I saw something like that on Tweety’s show where they did the “cackle”.

supposed to uh, be a great uh, speaker?

I had a college instructor (English, no less) who had an “uh” problem.

Once you become aware of it, it’s the only thing you hear when they speak.

I mean, I can’t believe I’m the first person to come up with this new name for him.

It may not be smooth speaking, but I find that with most people, “uh” is a sound that escapes from their mouths when they are thinking. I don’t know what it indicates when Bush says it.

It’s going to drive me crazy, now that you’ve pointed it out, but I’d rather hear it from Obama than anything McCain has to say.

You really were worried about speech delivery technique?

It’s funny that Obama gives a speech in which he explicitly links race and class in clear terms in a way that has not ever been done by a mainstream US politician, and the “progressive” response here is straight out of Redstate.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/200…

Man, if you read the comments about the speech from the pro -Obama folks you would think that this speech basically put racial tension in America to bed. Yet, I am still wondering what was the take away? As always it was to mend the Obama story. Cause, Axelrod, is only selling us a story.

The speech brought back the followers to the story line that almost got away from them, the question is did it convince the non follower?

Axelrod says that the way to cut through all the noise is to see campaigns as an author might, to understand that you need not just ideas but also a credible and authentic character, a distinct politics rooted in personality.
This, Axelrod says, is what Karl Rove understood about George W. Bush. “One of the reasons Bush has succeeded in two elections,” Axelrod says, “is that in his own rough-hewn way he has conveyed a sense of this is who I am, warts and all.” For Obama, because of Senator Hillary Clinton’s far-greater experience and establishment backing, this is a particularly essential project. “If we run a conventional campaign and look like a conventional candidacy, we lose,” Axelrod says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazi…

6 months of constant screaming about “empty suit” and “empty rhetoric” (not that is was ever based on anything) meets a big speech on race in America and we get a reaction to delivery and then one to some meta-strategy horse race crap.

Seek and ye shall find.

I think you’re confusing Letterman’s light-hearted commentary on Uhbama’s speech patterns with commentary on The Speech, for which the only relevant question is whether it’s the greatest speech ever given by a Presidential candidate, or the greatest speech ever given by a sentient being.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I found it fine for the most part, but I didn’t think, contrary to the opinion of so many Obama bloggers, that he said anything new. Most of what he said, has been said before in different ways. And I didn’t hear any real solutions. Dialogue is great in theory, but I admit I don’t know what exactly it means in practice.

I also admit that I’m pissed that the Obama campaign is peddling sexist tropes against Clinton on the same day it’s trying to start a dialogue on racism. Forgive me for being such a cynic, but I’m not convinced a campaign trying to solve its political problems with sexism is going to do all that much to heal the nation’s racial divides.

I mean, it’s the usual shit, but I don’t see the sexism. What am I missing?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Obama personally, or some hireling?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The Obama campaign is all about narratives and the one they are trying to build around Clinton is that she’s an ambitious, scheming woman who cannot be trusted (which is the counter-argument against her “experience”). Sure, male politicians are sometimes accused of saying or doing anything to win, but it’s not as stinging against a male politician and, in fact, being willing to do anything to win is often seen as a good quality in a man, like ambition.

Can you imagine Lord Kos complaining about a male candidate being willing to do anything to win? Or think of how many people loved John Edwards for being a “fighter” but now rally around Obama’s unity schtick and decry it in Clinton. And what they decry isn’t even particularly hardball tactics as these things go. As Howard Dean pointed out, his opponents morphed him into Osama bin Laden so this campaign is hardly setting any record for low blows. Yet, think of the constant complaints about how Clinton will say or do anything to win based on such flimsy evidence. Clinton didn’t forcefully enough say Obama wasn’t a Muslim? So she’ll say anything to win? Really?

So why has such a weak charge stuck and been so damaging (just look at the exit polls for Clinton on trustworthiness in places like Mississippi)? Especially since on some level almost any politician can be accused of saying or doing anything to win.

I think what has made them stick and what has made them so damaging is that they play, like I said, into the idea that Clinton is an ambitious, scheming woman. A theme Obama has hit before by personally citing the Gerth bird droppings about her 20-year plan to take over the world or the presidency or whatever. And then by referring to her claws.

Again, I don’t think these kinds of charges have to be sexist and certainly have been used against male politicians, but I think the way the Obama campaign has used them, especially in the context of the larger narrative it has tried to build about Clinton, they are sexist because they seek to play on stereotypes about strong and powerful women.

Here’s one of many on his use of the 20-year bullshit - http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm…

And notice the date, November 19, 2007, which if you check out Clinton’s attack timeline is around the time Obama decided to, at the media’s prompting, “turn up the heat” on Hillary.

Let’s go back and look at what the Obama campaign said to try and build its anti-Clinton narrative.

It used what appeared to be non-sexist, standard attacks like “she’ll say anything to win” or she’s poll-tested. But around that they also took every opportunity to remind you that she wasn’t just some usual poll-tested politician, she was also a woman (and you know how we are).

In addition to the Gerth stuff on November 19, on or about November 26, Obama gave an interview where he belittled her performance as First Lady by basically reducing her identity to Bill’s wife:

“There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues,” Obama said. “On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done.”

Now, what do you think they’ve done following the recent push that Clinton would do or say anything to win? Attack her work as First Lady.

Again, each attack taken out of context, might not in and of itself be sexist. There’s certainly nothing inherently wrong with pushing back against Clinton’s experience claim, but it has often been done in a belittling way, there was also that “tea” comment awhile back. They’ve also combined attacks on her credibility with other sexist comments, like questioning whether her teary moment in NH was real. See http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics…. Indeed, that attack occurred the morning after New Hampshire (and was combined with the noxious race card when he suggested she never cried over Katrina). Coincidence?

And the attacks on her credibility, her willingness to say or do anything, are often done in close approximation with attacks on her ambition and her willingness to say anything to win.

Now, I could give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one, but given the overt sexism he and his campaign has used, I don’t think he deserves it.

I remember my mother becoming incensed at that nasty remark, screaming, “Who the hell has he had ’tea’ with?!”

http://pocochina.livejournal.com/56752.h…

(Update: fixed link)

Great post, vastleft, and it says what I was trying to far more completely. Thanks for linking.

I love many things about this post from Kate Harding at Shakesville, but this may be my favorite part because it connects the dots and talks about how the misogyny gets spewed back as why not to vote for Hillary:

Fortunately, I’m just spiteful and petulant enough that every time someone says, “I’m totally not sexist — I just don’t want to vote for her because she’s got such an inflated sense of entitlement, and she’s so ambitious, and I don’t like her husband, and I don’t like that she tries so hard not to look ’soft,’ and none of that has anything to do with her being a woman,” I feel compelled to put up another blog post saying, “I VOTED FOR CLINTON IN PART BECAUSE I AM SICK OF SEXISM BEING SUCH A NORMAL PART OF OUR CULTURE THAT PEOPLE CAN’T EVEN CONNECT THE FUCKING DOTS THERE.”

Sorry for being sexist and totally brain dead enough to go for the Obama-cult just like Katha Pollit and Barbara Lee and Lani Gunier and other people not as smart and prejudice free as the crew here.

heh, just joking around.

She voted to give the president the right to go to war in the event that Saddam didn’t comply with the inspectors.

He did comply, but Bush started the war anyway.

These four inconvenient facts won’t matter to you, of course:

1. Hans Blix wanted the U.S. to wield a big stick to ensure high-quality inspections

2. Obama himself admits that he wasn’t privy to the same info as Hillary and doesn’t know whether he would have voted the same as she did.

3. Obama has repeatedly misrepresented the timeframe when he made his anti-war speech, falsely claiming that it was during his U.S. Senate run.

4. Since he got to the U.S. Senate, his voting record is virtually identical to Hillary’s, and in 2004 he avowed that his position wasn’t much different from Bush’s.

But, heck, the legend’s so awesome, so why let facts get in the way?

new
Submitted by vastleft on Wed, 2008-03-19 16:04.

He did comply, but Bush started the war anyway.

And that was a big surprise to her? I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she knowingly voted for war because she doesn’t appear to be an idiot and only an idiot would have believed that George W. Bush would use the authority wisely or that the defeat of the Levin amendment was of no importance. The Levin amendment, which she voted against, required the President to come back to congress and certify that Iraq had not complied. And she didn’t seem too upset a year later.

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/rema…

As for Obama - I don’t care if he didn’t vote for war because he was just lucky enough not to have an opportunity to display cowardice or not (something we will never know). I do know that Hillary voted to authorize the war while millions of Americans marched to protest the inevitable tragic disaster she had a moral obligation to oppose.

And if you watch the Code Pink “discussion” with Hillary, you will see what “arrogance of power” means.

When they don’t have an answer or a response, they never admit that; they just ignore the point and hope you’ll forget about it. Part of their training, perhaps, along with the conversion narratives.

Careful readers will note where this tactic is used in the above thread…

Welcome back, though, rootless. Glad to see that a C-list blog like ours merits Axelrod’s kind attentions. Hey, just a joke. Where’s your sense of humor?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Not voting for the Levin Amendment is not proof that Clinton favored a war or giving Bush unchecked power. Russ Feingold, who voted against the AUMF, also voted against the Levin amendment and he did so for the same reason Clinton did - the amendment was drafted in such a way that there were concerns it subordinated the United States’ decision-making to the United Nations. See http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0….

Not that any of this matters, particularly, because what’s done is done and can’t be undone. The question now is what does the country do in Iraq and domestically to move forward from the Bush Administration’s multi-front clusterfuck. And on those scores, Clinton has the better positions, IMO. For starters, no more mercenaries in Iraq, no more no bid contracts, and universal healthcare, to name a few.

“I don’t care if he didn’t vote for war because he was just lucky enough not to have an opportunity to display cowardice or not.”

I’m quite sure you don’t.

Regardless of the discussion concerning Barack Obama, especially if it is one that someone diminishes the “Chosen One” viewpoint - Hillary somehow is injected into the conversation. It is at this point that the conversation stops being about Barack Obama and drifts away from the topic at hand.

This thread is a perfect example of this. What started out as a documented example of Barack using something that is very annoying for anyone who speaks - and repeatedly at that - gets hijacked by someone who decides that bringing up Hillary’s vote concerning the AUMF (again) - and the discussion about Obama’s eloquence (or lack thereof) ends up derailed - and at this point has tailed away.

IOW, Distraction Tactics 101.

- - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Anti-obama poster writes”Effect of Subtle Misogyny” explaining how hypocritical it is for people to claim all sorts of bogus reasons for voting against hillary when it is clearly their misogyny at work. I respond by pointing out that many of us oppose Hillary because of her cowardly pro-war vote, something that as far as I know has nothing to do with her gender, and now we learn that I was hijacking the thread away from it’s serious consideration of Obama’s uh-rate.

Is this all a subtle tribute to the late Prof Wiezenbaum?

That about sums it up
Submitted by vastleft on Wed, 2008-03-19 18:43.

I’m quite sure you don’t.

Because I’m not falling for such a transparent misdirection. When confronted with Hillary’s undeniable caving to Bush’s war, you want to engage in a discussion of the timing of Obama’s run for congress as if that somehow excused her.

These are independent acts. You cannot excuse Hillary’s conduct during her much vaunted years of experience by attacking Obama. He did not make her vote the way she did.

The question now is what does the country do in Iraq and domestically to move forward from the Bush Administration’s multi-front clusterfuck. And on those scores, Clinton has the better positions, IMO. For starters, no more mercenaries in Iraq, no more no bid contracts, and universal healthcare, to name a few.

I like Hillary’s new position on mercenaries. Where was she when Obama was, you know, introducing legislation that limited the use of mercenaries and forced more disclosure?

And that was a big surprise to her?

the surprise was that Saddam complied with inspections, and there was no evidence of WMDs found during them.

See, Bush One had a hell of a time holding his “get Iraq out of Kuwait” coalition together because it wasn’t until the very last minute that Congress authorized military action. In the fall of 2002, the US had tremendous international support (or acquiescence) for a UN sanctioned invasion if Saddam failed to comply with the inspectors. We were gonna go into Iraq under the UN banner, with a broad based military coalition — because we “knew” that Saddam was hiding stuff, and would keep hiding it.

Moveover, the fault for the AUMF was that of the Democratic leadership at the time (IIRC, specifically Gephardt). The Democrats were resisting the kind of wording that gave Bush a sweeping authorization for an invasion, but it was elecion season, and Gephardt and his buddies reached a “compromise” that essentially gave Bush everything he wanted. The idea was to “put the Iraq issue behind us, so that the Dems could focus on the economy and win the mid-terms.” Nobody in Congress was really against a war fought under UN auspices — the battle was just about the wording of he authorization.

So it really didn’t matter how this freshman senator with less than two years under her belt voted — the die was cast, and she could either take a “principled” stand against the specific wording of the AUMF, or do the politically expedient thing and look “strong on terrorism”. It really didn’t matter either way — it was just a question of which symbol to choose.

Here’s the other thing — no freshmen senator is supposed to make waves, and that goes quadruple for someone who shows up in the Senate with national name recognition and access to the media at the drop of a hat. (I mean, this is the reason why, despite all the hype, Obama didn’t make a name for himself in the Senate in his first two years….) Clinton’s willingness to follow the unwritten rules of the Senate were what got her a coveted seat on the Armed Services Committee after only two years in the Senate. She had her eye on the prize, and did her job learning how to navigate the Senate and serve her constituency while gaining the kind of credentials a Presidential candidate should have.

You can call it cynical, and politically expedient — and I wouldn’t disagree. But I’d also call it smart, and politically asture.

… on bills that won’t pass, and then morphing that into accomplishments. Maybe Obama learned that trick from Cliff Kelley back in Chicago?

I’m not clear on why Hillary is required to help him buff his own halo; he seems to be doing perfectly well all on his own.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

You can call it cynical, and politically expedient — and I wouldn’t disagree. But I’d also call it smart, and politically asture.

If Hillary had voted against the AUMF, she would have closed the nomination in Iowa.

on bills that won’t pass, and then morphing that into accomplishments. Maybe Obama learned that trick from Cliff Kelley back in Chicago.

I’m not clear on why Hillary is required to help him buff his own halo; he seems to be doing perfectly well all on his own.

And you know that the legislation did not pass because you saw it on RedState - right?

… show me the link. It will make Obama’s record one iota less thin that it is.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Your hostility to Obama is a perfectly self-validating cycle of delusion. You don’t bother to read anything. You do no research. On the face of it, a so-called progressive angrily and dogmatically dismissing in the most contemptuous way a candidate endorsed by Cornell West and Barbara Lee and recycling the vicious crap that comes out of red-state is a bizzare phenomenon. I know, West is stupid, Lakoff has repudiated his own work, Ted Kennedy has abandoned a lifetime of work out of spite, Jesse Jackson Jr. is just another machine politician, and so on - none of them can approach the Corrente Crew in terms of integrity or acuity.

Look it up, genius. Google is free.

What are we going to do with you? Except laugh, or yawn, depending on what time of day it is. I knew it was you, just from the nasty rhetorical question in the title. Can’t you get Axelrod to pay for some more training to teach you new tricks? Or is that why you’re stuck here on a C list blog, instead of playing with the big kids over at TPM or Kos?

No link to a mercenary bill that Obama’s mad negotiation skillz actually passed? Didn’t think so. Why don’t you go away now and smear the Clintons for being racist. Something you’re good at.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

And all I got were links like this on from the Left Coaster noting Obama’s advisors have refused to sign on to a ban on mercenaries in Iraq and that he would not sign onto the legislation Clinton supports that would ban them.

But then perhaps we Hillary supporters aren’t as good at Googling as those young ’uns on Team Obama. But I searched for “Obama Mercenaries Legislation” and that’s what I got.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings…
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070924-oba…

Eventually passed as appropriations amendments
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.

As noted, Senator Clinton discovered this issue last week.

btw
http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/69734…

also interesting.

Can’t you get Axelrod to pay for some more training to teach you new tricks? Or is that why you’re stuck here on a C list blog, instead of playing with the big kids over at TPM or Kos?

You honestly believe that someone is being paid to come here and explain things like “a couple” is not the same as “one” or that a bill entitled “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” is actually an authorization for the use of military force. Astounding.

So it really didn’t matter how this freshman senator with less than two years under her belt voted — the die was cast, and she could either take a “principled” stand against the specific wording of the AUMF, or do the politically expedient thing and look “strong on terrorism”. It really didn’t matter either way — it was just a question of which symbol to choose.

We’re at total variance on this. The Iraq War is, to me, an inexcusable nightmarish event - a catastrophe for Iraq, a moral disaster for the US, an open breach in the Constitution, and an economic fiasco that stacks the odds against any real reform of economy, race, environment, or any other critical issues in the USA.

Senators were faced with a stark moral choice. Harry Byrd explained the constitutional problem of giving any president this power - and they were giving the power to Supreme Court 5/4 W, not to Jed Bartlett. Feingold explained the total dishonesty of the Bush case. Many people forecast the horror we would inflict on the Iraqi people. And millions of Americans demonstrated to stop the war. And Hillary Clinton did the expedient thing - and a year later, she was standing by this. I don’t accept that a strong opposition by the most prominent US senator would not have had a chance of making a difference. I don’t give a damn about Senate custom. And I don’t forgive her - she wanted to protect her political prospects above wanting to do the right thing. All politicians compromise. None are perfect. But there’s a line. And Clinton jumped over it.

If that makes me a sexist and an obama-ite cultist, so be it.

I have no problem with people who have an issue with Clinton’s vote.

What I have a problem with is people who have a problem with Clinton’s vote, who find it absolutely unacceptable and makes her unfit for the presidency, but have had no problem supporting Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and any number of male Senators who voted exactly the same way. Whether or not this describes you, I can’t say.

she may even be a decent president - but obviously you’d have to be insane to think that either hillary or obama would be in the same category as mccain (although see lanny davis in the wapo).

I held my nose and voted for kerry despite his vote for the aumf and I suppose that I can do the same for hillary.