Democrats & Liberals Archives

McCain Campaign: Unclear on the Concept of Endorsement

Surely, you must be joking,” says I to the McCain campaign. Nay, I do not jest, says they to I.

And don’t call me Shirley.

This is part of what Hillary said last night:

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

This won't be easy. Progress never is. But it will be impossible if we don't fight to put a Democrat in the White House.

We need to elect Barack Obama because we need a President who understands that America can't compete in a global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators, while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. We need a President who understands that we can't solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in new technologies that will build a green economy.

We need a President who understands that the genius of America has always depended on the strength and vitality of the middle class.

Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down. He knows government must be about "We the people" not "We the favored few."

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he'll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our time. Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, President Clinton and the Democrats did it before. And President Obama and the Democrats will do it again.

And this is the McCain campaign's stupefyingly insane response:

Sen. Clinton ran her presidential campaign making clear that Barack Obama is not prepared to lead as commander in chief. Nowhere tonight did she alter that assessment. Nowhere tonight did she say that Barack Obama is ready to lead.

No, she just advocated him for the presidency on the grounds that he would fix the economy, improve our geopolitical and military situation, and restore balance to our society's economic equation!

This is the logical pretzel that the Republicans are prepared to twist Hillary's words into in a desperate attempt to avoid the blindingly obvious: Democrats are going into this election as united as they ever have been. And if HIllary didn't get it on this first try, Bill will come along and seal the deal. They know their best interests are in seeing their party win this fall.

But Hillary has already spoken to this brazenly disigenuous tactic:

I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message.

I mean, come on folks. You have to be blindly committed to misinterpreting everything this lady is saying, if you want to continue this notion that there remains this rift between the Clinton and Obama supporters. But you know, some people just don't want to wake up to the inconvenient reality that it's becoming harder and harder to split Democrats apart.

When people persist in ignoring the evidence to suggest such things, that indicates that they probably think people like you are too stupid or inattentive to register the truth. Do you want such people once again in control of this country, people who actually think they can get away with such blatant bull hockey? It's your choice folks.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 7:35 AM
Comments
Comment #259686

It’s sad that the RNC thinks such a tactic would work (a tactic that was read from the RNC email on CNN last night by a commentator then shamelessly parroted by the Republican panelists). It’s as though they had a checklist of phrases that they would attack Hillary for not saying, and this one was the top on the list that she didn’t say.

Her endorsement of Obama was unequivocal. For the Republicans to claim she didn’t mean it because she didn’t say it in a particular way is laughable. If she had said those lines, they would have just gone to the next item on the list and said it didn’t really count because she didn’t that that one.

Just pathetic.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 27, 2008 8:20 AM
Comment #259693

I found Hillary’s speech to be awesome! It will now put pressure on Joe Biden and Barack. They will have to perform above and beyond to look presidential and vice presidential. I thought her speech was incredible and went a long way to patching things up. Now only the most self-centered Hillary supporters will cross over or not vote at all.

I think we need to be careful-just because we saw a homerun doesn’t mean the corporate mass media is going to let that stand. Already on CBS this A. M. they had a hack from the FBI interpreting Hillary’s body language to say that she didn’t really mean what she was saying about Barack. They could find no fault with the speech so they rolled out the FBI to evaluate her body language. I am sure most Americans would assume that an FBI agent is unbiased-that’s why they used him this morning but for me I see just another gov’t hack doing the bidding of the corporate elicitists who are currently running our country. Call me a conspiracy theorist I don’t care. But mark my word-in the next few hours and days I bet we will see more and more about how Hillary’s body language showed she didn’t really mean what she was saying. I hope this doesn’t happen and really hope I am proved wrong on this.

Posted by: Carolina at August 27, 2008 10:02 AM
Comment #259701

Carolina

You are no conspiracy theorist. There will be those who try to convince us that what is right in front of us does not exist knowing that a few will actually believe them. To hell with them and their ridiculously sophomoric and absurd attempts at brain washing. Much of this stuff is just plain laughable and at the same time depressing in that some people will actually believe it. It seems to me that many of these news organizations instead of reporting the news are now in the business of creating it. After all what good is a story without a bit of controversy. They need controversy to get viewers. Unfortunately it has come to a point that we all have to read between the lines to find where the truth lies. That or ignore them.

In order to deliver a speech that has the appearance of being of conviction, one has to have it. And Hillary displayed a whole boatload of it last night. I am expecting Bill to deliver another boat load of conviction tonight in the charismatic, reassuring and convincing manner that is truly individual to his style.

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #259702

Carolina-
It seems people are intent on reading into her speech anything else but it’s explicit meaning, because otherwise people might think that the feud is basically over.

It’s hard not to get occasionally jittery, but I think it’s because we care so much about the outcome that any minute downturn become The Problem That Could Ruin Everything.

On the plus side, you got a number of people calling this speculation and bias out for what it is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 10:22 AM
Comment #259703

The same people who say this stupidity about Hillary are the ones who accused Bill of dope smuggling, murder and real estate fraud. Yes some media will carry that ball (bull?), and yes we’ll hear more of it from our corporate press. We just have to overcome it by being committed ourselves, and when we hear our friends and relatives spewing the corporate line, we must not hesitate to correct them.

This election is too important for us to allow that crap to continue. Standing by and not defending Kerry is why we lost last time. Let’s not let it happen again.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 27, 2008 10:23 AM
Comment #259707

This Republican talking point is simply unbelievable, and despicable. Hillary gave a tremendous speech. This is about electing a Democrat to the White House.

And if anyone doubts why that is so important, this kind of GOP talking point- a baldfaced lie- reminds us exactly why it is so important to make sure a Democract wins, and despicable liars such as the people fronting such misinformation are kicked out of power.

Posted by: phx8 at August 27, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #259709

It’s the big lie approach: lie baldface and repeat it.

Call the surge a success even though the violence came down on the initiative of the Iraqis and the overall strategic goal of political reconciliation never happened.

Say that Obama is a Muslim, even as you criticize him for going to an “extremist” Christian church.

The point of the endeavor, even if it doesn’t make people change their minds is to confuse them and stall their actions with uncertainty.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #259710
You have to be blindly committed to misinterpreting everything this lady is saying, if you want to continue this notion that there remains this rift between the Clinton and Obama supporters.

Stephen,

There is a difference between asserting that Hillary put her support behind Obama and going on to say that there is now no rift between the Clinton and Obama supporters. The facts do not back up the assertion, I’ll be curious to see what the polling data shows in the next couple of days to possibly be able to make that assertion or not, but most recent polling had around 30% of the former Clinton supporters asserting that they would be voting for McCain and another good sized percentage for someone other than Obama (though probably not McCain so it doesn’t bother most Democrats I suppose).

As for only Fox News saying such things, I listen to Indy Talk (you know, independants?) and they talked to many Hillary supporters who are going to vote either for McCain or not for Obama, even after the speech.

There’s just something about calling the only woman VP candidate a racist, along with the only midly successful Democratic president in 50 years a racist, just because you are in a heated debate that is going to stick with those supporters of them I think. You may want to brush it off nad claim the rift is over, but you are talking your wishes, not necessarily reality.

Unless you have new polling data that I don’t? I would like to see it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 27, 2008 10:50 AM
Comment #259719

Rhinehold-
Seven out of ten were likely to come with him to begin with. Given the response by Hillary voters among Democrats, you’ll find those numbers dropping. Meanwhile, Obama and McCain basically split independents.

The rift is healing. The “split party” thing was oversold, and so was the PUMA thing. There are some people who won’t be reachable, but that’s the breaks sometimes, and no Democrat or Republican gets everybody.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #259723

Stephen,

I’m pretty sure those Hill supporters who will drop out, or vote for McPain were never democrats in the first place. Repugs will call them cross-overs and brag about garnering democrat votes, but I find it all doubtful at best. I abhor the thoughts of even that few hardcases actually voting for McPain…what does that show that they actually felt for Hillary?

Posted by: Marysdude at August 27, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #259725

Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton will have more than a few things to say tonight. He is still dynamic and his powers of persuasion are still great! Like they say……it aint over……
It’s going to take a while for all the bouncing to alter the polls, too.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Posted by: janedoe at August 27, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #259727

And, isn’t he miffed about having to change what he wanted to talk about so he isn’t going to the Obama speech tomorrow night? Or did I hear that wrong?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 27, 2008 1:17 PM
Comment #259730

Stephen is guilty of the same warped logic he accuses the McCain camp of.

The McCain camp never denied, as Stephen claims, that Clinton endorsed Obama.

McCain’s point is that Clinton did not clearly repudiate her MANY, MANY previous statements about Obama’s unreadiness to assume the presidential office. Remember the 3 A.M. phone call ad?

Clinton’s speech clearly endorses Obama because Obama is a Democrat and Clinton prefers the Democratic agenda. It’s filled with “Obama understands” this and “Obama understands” that and says very, very little about Obama’s personal readiness.

As far as Clinton is concerned, it’s the fact that Obama is a Democrat that earns her endorsement. Any Democrat would do, which is made clear in such lines as:

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he’ll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our time. Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, President Clinton and the Democrats did it before. And President Obama and the Democrats will do it again.

Clinton got her marching orders and did what she had to—endorse the Democratic candidate for president. But she has a very, very extensive record of saying that Obama, personally, as opposed to just being a generic Democrat who subscribes to typical Democratic party ideas, lacks the personal qualifications to be commander in chief.

She did not and still hasn’t repudiated her previous statements. If the previous statements were not so numerous and so forceful, we wouldn’t be looking for such a clear and unambiguous statement to the contrary now.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 27, 2008 1:27 PM
Comment #259737

LO

She did not and still hasn’t repudiated her previous statements. If the previous statements were not so numerous and so forceful, we wouldn’t be looking for such a clear and unambiguous statement to the contrary now.

Hillary could give a written statement written in blood, video taped and witnessed by a horde of preachers and you folks would still demand DNA tests on that blood which of course would only be 99.99 % accurate, leaving room for denial. Her previous statements were made in the heat of battle. They are the result of politics, nothing more.

Obama has her unequivocal support. The word support in itself indicates faith by Clinton of Obama’s ability to lead. The rest demands no personal or detailed explanation. You folks are once again creating controversy where none truly exists in an attempt to create negative spin out of thin air. Whats new?

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #259741

>You folks are once again creating controversy where none truly exists in an attempt to create negative spin out of thin air. Whats new?

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 02:27 PM

RickIL,

There is nothing new about these Faux News Parrotts and Brash Lamebrain Dittoheads…it’s okay, though, they have to say something.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 27, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #259745

dude

What amazes me is that much of the lamebrain fodder they perpetuate is so ridiculously obvious that I personally would be embarrassed to present it. Are these people really that stupid or are they forsaking integrity for a paycheck. My guess is they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #259749

You are having a bad convention or you wouldn’t be talking about this. This is a defensive posting. Democrats are clearly on the defense. As long as you are discusing Hillary, you are loosing.

As a Republican, the convention is fantastic. We should be down by 10 and we are tied with no bounce. The press is all about the Clintons and almost nothing about Obama’s agenda for the country.

Here should be you agenda:

Restoring America’s greatness.

Right now your discussion should be your parties great ideas about (from your perspective) moving the country back to where it once was in the great 1990’s.

Instead your party is divided over Hillary and you are defending yourselves. This is our only chance to win is if you stay divided by Hillary, or keep having to defend yourselves.

By the way, get ready for the next issue. Have you seen the set from which Obama is speeking? Talk about walking into being lampooned. It looks like a Greek god’s temple!! Instead of the speech being about Obama’s ideas, it’s going to be about his over inflated ego. Nice job!!

Anyway, from a McCain supporters point of view, your convention could not be any better.

By the way I hear Bill Clinton and many of Hillary’s top supporters are skipping Obama’s speech!!

You guys are making this a fair election. Oh man, if you guys loose this year. Oh my, oh my.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 27, 2008 3:22 PM
Comment #259750

thanks for the comments.

I just checked some news sources and its already out there

This from CNN: CNN) — What did Hillary Clinton’s body language give away at the Democratic National Convention?

Dan Hill, a body language expert and author of “Face Time,” told CNN that even while the words Clinton delivered offered an unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama, her body language was much less affirmative.

“When she spoke about Obama, she really did not emote very much,” Hill said. “The only thing she showed was a very weak smile, the cheeks didn’t tend to lift very much, it was really almost what I would call a ‘crocodile smile’ where even the slight corners of the lips sometimes raise into a little bit of a smirk.”

“I don’t think that helped move the 30 percent of her supporters who say they won’t vote for Obama,” Hill added. “What she did do was appeal to voters at large, that she did more emotionally.”

I haven’t checked out Dan Hill yet to see how legimate he is-not sure if that was who was on CBS the A. M. or not.

Posted by: Carolina at August 27, 2008 3:24 PM
Comment #259751

LO-
You have to split hairs pretty fine and add some very imaginative reconstructions to come to the conclusion that she was secretly trying to signal Barack’s unreadiness, or intending to say so by omission. There is an implicit conclusion in endorsing somebody for a job: you think they’re capable of it.

Whatever reason Hillary decided to do this, her intent should be plain: she want’s to unite the party. The only reason to twist her words so out of shape is to introduce uncertainty to the proceedings, which seems to be the Republican’s substitute for raising objections of actual substance.

I have some theories as to why you’re doing this. One is that the closing opportunity to stop the Democratic advance through disunity is driving Republicans insane. Two is that you folks are so used to misinterpreting what Democrats say that you saw this unambiguous endorsement as a challenge worthy of your contrariness.

Mostly, though, I think this is desperation. You can’t admit that Hillary did a good job, or you don’t want her to do a good job. You want to sow confusion, so you’re going forward with one of these big lies.

But seriously. Who do you think you’re kidding?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #259752

Craig Holmes-
We did plenty of discussion of the issues about our great plans. It didn’t all make the primetime broadcasts, but it was there. Hell, the Keynote speech was all about things.

But you make one mistake: this is not about reviving the successes of the past, but creating them for the future.

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. You people ridicule what you don’t understand, and worse, you’re not keeping up with basic information. We discussed our agenda. You just had to have C-Span to get anything else but the usually frittering away of time on analysis of the headliners. The idiots missed some pretty soundbite worthy one-liners in the process. Hell, they failed to show Brian Schweitzer. I mean the man knocked it out of the park, and the only place you could pick it up was C-Span.

It’s bad coverage, not bad conventioneering.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 3:32 PM
Comment #259758
It’s bad coverage, not bad conventioneering.

Aren’t they the same in this day and age? So you made some speeches designed for the already converted when you know the cameras aren’t around to fire up the base (as you seem to be) and then leave the more tepid, mainstream, non-rhetoric laden stuff for the general masses. What’s new about that?

If you know when the cameras are going to be on and you present badly to those cameras, is it bad coverage or conventioneering?

You should be glad that your whole convenstion isn’t relegated for a few hours on C-Span, that’s what others in this country get by daring to challenge the duopoly.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 27, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #259761

The problem with these theories about what mischief Republicans are up to in making this observation about Clinton’s speech is that Republicans are hardly the only ones doing it.

Is the New Republic a source of right-wing opinion?

What’s Missing from Hillary’s speech”

I see no clear, flat assertion that Obama is qualified and prepared to be commander in chief from day one, which of course was always her central critique of him. That was something I had expected to see.

How about Ben Smith at the the Politico

In fact, it was a deeply personalized primary. Her supporters were, to some degree, supporting her. And Clinton did little to sell Obama’s personal characteristics, his qualities or ability as commander in chief. She mentioned Obama 12 times, McCain 12 times.

How about Kurtz at that right-wing newspaper, The Washington Post?

She wanted people to vote for Obama because he was a Democrat who would pretty much push the same programs that she would have pushed, and because she didn’t want John McCain in the White House, no way, no how. She said nothing about Obama’s personal qualities and nothing about his readiness to be president, at 3 a.m. or any other time. No wonder Michelle Obama wasn’t smiling during the cutaway shots.

I never said that Clinton didn’t do a good job. In fact, from the perspective of her ambitions, she may have accomplished exactly what she wanted to. The question, however, is whether what’s good for Obama is good for Clinton and vice versa.

The fact remains that Clinton has said numerous times that Obama—personally—is not ready to be Commander in Chief. Many of us—and not just Republicans—were surprised that her endorsement did not do more to attempt to reverse her earlier statements.

Taking a larger perspective, however, it doesn’t really matter what Hillary says about the subject. The fact remains that Obama is someone with almost no meaningful experiences that have prepared him to be president—a fact that can’t simply be papered over with endorsements from anybody. It’s going to be something we’ll hear a LOT more about in the coming weeks—this notion that Obama is all style and no substance. A fact that will be brought home for all to see tomorrow night when he surrounds himself with celebrities and gives a speech in a football stadium where they’ve erected a little Greek temple for him. I’m expecting him to cut a very comic figure.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 27, 2008 4:01 PM
Comment #259763

Stephen:

I know you haven’t ridiculed Republicans. Neither has your party.

All that being said, you are on the defensive. As long as you are writing blogs about Hillary, we have momentum on our side. It doesn’t mean McCain is going to win, it just means that momentum is on the Republican side.

The only two winning topics for democrats are Obama’s vision and McCain’s shortcomings.

At least you guys are helping keep us in the game.

Who decided to have Obama speek in front of Greek Pillars?

Oh man the commercial that is coming!! Will he be Zeus or Hercules? I know, Alexander the Great!!

Oh Lord, this is going to be rough. I bet it’s out tomorrow.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 27, 2008 4:11 PM
Comment #259770
Obama has her unequivocal support. The word support in itself indicates faith by Clinton of Obama’s ability to lead.

Rick, is that so? I fully support the KC Chief but I have absolutely no faith in their ability to win the Super Bowl.

Support: to uphold (a person, cause, policy, etc.) by aid, countenance, one’s vote, etc.;

Wow, nothing there about faith in ability.

Posted by: Kirk at August 27, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #259771

“In order to deliver a speech that has the appearance of being of conviction, one has to have it. And Hillary displayed a whole boatload of it last night. I am expecting Bill to deliver another boat load of conviction tonight in the charismatic, reassuring and convincing manner that is truly individual to his style.”
Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 10:21 AM

RickIL, I would disagree when it comes to the Clinton’s. I vividly remember Bill on TV from the oval office wagging his finger while telling American’s that he never had a sexual relationship with that woman. Hell, I and most of the country believed him including his closest advisors. Convincing? Yes. Truthful, No.

I do agree that Hillary gave a good speech and fully expected she would. She should be the candidate as evidenced by her recount of her accomplishments in public life. I noticed that Barry’s photo or likeness did not appear even once in the pre-speech video of Hillary.

What public service achievements will be shown in Barry’s pre-speech video. Very little I expect because he has very little. That Barry is not ready for prime-time was loudly and clearly pronounced by both Hillary and Biden, but tellingly, never said about each other.

Please, someone tell me, what has Barry done since the primaries to change both Clinton and Biden’s minds except to win the nomination.

Posted by: Jim M at August 27, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #259773

Rhinehold-
According to what I’ve heard, Obama actually had to tune to C-Span, which has complete coverage, to find one of the more interesting of the speakers. I mean, one of the headliners even had Chris Matthews talking over them. The irony here is that many of the best lines had to be brought up from file, instead of seen live. That probably wasn’t the intent of the convention, just of the analysis hungry news networks.

LO-
She vouched for him, gave her full support, and has disavowed any use of her primary critiques for McCain’s purposes. She was opposing him in the primary, and that was the cliched angle of attack. It was also, I should remind you, a point of contention that lost her supporters.

If you want to parse what she did and did not say, go ahead, I’d expect it of those trying to exaggerate minimal differences. But in truth, if you asked her, she’d probably say he was ready, so it’s kind of pointless. She won’t leave herself open for such an obvious angle. She said he was the one to end the Iraq war, and that implicitly means that he’s the CINC capable of doing it.

Whatever claims you would have that Clinton felt McCain was the better candidate, you run right into her disavowal of that talking point before her speech.

Obama has more meaningful experience than McCain, because McCain’s experience hasn’t lead him to avoid repeating the mistakes that he has lived and worked through. If you learn the lessons of Vietnam, but fail to apply them to Iraq, what good is your learning?

As for the stadium? I think you Republicans have crowd envy. You couldn’t get 50,000 people to show up for McCain unless you hijacked a biker festival for the purpose. You wouldn’t bother to make fun of it if you weren’t jealous at Obama’s ability to draw a crowd.

Craig Holmes-
I’m not defensive. I’m incredulous. How in God’s name do these people’s minds work? Nitpicking, and overgeneralizing all in one lousy package. I just couldn’t let it pass without comment. I had to show just how absurd the right’s gotten in its jealousy, hatred, and desperation concerning the Democrats.

Kirk-
She did her absolute best to make sure her followers were told that the trust they had in her should be the trust they put in him. If you want to keep going, go through him, she said. She vouched for his ability to do the things that needed to be done, and told the crowd that the Success of the Clintons would be mirrored in Obama’s administration.

If you’re just listening to hear the supposedly subliminal slights, you’ll miss the actual content and intent of the speeches these figures are making. They have no desire to give the impression by text or subtext that they’re not fully on board. These are not stupid people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 5:12 PM
Comment #259775

Stephen:

The convention seems defensive. Too much Clinton drama too little vision.

Actually, I agree with you in part. The actual speeches are not what is doing it. It’s the Hillary supporters at the McCain reception, the protestors, the interviews from the floor and the talking heads.

In the end the measuring device is the polls. As of today, if anything there is a negative bounce. It will be up to “Alexander the Great” (couldn’t resist), to knock the ball out of the park.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 27, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #259777

Kirk

Rick, is that so? I fully support the KC Chief but I have absolutely no faith in their ability to win the Super Bowl.

I don’t support the chiefs and I don’t have any faith in their ability either. ;-) On that we are agreed. However there is a fundamental difference between supporting a person to run the nation and supporting a football team. For a politician to support something so important as the POTUS they need have faith in that persons abilities. If Obama should fail as a president Hillary’s support of him would most certainly be quickly and loudly proclaimed by those on the right as poor judgment on her part. In this context I do not believe she would support a person she considers incapable. I have to believe that she hopes to run again. I can not imagine why she would want to be caught in the same embarrassing situation as McCain in his unequivocal support of Bush.

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #259783

Jim M

RickIL, I would disagree when it comes to the Clinton’s. I vividly remember Bill on TV from the oval office wagging his finger while telling American’s that he never had a sexual relationship with that woman. Hell, I and most of the country believed him including his closest advisors. Convincing? Yes. Truthful, No

Given Bill’s human weaknesses I am still a fan of the man. I enjoy listening to him speak and find him a very intelligent person who is in tune with the people of this nation. I will be honest in telling you that I did not believe him for a moment when he was wagging that finger. The man was, (is?) is a female hound to put it bluntly. He made a knee jerk response in an effort to avoid marital and political embarrassment. He paid the price for putting himself in a compromising position with regards to his personal life. He is human and made a human mistake. I will make no excuses for him with respect to the latter. For me that particular weakness does not detract from his accomplishment as a politician. The fact that he still garners a great deal of respect around the world indicates that in the views of most his accomplishments outweigh his failures.

I believe you are wrong about Obama not appearing in the video. He did appear at one point very briefly. Either way I fail to see any substantial significance.

It can not be argued that Hillary has more accomplishment than Obama by virtue of experience. Had she managed to get the nomination I would gladly have given her my vote. It is my opinion that if she were to get elected there would have been little chance of diminishing the stalemate which results from partisan gridlock in government. It is the past of the Clintons and thriving hatreds of all things Clinton by those on the right that would have insured no progress in this area. Imo another term of continued stalemate and the insured non functionality of government would be devastating to this country.

With Obama I am putting faith in what I perceive as good judgment, intellect, extraordinary communication skills and a true desire to restore our government to a functional entity. Old methods, old hatreds, old policy, and old campaign rhetoric simply do not get it anymore. As was stated last night more than once at the convention this election is about the future of America. I can not imagine how more regressive republican policy can possibly be good for taking us into a future that for all intent and purposes must extend beyond outdated reasoning.

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #259784

Shirley, the next pretzel will be trying to find something in what WJClinton says tonight that can be read a critical of BHO. My understanding is that, in spite of getting the best medical care in the world, WJC is not expected to live very long, and us old folks’ hope of going back to the good old days will never happen.

There was something of a Kennedy love fest here Tuesday, at a discussion of the convention, which was surprising to me, since most of the participants were Jewish. The oldest, all lifelong Democrats, simply are not going to vote for your candidate. I don’t know where he makes up for those votes.

The AP today has the best video I’ve seen on Michelle O, talking about people doing things to support the troops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0xC308akX0

The views on the “radical church” that you have been looking at, are different from those that I have been looking at, coming from a different place, and I don’t want to post anything that would cause your head to explode, or make you sick again, but your guy is in trouble, the kind he can’t get out of, and our electoral process is not going to be the solution to his problems.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 27, 2008 6:24 PM
Comment #259789

I see Craig Holmes has picked up the latest right wing talking point about the set piece on the stage where Obama will give his speech looking like something a Greek God would use. You do realize that most of the government buildings in our capital are based on that same style of ancient Greek architecture, you know the birthplace of democracy? Republicans are so ignorant and pathetic to bring up the most absurd things to bitch about.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 27, 2008 7:39 PM
Comment #259792

According to the Gallup tracking poll, McCain’s support among the elderly is only a seven point lead. Get below 64, and it becomes essentially deadlocked. Below thirty, Obama has a twenty point advantage. McCain can be hurt by a very small movement of voters in any category, and he cannot match Obama’s enthusiasm factor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 7:50 PM
Comment #259793

pops

Republicans are so ignorant and pathetic to bring up the most absurd things to bitch about.

You got that right pops. I just shook my head and chuckled in amazement at that one. Maybe holding it in a Wal-Mart parking lot standing in the back of a pick up truck would be humble enough for them. But then they would accuse him of falsely representing himself as just an average Joe. Concern over such insignificant trivialities shows us just how shallow and limited the mindset of some right wingers can be.

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 8:03 PM
Comment #259794

….and pops scores again!

Okay, you all from the right and red side of this country have thrown out all your platitudes and tiresome cliche’s and will, no doubt, contine to launch more of them shortly on here.
As an “old”, (white), female, I’ve just seen something happen that even 20 years ago, wouldn’t have been a consideration. This was a tough fight to watch, and the last couple of days have been bittersweet. Part of me has hoped fervently that Hillary would walk away with the nomination and help to substantiate our struggle to find equality in this country, and world. The other part has watched with nearly an equal hope to see us finally get across the barrier of color and select a young African/American man as our President. The speeches of the last two days have also found that sappy side of me and I’ve sat with tears in my eyes listening to them…..but by God, today we did it! We have crossed that line as man, woman, black and white are embracing one candidate who we feel will put us back on track, help us to regain the stature in the world that the last 8 years has taken from us….restore our pride in leadership and give us a reason to hold our heads up again. God Bless America !

Posted by: janedoe at August 27, 2008 8:08 PM
Comment #259795

janedoe

The speeches of the last two days have also found that sappy side of me and I’ve sat with tears in my eyes listening to them

If I weren’t a guy I would admit to a few soggy times myself. It is very heartening that our party has managed to unify and not implode despite all the forecasts of just that from the right. But I am sure we will read a blog somewhere here tomorrow telling us that this is all a left wing deception and in truth it has been a failure to date.

You really should be careful about voicing that tear thing. Those on the right see compassion and displays of emotion as a weakness and will surely hold it over our heads as signs of emotional ineptitude. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at August 27, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #259796

IMO BHO is just going to be a rubber stamp if elected. I really think Biden and the rest of the Dems are going to run the show.

Posted by: KAP at August 27, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #259803

Now we know why Hillary did not explicitly mention the CINC role…

So Bill Clinton could!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #259806
Part of me has hoped fervently that Hillary would walk away with the nomination and help to substantiate our struggle to find equality in this country, and world. The other part has watched with nearly an equal hope to see us finally get across the barrier of color and select a young African/American man as our President.The speeches of the last two days have also found that sappy side of me and I’ve sat with tears in my eyes listening to them…..

The weakness does not lie in the tears but in these kinds of rationales for favoring candidates. Breaking barriers, substantiating our struggle… blech. Whatever happened to being qualified?

But since that’s how you guys think, then grab a box of Kleenex, call in the kids, and watch as a senior citizen with severe physical handicaps suffered in the service of his country takes the stage at the Republic Convention and attempts to “break barriers” and substantiate the struggles of old people. I’m sure it’ll be a real tear-jerker.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 27, 2008 11:09 PM
Comment #259808

RickIl….ain’t nuthin’ wrong with soggy!!
And I’ll tell you what….I’ll take emotional ineptitude over blind arrogance any day.
And man, watching Bill Clinton once again firmly in his element, made me wish that we could turn term limits off on a whim!!!
You were right….it only took a couple of hours..
To throw your quote back at you LO… “blech” !

Posted by: janedoe at August 27, 2008 11:16 PM
Comment #259809

pops mcgee:

It does look stupid. (The greek part). However if Obama speaks like Bill Clinton did tonight it wont matter. What a great speech!!!

You guys finally had a great night. Tomorrow the press wont be talking about division. Finally, a direction.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 27, 2008 11:18 PM
Comment #259812

janedoe -

I’ve just seen something happen that even 20 years ago, wouldn’t have been a consideration. This was a tough fight to watch, and the last couple of days have been bittersweet. Part of me has hoped fervently that Hillary would walk away with the nomination and help to substantiate our struggle to find equality in this country, and world. The other part has watched with nearly an equal hope to see us finally get across the barrier of color and select a young African/American man as our President.

Word for word, emotion for emotion, tear for tear…me too.

I haven’t been so partisan for any election before. Sure, I’d want one side or the other to win, but now…now I have a better understanding of what’s at stake.

We stand on the cusp of history, ready to watch the very culmination of the civil rights struggle, ready to reject the politics of division, intolerance, and imperialism, ready to once more set the example for the world that quality, not ethnicity, is the yardstick by which humanity should measure its leaders.

Well said, janedoe, very well said!

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 27, 2008 11:42 PM
Comment #259813

LO-
We celebrate their barrier breaking, not in exclusion of their qualifications, but in celebration of their qualifications finally meaning something no different than those of any of the white males who have crossed the convention stage. It is the fulfillment of the promise that if you work hard, you have the talent, and you have the ambition, few doors will be closed to you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 11:42 PM
Comment #259815

And Craig -

Thank you for your kind words - not something we see very often (and of course the conservatives don’t often get credit from us, either).

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 27, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #259816

You folks will not believe this.

According to a McCain Advisor on healthcare, the solution to the healthcare crisis is to consider the ability to get emergency healthcare at an ER (which is required by a law) as effectively being ensure, and then sign an executive order saying that nobody can be called uninsured on the census!

So, I wonder, if you drop dead in said emergency room and get buried in a pine box in a potter’s field, does that qualify as having life insurance?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 11:51 PM
Comment #259820

Aren’t they still looking for land-fill in Louisiana, Stephen?
Thanks Glen, and isn’t it a shame that the true impact of this will go over so many heads??

Posted by: janedoe at August 28, 2008 1:47 AM
Comment #259827

LO

The weakness does not lie in the tears but in these kinds of rationales for favoring candidates. Breaking barriers, substantiating our struggle… blech. Whatever happened to being qualified?

Rationality is a personal issue with all of us. We all use different rationale to substantiate our views based on our individual circumstances. I was not aware that there is a set standard of rationale by which we must all adhere to when determining presidential qualification. Perhaps you could show us that list and just who mandated it as law.

What is best for this country is not always defined in black and white. Likewise who is best to lead this country is not always defined by simple black and white qualifications. Sometimes it is the character, quantified values combined with intellectual ability and awareness that makes an individual more qualified than a person of simple experience. Experience does not always add up to sufficient. For all of McCains experience he still does not get what is not working in this country. He fails to recognize what is not working and actually supports more of it. He has no vision for leading us into a new technologically advanced future. He is comfortable with sustaining archaic approaches in effort to appease the wealthy. His record affirms that he really is no different than his would be predecessor. He represents experience that has no vision other than that of archaic GOP principles of party before people, wealthy before poor, war before diplomacy and profits before responsibility.

I very seriously doubt there will be any tears at the republican convention. It will consist of four days of cynicism, fear mongering and pandering to the religious right. Their platform will be based on the same old tired and worn out issues which have failed them and our country for the last eight years. Their candidate is nothing more than a representation of a continuation of old news, old failed policy, and little insight.

Posted by: RickIL at August 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Comment #259828

Stephen D

I checked your link out. Talk about some twisted logic. It is right up there with the American public is just a bunch of whiners analogy. It seems to me that simple redefinition has been the right wing answer to many issues for the last eight years. If you can’t solve it redefine it so it officially by definition can no longer be considered a valid talking point. What a bunch of irresponsible cold hearted insensitive buffoons.

Posted by: RickIL at August 28, 2008 10:21 AM
Comment #259837

“it is the fulfillment of the promise that if you work hard, you have the talent, and you have the ambition, few doors will be closed to you.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 27, 2008 11:42 PM

Thanks Stephen, that comes right out of the conservative handbook for individual success. Frankly, I was quite surprised by your admission.

Off topic for a moment, I find it interesting that since the new Boone Pickens commercial has aired touting more drilling combined with continuing research and development of new energy technology to “build a bridge” we have not heard any favorable comments by liberals. Where is the glowing praise by liberals following Pickens previous commercial?

Posted by: Jim M at August 28, 2008 12:11 PM
Comment #259841
She vouched for him, gave her full support, and has disavowed any use of her primary critiques for McCain’s purposes. She was opposing him in the primary, and that was the cliched angle of attack. It was also, I should remind you, a point of contention that lost her supporters.

If you want to parse what she did and did not say, go ahead, I’d expect it of those trying to exaggerate minimal differences. But in truth, if you asked her, she’d probably say he was ready, so it’s kind of pointless. She won’t leave herself open for such an obvious angle. She said he was the one to end the Iraq war, and that implicitly means that he’s the CINC capable of doing it

Stephen,

So what you are saying is that Hillary does consider Obama to be qualified and ready to be CIC?

So was Hillary lying to the electorate during the primaries when she said multiple times he was not?


Posted by: Kirk at August 28, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #259845
According to a McCain Advisor on healthcare, the solution to the healthcare crisis is to consider the ability to get emergency healthcare at an ER (which is required by a law) as effectively being ensure, and then sign an executive order saying that nobody can be called uninsured on the census!

So, I wonder, if you drop dead in said emergency room and get buried in a pine box in a potter’s field, does that qualify as having life insurance?

Stephen,

Typical twist and turn, Lie and Obfuscate.

You left out the fact that Goodman was actually calling for the cencus to focus on how peoples healthcare would be paid for and identifying those who are denied care.

According to Mr. Goodman, only people who are denied care are truly uninsured – everyone who gets care is effectively insured by some mechanism. “So instead of producing worthless statistics that people fling around in vacuous editorials and pointless debates, the Census Bureau should produce meaningful numbers, identifying all of the sources of funds people will draw on if they need medical care,” he said.

Nice try though. However, I am sure that the majority of leftists with their screw the conservatives at all cost will buy it hook line and sinker.

Posted by: Kirk at August 28, 2008 1:40 PM
Comment #259847

Kirk -

That, sir, is POLITICS, and one politician trying to defeat another politician.

If that offends you, then perhaps you should look back to see what Bush and McCain had to say about each other…and then the nice, which-cheek-below-the-navel-do-I-kiss things McCain said about Bush in the Republican Convention after Bush won the primary, hm?

Politicians don’t take this personally - they have to develop a thick skin. That’s why they can call each other everything but an angel in public, but be sincere friends watching a ball game together.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #259851

Glen,

I will take that as a Yes she was lying about his credentials and his ability to assume the position of CIC.

If she was lying then how do we know that she is not lying now?

Posted by: Kirk at August 28, 2008 2:08 PM
Comment #259859

I have heard Biden, both Clinton’s and others at the DNC convention talk about our failed economy. Figures released by the government today show that our economy grew by 3.3% in the second quarter. New Unemployment claims also dropped by about 10,000.

All this despite the housing debacle, high energy prices, and much more that weight our economy down. There are many countries in Europe and elsewhere that would kill for these kind of numbers.

Only a liberal democrat attempting to peddle fear and negativism to gain public office would call this a failed economy. And only a deluded liberal would call for tax increases at this time.

Would someone please explain to me how government is going to create 5.5 million new green jobs. Will government also create the money to pay them?

Posted by: Jim M at August 28, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #259860

Kirk -

You’re avoiding my point altogether.

Tell you what - if you think Hillary’s lying, then how about you show us a campaign where the candidates said, “if you vote for the other guy, it’s okay ‘cause he’s ready to lead just like I am!”

You’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, just like the Faux News hosts I saw this morning who were saying that because Bill Clinton was waving a pointed finger sometimes (and sometimes had his tongue in his cheek just like many old men I’ve seen over the years), he wasn’t sincere but was actually being sarcastic about everything he said.

Yeah, ignore the issues, tear down the messengers no matter how right they may be on the issues. That’s the Republican way, and you’ll see lots of it next week at the RNC.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 28, 2008 3:06 PM
Comment #259864

Jim M-
The only reason that you’re shocked is that you make bad assumptions about what Democrats believe. There’s nothing especially conservative about it, any more than family values or respect for law and order are.

As for Boone Pickens, the relationship of the party to that guy is complicated. One, people are naturally skeptical of him, and there’s good evidence to suggest that he’s got a back-end on this deal that involves cornering the CNG market and pumping water out of the Oglalla, which might be at risk if he did so. He’s also an original sponsor of the SwiftVets, so there is some bad blood there.

But it is true: there isn’t enough American reserves to keep us from having to import oil, should we stick with that. Whether Pickens gets what he wants, energy independence will ultimately only come through alternatives and renewables. Without that, we depend on the Saudis for our oil, whether we like it or not.

Kirk-
The first bad assumption you make is that candidates have anything else but a conflict of interest when it comes to talking about their opponents. I don’t think she went somewhere, did some research, and said to herself, “I must stop him”. I think she said that because with a grand total of four years additional experience, she thought it was a talking point she could use.

Evidently, it’s still one your party wants to use, and its probably got no more serious research and consideration behind it than Hillary’s claim. People say these kinds of expedient things when trying to get elected, and that’s a fact of life.

Do I consider it a substantive fear? Not really. Obama’s calm, delegates authority well, listens to people, mediates conflicts fairly effectively, but is also tough-minded and pragmatic. This notion of him as a weak-kneed, fearful neophyte underestimates the guts and toughness it took for him to defeat the Clintons and still come out smelling like a rose after such a brawl.

As for the Goodman thing? There’s a real difference between going to a doctor on appointment and having to take a seat in an emergency room. Those damn things are packed as it is. While you can get indigent care there, its usually after you’ve gotten so sick you have no choice. It is neither cheap nor is it really efficient.

Preventative care, and care when the problem first arises, does more good and costs less money than emergency care.

Besides, Shouldn’t ER’s be reserved for real emergencies? For the kid who fell off the monkey bars and broke an arm? For the contstruction worker with a foot of rebar through the gut, and the woman with a gunshot wound to the chest?

By forcing the burden onto emergency service, we’re picking the most expensive kind of care at the least opportune time to provide it. You want people getting regular check-ups, going to the doctor when illnesses and problems are minor, and sick folks getting well before they get back to work, not waiting until they have pneumonia or something like that.

Goodman’s suggestion is just the worst kind of Orwellian redefinition, the term insurance warped beyond its commonsensical usage in order to avoid having to deal with the problem. The twisting here is in Goodman’s words

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #259870

Thanks Glenn:

Here is my take on the convention for what it’s worth:

I don’t think last night could have gone any better for you guys. I score it 2 not so good nights and one great night. The first two nights didn’t look good to me because the day after all the talk was about hillary.

Last night cracked me up. For all of the putting down of “old politics”, “Old politics” really came through.

(Maybe I should open my own blog)

I think tonight is a mistake. Obama has a tendency to get ahead of himself. The presidential seal thing, tour of Europe, and now on a stage that makes him look like a Martin Luther King wanna be. (Speaking as a republican), for a while I thought he wanted to be Jesus Christ, but now I think it’s Martin Luther King.

Margarett Thatcher once said “Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to say you are you aren’t”.

I think Obama is ahead of himself again. He should have had others elevate him to Martin Luther King status, not his campaign.

If anything he should have picked a sight that was humble filled with white working class type folks. But that is just my opinion.

Anyway, I thought last night was an A+ for democrats. Each speaker hit the ball out of the ball park. Maybe Obama’s speech will be so good the trappings wont matter.

Oh another point on Obama. I have read some reports about him changing his style because of “THE ONE” video. People have said he needs more substance. He does, but to ask a home run hitter to change his stance right before the biggest up at bat of his life, is nonsense. He should (changing metaphors) “dance with the one he came with.” Tonight should be vintage Obama. “This is the time when the oceans stopped rising, and the planet began to heal.” He got here because of his public speaking ability. He should pull out all the stops and not worry about McCain’s ads. Just be Obama.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 28, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #259876

According to what I’ve read, the big rallies aren’t merely about epic crowd scenes, but also about voter registration and signing up volunteers. The price of admission is information, and information is what will make Obama a powerbroker in the party even if he doesn’t win.

But I do agree, he should be himself here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #259879

Stephen:

I bet it wont be repeated. There are too many risks. What if Republicans show up? What about those demostrators? Or if the weather is afoul?

It will probably be fine. But it is all about how it looks on TV. It’s the viewers back home that make the difference.

He does “get ahead of himself”.

By the way Stephen, you and I fight alot, but last night was a great night for you guys, congrats.

CH

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 28, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #259885

“hard work”? Please provide some non-fictional details on that. On the CIC, BHO claims he is going to call the joint chiefs into the oval office and tell them what he wants. Then I think they would hand him a little magic wand, and tell him to wave it around and see if it does anything. On trivial details, I thought he was using a little gray coloring on the sides of his head to “distress” himself.

Biden is great, but all I got from last night is that he is willing to tell any lie to help win the election.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 28, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #259898
As for the Goodman thing? There’s a real difference between going to a doctor on appointment and having to take a seat in an emergency room. Those damn things are packed as it is. While you can get indigent care there, its usually after you’ve gotten so sick you have no choice. It is neither cheap nor is it really efficient.

Stephen, I agree with you 100% on this. Where I disagree with you is on your assessment of Goodman’s motivation for wanting to see the change in how the numbers are generated through the cencus. You see it as an attempt to hide the truth about the healthcare/insurance system. I see it as someone trying to devise a way to determine exactly where the funds to cover someone’s healthcare are or are not coming from so that the issue can be addressed in an intelligent thought out process.

Posted by: Kirk at August 28, 2008 7:38 PM
Comment #259905

The Census? You mean, people actually answer those questions that they aren’t legally required to answer? Imagine, just freely giving up that kind of information to someone who has the power to put you in jail…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 28, 2008 9:21 PM
Comment #259912

ohrealy-
You really can’t say anything positive about him, can you?

Kirk-
It’s not an attempt to hide the truth, but to make it meaningless, which is all the more despicable. Insurance is meant to provide peace of mind, to give people financial stability when the big bills for medical expenses that rarely come in actually do land on their shoulders.

Going and executing that doubletalk ignores the problem of people being forced to wait until their health problems have become catastrophic, or worse yet, taking non-emergency level health problems and clogging emergency services up for those who actually need them. We need our healthcare system working. Your life and quality of life should not depend on your ability to pay for healthcare.

We need leaders who solve problems rather than talk their way out of solving them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 28, 2008 11:52 PM
Comment #260240

I repeat, “hard work”? Please provide some non-fictional details on that. Even more relevant after JMcC’s VP nomination.

“can’t say anything positive” I have many times, I even voted for him, but I won’t tell lies for him, or listen to spin and pretended that it’s reality. Would you vote for David Axelrod? I already made that mistake, and what did I get for it? Another marketing campaign.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 29, 2008 8:34 PM
Comment #261655

John McCain Is A Known Quantity
You know John McCain. You know you can trust John McCain.
What do you really know about Barack Obama? Do you really know if you can trust him?

Posted by: salman rushdies pal at September 5, 2008 7:53 AM
Post a comment