What are the Obamadroids gonna do, if he gets the nomination, when he loses in the General Election?

Really, the droids will probably self-immolate long before the election when the Repubs start going after Barry. It won't be pretty.

longer than kos.

Nice of these GOP rats to abandon their sinking ship, join our party, and start kicking us out.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Pretty much anything I wanted to!

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

1. Blame us.

2. Blame Hillary.

3. Blame The Clenis.

Pretty much in that order.

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

I am optimistic about our chances in Nov. The economy will continue to decline, the war will get worse, it will be increasingly apparant that everything the GOP/news media machine ever said was a lie. The usual tactics will not work in a year like this. That is why businesses are pouring so much money into both Obama's and Clinton's campaigns, that is why the DCCC and DSCC are out raising their rivals.

This whole primary election cycle has been pathetic. This is the Democrat's election to lose and they are doing a great job of losing it to an even more pathetic Republican candidate. I blame the the DNC leadership for not vetting Obama better. Never mind the insipid lemming so called "progressive" blogosphere or the Republican Corporate Controlled Media, the loss of the White House to another 4 years of Republican criminals will lie squarely on the shoulders of Dean, Brazille, Kennedy, Kerry and company. And why? Because they hated that a woman named Clinton could be the President that they couldn't be. Pathetic.

If for no other reason than no one can know that.

Electability is one of the most elusive qualities extant.

And no one should wish to see Obama lose in November, if he is the candidate, no matter that you see worse wishes than that aimed at Hillary.

Keep your eye on the prize, please.

Like I haven't seen Hillary supporters on this very blog say that they don't consider Obama to be a Democrat because he uses GOP tactics and repeats RW talking points.

What is clear is that the supporters of both candidates display all the dignity of two toddlers in a slap-fight in the backseat of a car.

I should have added that.

I seem to remember a time when he was adamant that no Democrat should use rightwing talking points against another Democrat. If he thinks that's what Clinton is doing, he hasn't been reading any rightwing blogs lately.

And apparently he has failed to notice the use of just such tropes by the Obama campaign from the beginning.

It's a bit like the way so many wingers and the compliant SCLM who get so many of their talking points from the right tried to excuse the ugly racism of the Willie Horton ads used by Bush pere against Dukakis by claiming that it had been Gore who brought up Horton in the primary. Except he didn't. What Gore brought up was the release program for felons, which, regrettably, because it had the makings of a good idea, had been undermined by serious crimes committed by several of the released inmates while they were still in the program. Gore never mentioned Willie Horton, or any particular case and there was no reference to race.

And here's the kicker. Cut to 2000, and wouldn't you know, that media favorite Bill Bradley accused Gore of having brought up Willie Horton before the Republicans did. That there was clear evidence of Bradley having been considerably less liberal, over the years, than Gore mattered not to the creative class.

nice to see you back, please post more often!

it is incredible to see him follow Carville's career path of Democratic partisan, to professional blowhard, to member of the Village.

From Rush Limpbaugh's lips to Obama's mouth.

Like I haven’t seen Hillary supporters on this very blog say that they don’t consider Obama to be a Democrat because he uses GOP tactics and repeats RW talking points.

Obama adopts, embodies, and reinforces RW frames...
(healthcare, SS, 'divisiveness of the 90s')

Hillary points out that Obama better have a counter attack prepared because the RW will use dubious framing during the GE.

Where has Clinton preemptively used an established RW frame against one of Obama's policy positions?

If anything, Obama's problem is that he's been to the right of Hillary on most issues, then attacks her for it? Often dishonestly. (part of politics if you like)

But I would like someone to point out where Clinton has attacked an Obama position from the right?

And remember that it was Obama who introduced us to 'D-Punjab'. (seems like that happened ages ago doesn't it?)

Those have mostly been in comments.

On the other hand, as one who voted for Obama, I'm looking for that willingness to see the other side of an argument, what some here call his unity number, applied to Hillary and those who support her. And some respect paid to Bill Clinton's time in office might be nice, as well.

I wonder why?

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

But I would like someone to point out where Clinton has attacked an Obama position from the right?

Plagiarism.
Commander in Chief test.
Out of touch elitist.

Matthew Yglesias

I had thought the Clinton campaign couldn't sink any lower, but thus far she's really just been giving us the full GOP. Listening to her talk about Barack Obama is like reading a Weekly Standard blog post. The lame excuse that she's making this and that outrageous smear because the Republicans will do it later is pathetic. Maybe they will. But she's the one doing it now.

that Hillary Clinton has been giving Barack Obama the full GOP, then they don't know the GOP.

I'd feel better about his prospects in the fall if his defenders didn't constantly whine about Clinton's fairly mild attacks. Howard Dean was morphed into Osama bin Laden in a television ad. And that was by democrats.

The all-out whining makes me question whether Obama and some of his more well-known supporters are in any way prepared for the fight we're facing in November. If they're serious about beating McCain, then they need to quit crying and man up. Because we haven't seen anything yet.

NOTE - I would also note that Obama has been using GOP smears against Hillary since at least October. So not only is the whining infantile, it's also hypocritical.

That both Clinton and the GOP may attack Obama on the same points is not evidence that Clinton is attacking Obama from the right or is doing the GOP's work for them. One possibility is that on some positions, Obama is flat out wrong. Similarly, he has some explaining to do for some of his close associates and some of his past decisions, and until he does a better job I expect him to get criticized from several sides.

This Dem primary, and the "attacks" on one another, are good for both candidates and for the party chances in November. Any dirty laundry needs to be cleaned and aired out now, sooner rather than later. Once the Dem candidate is chosen, the VRWC/MSM wurlitzer will start cranking out the made-up charges and stomping on them will be a full-time job in itself. Any real concerns need to be dealt with before the general campaign begins, not during.

"Plagiarism.
Commander in Chief test.
Out of touch elitist."

Just because the right-wing might also make the same attack, or even because they made it first, doesn't make it a "right-wing" attack.

Obama used parts of Patrick Deval's speeches without attribution. Obama is inexperienced. Obama insulted Democrats in PA.

That is reality. And reality has a distinct "left-wing" bias.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

commenting on last night's debate as evidence that Clinton has attacked Obama from the right on policy...

You've missed the mark.

Plagiarism - not a particularly partisan charge. Obama has been suggesting that Clinton is unethical for months.

Where's the outrage?

Commander in Chief test - again not particularly partisan. They are in fact running for the office. To question someone else's preparedness isn't beyond the pale, IMO.

And let us not forget that Obama has used Clinton's AUMF vote to suggest that she doesn't have the judgment to be president. His entire argument against her was based on that early on. Plus her being unethical.

Out of touch elitist - RW certainly. But again, Obama wasn't shy about suggesting that both Clintons are 'out of touch' DLC insiders. And why won't they release their tax returns? *wink wink* Bill's on the take.

So...

where was the collective gasp when Obama did these things.

Not even going to get into the race issue.

Damn, I missed the memo on that. I thought that's why they couldn't take on the media critique until now.

Sorry.

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

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your campaign has sent out a cascade of e-mails just about every day, questioning Senator Clinton's credibility. And you, yourself, said she hasn't been fully truthful about what she would do as president. Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?

OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn't be here if she didn't. And, you know, I haven't commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

OBAMA: Of course. But the -- because we're asked about it."

They sent out a "cascade of emails just about every day" questioning her credibility because they're "asked about it."

Don't step in the unity

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

it's reflexive lying on stuff he shouldn't have to lie about--except for the fact that each of these lies proves his "new kind of politics"/change/etc is a crock of shit.

O RLY!!??!!??

I must of missed that one...

Good one Obama...good one.

they know he's not vetted at all, and they don't even know what's next.

to not question him.

Is like calling Howard Stern's boss to tell him you don't like the show.

He laughs all the way to the bank.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

if I did what Obama did, I probably wouldn't get to graduate. I always thought that the bigger issue with the "just words" flap was not the plagiarism per se, but that it revealed that Obama was nothing more than a ready made script. Nothing Obama says is any different, really, than the regular Joe/JoAnn Democrat running for dog catcher who has no real experience to run on. That said, using as much word-for-word copying of someone else's works is a big deal and should be something "Professor Obama" should know about.

And the CinC comment was not that Obama wasn't qualified, but that he needed to make that case for himself. How is that a "Republican" talking point? He's running for leader of the free world and he shouldn't be asked to make that case? We should just "hope" he's ready?

That's another one I never flogged because I thought it was stupid. Just like I thought the flag lapel thing was a non-issue, sigh, which it was....

Anyhow, to me the really interesting thing was that Patrick and Obama were both Axelrod clients. I think that Axelrod did what consultant's everywhere do: Sold the same work to two different clients (the second sale being pure profit). That's why the words were the same.

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

and apparently Patrick's been a big disappointment in MA, too. Foreshadowing?

Is this true? Ayers wasn't trusted and was COINTELPRO? -- http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/...

Either the ABC and the rest of the media gets cowed, which I guess is possible.

Or ABC does what NBC did over Shuster and Matthews, which is to apologize and act contrite for a minute and a half and then turn their coverage into a 24/7 Obama-bash.

I know what ABC would do if Obama was running against McCain. I'm not sure what they will do since his opponent is still Clinton. Although I have confidence that some of the more strident members of the OFB could make anyone a Clinton supporter.

For the record, I would prefer a media that asks about torture, executive authority, and jobs. When I've complained about the shitty media that Clinton has received, I did not believe the correction was to simply do the same to Obama. The only thing to be grateful for about last night was that it destroyed the illusion that the media has changed or that Obama will somehow escape the Clinton-Gore-Kerry treatment in November. While I think Clinton folks know exactly what the media is capable of, many OFB seem to have convinced themselves that the media treated Hillary badly because, of course, she deserved it. When, in fact, the media isn't any democrat's friend. We forget that at our peril.

I think that Axelrod did what consultant’s everywhere do: Sold the same work to two different clients (the second sale being pure profit). That’s why the words were the same.

The dream game is to be sold, not to be told.

Errr...wait a minute!!!!!!!

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/p...

Gitlin on him--"... He and Dohrn were founding members of the Weatherman, that contentious, arrogant, idealistic band of radicals, who in the late '60s and early '70s, in the name of peace and justice, blew up, among other things, one Pentagon bathroom, a statue of a policeman in Chicago (twice) and three of their own members in New York City.

Some say they also blew up the prospects of the American left.

"Ayers is not a deep thinker," says Todd Gitlin, a professor of culture, journalism and sociology at New York University and an early member of the Students for a Democratic Society. In 1969, in a showy and disastrous split, Weatherman members stomped out of the SDS national convention in Chicago to embark on a much more radical and violent path. "He was one of a bunch of people who committed absolutely, I mean literally, incoherent and reckless acts in the name of nonsensical beliefs.

"They wrecked SDS," Gitlin goes on. "They bear a heavy responsibility for having destroyed the New Left, which was the most promising left development in 50 years in America." ..."

Plagiarism: RW as a trumped up character charge. A stretch as RW perhaps. Agree Lambert - flag pin kind of non-story.

CinC: It was the legitimizing McCain that was RW. Dems shouldn't difine CinC in this way.

Elitist: She essentially called him a Gore and Kerry mold loser.

How about Bill's "Two great Americans (JM & HRC)".

How about invoking 9/11 three times last night?

He wouldn't be my pastor. He's not Muslim, as far as I know. You sat on the board with that commie terrorist.

over and over--including last night and at the religion forum, he makes a point of complimenting Republicans but not Democrats. He's been doing it for a year now.

it was directly related to Wright's God Damn America--and Ayers' unrepentant assholishness.

because one of the key attributes of the Unity Pony was supposed to be his eloquence and his ability to inspire and motivate.

But if he's just reading someone else's words off a teleprompter, then he's a fake and a phony.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

Eric Boehlert.

The Beltway Kids start snorfling and flaring their nostrils when Hillary is mentioned...

++++

The split in the Left between those who advocated violence as a legitimate tactic and those who wanted to stay with peaceful civil disobedience began to move from dialog to action in the spring of 1968. Just about 40 years ago to the day, what had been reasoned and calm if spirited discussion turned to name-calling and open interpersonal hostility. The fractures widened in all directions, and by the middle of the summer people who had once been friends and allies were bitter enemies, intent as much on undermining and destroying each other as on attacking “The Man.”

A year later and the controlling management of SDS National office had taken over the organization and moved it in the direction of open violence; not the only group to do so, but they did garner a lot of publicity. There was a lot of speculation at the time, and more since, that the move to violence was in some significant measure the result of COINTELPRO infiltration and agitation. This is not true. The philosophical underpinning in favor of violence was always there, and what push came from government operatives was warmly received by people who had already committed. These weren’t a bunch of dummies, they were all highly educated and very, very smart; they were also very, very wrong.

Once you go down the path of violence there really isn’t any turning back, and once you countenance shooting and bombing each step further down the path of destructiveness gets easier to take. All the precautions you wish, with a bomb or a gun there is no controlling whether or not lives will be lost once they go off. No amount of arguing, no dissuasion, no logic could have swayed the WU folks from what they decided was the right course of action, and no outside agitator can be blamed for the decisions WU made.

Ayers is very bright, and was always more of an ideologue than a hands-on terrorist, but he is still responsible for what he facilitated as well as what he encouraged others to do. While I agree almost completely with his positions on what is wrong in this country, and a goodly portion of what needs to be done to make it right, I have nothing but abhorrence and condemnation for his tactics. Violence outside the immediate need for protection of innocent life is seldom justified, and violence as a political tool in this society is tactically wrong, criminal, sinful and unconscionable. Had he been sentenced to a long prison term, he would have gotten no sympathy from me.

The COINTEL people, as well as the follow-on FBI infiltrators, were clumsy, foolish and their conduct was well over the line of what is permissible, and that allowed Ayers and Dorhn and others to escape the punishment they so richly deserved; people died because of what they advocated and advanced. Ayers was and is a true believer, and he was never a mole or FBI informant. He also gets no respect from me.

All that said, whether or not Barack Obama has rubbed elbows with Ayers means nothing to me. It shouldn’t matter to anyone else, either. What does matter is how Obama handles himself when he’s challenged, regardless of the topic. Come November, voters will chose the person they think can lead, whether or not they agree with all of their policies. If Obama wants to Lead, he needs to start acting like a Leader.

[Note: Ayers is a prof at the University of Illinois at Chicago, UIC, not at the University of Chicago.]

Underground bombings killed people. Correction was that their bombs only killed three of their own people, so, somehow, Hillary was wrong to say the group's bombs killed people. "People" are non-members of the group, which was made up of automatoms or something.

That MCM FactCheck.org fact check guy, Brooks What'sHisName.

I gotta hand it to the MCMers--they are quite inventive in how they find ways to say Clinton is inaccurate or lying.

(Brooks did say Obama clearly stated why he did not wear a lapel flag pin about a year ago, so did mention that.)

those groups were totally infiltrated and that much of the violence was bec of COINTELPRO, but maybe that's after-the-fact-excuses in many cases?

Violence really did hurt the cause--it seems tho that violence was in the air back then, and with the draft/war, most young guys really were at direct risk that doesn't exist today.

Mostly you could tell who they were, and it was some fun to feed them BS and then watch to see what the cops and FBI would try and do about it. Pretty funny to have a whole crowd of uniforms out all night on stakeout for an "action" that was never real in the first place, while we watched through the windows and rolled around the floor laughing. Juvenile, I know, but what can I say? I'm easily amused.

99.9995% of all the violence that was committed by the Left throughout the 60's and 70's was self-generated. If you're committed to peace, no amount of idiotic encouragement to violence will move you. If you've committed to violence, having one more voice in the room saying "Atta Boy!" doesn't matter either - except as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

bcz as mentioned above, Obama's first claim to fame was his speaking ability, his soaring, inspiring oratory. His ability with words was going to make him, a relative unknown, able to inspire not only the public, but also turn the Republicans' entrenched warfare against any Democratic programs into cooperation and open the way to a united nation, made stronger by having both it's political parties working together under the magical power of Obama's oratory.

However, I first heard Obama speak at the first debate--and I was stunned that he spoke so poorly in the debate setting. He couldn't seem to come to a point in his circumlocutions toward an answer to a question. And he would eat up time, kind of going on a verbal walkabout, sometimes just concluding by his time running out or finally making a point. I was far from impressed with his "speaking ability."

He has become somewhat better, but he still hums and haws, pauses awkwardly, takes lots of time to get to his point, if he gets to one. Some times more than others--last night was not a good night. The BBC actually characterized his replies as "elegantly phrased," and I was amazed. Not to me!

That is the reason I see his use of test marketed speeches as important. He's much better with a teleprompter than without, better with a prepared speech than speaking extemporaneously.

Not a big deal--obviously many will vote for the barely coherent style of George W. Bush, so his speaking style is not paramount. Unless, of course, it is what his campaign is mostly about....

*Or, is it Axelrod using Obama's words for Deval Patrick and then recycling them back to Obama? So confusing.

of a violent felony is murder.

Even if the person killed is an accomplice.

All members of a conspiracy are guilty of all crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

------------------------------------------------
"Real ponies don't oink" - Patrick McManus

maybe he believe the hype about him?

he's certainly not rehearsed or ready.

One of the reasons I refuse to relinquish the Democratic Party to these nasty little bastards is because they have nothing planned for the party except to use it as a tool for acting out their resentment and infantile rage. They don't even have the coherence of the Movement Conservatives who sure as shit know how to leverage power, even if it is in the pursuit of evil. This is why I named the netroots Jacobins, not democrats or liberals. As shown by their willingness to throw everything they allegedly stand for (health care, social security, defending the working class, intelligent economic policy) out the window for the chance to act out their tribal obsessions (Hmm, isn't that what Obama and his defenders accuse ethnic white voters of doing, even when those voters are choosing a candidate who will best benefit their material interests?), these cultural elitists show their stripes. As I've said before, they can afford to vote their pique and not their pocketbook, since they do just fine under Republican regimes.

These people are the Left's mirror image of the Movement Conservatives, not their opponents. They divide the Left for their own emotional satisfaction, and regard the party rank and file as internal enemies. And, like adolescent narcissists everywhere, they will blame their inevitable defeats on those who tried to counsel political wisdom.

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/04/p...

Please welcome Sadly No! back to the reality-based community. Here's Brad, http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9290.htm.... Better late than never.

And a later post from Clif defending Hillary from rightwing attacks - http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9306.html

Good on ya, boys! Excuse me, MEN.