well, better than Hill did her problems, proves a smear campaign works when you poimt me out as an example. Feel free to explain that.

Oh ... there's not much TO say about McCain at this point. He's laying low ... all the news is about Obama vs. Hill. I would have thought that obvious ... so I guess I better point that out to you.

Wait a second ... you're Briarreos!
Phill Gramm, "I don't understand the economy," Bomb Iran?

[Sabrinaset]

Phill Gramm, "I don't understand the economy," Bomb Iran?

He screwed up on the last two, the Gramm one I musta missed since I don't remember it. I'll look it up later. The Hagee one was a juicier screw-up though.

And now for some new news ...

Hill supporters plan protest! (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080529/D90VI9GG0.html)

The Democratic presidential race is heading into a fractious end game as supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton mobilize for a protest Saturday to demand that the party count two outlawed primaries that favored her.

Protesters planned to rally outside the Washington hotel where the party's rules committee will tackle the vexing question of how to punish Michigan and Florida without completely disenfranchising Democratic primary voters from those states.

At least several busloads of Clinton supporters were anticipated from Florida and perhaps scores of people from Michigan as well as demonstrators from various parts of the country. Barack Obama's campaign discouraged a counterprotest, although his supporters vied with Clinton backers for the limited public seats inside the meeting.

Pelosi tries to keep it calm.... (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/28/MNQE10V1UL.DTL&tsp=1)

Uhm ... well, this is a different reason to support Hillary. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/28/2008-05-28_yes_im_hot_for_hillary_clintons_body_wom.html)

Obama thinks he might clinch it next week. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080529193741.dozugrom&show_article=1)

Murdoch predicts big win for Democrats. (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2936112720080529?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

[Nick Soapdish]

He screwed up on the last two, the Gramm one I musta missed since I don't remember it. I'll look it up later. The Hagee one was a juicier screw-up though.



The latest thing with Gramm was just a couple days ago. It shouldn't be too many pages back (unless it's in the Ultra Mega etc. thread).

[Kevinroc]

Scott McClellan speaks out on his thoughts about the election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/scott-mcclellan-on-obama_n_104182.html


MARTHA RADDATZ: What do you think of John McCain?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: Uh, I have a lot of respect and admiration for Senator McCain. Um, I, he's...
MARTHA RADDATZ: Would you like him to be President?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: He's someone that, uh, has governed from the center. Uh, I haven't made a decision, in the presidential election. Uh, I...

MARTHA RADDATZ: It's possible you could vote for a Democrat?
SCOTT McCLELLAN: I, I'm intrigued by Senator Obama's message. Uh, whether or not he can act- actually accomplish it is another thing. As I show in this book, it's a very difficult thing to try to change things in Washington. And you better have a way to do it, and you better constantly focus, focus on it.

MARTHA RADDATZ: So, you haven't made up your mind about a candidate, which means you haven't decided whether you'll vote Democrat or go Republican?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I haven't made any decision.

[kingdom2000]

The way the Bush admin has seriousily geared up the attack machine against McClellan pretty much tells me his book is probably accurate. They haven't thrown out this much firepower against someone in years. I think the last time was for Plame (and remember how that turned out). Now if they had simply mostly ignored the book as irrelvant and not worth discussing I would have had doubts.

Who of the republican machine isn't already out there trying to do everything to discredit the book? Its like watching the presdential campaign (you know the leader takes the friendly stance while the minions do the dirty work). Its time like this I would could infiltrate the Repubs so could be on their war machine memo list just to see how they prepped the troops.

If they planned the war like they plan their media mis-information campaigns we would probably be sitting pretty right now and McCain would be picking out rugs for the oval office. Of course all ths will do is sell more books so McClellan is probably thinking "attack away!".

[KevinTBrown]

And McCain is polling extremely well........ in Russia! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html)

[LtMarvel]

The way the Bush admin has seriousily geared up the attack machine against McClellan pretty much tells me his book is probably accurate. They haven't thrown out this much firepower against someone in years. I think the last time was for Plame (and remember how that turned out). Now if they had simply mostly ignored the book as irrelvant and not worth discussing I would have had doubts.

Who of the republican machine isn't already out there trying to do everything to discredit the book? Its like watching the presdential campaign (you know the leader takes the friendly stance while the minions do the dirty work). Its time like this I would could infiltrate the Repubs so could be on their war machine memo list just to see how they prepped the troops.

If they planned the war like they plan their media mis-information campaigns we would probably be sitting pretty right now and McCain would be picking out rugs for the oval office. Of course all ths will do is sell more books so McClellan is probably thinking "attack away!".
What I haven't seen: Someon pointing at a line in the book and saying this didn't happen.

Remember, someone has to ensure that security isn't compromised, so the administration has had its hands on the book for some time.

Must be a pretty accurate book.

[Briareos]

If the MSM doesn't have a liberal bias then why hasn't Obama picked up the same amount of flack for his numerous gaffe's (57 states ect...) that Dan Quayle picked up for his "potato" mistake?

[Briareos]

The way the Bush admin has seriousily geared up the attack machine against McClellan pretty much tells me his book is probably accurate. They haven't thrown out this much firepower against someone in years. I think the last time was for Plame (and remember how that turned out). Now if they had simply mostly ignored the book as irrelvant and not worth discussing I would have had doubts.

Who of the republican machine isn't already out there trying to do everything to discredit the book? Its like watching the presdential campaign (you know the leader takes the friendly stance while the minions do the dirty work). Its time like this I would could infiltrate the Repubs so could be on their war machine memo list just to see how they prepped the troops.

If they planned the war like they plan their media mis-information campaigns we would probably be sitting pretty right now and McCain would be picking out rugs for the oval office. Of course all ths will do is sell more books so McClellan is probably thinking "attack away!".

So then Juanita Brodrick was telling the truth about Clinton raping her? The Clinton attack machine went after her too and since that is your way to judge if someone is telling the truth then I guess clinton was a rapist...

The only reason people all of a sudden now respect and believe McClellan is that he is saying what they want to believe. If he wrote a book with the same level of facts (IE none it's all hearsay and opinions) that made Bush out to be one of the greatest presidents of all time then you guys would think it was a horrible book...

[KevinTBrown]

I find this amusing:

Obama's camapign as asked its supporters to NOT protest the Rules & Bylaws committee meeting in which they determine what to do with FL & MI. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/No_Obama_protests_at_RBC.html#comments)

Whereas Clinton's supporters are gearing up for a protest. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_protest_2)

Why do the words "poor loser" spring immediately to mind...?

[TCJohnson]

I was reading some of the tricks Obama has used in the past...like using technicalities to have people thrown off the ballet.

[Mr.EZ]

And McCain is polling extremely well........ in Russia! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html)

In Sovier Union, McCain polls you!

:frown:

[kingdom2000]

So then Juanita Brodrick was telling the truth about Clinton raping her? The Clinton attack machine went after her too and since that is your way to judge if someone is telling the truth then I guess clinton was a rapist...

The only reason people all of a sudden now respect and believe McClellan is that he is saying what they want to believe. If he wrote a book with the same level of facts (IE none it's all hearsay and opinions) that made Bush out to be one of the greatest presidents of all time then you guys would think it was a horrible book...

Might be a valid argument. However, you do work right? Its amazing how much accurate "hearsay and opinions" you get when you actually work at the location, directly with the people that make the decisions, even if you where not there at the time.

Besides, from what I am hearing, it simply rings true. The aftermath of many of Bush's decisions pretty much support many of McClellan's assumption. From Iraq, Plame, and Katrina, the cause and the effect suports McClellan's assertions (at least the few I have read about). As a contrast, your book for Bush being the greatest president, considering the evidence of all that has followed would result in your book not ringing true and thus not being taken seriousily.

Now this isn't to say that some of the talking points are not valid (staying silent, etc) but then again Bush had shown multiple times what happens when you express an un-approved opinion. You get fired and your complaints ignored. Bush created the environment of yes-men that resulted in him not hearing the facts and opinions he needed. See how this all comes together into further supporting McClellan? Even the working environment gives that book a ring of truth.

[Paul McEnery]

If the MSM doesn't have a liberal bias then why hasn't Obama picked up the same amount of flack for his numerous gaffe's (57 states ect...) that Dan Quayle picked up for his "potato" mistake?

Do you honestly want this explained to you? And if it was explained to you, would you take it on board?

[the4thpip]

Obama gets a very Hispanic endorsement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuXqy40F4Co
Alejandro Sanz
Paulina Rubio
John Leguizamo
Jessica Alba
Kate del Castillo
Cucu Diamantes (Yerba Buena)
Pedro Martinez (Yerba Buena)
Andres Levin (Yerba Buena)
George Lopez
Luis Guzman
Don Omar
Voltio
Lila Downs
Lin Manuel Miranda
Frankie Needles
Huey Dunbar
Nydia Caro
Ivonne Caro Caro
Brazilian Girls
Carlos Marín and family
Carola Gonzalez
Viva Nativa
Jose Alberti

[the4thpip]

Hillary considers running mate! (http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=michaeldh&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3amichaeldhPost%3a7d878063-ee50-456a-94fd-90e723d4a061&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending)

Wait... was he even born in the US??

[Buzz Dixon]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/29/article-0-0169A46600000578-75_468x390.jpg
Hillary relaxes as the campaign finally winds down.

[Briareos]

Do you honestly want this explained to you? And if it was explained to you, would you take it on board?

Sure whatcha got?

[Paul McEnery]

Sure whatcha got?

Okay, so first things first.

Technically, gaffe just means mistake. But we usually mean it to be an embarrassing mistake, and embarrassing for a reason.

If you're in academic (or, I suppose, just geek) circles, that could be a matter of getting a detail wrong like loudly insisting that Oxygen has the atomic weight of 23 to make some numerical point.

Now there's a hostage to fortune. For all I know, it does! Wouldn't I have egg on my face? Well, no, I wouldn't. I'm not a chemist, and who cares if I know it. So long as I'm not being a dick about it.

Or there's the other meaning, when you give something away by accident, like a Freudian slip. "I was saying to my friend Mr. Puta the other... what? Yes, Mister Puta, you know, the whoreson president... what? Yes, Mister Puta, the whoreson... Mister Putin, the Russian presi.... oh crap"

The word has now become overused to mean something you've said that certain people think is out of place. For instance, the Labour minister Mo Mowlam once said she thought the royals ought to go. People seized on this as a gaffe, but it's nothing of the kind, of course. It's just a statement of opinion that some people take issue with.

It's also become overused when people make simple slips of the tongue that don't matter at all. Do that, and the word loses all meaning.

So, looking at the concrete examples:

When Quayle did the potato thing, he was actually correcting a schoolchild on his spelling, and got it wrong. That's pretty massively embarrassing. But what truly makes it a gaffe is that people had been speculating that Quayle was stupid. This public -- and arrogant -- insistence on an incredibly stupid error was seen as giving away the fact that, yes, Quayle is a moron. That's very much a gaffe.

The 57 States. That's an easy slip of the tongue. You're thinking about the 50 states, you're thinking you've been to 47 of them, you're talking about being short of the 50, so you jumble it up a bit, and come out with 57 states. Anyone could do it, we've all done something similar. And nobody imagines Obama seriously thinks there are 57 states -- really, not even Dan Quayle could think that -- so not at all embarrassing, so not a gaffe then. Unless...

Here's where it gets interesting. You'd think that would be the end of it, though you'd expect the right wing press to make a big noise about it, because they're knuckleheads with no sense of what's appropriate. What you don't expect is for them to make the leap to the 57 states of the Organization of Islamic States (or whatever it's called).

First four pages of Google on "57 States", and that's what you get. Because clearly what was on Obama's mind was the worldwide Islamic conspiracy that he secretly works for. And that's what Limbaugh has been screaming about on his show.

So that's what it means to say 57 States was a gaffe. It's a back door way of implying that Obama's a secret member of the Islamic conspiracy; or, at the very least, a way of participating in the laughter of the knuckleheads as they imply that Obama's a secret member of the Islamic conspiracy.

And that's pretty much a matter of lying and smearing, which we disapprove of.

Whereas inferring that Quayle is a knucklehead is entirely legitimate, because he is, at the very least on the showing of the potato incident.

So, do you see the difference now?

[ShaunN]

The interesting thing about Scott McClellan's book is not what it says but, rather, that it confirms what a lot of people have already argued and asserted based on their own readings of the evidence. McClellan is unique in that he is particularly well-placed to, basically, say to those many critics of Bush - "yes, you were right - this really is a man who used propaganda and misinformation to start an unnecessary war, who is disconnected from reality and seriously self-deluding, and who is powerfully influenced, if not controlled, by far more dangerous and cynical political operatives". McClellan had a bird's eye view on all of this and he is now coming out and saying that, yes, the critics had it right.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Paul McEnery]

The interesting thing about Scott McClellan's book is not what it says but, rather, that it confirms what a lot of people have already argued and asserted based on their own readings of the evidence. McClellan is unique in that he is particularly well-placed to, basically, say to those many critics of Bush - "yes, you were right - this really is a man who used propaganda and misinformation to start an unnecessary war, who is disconnected from reality and seriously self-deluding, and who is powerfully influenced, if not controlled, by far more dangerous and cynical political operatives". McClellan had a bird's eye view on all of this and he is now coming out and saying that, yes, the critics had it right.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Which leads me, once again, to say this: that this is viewed as a defection and a betrayal tells us everything we need to know about these partisans, who are more loyal to their boss, to their party, to their own greed and advancement, than they are to their country, their fellow citizens, and the truth.

[LtMarvel]

If the MSM doesn't have a liberal bias then why hasn't Obama picked up the same amount of flack for his numerous gaffe's (57 states ect...) that Dan Quayle picked up for his "potato" mistake?
Do you remember when on the campaign trail the Sr. Bush referred to a day as Pear Harbor Day?

That was about equivalent to the 57 states.

(And if an elementary school kid outsmarts any candidate, the MSM will be all over it!)

[Sabrinaset]

Here's where it gets interesting. You'd think that would be the end of it, though you'd expect the right wing press to make a big noise about it, because they're knuckleheads with no sense of what's appropriate. What you don't expect is for them to make the leap to the 57 states of the Organization of Islamic States (or whatever it's called).

First four pages of Google on "57 States", and that's what you get. Because clearly what was on Obama's mind was the worldwide Islamic conspiracy that he secretly works for. And that's what Limbaugh has been screaming about on his show.

So that's what it means to say 57 States was a gaffe. It's a back door way of implying that Obama's a secret member of the Islamic conspiracy; or, at the very least, a way of participating in the laughter of the knuckleheads as they imply that Obama's a secret member of the Islamic conspiracy.

That's really interesting ... I Googled "Obama 57 states" and didn't get four pages of Obama being a member of the Islamic conspiracy ... most of them just posted the YouTube video. A few of them mentioned the Islamic thing, but the first four pages is a huge exageration there. I noticed a few people selling a lapel pin with 57 stars on it though in his honor. Man, I love capitalism!

Maybe it's more like mentioning his 57 state bonehead mistake is just pointing out that he made a bonehead mistake about how many states there are, because it really looks like you're stretching here. I mean ... is there an instance where he makes a mistake and pointing it out ISN'T an act of racism/fascism or somesuch? You know, sometimes a cigar really IS just a cigar, and not some kind of conspiracy. What's next, pointing out that he said there were ten thousand dead because of a tornado in Kansas is also really saying in code that he's a member of the trilateralists?

And please don't give me the tired old line about how having an opinion that differs from yours means I've bought into some secret right wing conspiracy reaching back to the Illuminati or something, because as of this moment, I'm still voting for Obama inthe general election.

Oh, and some more news ...

How Obama used the rules to outsmart Hillary. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91018RO0&show_article=1)

If McCain wins, Sarandon is moving to Europe. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/gossip/liz/pollack_was_loved_112946.htm) Will she stamp her feet and have a temper tantrum too?

[KevinTBrown]

Bree, major correction: Paul did NOT say to Google "Obama 57 states", just to Google "57 States". By Googling "57 States", the sixth option to click on is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference).

HOWEVER, that was the only reference to Islamic States in the first 4 pages....

[Paul McEnery]

Bree, major correction: Paul did NOT say to Google "Obama 57 states", just to Google "57 States". By Googling "57 States", the sixth option to click on is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference).

HOWEVER, that was the only reference to Islamic States in the first 4 pages....

Actually, I did. Or at least I meant to.

And here's what we get on page 1 (after youtube and the latimes blog):

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/09/obama-wants-to-be-president-of-57-states/
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/05/obamas_57_state.htm
newsbusters.org/.../2008/05/11/old-media-ignores-obamas-57-states-couldnt-get-enough-quayles-potatoe - 94k -
scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/obamas-57-states-a-muslim-freudian-slip/
www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020490.php - 21k
weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/05/video_obama_57_states.html
hotair.com/archives/2008/05/09/obama-i-want-to-be-president-of-all-57-states/

All nutball right wing blogs, many of them directly addressing the muslim thing. And so on for pages.

[Paul McEnery]

Maybe it's more like mentioning his 57 state bonehead mistake is just pointing out that he made a bonehead mistake about how many states there are, because it really looks like you're stretching here. I mean ... is there an instance where he makes a mistake and pointing it out ISN'T an act of racism/fascism or somesuch? You know, sometimes a cigar really IS just a cigar, and not some kind of conspiracy. What's next, pointing out that he said there were ten thousand dead because of a tornado in Kansas is also really saying in code that he's a member of the trilateralists?


And see, that's just dishonest of you.

In the first place, it's not a bonehead mistake. You can't possibly assert that in good faith unless you believe that at the time he said it, he believed there were 57 states. Since you obviously don't believe that -- because that would make you very stupid indeed -- you're using the words "bonehead mistake" in bad faith.

In the second place, it's now been pointed out to you that the slip of the tongue has indeed been used, and used repeatedly, and is still being used as a slur to the effect that he's a muslim conspiracist. Pretending this isn't the case is in complete bad faith.

So basically, you're saying something that isn't true in order to whitewash the fact that far right commentators have been once again slurring the man.

Apparently, this doesn't bother you.

[Buzz Dixon]

re McClellan: Press secretaries are the next to last people to know something, and what they know is what has been told to them by their bosses.

I honestly don't know what to make of this. From a purely objective POV, I can see reasons to want to establish an alibi early in case history judges others harshly in coming years. I can also see a guy wanting to make a fast buck before Bush's administration and Rove era GOP politicos are swept onto the dust bin of history.

It's also possible that he finally got tired of lying to himself and felt he had to do something to set the record straight. If he's BSing the readers, he can and will be demolished by the facts in just a few days exposure to the blogosphere.

[Sabrinaset]

No, I'm saying two things: One) Obama made a mistake, and Two) Pointing out he made a mistake does not necessarily mean the person pointing out the mistake is also accusing him of being a Muslim, or is an extremist, or whatever. It means you're pointing out he made a mistake.

It's like arguing that anyone who compares McCain making mistakes and calling them senior moments is guilty of age bigotry and hatred, so we should discount all their comments as mere hatred from the moonbat lunatic left, and should be dismissed. It's kinda disingenuous.

[Nick Soapdish]

Honestly, it's pretty easy for me to figure out how much to make of McClellan and that's virtually nothing.

He's not saying anything that about half of the US has already known and previous members of the administration have already known. I don't buy that he had problems with lying about it at the time and I think that he's doing it to basically make a buck and because he saw the wind change a couple years ago and realized that it was safe to criticize the administration.

I don't have any particular reason to think that he's being honest except that a lot of his claims are backed up by what we've already heard and the people that are claiming that he's being dishonest have just as little credibility. But I don't think that it strengthens the case against the administration any more than marginally.


So what do people think about McCain's brief "release" of his medical records?

1200 pages in 5 years?! Is he a hypochondriac?

[Sabrinaset]

So what do people think about McCain's brief "release" of his medical records?

1200 pages in 5 years?! Is he a hypochondriac?

The Ruling Class has a pretty sweet health care plan, I'm not surprised they take it for all it's worth!

[kingdom2000]

No, I'm saying two things: One) Obama made a mistake, and Two) Pointing out he made a mistake does not necessarily mean the person pointing out the mistake is also accusing him of being a Muslim, or is an extremist, or whatever. It means you're pointing out he made a mistake.

It's like arguing that anyone who compares McCain making mistakes and calling them senior moments is guilty of age bigotry and hatred, so we should discount all their comments as mere hatred from the moonbat lunatic left, and should be dismissed. It's kinda disingenuous.

OMG, a person made a mistake. Remove him from the Senate!!! A real US President is perfection personified.

Speaking of McCains senior moments, you seem to have no problem ignoring them and almost never comment on them. Why the difference in approach on the two considering your claimed neutral status on the two parties? Its the inconsititancies of the patterns that we find interesting. Besides, your kind of an analog for the presses behavior. Like them, you would rather focus on irrelvancies rather then issues and other complex problems that the next President will face.

Now if its a gaffe that could potentially lead to policy, that is a different animal entirely. McCains mistake of 100 year war is an example of that. I doubt he means literally 100 years but he has pretty muched confirmed he is in it for however long he thinks a "win" will take. Thats an impact on policy. His mistakes on who is causing problems in Iraq...that is important because it could play into policy. Talking about 57 states isn't going to play into policy. Talking about sniper fire isn't going to effect policy. So for me anyway the candidates can make all the verbal mistakes they want and i will happily ignore them until they start to appear to be something that could lead to policy.

Of couse considering who became President it could be argued that maybe the gaffes should be the focus, you know jsut to avoid another Bush. Heh, if most of us where not ignoring his gaffes we would have to have a seperate thread just for long long long list of them.

[Sabrinaset]

Speaking of McCains senior moments, you seem to have no problem ignoring them and almost never comment on them. Why the difference in approach on the two considering your claimed neutral status on the two parties?

Correcting Kingdom2000 is almost like having a second full-time job. Oh, look what I posted just yesterday...

He (McCain) screwed up on the last two, the Gramm one I musta missed since I don't remember it. I'll look it up later. The Hagee one was a juicier screw-up though.

Try reading, Kingdom2000. Really ... it works.

Here's another one ... I have a claimed neutral status on the two parties? How many times do I have to repeat this one ... I quit the Republicans. I'm still a Conservative. I'm a registered Independent. There's no claim there, it's a fact. I'm currently voting for Obama. Does that define me as neutral? I guess to Kingdom, it does ... how I miss when reading comprehension was taught in school. Oh and I think the Republicans spend as much as the Democrats. Just in case you go back to that again ... I know to you, lying is like a warm, comfy blanket you love to snuggle in. I just thought I'd take that away before you slide into THAT one again. Again, the big question with you is why you do it. Right now, I have to conclude that your motivation to say what you do is that you believe if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Heh, if most of us where not ignoring his gaffes we would have to have a seperate thread just for long long long list of them.

We have the Mega Politics 3000 thread for politics to be contained in so it doesn't spill out elsewhere. Welcome to YABS. If you wish to discuss politics further, might I suggest Comm? Here ... for your enjoyment ... (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=3310018) Or this, if you must stay in YABS (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=3310009). It's called a search function, Kingdom. It works. Really.

Oh, and one more time ...

Sab shows that the smear jobs work to.

I said the way Obama handled it impressed me. I said he made a mistake and owned up to it. I said he handled it better than Hillary. I said I was still voting for him. The posts are there.

Again. Explain how I showed the smear job worked, or just go away and let the grown-ups talk.

[Briareos]

OMG, a person made a mistake. Remove him from the Senate!!! A real US President is perfection personified.

Speaking of McCains senior moments, you seem to have no problem ignoring them and almost never comment on them. Why the difference in approach on the two considering your claimed neutral status on the two parties? Its the inconsititancies of the patterns that we find interesting. Besides, your kind of an analog for the presses behavior. Like them, you would rather focus on irrelvancies rather then issues and other complex problems that the next President will face.

Now if its a gaffe that could potentially lead to policy, that is a different animal entirely. McCains mistake of 100 year war is an example of that. I doubt he means literally 100 years but he has pretty muched confirmed he is in it for however long he thinks a "win" will take. Thats an impact on policy. His mistakes on who is causing problems in Iraq...that is important because it could play into policy. Talking about 57 states isn't going to play into policy. Talking about sniper fire isn't going to effect policy. So for me anyway the candidates can make all the verbal mistakes they want and i will happily ignore them until they start to appear to be something that could lead to policy.

Of couse considering who became President it could be argued that maybe the gaffes should be the focus, you know jsut to avoid another Bush. Heh, if most of us where not ignoring his gaffes we would have to have a seperate thread just for long long long list of them.

The point I was making was back when the "pototo" mistake happened that is exactly what the liberal media was trying to imply.

[Nick Soapdish]

The point I was making was back when the "pototo" mistake happened that is exactly what the liberal media was trying to imply.

Paul just explained the difference between those situations.

Being stupid enough to go out of your way to show that you don't know how to spell potato is the sort of thing that suggests that policy mistakes could also happen. I know that I'm a bit of an elitist, but I think that showing that you're smarter than a grade-schooler isn't too much to ask.

[Paul McEnery]

No, I'm saying two things: One) Obama made a mistake,

Yeah, you see, that's where you're not telling the truth. "made a mistake" is not the same thing as "made a slip of the tongue".


and Two) Pointing out he made a mistake does not necessarily mean the person pointing out the mistake is also accusing him of being a Muslim,

Oh look, more willful ignorance! That's what's been put into play by the far right. So yes it does. You play along with one, you play along with the other.

Especially since it's only the far right that's trying to make hay with it.


or is an extremist, or whatever. It means you're pointing out he made a mistake.

Bullshit. It's a meaningless slip of the tongue that has now been turned to the purpose of a smear.

Pretend otherwise, and you're just lying to yourself.

It's like arguing that anyone who compares McCain making mistakes and calling them senior moments is guilty of age bigotry and hatred, so we should discount all their comments as mere hatred from the moonbat lunatic left, and should be dismissed. It's kinda disingenuous.
And more bullshit.

In fact, that shit stinks so much to high heaven, it could only be partisan bullshit.

McCain's errors are genuine gaffes. Like not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi-ite when mouthing off about foreign policy, and that's supposed to be his strong suit! Which one do you prefer -- senior moment, stupidity, or dangerous ignorance? Because it's one of those.

There serious doubt in my mind whether the man is fit for the highest office in the country. And that's a genuine concern.

No doubt you'll next be saying that genuine concerns about his mental fitness bearing in mind his anger issues is bigotry against the mentally ill. Let's get that bullshit out of the way too, shall we?

Not that either comparison holds water. One is an empty smear, the other two are genuine concerns.

[Paul McEnery]

The point I was making was back when the "pototo" mistake happened that is exactly what the liberal media was trying to imply.

Anyone else enjoying the irony here?

Sorry Bri.

Also, it's not what the so-called liberal media were trying to imply (media takes the plural, btw), it's what Quayle actually demonstrated as truth, and made a fool of himself by doing it.

I see you still haven't grasped what I said about gaffes. Gaffes are genuine embarrassments that show an unfortunate truth about a person.

McCain's unfortunate gaffe -- and the really unfortunate thing about it is that Lieberman had to correct him on it twice, and he's no spring chicken himself -- showed that he doesn't actually understand enough about the Middle East to improve the situation there. Hell, he'd certainly make matters worse.

I don't know about you, but I think that's quite important.

[Tages]

The point I was making was back when the "pototo" mistake happened that is exactly what the liberal media was trying to imply.

"Media" is plural. "Medium" is singular.

EDIT: Damn you, Paul.

[Paul McEnery]

"Media" is plural. "Medium" is singular.

EDIT: Damn you, Paul.

It seems petty to nitpick this one on grammar, doesn't it? And yet so necessary.

Really, sorry again Bri.

I hope to spell something badly soon so you can pick me up on it.

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah, you see, that's where you're not telling the truth. "made a mistake" is not the same thing as "made a slip of the tongue".

So his campaign manager is what? Lying?

Geez Paul ... It was a mistake. His campaign said it was a mistake, this is what he meant to say. That was it. Minor bump in the road, let's move on. Obama did the correct thing, and did it with class, unlike Hillary. The thing I'm wondering about is why you feel the need to keep going on and on about why a mistake ISN'T a mistake.

Oh look, more willful ignorance! That's what's been put into play by the far right. So yes it does. You play along with one, you play along with the other ... Bullshit. It's a meaningless slip of the tongue that has now been turned to the purpose of a smear.


So I'm the entire far right now? Paul, I think everyone but you and Kingdom have moved ON from this. For the last time, reporting Obama made a mistake is just that. No more, no less. Are there going to be some nut jobs out there who take it way too far? Sure. But you think EVERYONE on the right is that nutty. Partisan BS indeed. It's a minor mistake that was acknowledged as such. I've said it was minor. Some smear ... especially when I said he came off looking better for it.

McCain's errors are genuine gaffes... There serious doubt in my mind whether the man is fit for the highest office in the country. And that's a genuine concern.

Just to toss one thing out, I'd say his role as part of the Keating Five raises a heckuva lot more questions (to me) than him singing "Bomb Iran" ... that was a gajillion years ago, and I'm not really convinced he's changed since then. What would he do now when faced with the same issues he did then? And that's just for starters ...

And look ... a useless argument. Why are you trying to convince me McCain may not be fit for the job when I have said REPEATEDLY I'm voting for Obama, and the only thing that could possibly change my mind is something happening on the debates, because you never know what surprises might turn up there. Here's a clue, Paul: I didn't decide I was voting for Obama because I like his ears.

Paul ... to quote a website ... Move ON.

[kingdom2000]

So his campaign manager is what? Lying?

Geez Paul ... It was a mistake. His campaign said it was a mistake, this is what he meant to say. That was it. Minor bump in the road, let's move on. Obama did the correct thing, and did it with class, unlike Hillary. The thing I'm wondering about is why you feel the need to keep going on and on about why a mistake ISN'T a mistake.

Gee I think Sab doesn't like me. Cry.

To the above, assuming your talking about the Iraq mistake...he made it three different times over a two week period (if remembering correctly). Once can be dismissed as a mistake, three times means its either intentional to score points or he really confused on the issue. Not sure which is worse. To use the 57 states thing, if Obama had said the same thing 3 times over a small period of time, I think a lot of us would be wondering about his mental facilities.

As far as how Hillary handles mistakes, can't agree with you more on that. Its part of the reason that if could vote again in the primary I would vote for Obama. Her absolute refusal to admit to her mistakes is a tremendous turn-off and has too many shades of Bush for my comfort level. I think that is one of the biggest reasons she started losing this campaign. An ego check is a sign of humility and a williness to learn - a strength in a leader, not a weakness. Clearly she (like Bush) doesn't understand or at least believe that. McBush is also showing that tendenacy but not nearly as bad as her.

[Sabrinaset]

Gee I think Sab doesn't like me. Cry.

It's not that I dislike you, I just think you're being a tool. I agree with your paragraph about Hillary.

Okay, Paul ... I'll try this one more time, then I'm off to fill in for someone while I download TNA theme songs. As near as I can tell, the difference between us is that I think it's possible to report a mistake Obama makes and NOT be a fascist, racist, or (cue evil music) faaaaaar right winger.

And now I really have spent far too much time on something that really was a minor story. I'm done.

[Nick Soapdish]

Just to toss one thing out, I'd say his role as part of the Keating Five raises a heckuva lot more questions (to me) than him singing "Bomb Iran" ... that was a gajillion years ago, and I'm not really convinced he's changed since then. What would he do now when faced with the same issues he did then? And that's just for starters ...


The most recent embarrassment with his campaign to reach the news is sort of along those lines.

He's already admitted that he doesn't know the economy and that Iraq is his strong point.

His economy guy is Phil Gramm. Who was instrumental in rewriting the loosening the banking laws that has led to the subprime mortgage crisis. And who went to work for one of those firms (UBS, a Swiss banking firm) even before leaving the Senate and was still lobbying for them while working on McCain's campaign. He quit lobbying to work solely on McCain's campaign a few months ago. But McCain still has a two more lobbyists (as in still actively getting paid to lobby Congress) for the mortgage industry as advisors for his campaign. Along with the other 40 or so lobbyists on his campaign. (Obama has lobbyists working on his campaign as well, but only lobbyists for state government to my knowledge.)


And look ... a useless argument. Why are you trying to convince me McCain may not be fit for the job when I have said REPEATEDLY I'm voting for Obama, and the only thing that could possibly change my mind is something happening on the debates, because you never know what surprises might turn up there. Here's a clue, Paul: I didn't decide I was voting for Obama because I like his ears.

Paul ... to quote a website ... Move ON.

But his ears are so awesome! I don't understand why you'd need to even look past those.

[CutterMike]

Paul, I haven't always agreed with everything that Bree has said on YABS, but I think you're being willfully obtuse, here.

You seem to be saying that a "slip of the tongue" is not the same as a "mistake", and that anyone who uses the terms interchangeably is a tool of the conservative conspiracy.

Main Entry: mistake
Function: noun
Date: 1600
1 : a wrong judgment : misunderstanding
2 : a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention
synonyms see error

Main Entry: er·ror
Function: noun
Etymology:
Date: 13th century
1 a: an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior b: an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy <made an error in adding up the bill>
(...)
(Emphases mine.)

A "slip of the tongue" is a "mistake", and a "mistake" can be (but isn't necessarily) a "slip of the tongue". A mistake need NOT be willful ignorance (although it CAN be), yet that seems to be the only definition for the word that you are willing to accept.

SHE's saying Obama's accidental misspeaking doesn't matter; YOU'RE saying his accidental misspeaking doesn't matter; and yet you're going ballistic because she's using a word that -- while it has a meaning that is the same as what you're saying -- ISN'T the phrase that you choose, and that somehow proves that she's a dittohead...?

[rick]

The point I was making was back when the "pototo" mistake happened that is exactly what the liberal media was trying to imply.


Even you would have to admit that Vice President Quayle did not exactly make it hard for the media to portray him as, shall we say, a bit bumbling.

Just in quotes alone, Quayle was more fun than most politicians, and since it's been 20 years and I don't get to pull these old chestnuts out too much anymore, how about a few examples to remind us of the his own particular verbosity......




The future will be better tomorrow.

Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.

People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.

Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.

We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.

The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century.

What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.




One thing about Quayle you could always count on was his quotability.

[the4thpip]

I was reading some of the tricks Obama has used in the past...like using technicalities to have people thrown off the ballet.

Why wouldn't he want people to dance? :confused:

[KevinTBrown]

And now for something funny: Young Hillary Clinton (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dc0b0f5ffc)

[Buzz Dixon]

Ah! It's finally turned up where everyone can see it!

[Pink Bat Maxine]

You know, sometimes a cigar really IS just a cigar, and not some kind of conspiracy.

Occasionally, however, it's a dildo.

Oh, Bill. Your 'scandals' were so much fun.

[Buzz Dixon]

re: cigars sometimes being just cigarsOccasionally, however, it's a dildo.

Oh, Bill. Your 'scandals' were so much fun.Hey, they always said they were a "two-fer" presidency.

Which, if they meant it, should preclude Hillary from holding the office since they've already had 2 terms.

Then again, these are the people who parsed the word "is".

Tell me again, why is anyone seriously thinking about letting this woman back in the White House other than as part of a tour group?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

re: cigars sometimes being just cigarsHey, they always said they were a "two-fer" presidency.

Which, if they meant it, should preclude Hillary from holding the office since they've already had 2 terms.

Then again, these are the people who parsed the word "is".

Tell me again, why is anyone seriously thinking about letting this woman back in the White House other than as part of a tour group?

The devil you know rather than the devil you don't?

Also, comments like Obama's said about 'clinging to guns and religion' come off as sneering to me. I don't see him as being too concerned with rural communities and, while I'm an urbanite, I don't like that.

[the4thpip]

And now for something funny: Young Hillary Clinton (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dc0b0f5ffc)

Between the Tom Cruise parody, this Hillary spoof and his killer bod I totally want Jerry O'Connell's babies.

[FalconX2000]

I have a good feeling about what I've seen of Obama's GE issue focus strategy.

For all his hyped experience, McCain has been proven wrong time and again in foreign policy, both in and outside of Iraq.

Going into the Iraq War? Obama was right to oppose it, McCain was wrong.

Negotiating with enemies? Some of the greatest triumphs of previous presidents like Kennedy and Reagan. What matters is the attitude when negotiating, not the act of negotiating itself. McCain thinks ignoring enemies until war breaks out would solve the problem. Obama favours tough negotiation. Obama is right, McCain is wrong.

Obama advocated bombinb Al Qaeda in Pakistan if the local government was unwilling to act. McCain and half of congress laughed at him. A few months later, one of Al Qaeda's top leaders was killed by American planes when the current administration did exactly what Obama spoke out for. Obama was right, McCain was wrong.

McCain has repeatedly confused Sunnis and Shiites, thinks Admadinejad is the ruler of Iraq and has in many ways repeatedly demonstrated completel lack of understanding of the Middle East. Obama has made such a gaff only once so far and commands more respect and influence in the Muslim world simply for being who he is. Nigerian terrorists have already flat out stated they would call a ceasefire should Obama request it.

Obama favours bringing this costly Iraq occupation to an end within 2 years. McCain wishes to continue staying there till he 'wins', even though he and Bush have both never been able to define what the terms of victory would be or have any idea how to create lasting peace.

Pretty much the only thing McCain has been partially right about was the troops surge, which he said would reduce violence in Iraq and Obama said would not make a difference. It did reduce violence.

However, Obama also said that the troops surge would fail to force the Iraqi government to actually do its job and bring stability to Iraq. McCain supported it because it was supposed to give the Iraqi government time to stabalise Iraq. Obama was right, and the moment the unsustainable troop surge started to go back down, violence erupted once more.

Obama simply has to fight McCain's simple populist but naive approach to foreign policy (aided by his many years in the Senate) well enough to more or less break even with American voters on the issue. Most people already believe him to be superior on the economy.

[Buzz Dixon]

The devil you know rather than the devil you don't?

Also, comments like Obama's said about 'clinging to guns and religion' come off as sneering to me. I don't see him as being too concerned with rural communities and, while I'm an urbanite, I don't like that.And this differs from Hillary how?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

And this differs from Hillary how?

Are you seriously saying that Hillary, who was the first lady of Arkansas, and bothered to visit Appalachian states that Obama doesn't set foot in, is less in tune with rural concerns than Obama?

[Nick Soapdish]

Are you seriously saying that Hillary, who was the first lady of Arkansas, and bothered to visit Appalachian states that Obama doesn't set foot in, is less in tune with rural concerns than Obama?

There are other rural areas.

And the full comment sounds a lot less elitist and shows a lot of understanding IMO.

[the4thpip]

There are other rural areas.

And the full comment sounds a lot less elitist and shows a lot of understanding IMO.

Yeah... personally, I thought McCain's and Hillary's identical knee-jerk "those people are fine! Americans aren't bitter! Americans are optimistic!" reaction showed how out of touch they are.

Have they looked at any of those "is the country on the right or wrong track" polls lately? Have they looked at foreclosure numbers? Unemployment data? Poverty reports?

I loved Obama's reaction to the "elitist" stupidity. "Politics did not bring me to poor people. Poor people brought me to politics."

[Buzz Dixon]

Are you seriously saying that Hillary, who was the first lady of Arkansas, and bothered to visit Appalachian states that Obama doesn't set foot in, is less in tune with rural concerns than Obama?Does the Pope wear a waterproof hat in the woods?

[KevinTBrown]

Are you seriously saying that Hillary, who was the first lady of Arkansas, and bothered to visit Appalachian states that Obama doesn't set foot in, is less in tune with rural concerns than Obama?

Obama grew up with almost nothing, battled for and earned everything he's gotten in life. No one handed anything to him on a silver platter. He was born in Witchita, lived briefly in Indonesia, and then grew up in Honolulu. After graduating college (9 years' worth, by the way), he served on a board that helped disadvantaged people and communities.

Hillary grew up in a family that did not want for money, lived in an expensive house Park Ridge IL, and went to Wellesley not via scholarship, but that was paid for by her father. At Wellesley, she was also president of the Wellesley Young Republicans. Sometime during her learnign at Wellesley, she changed politcial parties, calling herself "a mind conservative and a heart liberal". After Wellesley, she went to Yale. (Before the end of her senior year at Wellesley, however, she did work in Alaska washing dishes and at a fish processing cannery, but she got fired after one day and it was closed down eventually because she complained of unhealthy conditions.) Between the years of Yale and her marrying Bill Clinton, she did work for child's rights.

In the end, Hillary didn't earn much of anything, she had it handed to her. The one time she had to do hard work, she got fired. Yes, she did work for child's rights, but eventually settled into being a teacher at a college in Arkansas.

Obama, on the other hand, did go to a private Preparatory school in HI, paid for by his grandparents, from fifth grade until he graduated high school. College on was paid for through scholarships and out of his own pocket. It took until his book deal in 2005 to pay off all his debts and to finally own a house free and clear.

So who's elitest? The one who was handed everything or the one who worked for what they've got in life? The one who has never known what debt is or the one who worked to pay them off?

[LtMarvel]

I don't think that is a fair evaluation. Does anyone have an advanced degree handed to them?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I'm not a Hillary fan. But somehow this portrayal of Obama as a flawless Galahad grates on me far more than Hillary does. Her faults are, at least, in plain view by now.

[Paul McEnery]

The devil you know rather than the devil you don't?

Also, comments like Obama's said about 'clinging to guns and religion' come off as sneering to me. I don't see him as being too concerned with rural communities and, while I'm an urbanite, I don't like that.

Then you haven't read the comment in its full context, since it was plainly said in sympathy.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm not a Hillary fan. But somehow this portrayal of Obama as a flawless Galahad grates on me far more than Hillary does. Her faults are, at least, in plain view by now.
He's not flawless.... but he's far more in touch with those making minimum wage than either McCain or Clinton. He's been there, they have not.

[Paul McEnery]

Pretty much the only thing McCain has been partially right about was the troops surge, which he said would reduce violence in Iraq and Obama said would not make a difference. It did reduce violence.

I just want to point out that even this one is qualified.

The surge was timed along with other facts on the ground that themselves reduced violence; in particular, a truce with the insurgents while they both went after the extremists, bribes of money and weapons for the insurgents, and the fact that ethnic cleansing had already happened.

[the4thpip]

I'm not a Hillary fan. But somehow this portrayal of Obama as a flawless Galahad grates on me far more than Hillary does. Her faults are, at least, in plain view by now.

Um... yeah. His drug use was only published in the best selling book he wrote.

[Sabrinaset]

I don't think that is a fair evaluation. Does anyone have an advanced degree handed to them?

Kevin's point was that she didn't really work for it, insofar as she didn't have to earn her own way. Heck, I was a waitress for years and most of that money went to med school, even if the vast majority of it was paid with student loans and Daddy having seventeen mortgages on the house, and I'm paying back Daddy AND the student loans right now. That's something Hillary can't say when it comes to getting her degree ... which was Kevin's point.

[the4thpip]

Kevin's point was that she didn't really work for it, insofar as she didn't have to earn her own way. Heck, I was a waitress for years and most of that money went to med scool, even if the vast majority of it was paid with student loans and Daddy having seventeen mortgages on the house, and I'm paying back Daddy AND the student loans right now. That's something Hillary can't say when it comes to getting her degree ... which was Kevin's point.

Exactly. All of her life, she has been "can I have a juice box?"

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Then you haven't read the comment in its full context, since it was plainly said in sympathy.

Sympathy and condescension are not mutually exclusive.

[Paul McEnery]

Sympathy and condescension are not mutually exclusive.

Well, I don't think it was condescending, really. I've seen it for myself up in Grass Valley during the first Gulf War, a massive "support our troops" rally that was very God, Guns and Xenophobia.

And to say that people cling to these things -- that's just biblical, isn't it. The church does speak of people clinging to Jesus like a drowning man clinging to a raft.

I mean, I could cheerfully get up a rant about how the heartland of the country is riddled with repellently religious, racists who've got no real power but by god they've got a gun and if you want to come and take their nothing away from them they're going to use it.

And it would still be true, but not really taking who these people are in themselves into consideration; what the circumstances are that have driven them to desperate thinking -- those of them that have been.

Now you might think that's a can of worms we shouldn't open; but I think we should; I think we should look at the way we have abandoned these people politically, economically, and I dare say even spiritually. And with a recession coming down the pike, I think we might want to do otherwise.

And that's Obama preaching to the choir, there. He's telling the Democrats that they need to pull their fingers out about it. He's telling the Democrats that their own sneery condescension about the rural people needs an upgrade.

So you're right that there's a sneer there somewhere, but I'd say it's on the faces of the bourgeois dowagers of his audience that day.

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm not a Hillary fan. But somehow this portrayal of Obama as a flawless Galahad grates on me far more than Hillary does. Her faults are, at least, in plain view by now.

It is annoying that some of his supporters are unwilling to admit faults.

But I've been annoyed by that with supporters of almost any candidate. I don't think that McCain has had that much of a problem, nor did Kerry. Both of those candidates were sort of seen as best-of-a-bad-lot by their party bases and weren't able to energize those bases which helped them avoid those overly fervent supporters and in Kerry's case, getting votes.

[Buzz Dixon]

One key difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton is that Senator Obama has never had to defend his spouse from charges she was a serial sexual harrasser by claiming it was all a vast right wing conspiracy.

[KevinTBrown]

FL & MI delegates will get seated after a compromise has been made:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

In the end, the goalposts have been moved. The new target is 2,118 instead of 2,025. And with the new totals of delegates being doled out, Obama is now 66 delegates away from securing the nomination.

[Kevinroc]

The Democrats have ruled on what to do about Florida and Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

One thing I will add that the other Kevin did not is how badly I think a lot of Hillary's supporters come off at this thing. And of course it sounds like Hillary really wants to drag this out to the convention.

[KevinTBrown]

Kevin's point was that she didn't really work for it, insofar as she didn't have to earn her own way. Heck, I was a waitress for years and most of that money went to med school, even if the vast majority of it was paid with student loans and Daddy having seventeen mortgages on the house, and I'm paying back Daddy AND the student loans right now. That's something Hillary can't say when it comes to getting her degree ... which was Kevin's point.
Exactly.

Yes, Obama is a very rich man. He, however, earned every dime of it. He was not born into it.

[KevinTBrown]

The Democrats have ruled on what to do about Florida and Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

One thing I will add that the other Kevin did not is how badly I think a lot of Hillary's supporters come off at this thing. And of course it sounds like Hillary really wants to drag this out to the convention.

She may want to, but it won't matter. He'll probably end up with about 35-38 delegates from the last 3 primaries. Leaving approximately 30 Super delegates to move in his direction.

With him being that close and with FL & MI finally settled, hopefully the uncommitted SDs will announce for him and "officially" end it next week.

[Kevinroc]

She may want to, but it won't matter. He'll probably end up with about 35-38 delegates from the last 3 primaries. Leaving approximately 30 Super delegates to move in his direction.

With him being that close and with FL & MI finally settled, hopefully the uncommitted SDs will announce for him and "officially" end it next week.

I know that Dean, Pelosi and Reid want the SDs to end this thing as soon as the June 3rd primaries finish up. And Jimmy Carter has basically said he thinks that will happen as well.

This thing really should have been over a long time ago...

[KevinTBrown]

I know that Dean, Pelosi and Reid want the SDs to end this thing as soon as the June 3rd primaries finish up. And Jimmy Carter has basically said he thinks that will happen as well.

This thing really should have been over a long time ago...
Looking at it now, I think that they may have been waiting for the FL & MI debacle to get cleared up.

We shall see.

[Sabrinaset]

NYT says there's no road map for Democrats ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/us/politics/01dems.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

Bill Clinton says seat half the delegates. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluCnBctpHU)

Obama quits his Chicago church. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D910TLRG0&show_article=1)

Hillary may challenge the delegate deal. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080531232936.f43ercl0&show_article=1)

[Kevinroc]

Looking at it now, I think that they may have been waiting for the FL & MI debacle to get cleared up.

We shall see.

I think they just wanted Hillary to say she carried this through to the end and she wasn't shoved out early.

[Sabrinaset]

The Democrats have ruled on what to do about Florida and Michigan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

One thing I will add that the other Kevin did not is how badly I think a lot of Hillary's supporters come off at this thing. And of course it sounds like Hillary really wants to drag this out to the convention.

What's really funny is how intellectual and nuanced the discussions were at this meeting ...

Proponents of full seating continuously interrupted the committee members as they explained their support of the compromise, then supporters of the deal shouted back.

"Shut up!" one woman shouted at another.

"You shut up!" the second woman shouted back.

Jim Roosevelt, co-chair of the committee, tried repeatedly to gavel it to order. "You are dishonoring your candidate when you disrupt the speakers," he scolded.

Lt. Marvel's sig is right ... real life IS like Jr. High!

[Tages]

Obama advocated bombinb Al Qaeda in Pakistan if the local government was unwilling to act. McCain and half of congress laughed at him. A few months later, one of Al Qaeda's top leaders was killed by American planes when the current administration did exactly what Obama spoke out for. Obama was right, McCain was wrong.
I disagree with this. Killing leaders of terrorist groups hasn't proven to produce lasting results before; someone will just take his place.

I just want to point out that even this one is qualified.

The surge was timed along with other facts on the ground that themselves reduced violence; in particular, a truce with the insurgents while they both went after the extremists, bribes of money and weapons for the insurgents, and the fact that ethnic cleansing had already happened.
Kinda' hard to sell that to a public desperately needing to believe our efforts there haven't been totally harmful.

"Hey, violence has gone down because the death squads are literally running out of people to kill."

Now you might think that's a can of worms we shouldn't open; but I think we should; I think we should look at the way we have abandoned these people politically, economically, and I dare say even spiritually. And with a recession coming down the pike, I think we might want to do otherwise.
There is no love lost between myself and the Democratic Party.

That being said, I myself have sensed a growing feeling of betrayal amongst the evangelical and southern right wing, a realization that the Republican Party has been using them all along and doesn't give a damn if they starve as long as they continue to vote GOP. There is a real opportunity now for the Democrats to win their support, if they play their cards right.

[Phil Hunn]

Not being American, I can't claim to have any real insight into how the election is going to affect the country, in terms of policy... but what I do know is that Senator Obama is more appealing to me. He seems to have a lot more class than Hilary.

But, as I say, I'm not following the ins and outs of the campaign too closely because it won't affect me - so I may well be way off-base with that assessment. Still, as it stands, I'd rather see Obama in the White House than Mrs Clinton or John McCain.

[Tetsuo_man]

youtube reaction of committee on michigan and florida. warning foul language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

[Buzz Dixon]

Y'know, we Southerners have been telling people for a long, long time that a great many New York liberals are just as bigoted as any Alabamy Imperial Grand Godzilla of the Ku Klux Klan; I'm just happy to see it proven once and for all.

[Sabrinaset]

That's, uh ... that's pretty incredible.

[Tetsuo_man]

I just found out that she was the one making a ruckus when they announced the decision and was kicked out by security. So this might end up on sunday or monday making the rounds on the 24 hour news networks.

[KevinTBrown]

I have a feeling Harriet Christian from Manhattan NY is going to be in a heap o' trouble......

[Paul McEnery]

youtube reaction of committee on michigan and florida. warning foul language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

Just think. Someone out there in Manhattan has that woman as their neighbour.

[Sabrinaset]

The more I think about it, there's only one way to explain this future crazy cat-lady ...

"You go into these big towns in New York like Manhattan and, like a lot of big towns in the East Coast, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to their gold jewelry or racism or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-black sentiment or anti-male sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[KevinTBrown]

Just think. Someone out there in Manhattan has that woman as their neighbour.
Is that supposed to be our "warm fuzzy thought" for the night??? :eek:

[Infra-Man]

youtube reaction of committee on michigan and florida. warning foul language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

Wow... just wow.
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8859/trekwtfzl5.jpg

[Kyuubi]

It's good to know there are some things we can all agree on.


That bitch is crazy.

[Sabrinaset]

I see huge endorsement deals coming for this lady. Zyprexa must be tracking her down even as I post this!

[Kyuubi]

I wonder how this woman would react if Obama gets the nomination and Clinton accepts the VP role.

[Tetsuo_man]

I wonder how this woman would react if Obama gets the nomination and Clinton accepts the VP role.

http://img16.photobucket.com/albums/v47/electric_shellfish/748411.gif

[Kyuubi]

She'd crush a man's skull with her mind?



I can see that happening.

[Infra-Man]

On the note of other screwy stuff that happened at the rules committee, I just saw this on Kos via Fark:

"What Howard Dean is doing now at the DNC is worse than slavery"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/31/11128/5890/789/526019

"What Howard Dean Is Doing Now At the DNC is Worse Than Slavery"
by DHinMI
Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:05:18 AM PDT

That was something I overheard outside the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee about a hour ago. I'm hoping that what I hear inside the meeting will be more edifying that what I overheard from that pro-Clinton protester outside the hotel.

[Buzz Dixon]

The more I think about it, there's only one way to explain this future crazy cat-lady ...

"You go into these big towns in New York like Manhattan and, like a lot of big towns in the East Coast, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to their gold jewelry or racism or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-black sentiment or anti-male sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.":tongue: I like you!:biggrin:

[FalconX2000]

I'm not a Hillary fan. But somehow this portrayal of Obama as a flawless Galahad grates on me far more than Hillary does. Her faults are, at least, in plain view by now.

Why on Earth does this narrative exist when Obama acknowledges his mistakes far more readily and often than Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

I disagree with this. Killing leaders of terrorist groups hasn't proven to produce lasting results before; someone will just take his place.

The cost in diplomatic leverage of bombing terrorist leaders in Pakistan without the local government consent has been practically non-existent. Would it have been better in your opinion to let the terrorist leader go?

While there is a danger of martyrdom for any of these guys, this is basically one of the best ways from what I see to use hard power. The lack of soft power to accompany it doesn't make its use any less correct.

youtube reaction of committee on michigan and florida. warning foul language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

Wow. I normally feel sad and angry in the face of stupidity, but this is fu@#$n hilarious.

The more I think about it, there's only one way to explain this future crazy cat-lady ...

"You go into these big towns in New York like Manhattan and, like a lot of big towns in the East Coast, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to their gold jewelry or racism or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-black sentiment or anti-male sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[ShaunN]

Hi there! I'm sorry - I thought it was generally accepted that the US is a fundamentally racist country - or, at least, has huge and unresolved social and political issues between its black and white populations - from North to South to East to West? In the major urban centers of the US, racism has been alive and well and a well-recognized problem for as long as I can remember. Remember the controversies over busing? Or the whole problem of inner-city poverty today? Surely no one believes that "Southerners" are "more racist" than "Northerners"? What I have heard is that Southerners are just more blatant and obvious in their racism. (As an aside, a criticism of white Canadians is that they are, as a generalization, polite racists. For many people, this is even worse simply because it is hard to tell when you are being discriminated against).

Obama's appeal, in part, has been his ability to seemingly bypass a lot of this animosity. But this is also one of the reasons that he has such a great appeal to younger and better-educated people, people who are either not as mired in racial issues and history or who are consciously trying to transcend them. The lady in the video is older and that, in part, may explain her antipathy.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Why on Earth does this narrative exist when Obama acknowledges his mistakes far more readily and often than Hillary Clinton or John McCain?

It's true. The last thing we need is a dissenting opinion. This is America!

[Paul McEnery]

The more I think about it, there's only one way to explain this future crazy cat-lady ...

"You go into these big towns in New York like Manhattan and, like a lot of big towns in the East Coast, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to their gold jewelry or racism or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-black sentiment or anti-male sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

My faith in you is restored.

[Crowley]

It's good to know there are some things we can all agree on.


That bitch is crazy.

Yes... Yes she is.

[PatrickG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDHXcjxnW40&watch_response

"Unity only brings about conflict"

Where does Hillary find these people?

[Crowley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDHXcjxnW40&watch_response

"Unity only brings about conflict"

Where does Hillary find these people?

Bizzaro World?

[FalconX2000]

It's true. The last thing we need is a dissenting opinion. This is America!

Since you are the one who made the argument of Obama being portrayed as a "flawless Galahad", I'd think it would be appropriate to talk about why you think Obama is being portrayed as perfect rather than shooting off into freedom of speech, which has no link to the case.

I personally think that portrayal hasn't existed since Texas and Ohio except in the minds of those who find something wrong about a candidate who projects a noble demeanour and sounds more genuine than others of his profession.

Yes, Obama plays politics from time to time and I don't even think his stances on some issues are anywhere near completely in line with his personal beliefs. Yes, his campaign has made mistakes and wasted oppurtunities to finish the race off sooner. Yes, his campaign has failed to use surrogates effectively to douse controversies when they do crop up. And Obama suffers the effects of sleep deprivation worse than the other candidates.

So what is with this "perfect" portrayal you're talking about? All I've heard is some writers getting somewhat poetic when talking about him.

[the4thpip]

That being said, I myself have sensed a growing feeling of betrayal amongst the evangelical and southern right wing, a realization that the Republican Party has been using them all along and doesn't give a damn if they starve as long as they continue to vote GOP. There is a real opportunity now for the Democrats to win their support, if they play their cards right.

There is always a chance the very religious will do what they used to do before Bush: Stay home on election day.

[Decepticons_Rule]

It's time to totally seperate Church from State.

Agree?

Hillary, drop out, you look like MJ playing for the Wizards. Hard to watch, a shell of yourself. Do us all a favor and admit bitter defeat.

[Paul McEnery]

There is always a chance the very religious will do what they used to do before Bus: Stay home on election day.

What, the very religious couldn't walk?

[the4thpip]

It's true. The last thing we need is a dissenting opinion. This is America!

I was trying to post a link to that "Shortpacked" strip about how something that is plainly wrong facts doesn't really factor into "everybody has the right to their own opinion", but their site seems down. :frown:

If it's up later, this is the link:
http://shortpacked.com/comics/20070502opinions.png

http://shortpacked.com/comics/20070502opinions.png

[the4thpip]

What, the very religious couldn't walk?

Heh. In my defense, I just got up. Fixed it in my original post.

[Charles RB]

The BBC summed this up as "even with Michigan and Florida, she's behind Obama". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7428909.stm)

Wow, you're fucked Hilly.

[Infra-Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDHXcjxnW40&watch_response

"Unity only brings about conflict"

Where does Hillary find these people?

That video is full of fail; so much bitter, bitter fail.

I know that all the things cited above is not indicative of all Hillary Clinton supporters, but I don't get the "I'll vote for McCain instead of Obama" thing on their part. Given that Obama is more likely to align with them politically on a number of key issues (e..g., the economy, Iraq, and abortion), they're willing to vote for someone who doesn't share their own beliefs in order to spite someone who shares their beliefs. It's very troubling, and my worst fear is that this bitterness within the party may fester and last if Hillary Clinton decides to battle this out and doesn't assist in the reconciliation of the party.

That said, while I understand the frustration, I can personally say that as an Obama supporter, if Hillary Clinton got the nomination, I'd vote for her. Sure, I prefer one candidate over the other, but I still prefer both to John McCain (and even then, I prefer John McCain to Bush).

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDHXcjxnW40&watch_response

"Unity only brings about conflict"

Where does Hillary find these people?
And that video was posted on May 12th! Long before the events of last night.

Love this reponse though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLYMhxvEKG0&feature=related

The other responses... eh.

But they all essentially said the same thing: "Why are you voting against your own interests??"

[Loren]

The BBC summed this up as "even with Michigan and Florida, she's behind Obama". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7428909.stm)

Wow, you're fucked Hilly.

The Clinton campaign has a backup argument here: not only should the Democratic Party recognize ALL the Michigan delegates, but because Obama wasn't on the ballot, he should receive ZERO pledged delegates from the state. This would give Hillary an additional 59 delegates, but leave Obama with exactly the same number as before.

He doesn't cover this argument, but Thursday's Colbert Report (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=168725) gave Hillary a good mocking over all this.

[kingdom2000]

Clinton took Puerto Rico (no surprise there) but the gap didn't close much.

I noticed the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination changed to 2118 instead of 2024 which apparently is the result of the Michigan/Florida compromise. By doing that it became impossible for Obama to reach the delegate count on his own, so in that regard Clinton can claim a victory because now this is 100% in the hands of the hold-out superdelegates where before he had a chance to do it without them.

If the DNC was smart, they would force the super-delegates to commit by midnight June 3rd and end this thing one way or the other. But they are not smart so this will drag out a while so that hold-outs can enjoy massive ass-kissing windfall for a while longer.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Since you are the one who made the argument of Obama being portrayed as a "flawless Galahad", I'd think it would be appropriate to talk about why you think Obama is being portrayed as perfect rather than shooting off into freedom of speech, which has no link to the case.

I personally think that portrayal hasn't existed since Texas and Ohio except in the minds of those who find something wrong about a candidate who projects a noble demeanour and sounds more genuine than others of his profession.

This is what I'm talking about. This is subjective, but is being presented near-universally as fact. Okay, maybe I'll concede on the 'flawless' part in a technical sense, but 'projects a noble demeanour' and 'sounds more genuine' are simply projections of people who Want To Believe.

In other words, you're bringing 'noble' and 'genuine' to the table. What I see is a guy who wants to get elected doing what it takes to get elected. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying it. Even if he were to be/is the best choice of the major candidates, I don't believe that he's any more noble or genuine than any other muckedymuck to throw his or her hat into the ring for either of the major two parties, or the majority of the minor ones.

[PatrickG]

This is what I'm talking about. This is subjective, but is being presented near-universally as fact. Okay, maybe I'll concede on the 'flawless' part in a technical sense, but 'projects a noble demeanour' and 'sounds more genuine' are simply projections of people who Want To Believe.

In other words, you're bringing 'noble' and 'genuine' to the table. What I see is a guy who wants to get elected doing what it takes to get elected. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying it. Even if he were to be/is the best choice of the major candidates, I don't believe that he's any more noble or genuine than any other muckedymuck to throw his or her hat into the ring for either of the major two parties, or the majority of the minor ones.

Just something I've wanted to ask a Clinton supporter:

Are you saying you'd be highly skeptical of anyone who wanted you to see them as "noble" and "genuine"? More skeptical than you would of someone who didn't want you to see them as those things?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Just something I've wanted to ask a Clinton supporter:

Are you saying you'd be highly skeptical of anyone who wanted you to see them as "noble" and "genuine"? More skeptical than you would of someone who didn't want you to see them as those things?

I'm not a Clinton supporter.

Shall I answer anyway?

The answer is I've not said that, but I agree with it. So, 'yes'.

[Paul McEnery]

That video is full of fail; so much bitter, bitter fail.

I know that all the things cited above is not indicative of all Hillary Clinton supporters, but I don't get the "I'll vote for McCain instead of Obama" thing on their part. Given that Obama is more likely to align with them politically on a number of key issues (e..g., the economy, Iraq, and abortion), they're willing to vote for someone who doesn't share their own beliefs in order to spite someone who shares their beliefs. It's very troubling, and my worst fear is that this bitterness within the party may fester and last if Hillary Clinton decides to battle this out and doesn't assist in the reconciliation of the party.

That said, while I understand the frustration, I can personally say that as an Obama supporter, if Hillary Clinton got the nomination, I'd vote for her. Sure, I prefer one candidate over the other, but I still prefer both to John McCain (and even then, I prefer John McCain to Bush).

What I'm surprised by is that the bitter old bitch managed not to use the word shvartze, because I think we could all see it forming in what pretends to be her brain.

Once again, I think we are all shocked and surprised that racist fucks can't manage to get behind Obama's candidacy.

And think the rest of the country is still as backwards as they are.

[Paul McEnery]

This is what I'm talking about. This is subjective, but is being presented near-universally as fact. Okay, maybe I'll concede on the 'flawless' part in a technical sense, but 'projects a noble demeanour' and 'sounds more genuine' are simply projections of people who Want To Believe..

No. This is simply untrue.

The reality is, Obama has conducted himself with more composure, with more thoughtfulness, with more dignity, with more humanity, and with a more inclusive attitude than any candidate I've been here in America to see. Bill Clinton on his good days got close to it; Gore managed it but without the humanity; Bush Sr. had it. But Obama has it more.

That doesn't mean he's my preferred candidate, or that I support his policies tout court. But if that issue is genuinely in question at all, that's completely on his detractors.

[Paul McEnery]

Heh. In my defense, I just got up. Fixed it in my original post.

Exactly why I quoted you.

Ha ha!

[Pink Bat Maxine]

No. This is simply untrue.

The reality is, Obama has conducted himself with more composure, with more thoughtfulness, with more dignity, with more humanity, and with a more inclusive attitude than any candidate I've been here in America to see. Bill Clinton on his good days got close to it; Gore managed it but without the humanity; Bush Sr. had it. But Obama has it more.

That doesn't mean he's my preferred candidate, or that I support his policies tout court. But if that issue is genuinely in question at all, that's completely on his detractors.

The statement in bold is utterly subjective. Are you disagreeing with my statement about 'those who want to believe'? 'Cause our opinions there are also just that.... opinions, not fact. Thus, no amount of discussion is likely to yield accord.

[Paul McEnery]

The statement in bold is utterly subjective. Are you disagreeing with my statement about 'those who want to believe'? 'Cause our opinions there are also just that.... opinions, not fact. Thus, no amount of discussion is likely to yield accord.

No it isn't. It just isn't.

I don't want to believe. In fact, I don't believe. In fact, I just said that, and you zoomed straight over it as if it wasn't there.

And the proof that you're wrong is right here in the old escape hatch of that's just subjective / that's just your opinion / there's no way to get to the truth of it.

Which is what everyone says who knows they're wrong but doesn't want to admit it.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

No it isn't. It just isn't.

I don't want to believe. In fact, I don't believe. In fact, I just said that, and you zoomed straight over it as if it wasn't there.

And the proof that you're wrong is right here in the old escape hatch of that's just subjective / that's just your opinion / there's no way to get to the truth of it.

Which is what everyone says who knows they're wrong but doesn't want to admit it.

**laughs** Okay, Paul, knock yourself out with that.

Also, fact: chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream.

[Charles RB]

Even if he were to be/is the best choice of the major candidates, I don't believe that he's any more noble or genuine than any other muckedymuck to throw his or her hat into the ring for either of the major two parties, or the majority of the minor ones.

He's better at selling himself as being more noble or genuine than almost any politician I can remember though, except for Boris Johnson (who appears to be a bumbling toff and really is). That's going to be a plus when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy, I'd say.

On top of that, he has a record that backs some of his statements and alleged principles (he's actually pulled off bipartisan measures IIRC).

[KevinTBrown]

**laughs** Okay, Paul, knock yourself out with that.

Also, fact: chocolate is better than vanilla ice cream.
Unless chocolate gives you migraines....

Which is the case of my wife.




Anyway, Paul is right about Obama. What is it exactly you don't like about Obama (besides being "too perfect", which is flat out impossible to be) but like about Hillary (Or McCain....)???

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Unless chocolate gives you migraines....

Which is the case of my wife.




Anyway, Paul is right about Obama. What is it exactly you don't like about Obama (besides being "too perfect", which is flat out impossible to be) but like about Hillary (Or McCain....)???

I don't like Hillary or McCain. But..... I don't know how things are in your locality, but when I get into discussions on the bus or subway out here in the SF Bay Area, I find that the supporters of Obama tend to..... well, not look to him with as critical eye as they do others. Or with as critical eye as Clinton or McCain supporters have for their candidate. As if they turn off their 'bullshit detectors' for the man. And I think that's unhealthy. Hillary and McCain supporters I talk to tend to acknowledge that, on some level, they're trying to polish a turd. And personally, I don't believe someone can get to such high office without that skill. I think if you don't keep your bullshit detector in fine order, it's much easier to get screwed in the long term. If you don't look for how someone's trying to play you, you're more likely to get played.

But I'm an enormous cynic when it comes to politics, and this is the San Francisco Bay Area, so YMMV.

[Sabrinaset]

http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/Clinton_2008.sff_PREA104_20080601103352.jpg

... I gotta submit this one in the caption thread.

Clinton takes Puerto Rico, but Obama edges closer to the win. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080601/D911GNO80.html)

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/surrenderhillary.jpg

[Tetsuo_man]

Please post that pic in the political caption thread NOW!

[FalconX2000]

This is what I'm talking about. This is subjective, but is being presented near-universally as fact. Okay, maybe I'll concede on the 'flawless' part in a technical sense, but 'projects a noble demeanour' and 'sounds more genuine' are simply projections of people who Want To Believe.

In other words, you're bringing 'noble' and 'genuine' to the table. What I see is a guy who wants to get elected doing what it takes to get elected. Call me cynical, but I'm not buying it. Even if he were to be/is the best choice of the major candidates, I don't believe that he's any more noble or genuine than any other muckedymuck to throw his or her hat into the ring for either of the major two parties, or the majority of the minor ones.

Fair enough.

I do think the general attitude towards all politicians of 'they'll do whatever it takes to win/stay in office' tends to forget that politicians are people too, albeit ones who work in a profession that encourages some less than noble traits of human character. If the attitude is directed against all politicians, then it is certainly flawed. All politicians are, of course, affected by politics. They nonetheless have a job description and most of them do it to the extent of their ability and/or bravery. Unfortunately, currently alot of the good people are wimps.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Fair enough.

I do think the general attitude towards all politicians of 'they'll do whatever it takes to win/stay in office' tends to forget that politicians are people too, albeit ones who work in a profession that encourages some less than noble traits of human character. If the attitude is directed against all politicians, then it is certainly flawed. All politicians are, of course, affected by politics. They nonetheless have a job description and most of them do it to the extent of their ability and/or bravery. Unfortunately, currently alot of the good people are wimps.

You know what?

That's a fair and reasonable counterpoint. I may be more cynical than that, but still; you have a damn respectable and respectful style to your discussion.

[FalconX2000]

I don't like Hillary or McCain. But..... I don't know how things are in your locality, but when I get into discussions on the bus or subway out here in the SF Bay Area, I find that the supporters of Obama tend to..... well, not look to him with as critical eye as they do others. Or with as critical eye as Clinton or McCain supporters have for their candidate. As if they turn off their 'bullshit detectors' for the man. And I think that's unhealthy. Hillary and McCain supporters I talk to tend to acknowledge that, on some level, they're trying to polish a turd. And personally, I don't believe someone can get to such high office without that skill. I think if you don't keep your bullshit detector in fine order, it's much easier to get screwed in the long term. If you don't look for how someone's trying to play you, you're more likely to get played.

But I'm an enormous cynic when it comes to politics, and this is the San Francisco Bay Area, so YMMV.

I get what you mean. Nearly half of Obama's supporters in the primaries are first time voters. That should give you an idea of what you're likely to get.

On the bright side, college students tend to have more free time. Some take enough pride to research their candidate and may give you a pleasent surprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

[Paul McEnery]

I don't like Hillary or McCain. But..... I don't know how things are in your locality, but when I get into discussions on the bus or subway out here in the SF Bay Area, I find that the supporters of Obama tend to..... well, not look to him with as critical eye as they do others. Or with as critical eye as Clinton or McCain supporters have for their candidate. As if they turn off their 'bullshit detectors' for the man. And I think that's unhealthy. Hillary and McCain supporters I talk to tend to acknowledge that, on some level, they're trying to polish a turd. And personally, I don't believe someone can get to such high office without that skill. I think if you don't keep your bullshit detector in fine order, it's much easier to get screwed in the long term. If you don't look for how someone's trying to play you, you're more likely to get played.

But I'm an enormous cynic when it comes to politics, and this is the San Francisco Bay Area, so YMMV.

Well now that's true enough.

But I wouldn't tar Obama with their brush.

[Crowley]

I get what you mean. Nearly half of Obama's supporters in the primaries are first time voters. That should give you an idea of what you're likely to get.

On the bright side, college students tend to have more free time. Some take enough pride to research their candidate and may give you a pleasent surprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

which in contrast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htD8v2t81h4

[Paul McEnery]

Unless chocolate gives you migraines....

Which is the case of my wife.




Anyway, Paul is right about Obama. What is it exactly you don't like about Obama (besides being "too perfect", which is flat out impossible to be) but like about Hillary (Or McCain....)???

Indeed. If he were any more of a stand up guy, he'd be doing a proper job instead of politics.

[Buzz Dixon]

Here's an article by Todd S. Purdom on Bill Clinton:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?printable=true&currentPage=all

Purdom is the husband of Dee Dee Myers, the former Clinton press secretary.

I'm going to make a political prediction here, based on the above article and other things I've been reading and observing. I've been pretty good about this sorta stuff in the past (I was telling people way back in February 2006 that if Obama portrayed himself as the first true candidate of the 21st century, he'd be the man to beat) so let's see if I can do it again:

Assuming Obama is elected this fall, Bill Clinton is going to be caught up and exposed in a major political/personal scandal by 2010. He is going to be permanently destroyed as a political power within the Democratic Party, and by way of collateral damage, so will Hillary. They will both be politically irrelevant by 2012.

It will not be the GOP that brings Clinton down, though they will be gleefully watching from the sidelines. Rather, it's going to be the new leadership within the Democratic Party that's going to come into power after Obama's election.

Obama will neither condone not orchestrate this dismantling of Bill Clinton.

He won't have to. The Millennials who will be entering the government at that time will want to make sure the Ultimate Baby Boomer has a stake driven through his political heart once and for all.

[Sabrinaset]

Bill Clinton .... I dunno. The guy has incredible charisma and political skills .... what happened? The way he's been "helping" Hill's election bid, it has to be one of four things ... senility, brain damage from an STD, he's secretly on Obama's payroll, or he just doesn't want to married to the President. I'm guessing it's the last one. You know, I can't blame him if it's the last one, as he knows Hill would have agents watching him 24/7.

I really find it hard to believe his political instincts are so far off, unless they're off on purpose. Or maybe the world has passed him by and he never kept up, but he's surely smart enough to adapt ... unless he doesn't want to.

[CutterMike]

Bill Clinton .... I dunno. The guy has incredible charisma and political skills .... what happened? The way he's been "helping" Hill's election bid, it has to be one of four things ... senility, brain damage from an STD, he's secretly on Obama's payroll, or he just doesn't want to married to the President. I'm guessing it's the last one. You know, I can't blame him if it's the last one, as he knows Hill would have agents watching him 24/7.

I really find it hard to believe his political instincts are so far off, unless they're off on purpose. Or maybe the world has passed him by and he never kept up, but he's surely smart enough to adapt ... unless he doesn't want to.

There's an exercise that, I think, every military academy has a variant of.

The idea is that one candidate is given a task to get done and a team to do the work. S/he then has to prepare a set of clear and unambiguous orders for each member of the team to follow in order to perform the job.

The job of everyone else on the team is to screw up the assignment as completely as possible, WHILE FOLLOWING, TO THE LETTER, the orders that they've been given.

Were I the suspicious and cynical sort (which -- of coure -- I'm not!), I might think that Hillary has given Bill his orders and he is "following them to the letter".

[Buzz Dixon]

Or...

A charming but sociopathic personality is put to use by a politically ambitious person or group of persons. He says what they want said, does what they want done, and as long as the voters enjoy him he's of use to them and allowed to indulge his appetites in private.

I'm thinking specifically of Warren G. Harding.

Whom, it has been speculated, was poisoned by his wife when scandal threatened to overtake him.

The generation of DNCers who found Bill Clinton of use are about to be pushed out by Obama's followers. I do not think they want to spend the rest of their careers looking over their shoulders, wondering if Hill or Bill are cooking up something.

I think they will take steps to neutralize the Clintons politically.

[OzBat!]

I think they will take steps to neutralize the Clintons politically.Just as long as nobody's advocating assassination here... :tongue:

[Paul McEnery]

Or...

A charming but sociopathic personality is put to use by a politically ambitious person or group of persons. He says what they want said, does what they want done, and as long as the voters enjoy him he's of use to them and allowed to indulge his appetites in private.

I'm thinking specifically of Warren G. Harding.

Whom, it has been speculated, was poisoned by his wife when scandal threatened to overtake him.

The generation of DNCers who found Bill Clinton of use are about to be pushed out by Obama's followers. I do not think they want to spend the rest of their careers looking over their shoulders, wondering if Hill or Bill are cooking up something.

I think they will take steps to neutralize the Clintons politically.

Me, I'd give him a job. At the UN.

[LtMarvel]

Jeez, there's not even a true sniff of scandal in that article. I mean, come on. "Bill Clinton went to a wedding in Europe without Hillary, but with Chelsey and her date, along with a rich single friend who had a very young date."

Oh, the scandal!

[PatrickG]

Interesting quote from the article Buzz linked:

The sensitivity among Clinton’s staff to these questions is such that, after I posed some queries about Clinton’s relationship with Burkle and Co., a spokesman, Jay Carson, e-mailed me this comment: “The ills of the Democratic Party can be seen perfectly in the willingness of fellow Democrats to say bad things about President Clinton. If you ask any Republican about Reagan they will say he still makes the sun rise in the morning, but if you ask Democrats about their only two-term president in 80 years, a man who took the party from the wilderness of loserdom to the White House and created the strongest economy in American history, they’d rather be quoted saying what a reporter wants to hear than protect a strong brand for the party. Republicans look at this behavior and laugh at us.”

It's funny to me because I think the Democrats have been far too soft on Clinton and looked at him with rose colored glasses until this election... and I think the Republicans would do well to learn how to piss on Reagan's grave, so to speak, and rethink their approach rather than basking in old glories that weren't as glorious to the critical eye in retrospect.

[Paul McEnery]

Interesting quote from the article Buzz linked:



It's funny to me because I think the Democrats have been far too soft on Clinton and looked at him with rose colored glasses until this election... and I think the Republicans would do well to learn how to piss on Reagan's grave, so to speak, and rethink their approach rather than basking in old glories that weren't as glorious to the critical eye in retrospect.

Too bloody right.

The strength of the Republicans is in their loyalty.

The strength of the Democrats waxes and wanes with a vision.

[PatrickG]

Too bloody right.

The strength of the Republicans is in their loyalty.

The strength of the Democrats waxes and wanes with a vision.

I don't disagree...

But I think you can substitute "weakness" for "strength" and it comes out the same.

I mean, Stalin's commies are still the principal target of many rightwing pundits' attacks and yet many republicans would just as soon put Reagan's remains in a glass case and silence critics with intel gained through espionage and reports from loyal citizens.

Heck... I think you could also say this:

1) One of the Republican Party's greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses is that it never lets go of an enemy. Insofar as it is loyal, it also has permanently trained animosity on any group or individual who's crossed them.

It's why Republicans suck at comedy. They're stuck talking about the USSR, Roosevelt's faults and the flaws of the more extreme feminists. To be funny, you can't be bitter; you have to let things roll off you.

Elephants never forget, I suppose.

2) One of the Democrat Party's greatest strengths and weaknesses is that it never stops grasping for a new ideal, a new overlooked social injustice or a new vision.

This leads to the building of tenuous issue-based coalitions. I mean, pro-choice and anti-capital punishment really aren't the most natural pairing IMO. And everybody thinks their issue is THE issue which is why civil rights Democrats and feminist Democrats and union Democrats and latte sipping intellectual Democrats can be baited so easily against eachother.

It also makes the politicians look wishy-washy and prone to speak out on issues based on what experts, lobbies, polls and the latest research tell them, which can be a great boon or a fatal flaw depending on the intel at their disposal.

Take Hillary Clinton's Autism Plan (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/25/479647.aspx). Autism is a BIG buzzword with the diagnosis rate going up so much.

In one breath, she's in favor of giving more aid to children and adults with Autism, in terms of counseling and support, which sounds nice. In another breath (http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2007/04/hillary-clintons-final-solution.html), she promises to "prevent and cure anything along the autism spectrum." Which is a big slap in the face to neurodiversity.

It's one thing to talk about assisting disabled people or maybe assisting with research and treatment funding. But in declaring war on autism as something to be cured, she sounds like a Nazi to functioning autistics who are comfortable or even proud of their neurological makeup.

Democrats grasp for issues a bit much and wind up turning to advisors a bit much and it can make them seem like flipfloppers or unstable because they ALWAYS need a vision for anything anybody thinks is a problem.

[the4thpip]

I'm not a Hillary fan. But somehow this portrayal of Obama as a flawless Galahad grates on me far more than Hillary does. Her faults are, at least, in plain view by now.

http://thestar.com.my/archives/2008/6/1/worldupdates/2008-06-01T182126Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNP_1_India-338506-1-pic0.jpg

ZOMG! He has a halo!

[Teh m0nk3y]

http://thestar.com.my/archives/2008/6/1/worldupdates/2008-06-01T182126Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNP_1_India-338506-1-pic0.jpg

ZOMG! He has a halo!

Saint Obama?:tongue:

[Buzz Dixon]

Going off tangent to discuss comedy for a bit...
To be funny, you can't be bitter; you have to let things roll off you.
If by "bitter" you mean "impotent rage" then yes, I would agree. But there have been a lot of comedians who have raged in anger at the world and been hilarious doing so. George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, Sam Kinnison, Roseanne Barr, etc.

There's a lot of room for a wide variety of approached to comedy.

[Corrina]

Saint Obama?:tongue:

Well, not so much.

Read an article recently about Obama's rise in Chicago politics. He apparently used (the quite legal) trick of challenging the signatures on nominating petitions to knock a popular challenger out of the race. All very nit-picky stuff, too.

It's legal but it's not very saintly, I think. I have to say, it almost makes me think better of the guy, that he can be ruthless on occasion.

I am a little disappointed that he resigned from his church. That puts him definitely in the realm of 'typical politician cutting their losses' for me. Which sorta again speaks to ruthless but it's like he's turning his back on what got him there in the first place. After all, the title of his book came from one of Wright's sermons.

I realize these feelings are inconsistent. Maybe because I like that he can play political hardball but I wished I could see him sticking to his personal principles, too. And leaving Wright's church seems mostly to be a washing of the hands moment so he doesn't get hurt in the general election.

Necessary, maybe, but it makes me like him less.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, not so much.

Read an article recently about Obama's rise in Chicago politics. He apparently used (the quite legal) trick of challenging the signatures on nominating petitions to knock a popular challenger out of the race. All very nit-picky stuff, too.

It's legal but it's not very saintly, I think. I have to say, it almost makes me think better of the guy, that he can be ruthless on occasion.

I am a little disappointed that he resigned from his church. That puts him definitely in the realm of 'typical politician cutting their losses' for me. Which sorta again speaks to ruthless but it's like he's turning his back on what got him there in the first place. After all, the title of his book came from one of Wright's sermons.

I realize these feelings are inconsistent. Maybe because I like that he can play political hardball but I wished I could see him sticking to his personal principles, too. And leaving Wright's church seems mostly to be a washing of the hands moment so he doesn't get hurt in the general election.

Necessary, maybe, but it makes me like him less.

Not inconsistant at all. He gave the church every benefit of the doubt he could before it got to the point that he could no longer make excuses. I think it says a lot about his character to stick with the church as long as he did actually. He could have easily written them off months ago and didn't.

As far as him being "nit-picky".... he's a man who plays the rules, no matter what. Yes, even if it's to his benefit. He's been extremely consistant in that.

So while I do not believe politicians to be truthful or honest all the time, I feel, based on his actions, Obama is the most "honest" one out there. He's far from perfect and he's glossed over many things that can call into question his character (Wright, Rezko, etc.), but I don't think he's been "dishonest". Or rather, he hasn't been proven to be yet.

That's what's ticked people off about him though. His steadfastness of not challenging the FL & MI primaries. People felt he should be fighting for the people's right to vote. Whereas he was just playing by the rules set down by the DNC. Again, they were to his benefit. If they weren't, who knows what he would have done...?

[TCJohnson]

Well, not so much.

Read an article recently about Obama's rise in Chicago politics. He apparently used (the quite legal) trick of challenging the signatures on nominating petitions to knock a popular challenger out of the race. All very nit-picky stuff, too.


Yeah, like if the petition was signed with block letters instead of a signature, he had it thrown out.

Seems very weasley to me.

[Corrina]

Not inconsistant at all. He gave the church every benefit of the doubt he could before it got to the point that he could no longer make excuses. I think it says a lot about his character to stick with the church as long as he did actually. He could have easily written them off months ago and didn't.



I think you're being very...optimistic? Trusting?

There's no indication that Obama even considered it a political problem until Wright's speech hit the fan. He's been trumpeting his book as a blueprint for how people should go forward and he took that phrase from Wright. I hardly think that means he was giving right the benefit of the doubt, as you put it.

It looks to me like Obama was a member of the congregation in good standing, realized that Wright could go a little overboard but, given the history of treatment in this country of African-Americans, that Wright had good cause. And that, anyway, whatever Wright said in his sermons, Wright's actions as the pastor of a church that did so much for the poor and black community in Chicago more than overrode any speeches that some whites might find a little too much. (And, btw, I don't have any problems with Wright at all.)

But when Wright video hit the fan, Obama tried to explain. And he did a good job.

But apparently, he and his advisers think that didn't go far enough and they had some evidence that this was true--witness Clinton beating him in Pennsylvania. And then Wright refused to play sacrifice and fall on his sword, so the hue and cry went up for Obama to completely and utterly disassociate himself from them.

Then Obama looked at the political landscape, decided it was better for his political future in the long term to throw his old church under the bus, and did so.

Audacity of Hope, indeed.

[darkhanamaru]

Too bloody right.

The strength of the Republicans is in their loyalty.

The strength of the Democrats waxes and wanes with a vision.

I agree with this to an extent; however, the parties are shifting and realigning so party attachment has fallen greatly in the US over the last few decades. Republicans are not simply economic and protectionist anymore but moved into regulating the social realm and have alienated the more libertarian (and i would say rational) wings of the party. The Democrats need to finally put the New Deal politics to rest and invent something new. If there is any true difference between Obama and Hillary (and it ain't ambition) it is this, Hillary's programs still have that underlying assumption that government programs should be benevolent but compulsory whereas Obama operates from the assumption that while social programs are good and should exist, they need to be voluntary though incentivized for most people in the end will act of their self interest. This thinking very much comes of out of the recent sociological scholarship of thinkers such as William Julius Wilson.

[darkhanamaru]

Maybe because I like that he can play political hardball but I wished I could see him sticking to his personal principles, too.

I will vote for Obama and have grudingly come to admire him on some levels - I started out for Edwards - but it would be naive to think that one of his guiding motivations is not ambition. He has always been politically calculating, hell, joing Wright's church in the first place was calculating. Why people are surprised I don't know. You don't rip your life apart and place your family under that strain unless you really, really want it.

[Corrina]

I should add that, politically, Obama may be making the right decision to resign from his church.

But it's definitely a politically-based decision, not some sort of idealogical difference between them, at least that I can see.

[PatrickG]

Going off tangent to discuss comedy for a bit...

If by "bitter" you mean "impotent rage" then yes, I would agree. But there have been a lot of comedians who have raged in anger at the world and been hilarious doing so. George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, Sam Kinnison, Roseanne Barr, etc.

There's a lot of room for a wide variety of approached to comedy.

You're right there.

But even those guys... well...
Funniness requires that you either let things go or let things fly.

Either everything rolls off of you or you take everything that lands your way and violently chuck it at the nearest target.

But you don't stand there plotting your enemies' demise... Unless it's an impotent character. Otherwise the audience will probably get creeped out.

A lot of Talk Radio types trying to be funny can't do either and so they come across as bitter.

[LtMarvel]

In one breath, she's in favor of giving more aid to children and adults with Autism, in terms of counseling and support, which sounds nice. In another breath (http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2007/04/hillary-clintons-final-solution.html), she promises to "prevent and cure anything along the autism spectrum." Which is a big slap in the face to neurodiversity.

It's one thing to talk about assisting disabled people or maybe assisting with research and treatment funding. But in declaring war on autism as something to be cured, she sounds like a Nazi to functioning autistics who are comfortable or even proud of their neurological makeup.



Have you talked to a parents of an autistic child?

I don't see how war on autism is any more offensive than a war on polio.

[FalconX2000]

While I do not doubt that Obama's decision to withdraw his membership from the church was at least half political expediency, I think this benefits the church just as much. All this political media scrutiny has unfairly demonised the church in some circles and the hoohah over it can't be making the atmosphere of the community very conducive for worhip.

[Stressfactor]

Asperger's Syndrom is a subset of Autism (as I understand it) and many who have Asperger's are actually quite bright and relatively 'normal' -- having some degrees of social awkwardness. Many who are dignosed with Asperger's DO NOT see themselves as suffering from something that needs to be 'cured' but rather as a different way of life.

There are varying levels of 'Autism' and varoius disorders that make up the 'Autism Spectrum'... not everyone is Rain Man and not everyone who has Autism is incapable of leading a normal life and functioning in the real world.

[KevinTBrown]

Yeah, like if the petition was signed with block letters instead of a signature, he had it thrown out.

Seems very weasley to me.
But the rules are the rules.

Seriously.

And it's certainly nothing new for Chicago politics to question the signatures.

[Tetsuo_man]

As my dad used to say (we used to live in chicago), "When they call it the windy city they aren't talking about the weather. Their talking about politics."

[Infra-Man]

Well... we go from the more-votes argument to this:

Clinton claims to have won more states than Obama (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/2/112856/3235/569/527264)

“I’ve been closing very strongly since Feb. 20,” she said, referring to the day after Mr. Obama won Hawaii and Wisconsin. “I have won more votes and won more states than Senator Obama. All the independent analyses break in my direction. A lot of the key states that we have to win, I win those states.”

Tally according to Kos: Obama has won 32 states (including the Texas caucuses) plus DC. Clinton has won 19 (including the Texas primary).

[Paul McEnery]

Have you talked to a parents of an autistic child?

I don't see how war on autism is any more offensive than a war on polio.

Then I'll spell it out for you! :smile:

The issue is "prevent and cure". It's a simple-minded approach to a complex issue, and one that's painfully normative.

Autistic spectrum is not a disease to be prevented or cured. It's just neuro-atypical. Autistic spectrum includes everything from full-blown autistic disorder, to maintaining autistic, to touched by autism, to Aspergers. I'd put dimes to donuts that a full half of the people on this board are somewhere in the autistic spectrum.

Yes, full-blown autism is bad news, but there's a lot more to it than that.

Unless, that is, you think our Aspergersy brothers and sisters here should have been prevented or cured.

[Paul McEnery]

Well... we go from the more-votes argument to this:

Clinton claims to have won more states than Obama (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/2/112856/3235/569/527264)



Tally according to Kos: Obama has won 32 states (including the Texas caucuses) plus DC. Clinton has won 19 (including the Texas primary).

Which isn't at all important. The campaign's over, and she lost.

We know this, because amongst Democrats, Obama's polling at 50 something percent and Clinton at 30 something. It's a done deal.

If we re-ran the elections she won, how many states does she think she'd keep? She'd lose California now, I should think.

[Paul McEnery]

Asperger's Syndrom is a subset of Autism (as I understand it) and many who have Asperger's are actually quite bright and relatively 'normal' -- having some degrees of social awkwardness. Many who are dignosed with Asperger's DO NOT see themselves as suffering from something that needs to be 'cured' but rather as a different way of life.

There are varying levels of 'Autism' and varoius disorders that make up the 'Autism Spectrum'... not everyone is Rain Man and not everyone who has Autism is incapable of leading a normal life and functioning in the real world.
Coke to you!

[Paul McEnery]

I will vote for Obama and have grudingly come to admire him on some levels - I started out for Edwards - but it would be naive to think that one of his guiding motivations is not ambition. He has always been politically calculating, hell, joing Wright's church in the first place was calculating. Why people are surprised I don't know. You don't rip your life apart and place your family under that strain unless you really, really want it.

Yes and no.

I think the community also really really wanted it, and found him to be their candidate. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Infra-Man]

Which isn't at all important. The campaign's over, and she lost.

We know this, because amongst Democrats, Obama's polling at 50 something percent and Clinton at 30 something. It's a done deal.

If we re-ran the elections she won, how many states does she think she'd keep? She'd lose California now, I should think.

Agreed. The primary has really been over (at least mathematically) for awhile now.

It's just more than a bit sad that she's all out of straws and is grasping at air.

[Paul McEnery]

I should add that, politically, Obama may be making the right decision to resign from his church.

But it's definitely a politically-based decision, not some sort of idealogical difference between them, at least that I can see.

Oh, after that Hillary-baiting wanker opened his gob, what else could he do?

[Corrina]

Sorry, Paul, usually I don't have a problem deciphering your posts but you'll have to be more specific on that one. :)

Too many wankers in politics, ya know.

As for Hillary, oh, I see all her faults, definitely. I'd vote for her over McCain, though.

I just am wary of any politician whose supporters claim he's the second coming.

[Kevinroc]

Clinton is summoning her top donors to New York tomorrow night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html


Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

[Buzz Dixon]

Unless, that is, you think our Aspergersy brothers and sisters here should have been prevented or cured.If you mean aborted if there was a pre-natal test for Autism/Aspberger's Syndrome, no. If you mean given treatment that either eliminates the condition without harming the individual or at least help them relate to the world better, I don't think anyone would object to that.

[Buzz Dixon]

Me, I'd give him [Bill Clinton] a job. At the UN.Cleaning toilets, perhaps?

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry, Paul, usually I don't have a problem deciphering your posts but you'll have to be more specific on that one. :)

Too many wankers in politics, ya know.

As for Hillary, oh, I see all her faults, definitely. I'd vote for her over McCain, though.

I just am wary of any politician whose supporters claim he's the second coming.

The white guest preacher who went off about Hillary crying. Didn't go past the headline and the gruesome youtube still. Perhaps I've got it all wrong. This did happen, yeah?

[Paul McEnery]

Cleaning toilets, perhaps?

I'm not trusting that man on his knees in the toilets.

Nah, give him something less dignified. Like US Ambassador.

[Paul McEnery]

If you mean aborted if there was a pre-natal test for Autism/Aspberger's Syndrome, no. If you mean given treatment that either eliminates the condition without harming the individual or at least help them relate to the world better, I don't think anyone would object to that.

Well I bloody would, for a start.

Here's the anti-neurotypical argument.

Autism Spectrum isn't a disease, it's just part of the normal statistical variance of humanity. Calling it a disease is just the bloody norms stigmatizing what they don't understand. Seriously, you eliminate Autism spectrum, you kill Math, you kill Physics, you kill Comics.

Quite possibly kill all men, too.

Identifying Autism Spectrum with the distressed cases of extreme Autism gets it as wrong as identifying all moodswing people with Schizophrenia.

[Tetsuo_man]

If you mean aborted if there was a pre-natal test for Autism/Aspberger's Syndrome, no. If you mean given treatment that either eliminates the condition without harming the individual or at least help them relate to the world better, I don't think anyone would object to that.

YOu have no idea what your in for.

[Stressfactor]

If you mean aborted if there was a pre-natal test for Autism/Aspberger's Syndrome, no. If you mean given treatment that either eliminates the condition without harming the individual or at least help them relate to the world better, I don't think anyone would object to that.

The problem is that such things usually cannot be diagnosed until the child is older and really, in the case of things like Asperger's Syndrome I think that should be up to the person to decide how they want to live. As Paul pointed out -- there are varying levels of the 'disorder' (for lack of a better word) and there are many who do not consider anything wrong with the way they are and they are fully able to function in the world.

To just "cure" children of everything without understanding it, to me, skates a little closely to the idea of "what if tomorrow it was discovered that there were certain parts of the brain that were responsible for homosexual behavior and what if there was a drug that could alter those parts of the brain so that the person would be heterosexual" by your arguement every homosexual person should be "cured" because it would make it easier for them to get by in society.

People think it is corny when others say that "special" children bring something special into their lives but sometimes it IS true. I know of a man who could NOT get his act together. He couldn't hold down a job, he was a drug addict, etc. When his mother became too ill to care for his older sister, who had Downs Syndrome he stepped up to the plate, he got his shit together, he kicked the drugs and got a job so that his sister didn't have to go into a home.

[the4thpip]

Yeah, like if the petition was signed with block letters instead of a signature, he had it thrown out.

Seems very weasley to me.

Petitions often invite some people to attempt fraud. It's very easy to do and hard to find the culprit. I remember several petitions in my own town that had a whole bunch of signatures tossed out because the people didn't exist, or when contacted denied signing the petition.

If "he challenged signatures that then got thrown out as fraudulent" is the worst the attack machines can dig up on him, Michellle may as well pick out the drapes for the White House now.

[Corrina]

The white guest preacher who went off about Hillary crying. Didn't go past the headline and the gruesome youtube still. Perhaps I've got it all wrong. This did happen, yeah?

Hmmm...probably did happen but it's Monday and I'm not connecting the dots to Obama and his preacher.

[Stressfactor]

In the beginning I was not sure WHICH candidate I would go with. Obama and Clinton both seemed like pretty solid choices (best that can be expected in this day and age). Now Clinton seems to be becoming... strident... for lack of a better word.

She doesn't have to drop out of the race but to me she seems to be becomming more and more strident in her insistence that she WILL win the nomination. This is having the OPPOSITE effect on me than what she would probably intend. Instead of convincing me she IS the right person for the job it is convincing me that she can't face the POSSIBILITY of losing without getting a bit nasty about it. And for the record, no, her WORDS may not be all that nasty but there is a TONE in her voice that is starting to shrill while Obama remains fairly cool, calm, and collected.

I don't think she's doing herself any favors here.

In the end, no matter what -- SOMEONE has won -- a WOMAN was taken seriously for the candidacy of President of the United States and a man with AFRICAN roots was taken seriously for the candidacy of President of the United States. We've finally come a long way babies!

[Corrina]

On special children, well, I've got a houseful.

On the one hand, I might well tell my kids they might want to adopt, because there's a heavy duty genetic component to these things, to say nothing of what pregnancy hormones might do to the girls. And they have conditions that range from quite mild to seriously impaired and needing a special school.

But on the other hand, it could be that this perfect storm of genetics and personality is going to benefit them in the long term. The youngest child taught himself to read at four, checks out adult computer books on javascript & computer languages now, reading wikipedia entries on old operating systems, and has taught himself some basic programming. He's eight.

I have no idea what he'll do with his life but he could possibly be the first to invent X, which will make all our lives better. Can that part of him be removed from the rest? I wonder.

The best you can do with treatment is get the treatment to reveal the person within, not mask it. Frex, help those with Asperger's to feel more comfortable in social settings without changing their personalities.

[Paul McEnery]

Hmmm...probably did happen but it's Monday and I'm not connecting the dots to Obama and his preacher.

Yeah, it was some Catholic guy called Pfreiger or something like that. Total jerk by the look of it, treating the pulpit like the bar at last call. Was the guy just stupid? A Rovian plant? A secret bigot looking to establish his credentials? Who knows. I just hope someone punches him in the face.

So what can you do but cut and run?

[Paul McEnery]

On special children, well, I've got a houseful.

On the one hand, I might well tell my kids they might want to adopt, because there's a heavy duty genetic component to these things, to say nothing of what pregnancy hormones might do to the girls. And they have conditions that range from quite mild to seriously impaired and needing a special school.

But on the other hand, it could be that this perfect storm of genetics and personality is going to benefit them in the long term. The youngest child taught himself to read at four, checks out adult computer books on javascript & computer languages now, reading wikipedia entries on old operating systems, and has taught himself some basic programming. He's eight.

I have no idea what he'll do with his life but he could possibly be the first to invent X, which will make all our lives better. Can that part of him be removed from the rest? I wonder.

The best you can do with treatment is get the treatment to reveal the person within, not mask it. Frex, help those with Asperger's to feel more comfortable in social settings without changing their personalities.

Indeed. It's not so much that the Aspy's kids need therapy as that the rest of the world needs a kick up the jacksie.

[Buzz Dixon]

Autism Spectrum isn't a disease, it's just part of the normal statistical variance of humanity. Calling it a disease is just the bloody norms stigmatizing what they don't understand. Seriously, you eliminate Autism spectrum, you kill Math, you kill Physics, you kill Comics.

Quite possibly kill all men, too.Paul, that is one of the most unrealistic things I've ever read.

First off, I grant you the Autism Spectrum; that's not the debate point. It's like having a normal vision range; yes, a lot of people fall well outside the 20-20 "normal" range but that doesn't mean that nothing should be done to give them normal vision. I'm extremely nearsighted and wear very strong glasses; I opt for them because I don't like the idea of anything touching my eyes so that precludes contacts and Lasik-type surgery.

What I do not say is that society must be re-ordered to accommodate my limitations (i.e., slow traffic down to 5mph to give me adequate reaction time without glasses, make all public sighs at least 40 ft. tall, etc.). And I certainly don't say that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the notion I adapt to the world around me rather than demand it adapt to me.

If there was a magic pill I could take to give me 20-20 vision (and "magic" includes "no harmful side effects" by definition), I'd take it. There is nothing to be gained by being near-sighted.

And, no, by eliminating the Autism Spectrum we do not kill math, physics, or comics. While I've had some dealings with mathematicians and physicists, I can speak with real authority re Comics.

There are members of my family who have Asperger's Syndrome (i.e., they've been diagnosed) or who are suspected to have it (i.e., no formal diagnosis, but their patterns of behavior match the classic signs of Asperger's as well as the behaviors of family members we know who do have it).

I've also spent a lot of time in the comics and animation fields.

I can't think of any creative person I've worked with who has had Asperger's Syndrome or the symptoms of Asperger's. I've know a lot of eccentric types of people: A couple of genuine sociopaths, more than a few neurotics, garden variety kooks and obsessive/compulsives, people who are sweet, lovable, vile, uncouth, egocentric, rude, generous, lovable, whatever. I've met celibate, faithful, promiscuous, passive, aggressive, passive/aggressive, tolerant, hair-triggered, selfish, generous, aloof, humble, shy, boisterous creative types, even one case of what may have been genuine demonic possession, but never anyone demonstrating Asperger's Syndrome.

Now, I have met a few retailers whom I wouldn't be surprised to learn suffered from Asperger's, and heaven's knows there are legions of fans out there who definitely fall into the classic patterns

(Now, I'll grant there may have been some comics/animation creative types who had the condition but with therapy and training have learned how to suppress the more off-putting displays of Asperger's, but if that's the case, it's like me wearing glasses and proves my point.)

I mention all this because if comics did rely on people with Autism and Asperger's to exist, well, they simply wouldn't exist. The creative environment would frustrate and be frustrated by those with the condition.

Simply put, in all likelihood they wouldn't get in the front door, and if they did get in they wouldn't last long.

(And I know the difference between a person with Asperger's and an a[ir]hole. A person with Asperger's is genuinely unaware of how others are perceiving him; the a[ir]hole is aware and relishes in it.)

Now, I grant you certain fields of human endeavor -- math, computers, engineering, etc. -- make it easier for a person with Asperger's of low-level Autism to contribute. But based on my experience in the creative world, I am extrememly dubious of any claims that there would be no progress without Autistic/Asperger's sufferers; there's just far too many examples of normal, well-adjusted people contributing greatly to those fields to assume there would be no progress without Autistic and Asperger's Syndrome.

One of the amazing contributions of the computer age is that it's enabled many people suffering from Autism and Asperger's to get a chance to interact on a more normal basis with other humans by proxy via electronic communications. Unable to "crack the code" of dealing with the immediate world around them, many of these people now have a chance to engage with other human beings in more intellectual environments (as in abstract ideas, not "smarter"). Indeed, much of what we are learning about Autism comes from those people telling us what they are experiencing and how they are perceiving the world around them.

So, like near sighted people, treat 'em like people. Give 'em their rights and dignity. But don't pretend it's normal, and certainly don't pretend it's bad to try to do something top help them adjust to the world around them.

[Paul McEnery]

I can't think of any creative person I've worked with who has had Asperger's Syndrome or the symptoms of Asperger's.

As you go on to acknowledge, I'm talking about the paying customers. Comics fans are raging geeks. Being a geek has a lot in common with Autism Spectrum.

As any fule know, artistic creativity is more to do with Bipolar Spectrum. Logical creativity has more to do with Autistic Spectrum.


So, like near sighted people, treat 'em like people. Give 'em their rights and dignity. But don't pretend it's normal, and certainly don't pretend it's bad to try to do something top help them adjust to the world around them.

What part of statistical variance and stigmatization do you not understand?

Also, does it not occur to you that "normal" people are also suffering from cognitive deficits in certain areas; the only thing they've got in their favour is that the numbers. Mind, I'd love to drop something in the water that would wake them up and sort them out -- if I thought it would work.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a cure for Damn-Fool-With-No-Imagination Spectrum.

[KevinTBrown]

Can we move the autism discussion elsewhere and discuss something a little more sedate here...? Like politics? :biggrin:

[section 8]

Can we move the autism discussion elsewhere and discuss something a little more sedate here...? Like politics? :biggrin:

very true Autism is a metal disorder one is born with, politics is a mental disorder one chooses

[Paul McEnery]

very true Autism is a metal disorder one is born with, politics is a mental disorder one chooses

Where's my zinc tablets? :biggrin:

[Corrina]

very true Autism is a metal disorder one is born with, politics is a mental disorder one chooses

Ha! That's good!

And very true.

[Charles RB]

I dunno about autism, but I'd be quite happy if someone came up with a pill to remove my dyspraxia - there's nothing special about being unable to grasp simple body language or personal space, thereby making it a slog to not come off as a twat in social situations with strangers, at job interviews et al.