Althouse: "Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless? Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis?"

September 23, 2008

"Why is Obama so vapid and hesitant and gutless? Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis?"

Christopher Hitchens has some questions.

238 comments:

1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»

Simon said...: Key line: Hitch suspects that Obama "had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it."; 9/23/08, 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: It is a little odd that I haven't heard about hope and change for several weeks. What happened? Why start talking about actual, concrete issues, Obama? It's certainly not your strong suit.; 9/23/08, 5:16 PM
Alexander Wolfe said...: Why start talking about actual, concrete issues, Obama? It's certainly not your strong suit.

You mean issues like the economy?

Please, I know it's rough knowing what's going on the world when your refuse to read the biased MSM, but try to keep up.; 9/23/08, 5:19 PM
Alexander Wolfe said...: Also, I would recommend Hitchens lie down on his fainting couch until his spell of the vapors passes. Or alternatively, perhaps he could stop reading Memeorandum to get a sense of what's really happening in the race.; 9/23/08, 5:21 PM
Lisa said...: I think this is an excellent point.

"To analyze this is to be obliged to balance some of the qualities of Obama's own personality with some of the characteristics of his party. Here's a swift test. Be honest. What sentence can you quote from his convention speech in Denver? I thought so. All right, what about his big rally speech in Berlin? Just as I guessed. OK, help me out: Surely you can manage to cite a line or two from his imperishable address on race (compared by some liberal academics to Gettysburg itself) in Philadelphia? No, not the line about his white grandmother. Some other line. Oh, dear. Now do you see what I mean?"; 9/23/08, 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Xan, I mean issues like the economy.

I know you are smarter than me, dude. So, think. I said that when Obama talks about concrete issues, he sucks. You brought up a concrete issue that Obama sucks talking about. Therefore, you reinforce my point.

Please bring your A-game to the Althouse comment thread. These flails are unimpressive. Thank you.; 9/23/08, 5:23 PM
Revenant said...: You mean issues like the economy?

Maybe you should pay attention to the posts you're feebly trying to flame? Seven said that Obama was trying to talk about concrete issues and that this wasn't his strong point.

So either you were trying to claim that Obama wasn't attempting concrete talk about the economy (in which case you've got your head up your ass) or you thought Seven was claiming Obama wasn't trying to discuss actual issues (in which case you have your head up your ass). Which was it?; 9/23/08, 5:25 PM
lurker2209 said...: I find I agree with about 1 in 4 of Hitchen's columns. This is one of them.

The idea of Obama not really expecting to win this time around makes a lot of sense, except it assumes he was planning on Hilary wining, and then challenging her when she's an incumbent in 2012, or he was predicting the republican candidate would win, which didn't look that likely in 2007.

Or he was getting his name out there so that people would remember him in 2016, which seems like a really, really long ways off. I just don't buy Obama being that strategic.; 9/23/08, 5:26 PM
blake said...: He should've acquiesced to Hillary at the first opportunity.

Hillary/Obama? Probably unbeatable. 4-8 years later, Obama/Whoever.

Obama/Hillary is just weird.; 9/23/08, 5:31 PM
Buford Gooch said...: Hitchens (and Simon) has the right of it. Obama said himself that he was not ready to be President (before he actually started running for the position). Someone from Chicago told him that it would be wise to get himself known nationally by running a rasonable race this time, then do some attention getting things in the Senate,in order to run in 2012 or 2016. Winning the nomination wasn't in the mix. Then, like any successful huckster, he and his crewe tried to take full advantage of the situation, and we now have someone completely unprepared in a spot where he might actually win. I prefer the Chauncey Gardener type.; 9/23/08, 5:35 PM
Roberto said...: DAMN!!!

And yet another shocker!!!

Where does Rove, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, and Beck stand on this?

And I love the way Simon refers to Hitchens as..."Hitch."

Now, that is funny.; 9/23/08, 5:37 PM
Bob said...: I don't buy Obama being that strategic either. But here's a thought. Maybe Obama was really just hoping for the VP role because he becomes the 2nd most powerful person if the Dems win or he becomes the presumptive nominee if the Dems lose. And in a way the race gets away from him. His message just strikes the right chord, he truly doesn't look like past Presidents (especially the last two). He was an enigma that people could fill in with their own hopes. And now, yes, he is shown to be a politician.; 9/23/08, 5:39 PM
chickelit said...: Why, to put it another way, does he risk going into political history as a dusky Dukakis?

For the sake of integrity.

Bukakis lost to Bush I. For the sake of the meme "more of the same", it makes sense that Obama should lose to Bush III.

He'd rather lose an election than lose his integrity. Give him that at least.; 9/23/08, 5:43 PM
Roberto said...: Oh, give me a frigging break.

Isn't it just a tad late to be discussing whether Obama really feels "ready" to be President??

That he kind of "really" knew he wasn't ready?

That he had noooooooooooo idea that he just might win?

He's been running for TWO YEARS.

This is the most ridiculous tripe that's appeared on this blog in...oh, about ten minutes?

*Oh, and by the way, regarding who is really discussing the issuses facing America:

Obama has had numerous press conferences over the past weeks, discussing any issue that was raised. He's been in front of the press at least three times over the past five days.

McCain, on the other hand, had his first press conference in six weeks today. (Palin...it's been 4 weeks since she faced the press...and today they locked the press out of her meeting in New York.)

When IS Palin going to stand in front of a group and answer questions???; 9/23/08, 5:44 PM
Roberto said...: Bob says: "Maybe Obama was really just hoping for the VP role..."

Where the hell have you people been...living with Osama Bin Laden??

The man has been running for PRESIDENT for over two years.

Anybody remember the debates, the speeches...??; 9/23/08, 5:46 PM
George M. Spencer said...: "dusky Dukakis"

Good name for a race horse.

I guess it's okay to say "dusky" as a euphemism for "darky."

Or maybe he meant "dorky dusky Dukakis."; 9/23/08, 5:51 PM
rhhardin said...: Has Hitch investigated the Obama as moron possibility.

That limits his base pretty absolutely to women who think he means well, no matter what the world does.; 9/23/08, 5:55 PM
bleeper said...: Dorky, awkward, cigarette-smoking, clueless, socialist, racist, lightweight, pussy-whipped, leather-faced, wheezy, soon-to-be-in-the-dustbin-of-history odd footnote in presidential campaign history. Yep, he's a winner alright...

Have at it, 'bots - start explaining how wonderful the empty suit is.; 9/23/08, 5:59 PM
1775OGG said...: What Simon said!

Hitch always, always, gets it right!; 9/23/08, 5:59 PM
Unknown said...: Hmm. I see Michael is running with the old "Obama is qualified because he's running" meme.; 9/23/08, 6:00 PM
Simon said...: Michael, if the press wanted to be treated with respect by and access to Palin, perhaps they shouldn't have engaged in a piranha-like frenzy when she was named, determined to destroy the threat to the sainted Barack. As far as I'm concerned, if she never does another interview with them it'll be too soon. Between PBS, CSPAN and the web, she has more than adequate resources to go over their heads directly to the people. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll do that, but personally I'd like to see it. It would be profoundly satisfying to see the media's post-Palin hysteria revealed as a death rattle.; 9/23/08, 6:03 PM
knox said...: I prefer "doofy Dukakis"; 9/23/08, 6:05 PM
former law student said...: Obama is Michael Phelps,smoothly gliding through the water. Obama is cerebral Mr. Spock to McCain's irascible Scotty. Enjoy McCain's fireworks; don't worry about Obama.; 9/23/08, 6:13 PM
former law student said...: simon shows his chivalrous side:

Michael, if the press wanted to be treated with respect by and access to Palin, perhaps they shouldn't have engaged in a piranha-like frenzy

Thank goodness no Putin would pick on Palin. After all, she's a GIRL. And a MOTHER. She deserves respect.; 9/23/08, 6:15 PM
Roberto said...: bleeper says: "Dorky, awkward, cigarette-smoking, clueless, socialist, racist, lightweight, pussy-whipped, leather-faced, wheezy, soon-to-be-in-the-dustbin-of-history odd footnote in presidential campaign history. Yep, he's a winner alright..."

But wait.

I thought he was the really cool dude smoking the cigarette at the country club...?

My, how things change.; 9/23/08, 6:16 PM
1775OGG said...: fls: Ditch weed is now legal in your state? Remember, it's gateway drug!; 9/23/08, 6:18 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/23/08, 6:19 PM
Bob said...: Michael - I meant at the start of the campaign. He was facing the previous VP candidate and the Senator/wife of previous Pres who were the favorites. Did he really think he become the nominee? I mean maybe given all those previous multiracial nominees, right? No question he's been busy campaigning ever since.; 9/23/08, 6:19 PM
Unknown said...: Thank goodness no Putin would pick on Palin. After all, she's a GIRL. And a MOTHER. She deserves respect.

Actually I'll wager dollars to donuts that Putin would actually treat Palin with more respect. I mean, I agree with McCain that when you look in his eyes, all you see is KGB. But he's one of those smart evil types.

But if for some strange reason he did treat her like our press does, a little cold shoulder would be fine with me.; 9/23/08, 6:21 PM
Roberto said...: Simon, you're full of shit.

Palin was treated exactly like all potential candidates.

And her constant mantra is that her family was attacked is ridiculous.

How?

Pointing out that her kid was pregnant? The Republicans have been whining about teen pregnancies for decades. Suddenly this is out of bounds when you have a candidate who is against abortion even in the case of incest or rape? Makes rape victims pay for their $800-%1,200 rape kits?

Give me some examples of how horrible she was treated. Questions you feel are out of bounds.

When have you EVER seen a candidate for President or Vice-President not be available to the press for in depth questions relating to their qualifications?
(It's been weeks on end and we still have had one single objective interview...I have a tough time counting Hannity's suckfest.)

Your bullshit about treating her poorly is nothing more than a regurgitation of McCain's own campaign people.; 9/23/08, 6:22 PM
Unknown said...: By the way, totally apropos of nothing (or maybe apropos of "smart evil type"), I was looking on Yelp at a new (to me) place to eat lunch downtown (Austin), and one of the reviewers had this funny quote: "Atmosphere is bustling and a mix of downtown professionals. One of my lunch companions is always tickled when he spots Harry Whittington (the guy Dick Cheney accidently shot) lunching in his brown leisure suit."; 9/23/08, 6:23 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/23/08, 6:24 PM
ricpic said...: I was going to say there's no there there, like Oakland, but actually it's worse than that, there's a red diaper doper baby there there, which has to be hidden. Ergo the total lack of spontaneity. Obama wants to lustily shout out "Expropriate the expropriators!" But then the jig would be up. So he ums...ers....uhs it, hoping he can sound safe enough long enough to enough middle American whites to win in November.; 9/23/08, 6:26 PM
Unknown said...: The Republicans have been whining about teen pregnancies for decades.

What, Democrats don't give a shit about them?

Suddenly this is out of bounds when you have a candidate who is against abortion even in the case of incest or rape?

Terminating a teenage pregnancy doesn't change the fact that the teenage pregnancy actually occurred,

Makes rape victims pay for their $800-%1,200 rape kits?

Sure, like that.

Or like when she was criticized for slashing funding for pregnant teens in Alaska? When in fact, she approved a significant increase in that year's outlay for the center? And when in fact, teen pregnancy support is but a tiny fraction of what that center engages in?; 9/23/08, 6:29 PM
Revenant said...: Thank goodness no Putin would pick on Palin.

Palin's not worried about being picked on. She just accurately identifies the press as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. The difference between Putin and the press is that Putin has no personal interest in seeing the McCain/Palin ticket lose the election. :); 9/23/08, 6:33 PM
Roberto said...: mcg, your link is to NRO?

Try this out:

The Frontiersman in Wasilla, Alaska:

Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

The governor signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, outside the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam room at Alaska Regional Hospital. In attendance at the signing were members of victims advocate groups, law enforcement agencies and legislators.

The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur....

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.; 9/23/08, 6:35 PM
Roberto said...: The wingnuts here can go on and on about how it's the media's fault Palin won't allow questions, but they know in their hearts that the woman is not qualified and is just hiding out.

Again I ask: Name another candidate for President or Vice-President that ever went this period of time after being nominated with having press conferences...or, hey...how about just ONE??

C'mon...let's see the names.; 9/23/08, 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Again I ask: Name another candidate for President or Vice-President that ever went this period of time after being nominated with having press conferences...or, hey...how about just ONE??

C'mon...let's see the names.

Joe Biden, you putz.; 9/23/08, 6:44 PM
The Exalted said...: "vapid" coming from hitchens...priceless.; 9/23/08, 6:52 PM
bleeper said...: Oh yeah, the 'bama bots think Palin is not qualified. Pot callin' the kettle black, yep.; 9/23/08, 6:55 PM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/23/08, 7:04 PM
Unknown said...: Yeah, Michael, NRO is my source. This link, which was provided within the last link I gave, expands on the discussion. Unfortunately for you the article you quoted is discussed. So that means net net I'm bringing all the information about the story to the table that you have, plus more.; 9/23/08, 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Clearly, you people don't understand the rules. Let me explain:

1. Conservative analysis may not be linked to. Leftist moonbat hothouses are fine, though.

2. Palin must have press conferences. If she doesn't, she's bad. Obama and Biden need not have press conferences. They don't, and they're good.; 9/23/08, 7:12 PM
Unknown said...: Well, slight correction, Obama must have press conferences, but he is free to leave after 8 questions if he doesn't think it's going swimmingly.; 9/23/08, 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I remember that. Eight questions from a fawning press and Obama wilted.

But just wait until he takes on China, Russia, and Iran. Steely resolve, I'm sure.; 9/23/08, 7:17 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Next he will start in on the community organizer as experience meme then tell us that Barak grew up in rough and tumble Chicago.

Palin was treated exactly like all potential candidates.

Hillary was given a free ride just like Barak. Their experience was never questioned and their qualifications were never questioned. It was all their in their biographies and that is all the media looked at.

They got the free ride. No one wanted to anger the Clintons out of fear of losing access and no one wantsto question Obama out of fear of being labeled racist.; 9/23/08, 7:17 PM
Trooper York said...: Clueless Joe just said that Obama will talk with the President of Iran just like FDR did when he text messaged Stalin on his cell phone.; 9/23/08, 7:19 PM
Anonymous said...: If Mort were here, he'd call you racist for failing to include Robert Mugabe.; 9/23/08, 7:21 PM
Revenant said...: I'm going to thoroughly enjoy all four years of Obama's administration. Four years of him stammering in front of a press corps that is left in the embarassing position of trying to make him look good, all afraid of being called racists if they don't achieve that goal.

It is going to be pretty sweet. Ok, sure, my taxes will go up. Sure, he'll fuck up the economy and our international relations, since (shockingly enough) both Wall Street and foreign leaders expect more from a President than the ability to say "hey, I'm black and not George Bush". Sure, it'll be a pretty miserable four years politically speaking.

But it is going to be a really embarrassing four years for the Left and their big media toadies, and after eight years of being embarrassed by Republicans I'm in the mood for some schadenfreude.; 9/23/08, 7:49 PM
Henry said...: So what DID Obama say about the economy? Did he say something clear, and direct, and courageous?

Michael? Xanthippas?; 9/23/08, 7:53 PM
Donn said...: Michael:

Palin was treated exactly like all potential candidates.

Good grief! To use your line: You said that with a straight face?; 9/23/08, 7:55 PM
Donn said...: Michael,

Can you provide ONE source that shows that anyone in Wasilla was ever charged for a rape test?

(Hint: There isn't one!); 9/23/08, 8:00 PM
Simon said...: Michael said...
"Palin was treated exactly like all potential candidates."

Bull. F******. S***. To make that kind of accusation you must (a) work for the media (b) be lying or (c) be the dumbest hog in America. It is not worth the tie to argue on this point.; 9/23/08, 8:05 PM
Anonymous said...: former law student said...Obama is Michael Phelps,smoothly gliding through the water.

Obama is Michael Phelps on Saturday Night Live proving that he eats, sleeps and swims.

McCain/Palin are gonna drown him.; 9/23/08, 8:10 PM
veni vidi vici said...: "The man has been running for PRESIDENT for over two years.

Anybody remember the debates, the speeches...??"

That's kind of the point, isn't it? The fact that almost no one remembers the Endless Enigma's hallowed words, that is.

Your flail, or fail, or whatever it is you think you're accomplishing on this blog, is no longer amusing, just tiresome. Get a new line or something.; 9/23/08, 8:14 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Look folks, here is the reality. We must make history and the media is going to make it for themselves. Clinton or Obama, it makes no difference to them. They want to point to themselves and claim the got the first {insert victim class here} elected. They want to pop champagne corks in the editorial rooms and spray themselves with self glory.

That is why there has been no scrutiny of Clinton or Obama. The media does not care. History is in the making and they are going to make it.; 9/23/08, 8:29 PM
Roberto said...: Over the last few days, John McCain has talked a decent game when it comes to enacting new regulations to protect American families from another financial crisis.

But, last March, he famously said that he was "fundamentally a deregulator."

In July, he said that his "fundamental difference" with Barack Obama was that Obama favored "more regulation" while he favored less.

And earlier this month, McCain's strong support for deregulation was on display in speech after speech at the GOP convention.

Now, John McCain is scrambling to follow Barack Obama's lead as a reform-minded proponent of regulation.

But that can't change the fact that when it comes to his record, all the way up until Thursday of last week, John McCain is "The Fundamental Deregulator"; 9/23/08, 8:31 PM
Roberto said...: Petey: "That is why there has been no scrutiny of Clinton or Obama. The media does not care."

What the fuck are YOU smoking?; 9/23/08, 8:32 PM
Revenant said...: Obama is Michael Phelps

Popular for a few months, a Trivial Pursuit question afterwards? :); 9/23/08, 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: The economic malaise of the 1960s and 1970s was caused by something other than regulation.; 9/23/08, 8:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael is back to ruin the thread and cuss a lot and attack and insult without saying anything remotely insightful.

Zach?; 9/23/08, 8:35 PM
Roberto said...: veni vidi vici: Gee, great point.

I refer to the endless campaign for over two years, the vetting by everybody from CNN to Fox News...and you fire back with: "...almost no one remembers the Endless Enigma's hallowed words..."

So, you're saying we have vetted Obama, but b=nobody can remember...what HE said???

C'mon, organize those little thoughts and try that again.; 9/23/08, 8:37 PM
Roberto said...: seven, if you have something to say, say it.

I've been posting for quite some time and silly personal attacks from people like you is a waste of time.; 9/23/08, 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I wish the press had vetted Obama with the same persistence and hostility that they did Palin. Then we would have known a year and a half ago that Obama's "spiritual mentor" was a sewage spewing anti-white outhouse. Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination and now everyone would be wondering if we could tolerate eight more years of Bill's auto-upzipping trouser fly.; 9/23/08, 8:43 PM
Roberto said...: rev: "Popular for a few months, a Trivial Pursuit question afterwards?"

Actually, he's been extremely popular for about 20 years, has the nomination as the Democratic candidate for President, has been vetted for years on end...and will be your next President.

That is, if you're actually an American.

Are you?; 9/23/08, 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael said...But that can't change the fact that when it comes to his record, all the way up until Thursday of last week, John McCain is "The Fundamental Deregulator"

Michael, I understand your deep seated emotional commitment to Obama.

But here's some information about John McCain's efforts in 2005 to deal with the looming mortgage crisis.; 9/23/08, 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: I remember back in 1988. All Obama, all the time.; 9/23/08, 8:46 PM
Roberto said...: Duscany said..."I wish the press had vetted Obama with the same persistence and hostility that they did Palin."

Let me guess: You've been in a coma?

Off the planet?

Don't like to read or watch the news?

Can't read?

Had a stroke and haven't quite recovered?

Just thought you'd like to type something??

*Have you seen Sarah Palin at a recent press conference?; 9/23/08, 8:46 PM
Roberto said...: jdeeripper: Keep telling yourself McCain is a "regulator" kind of guy.

Oh, and don't forget Graham.

Deep denial.; 9/23/08, 8:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm going to be disillusioned by McCain's presidency. I know that. But it will be worth it just to see the howling of the moonbats.

Rev likes schadenfreude. I guess I prefer watching idiots suffer. Isn't it ultimately a wash?; 9/23/08, 8:48 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S. Conservatives are not pining for regulation, nor do they think that regulation is the solution.; 9/23/08, 8:49 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: I've been posting for quite some time and silly personal attacks from people like you is a waste of time.

So, Mikey,

Only you are allowed to make personal attacks? The rest of us are just supposed to take it? Hey, GFY you over educated, intellectual idiot and Mensa moron.; 9/23/08, 8:50 PM
Roberto said...: Despite Claims Today He Warned of this Crisis, McCain in 2007 Said He Didn't See This Crisis Coming

September 17, 2008 12:24 PM

"Two years ago, I warned that the oversight of Fannie and Freddie was terrible, that we were facing a crisis because of it, or certainly serious problems," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS this morning. "The influence that Fannie and Freddie had in the inside the Beltway, old boy network, which led to this kind of corruption is unacceptable and I warned about it a couple of years ago.”

How does this claim of foresight square with this interview that McCain gave to the Keene (NH) Sentinel, discussing the subprime mortgage crisis, in December 2007?

Q: “Well the dimension of this problem may be surprising to a lot of people, but to many people, to many others there were feelings that there was something amiss, something was going too fast, something was a little too hot. Going back several years. Were you one of them? Or, I mean you’re a busy guy, you’re looking at a lot of things, maybe subprime mortgages wasn’t something you focused on every day. Were you surprised?

McCain: “Yeah. And I was surprised at the dot-com collapse and I was surprised at other times in our history. I don’t know if surprised is the word, but...

Q: “S&Ls?”

McCain: “I don’t -- what did you say?”

Q: “The S&Ls."

McCain: "Yeah, the S&Ls."

Q: "Is this bigger than that?

McCain: “I don’t know the dimensions of this. It’s hard to know what the dimensions are. As I say, I never thought I’d pick up the paper and see a city in Norway is somehow dramatically impacted by it. When I say ‘surprised’ I’m not surprised when in capitalist systems that there’s greed and excess. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said ‘unfettered capitalism leads to corruption’ or something like that, that people have disputed for years.

“But so, in this whole new derivative stuff, and SIBs and all of this kind of new ways of packaging mortgages together and all that is something that frankly I don’t know a lot about.

"But I do rely on a lot of smart people that I have that are both in my employ and acquaintances of mine. And most of them did not anticipate this. Most of them, I mean I can find some that did. But, a guy that’s on my staff named Doug Holtz-Eakin, who was once the head of the Office of Management and Budget, said that there was nervousness out there. There’s nervousness. There was nervousness that we had such a long period of prosperity without a downturn because of the history of our economy. But I don’t know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said ‘wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating.'

"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.”; 9/23/08, 8:52 PM
Roberto said...: Petey, I didn't say you can't fire off personal attack, I can handle anything you or anybody have got...I just said they don't relate to the argument at hand.

Personally I think you're probably a wonderful, sweet guy, but politically I think you're out of your fucking mind.; 9/23/08, 8:54 PM
Roberto said...: I have a favor to ask.

Any insults directed at me have to be open to one to five word responses.

I'm playing in a poker tournament and need to focus...on the poker.; 9/23/08, 8:58 PM
vbspurs said...: This story was discussed on LGF two days ago.

I find this line ridiculous:

To put it a touch more precisely, what I suspect in his case is that he had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn't the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.

Obama ran from Day 1 of his Senate career for the US Presidency.

Obama knew damn well that he is the complete antithesis of George W. Bush, which he thought would be paramount in 2008, largely because of the Iraq War, then a "quagmire". He further knew that there was a faction to be exploited within the Democratic Party, which was tired of the Clintons and their DLC relatively hawkish, pro-free market philosophy.

He's swung for the fences since 2006, and got rewarded in Iowa. There was no way in hell he was the equivalent of Bill Clinton, whose campaign never believed he would go as far as it did on his debut in 1992.

You know why Peter Hitchens, Chris' younger, Conservative brother is not well-known outside of the UK? Because he's not the drama queen his brother is.

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/23/08, 8:59 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: I love this so called vetting non-sense. OK, let's play the game. Obama was vetted by the press.

Name one major accomplsihment of his?
Name major expoerience he brings to the table?
Name one qualification he has to be an executive or a leader?
Hell, just name one thing he has ever done except winning rigged elections; each time he ran the opposition was in Name only.

Yep, that is vetting alright.; 9/23/08, 9:00 PM
Henry said...: I'll repeat my question...

What DID Obama say about the economy? Did he say something clear, and direct, and courageous?

Michael?

I have to say, McCain sounds pretty grounded in your quote. Pointing out that a particular situation needs oversight as McCain did shows good judgement. Pretending to predict the future is a game for charlatans and McCain clearly knows the difference.; 9/23/08, 9:01 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Mikey,
You are a Royal Flush.

I hope money is involved. Playing poker for fun is, well, boring.; 9/23/08, 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: I predict the future: Obama is going to get his ass handed to him. What will the loons say then? I mean, after decrying racism and various other isms?

Loons, listen to me: your only president in the last 28 years governed like an Eisenhower Republican and lost the Congress. Why do you keep putting far-left and not-particularly masculine losers up every four years?

And I use the word masculine in a universalist way. Hillary Clinton has more balls than any Democrat since Truman.; 9/23/08, 9:05 PM
Roberto said...: Hank: He said plenty.

Read the transcript.; 9/23/08, 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Read the transcript. Indeed.

How is it possible that Obama is going to lose? What's wrong with these morons across America?; 9/23/08, 9:08 PM
1775OGG said...: Michael: Poor widdle baby. It's so difficult for you to walk, talk, and chew your pablum too! Fold your hand, you tinny loser!; 9/23/08, 9:13 PM
Roberto said...: McCain's first press conference in 6 weeks...lasted 11 minutes.

And he spent part of it defending Carli for her 40 million dollars golden parachute; 9/23/08, 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: vbspurs said...Obama ran from Day 1 of his Senate career for the US Presidency.

Of course. David Axelrod didn't get involved running the Obama show with the hope of finishing 3rd behind Hillary and Edwards in order to lay the groundwork for Obama 2016.

Seven Machos said...How is it possible that Obama is going to lose? What's wrong with these morons across America?

Too damn many White folks.; 9/23/08, 9:15 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: So if Michael is right and Obama has been vetted,there must be a place where I could look at a list of checks and wire transfers that account for the $150 Million spent by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge when Obama was chairman of its board.

Michael can you point me to a news website that has that info?; 9/23/08, 9:17 PM
Roberto said...: OldGrouchy: As an aspiring writer I think you should aspire to be something else.

Your comment was poorly written, and you have a glaring grammatical error.; 9/23/08, 9:17 PM
Roberto said...: aj lynch: I have the list or wire transfers here.

I'll trade them for a list of the people who attended Cheney's energy meeting.; 9/23/08, 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The torrent of crazed anger that will erupt after Obama's loss (the biggest since Dole and probably Dukakis) is going to be a hoot to watch. I really hope the loons stick around. It's much easier to see them here, like caged animals. I hate to linger in their hothouses.; 9/23/08, 9:23 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Old news - Michael is a German valise.; 9/23/08, 9:25 PM
Roberto said...: And you're worried about Obama?

Two reports tonight, one from the New York Times, and the other from Newsweek, contradict John McCain's earlier statement that his campaign manager Rick Davis had no involvement with mortgage giant Freddie Mac, one of the countries at the heart of the current financial crisis, for the last several years. The Times reports:

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager from the end of 2005 through last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure contradicts a statement Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last several years.; 9/23/08, 9:25 PM
Roberto said...: Aj...no trade?

Chickenshit.; 9/23/08, 9:25 PM
Roberto said...: seven: "...the biggest since Dole..."

You're kidding, right??; 9/23/08, 9:27 PM
Donn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/23/08, 9:28 PM
Donn said...: Michael....
Two reports tonight, one from the New York Times, and the other from Newsweek, contradict John McCain's earlier statement.

Funny, where are all the MSM reports on JB's gaffes?; 9/23/08, 9:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Newsweek and the Times have such huge impacts on presidential elections. Look at 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, just for example.; 9/23/08, 9:31 PM
1775OGG said...: Michael: To quote a previous brilliant commenter, "GFY!" FWIW, "tinny" was a bit of sarcasm directed at you, as was "widdle!' "Widdle" is a poor imitation of Porky Pig's slurring of "little," "tinny" probably could have been written as "tenny" in place of tiny.

To continue with my jab at your ridiculous statements, GFY, which is a bit repetitious but that's Ok.

Please remember that when Obama's Civilian Force comes for you, few of us will lift a hand to assist you and your Socialist comrades.

Perhaps if you were not playing poker while trying to present your Socialist views of life and if you stayed off your poor quality Ditch Weed, you might understand something, anything!; 9/23/08, 9:33 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Michael $15,000 a month ain't even real money. That all you got? Fold while you can.; 9/23/08, 9:34 PM
1775OGG said...: Michael: "...one of the countries at the heart..." Are you sure of that?; 9/23/08, 9:35 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Seven:

Think about that some of the Time/ NYT staff have been pitching for the Dems for almost 30 frigging years! I assume they are vested in their shitty little 401K plans. I hope the NYT writers have 100% in company stock :) That could explain their extreme anger.; 9/23/08, 9:39 PM
Roberto said...: grouchy says I'm a socialist.

I'm hurt.

*Can I assume you and none of your friends or family do not and will not take advantage of any of the following:

Government Worker Programs such as:

Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System

Social Security Programs such as:

Social Security (OASDI)
Unemployment Insurance
Temporary Disability Insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan

Well...????; 9/23/08, 9:48 PM
Roberto said...: aj lynch: You are aware of the fact that it's not the $15,000...it's the LIES associated with the story.

C'mon...even YOU can understand that.; 9/23/08, 9:50 PM
Roberto said...: grouchy, I'm still waiting to hear which "socialist" programs you will not take advantage of.

List all of them.; 9/23/08, 9:52 PM
Roberto said...: All of this NYT's blather.

Nobody hear ever heard of Judith Miller?; 9/23/08, 9:54 PM
Donn said...: Michael:
it's the LIES associated with the story.

You mean like "the guy (Ayers) is just somebody from the neighborhood?"; 9/23/08, 9:54 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: I have thought this for several months. He is obviously unprepared as far as plans/policies for various issues, and his campaign staff is apparently not well-prepared, either. I think he figured he would get name recognition, valuable experience, and a shot at the VP nominee slot. If Hillary loses, then he would likely be the frontrunner in 2012. If he is the VP nominee and Hillary loses, he has a good shot at 2012. If he is the VP and Hillary wins, he is the frontrunner in 2016.; 9/23/08, 9:56 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: You don't get it $15,000 a month is like beer money. It does not count as real money so even if I agreed t was a lie, it'd be a tiny tiny white lie. No harm no foul sorta like Rangel's small income tax problem. I was surprised he was so dumb to be involved in such a miniscule real estate investment. It is more trouble than its worth.

But I repeat myself - it is barely beer money unless you are a Dem. Heh Dems fight over splitting $.50- what pikers.; 9/23/08, 9:56 PM
Roberto said...: Aj Lynch: McCain: "My Campaign Manager Had Nothing To Do With Freddie Mac Since 2005... "And I'll Be Glad To Have His Record Examined By Anybody Who Wants To Look At It”

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager from the end of 2005 through last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.; 9/23/08, 9:57 PM
Roberto said...: aj lynch: It's not the money you idiot...it's McCain saying it wasn't even happening.

What is it about this you don't understand??; 9/23/08, 9:59 PM
Roberto said...: exhelodrvr1: Where the hell have YOU been??

Obama has been running for PRESIDENT for over two years.

*Donn...c'mon...can you be a tad more current?; 9/23/08, 10:01 PM
Donn said...: Michael:
it's the LIES associated with the story.

You mean like the following Obama lie?

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of '04, after your election, I said, "There's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?" Obama: "Absolutely."

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but--so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.; 9/23/08, 10:01 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Judith Miller? Sure skinny, butt ugly reporter, slept her way to the top. Could be considered the prototypical liberal NYT reporter aka compliant stenographer for tips from govt leakers and press releases from corporate flacks or non-profit liberal dunce tanks.; 9/23/08, 10:01 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Is the German valise still here? heh what an idiot you are.; 9/23/08, 10:02 PM
Roberto said...: aj lynch: "Could be considered the prototypical liberal NYT reporter..."

Judith Miller??

Okay, I'm done with you.

Duh.; 9/23/08, 10:04 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Do the two people have names?

Could I see the list of $15,000 checks ? And send me the list of disbursements by the Annenerg Challenge while you are at it.

Thanks you German valise.; 9/23/08, 10:05 PM
1775OGG said...: Mikey, you poor baby. You really think that what defines a Socialist? No wonder you're so screwed up.

OTBW: Don't give me orders, you piece of Socialist crap. No need for you to waste your invaluable time.

Please also understand that your revolution will eat it's own; you're on its menu; your blue Shirts will chop you in little bits of crap.; 9/23/08, 10:06 PM
Donn said...: Michael,

This might help you out. ALL politicians lie....it's in the job description!; 9/23/08, 10:10 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I bet Michael never had to work hard in his life. You have to work hard for something that is important to you. Michael does not understand that.

Of course what do I expect from a German valise.; 9/23/08, 10:12 PM
Unknown said...: Well, how about that. McCain's cronies have "dirty" hands too.

And yet somehow, despite all that money, he co-sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have saved us from this mess. Whether he predicted it would be this bad is, frankly, irrelevant.

Apparently they didn't pay him enough.

On the other hand, Chris Dodd is stuttering his way through the Senate hearings like there was no possible way he could know this was coming, or that anything needed to have been done about it... and of COURSE he didn't get special treatment on his mortgage! Don't you believe him!; 9/23/08, 10:13 PM
Roberto said...: McCain and those crazy Republicans:

McCain Aides Earned Nearly $2.4 Million From Foreign Car Manufacturers

FOX News Producer: Restrictions On Palin Access "Unprecedented"

Palin Spread Lies About Mayoral Opponent's Religion And Marriage

Even House Republicans aren't listening to Cheney anymore.

Reports out of Afghanistan remain "grim."; 9/23/08, 10:16 PM
Roberto said...: mcg: Once again...
Despite Claims Today He Warned of this Crisis, McCain in 2007 Said He Didn't See This Crisis Coming

September 17, 2008 12:24 PM

"Two years ago, I warned that the oversight of Fannie and Freddie was terrible, that we were facing a crisis because of it, or certainly serious problems," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told CBS this morning. "The influence that Fannie and Freddie had in the inside the Beltway, old boy network, which led to this kind of corruption is unacceptable and I warned about it a couple of years ago.”

How does this claim of foresight square with this interview that McCain gave to the Keene (NH) Sentinel, discussing the subprime mortgage crisis, in December 2007?

Q: “Well the dimension of this problem may be surprising to a lot of people, but to many people, to many others there were feelings that there was something amiss, something was going too fast, something was a little too hot. Going back several years. Were you one of them? Or, I mean you’re a busy guy, you’re looking at a lot of things, maybe subprime mortgages wasn’t something you focused on every day. Were you surprised?

McCain: “Yeah. And I was surprised at the dot-com collapse and I was surprised at other times in our history. I don’t know if surprised is the word, but...

Q: “S&Ls?”

McCain: “I don’t -- what did you say?”

Q: “The S&Ls."

McCain: "Yeah, the S&Ls."

Q: "Is this bigger than that?

McCain: “I don’t know the dimensions of this. It’s hard to know what the dimensions are. As I say, I never thought I’d pick up the paper and see a city in Norway is somehow dramatically impacted by it. When I say ‘surprised’ I’m not surprised when in capitalist systems that there’s greed and excess. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said ‘unfettered capitalism leads to corruption’ or something like that, that people have disputed for years.

“But so, in this whole new derivative stuff, and SIBs and all of this kind of new ways of packaging mortgages together and all that is something that frankly I don’t know a lot about.

"But I do rely on a lot of smart people that I have that are both in my employ and acquaintances of mine. And most of them did not anticipate this. Most of them, I mean I can find some that did. But, a guy that’s on my staff named Doug Holtz-Eakin, who was once the head of the Office of Management and Budget, said that there was nervousness out there. There’s nervousness. There was nervousness that we had such a long period of prosperity without a downturn because of the history of our economy. But I don’t know of hardly anybody, with the exception of a handful, that said ‘wait a minute, this thing is getting completely out of hand and is overheating.'

"So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.”; 9/23/08, 10:18 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Dodd is as guilty as a guy who is cheating with a married woman and then gets caught hiding in the bedroom closet by the husband.

Yet Dodd acts like he was an innocent bystander.

And I am not talking about his own mortgages- he was asleep at the wheel of the Senate Banking committee or he was criminally negligent.; 9/23/08, 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Afghanistan? Cheney? Mayoral opponents? Oh noes!

Obama surely will win by a landslide now. Funny that it's not reflected in the polls. Must be because of stupidity and racism. Certainly, the fact that voters don't seem to like Obama is not his fault.; 9/23/08, 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S. I'm telling you, Althouse, this Michael troll is going to get you sued for copyright infringement. Not that he would understand what it is.; 9/23/08, 10:22 PM
Roberto said...: OldGrouchy: Every single on of them is absolutely a "socialist" program.

I'm afraid you're either too dumb to understand or just too locked into what you believe...so...buzz off.

socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Ring a bell?; 9/23/08, 10:22 PM
Unknown said...: Like I said, Michael, it doesn't matter one whip that he didn't know the scope of the failure when it came upon him. He didn't have to know back in 2005 that we'd be facing what we did today. His efforts would have prevented it. Nothing in that article bothers me in the least or contradicts that fact.; 9/23/08, 10:22 PM
Roberto said...: seven, tell me what copyright I've infringed upon.

Take your time, numbnut.; 9/23/08, 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
Social Security (OASDI)
Unemployment Insurance
Temporary Disability Insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan

In order to own the means of production, some good or service must be produced. These entities produce nothing. They are wealth transfer programs.; 9/23/08, 10:24 PM
Roberto said...: mcg: Do you happen to remember who said we shouldn't go into Iraq?

Voted against it, too.

C'mon...tell me...; 9/23/08, 10:24 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Nichael:

Is there a way I can remove CNN and NBC and MSBNC and the other liberal stations from my cable TV?

Oh and all Law & Order reruns too. Too liberal preachy. Heh "liberal preachy" does not make sense I know because liberals hate God and all religions.

Michael, Were you named after the Arcangel Michael ? If so, I bet your mother is very disappointed in you.; 9/23/08, 10:24 PM
Synova said...: "*Can I assume you and none of your friends or family do not and will not take advantage of any of the following:"

Michael lists some government programs....

Apparently the proof of socialism is anything other than hard line libertarianism or objectivism?

For what it's worth my folks qualified for a number of government programs when I was a kid, such as food stamps... AND REFUSED THEM. And when they discovered that Head Start was actually harmful, they quit sending my brother to that, too.

But the absolutism is a lie in any case.

Some libertarians like Palin... not because they view her as pure, but because she actually has reduced spending and cut budgets, reduced her *own* salary, reduced her *own* perks of office. She also lobbied for programs and projects and spent money too, and not always on what I would view as necessary things. So? The fact is that she has done what she's done and the fact that she hasn't refused 100% of earmarks as Governor or refused to take any of the federal funds that normally are distributed to states does not make her a hypocrite about it all.

Someone will pull up her expense charges and hoot about how much she spent on this or that but in the end she has spend 80% less on *herself* than the previous Governor of Alaska did.

And I bring up this Palin moment to point out that Michael's absolutist arguments are either stupid or dishonest.

Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same. They all believe in regulation. They all believe in taxes. They all believe in social welfare programs.

When McCain presents himself as a deregulator he's not making a claim to anarchy. He's claiming that he doesn't see government regulation as the obvious answer to things and also that he sees government regulation as something that has down sides instead of only up-sides. Even if you believe him about it, it's not a betrayal of that if he talks about regulating some of what's causing problems now.; 9/23/08, 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...: I must say that I am worried about Michael's psyche when Obama loses. He's going to slink away -- what rational person would not? -- and who knows what horrible fate will become him?; 9/23/08, 10:28 PM
Roberto said...: seven, you are truly a frigging moron.

Every one of the programs you've listed is a form of socialism.; 9/23/08, 10:30 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I bet Michael lost a bundle in the poker games tonight. He will be in a bad mood.

Hope he did not lose his German valise.; 9/23/08, 10:32 PM
Roberto said...: synova, I never siad anybody had to take advantage of anything.

I merely asked if seven and others would choose to not take advantage.

It's nice that your family chose to forgo whatever, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the people here who constantly denigrate socialim as if it wer something foreign to their very lives.

If you for instance do not want your social security, just forward the checks to me.

And pleae, never utilize medicare or medicaid...just fork out the dough.; 9/23/08, 10:34 PM
Anonymous said...: What are the means of production? Do shoe factories and car assembly lines and consulting companies and various bartenders make the railroad retirement system? Does the government own the hospitals and the doctors' offices that accept Medicare?

I know you are much smarter than me, Michael. So I await your clever explanation about how, under your own definition involving the means of production, the government is controlling any means of any production in the United States.; 9/23/08, 10:36 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S. There's nothing wrong with availing yourself of a law you disagree with.

For example, loons, why didn't you pay more taxes than was required in 2007?; 9/23/08, 10:37 PM
Roberto said...: AJ Lynch: You appear to have some kind of strange affection for a German valise.

I find the reference kind of...creepy?; 9/23/08, 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...: "*Have you seen Sarah Palin at a recent press conference?"

I have not. What I have seen are close to a thousand reportorial, investigative and opinion pieces about her. Upwards of 90% are negative. Salon recently had four anti-Palin pieces up by the same writer at the same time, all from Wasilla. LA Times has regularly run three or four a day. If you want to get a sense of the magnitude of the anti-Palin media out there, just have Google route any story to your e-mail inbox where her name appears. You'll get 25 hits a day, nearly all negative.

Still all this has nothing to do with my main point. The press never vetted Obama on his batty spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremia Wright, until it was too late for Hillary to win. It wasn't as if no one knew about Wright. There have been stories about him and his wacko anti-white rants available on the Internet for the last couple of years. I know mainstream media reads these blogs. They just didn't want to be the one who shot down the black candidate. If the media had done it's job McCain would be running against Hillary, not Obama.; 9/23/08, 10:38 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Michael:

This is my second request:

"Do the two people have names?

Could I see the list of $15,000 checks ? And send me the list of disbursements by the Annenerg Challenge while you are at it."

Thank you in advance for your timely thorough response!; 9/23/08, 10:39 PM
Roberto said...: seven, it's not "my" definition, you twit.

Do you own a dictionary?

Do you own a book?; 9/23/08, 10:40 PM
Anonymous said...: If the media had done it's job McCain would be running against Hillary, not Obama.

And Clinton would be kicking McCain's ass to the curb. Instead, in an election year gift-wrapped for Democrats, you super-jeanyus loons are going to lose.

Amazing.; 9/23/08, 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...: That was a great explanation, Michael. Have you thought about a career in advocacy?; 9/23/08, 10:42 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Dusacny:

The Salon piece today quoted one anti-Palin hack from his jail cell. He is serving time for public corruption.

Too funny huh.; 9/23/08, 10:42 PM
Roberto said...: Duscany: I love your standard Republican talking points, but how about getting back to me when Palin actually faces the press corp, as every other candidate has in the past.

I asked before and will ask again:

Name one candidate who never faced the press for questioning after this period of time from nomination.

Put up or shut up.; 9/23/08, 10:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Michael, tell us the one again about how Obama is so much more qualified than Palin. I love that one.; 9/23/08, 10:43 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: German valise is what Trooper calls you Michael.

I am not making this up.; 9/23/08, 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S. Michael -- I still await your explanation about how the railroad retirement board is a means of production.

Come on. You are Mensa material. Everybody knows it. Enlighten me.; 9/23/08, 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Come on, German Valise. Explain! Either that or let's talk about the world champion New York Giants and that perpetually injured pussy, Jeremy Shockey.

I mean, really. This is getting trite.; 9/23/08, 10:46 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Has Obama or Biden or McCain held a press conference since they were nominated?

Making up new rules as you go along for our gal Sarah, eh Michael?; 9/23/08, 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Light workers do not need to hold press conferences. Only little people who have no business running for political office.; 9/23/08, 10:48 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Michael:

I'll help you answer Seven.

Pssst- the railroad and its employees are known for producing feather beds!; 9/23/08, 10:49 PM
Roberto said...: AJ Lynch asks: "Has Obama or Biden or McCain held a press conference since they were nominated?"

And you wonder why people think you're not very bright?; 9/23/08, 10:50 PM
Revenant said...: Every damned time Michael starts trolling a thread, at least a half-dozen people are dippy enough to engage with him at length. Wise up, folks. Please.; 9/23/08, 10:53 PM
Anonymous said...: The German valise isn't very good at providing evidence for declaratory statements.

Come, GV. Hit me. I really want to know about the railroad retirement board. I really want to know about Obama's massive number of press conferences. Aren't candidates holding press conferences all the time? They do, right? Right? Just like they write their own speeches. And since you are a super-jeanyus who doesn't respect copyrights, this should be a piece of cake. Just paste some shit in for me, baby.; 9/23/08, 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev -- I feel like this is different. The problem is that this guy comes in and makes the thread trite and boring. This thread is not trite and boring because people have changed their roles. The troll is on the defensive and it's fun.

Plus, I really want to know how the railroad retirement board owns means of production and how many pressers Obama has had.; 9/23/08, 10:57 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: German valise has some trouble with English.

I am typing very slowly. Is this easier for you to understand?

Still typing very slowly......when was the last Obama or McCain or Biden press conference lasting more than 8 questions and held after they were formally nominated?

Let me know if I need to type even slower.; 9/23/08, 10:58 PM
Anonymous said...: No doubt GV is off doing "research," probably at democraticunderground.; 9/23/08, 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: ...crickets chirping...

Conservatives and libertarians win. And I now know how to handle trolls. You make fun of them and they wilt away.

Fun thread.

Good night!; 9/23/08, 11:05 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Michael may have left for the dustbin of history. He and Luckoldson have to get it ready for Obama.; 9/23/08, 11:05 PM
1775OGG said...: Michael: You "think" that anyone who receives any benefit from a federal government program is a socialist? That's how you define a Socialist?

You've sicker that many of us thought and I for one know you're totally bonkers.

Tell you what, old bubba, take care of yourself for if you wish to try what you're suggesting in your 10:22 PM comment, you will be sorely proved wrong.

auf Wiedersehen, briefkastentante.; 9/23/08, 11:09 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Now comes news that Sarah Palin's aide, and apparently the Palins, saw her brother-in-law's file and used it to try to get him fired.

These people are creepy:

The very file that includes pictures, taken by none other than Todd Palin, of Wooten riding a snowmachine trying to prove the trooper was not injured.

Stalking the brother-in-law and taking pictures. O-kay.

Sarah Palin abused the power she had as Governor. And now you guys want to give her more power. Nixon, step aside!; 9/23/08, 11:12 PM
Synova said...: Obama is vapid and hesitant and gutless because his voting base views that as thoughtfulness.

BTW... everyone caught that *interesting* thing Naomi Wolf wrote about Palin, yes?; 9/23/08, 11:13 PM
Synova said...: And now liberals are defending abusive ex-husbands.

Okay.

That'll work.; 9/23/08, 11:15 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: If Palin is ready to be President, why does she have to be kept hidden from the press?

If she can't handle the press corps, how can she handle Ahmadinejad?

McCain is a mercurial fool for selecting her.; 9/23/08, 11:17 PM
Anonymous said...: If attacking Palin doesn't work, attack Palin some more. If that doesn't work, keep attacking her!

That's the play book for Alpha.

By the way, here is the always-sensible Bill Clinton (who, you will note, is basically sitting this one out): "My view is ... why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?"

Oh well.; 9/23/08, 11:20 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: synova, are you so dumb to think that comment was a defense of an abusive husband? It was no such thing.

It was clearly a criticism of Sarah Palin's abuse of power. And creepy stalking by the Palin family.

Here's a basic ethic: Public office is not to be used to carry out private vendettas. Hell, it's wrong for public vendettas, too.

There's no "well, she couldn't be expected to help herself and had to abuse the office of the Governor." No, she needs to have the character not so succumb to such base temptation.

Sarah Palin flunked the character test.; 9/23/08, 11:20 PM
Anonymous said...: "My view is ... why say, ever, anything bad about a person? Why don't we like them and celebrate them and be happy for her elevation to the ticket? And just say that she was a good choice for him and we disagree with them?"; 9/23/08, 11:22 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Seven Machos, I'm criticizing her conduct in public office, yes. That's my right as an American.

Why, exactly, do you think that criticizing Sarah Palin should be off limits? Because she's a woman? Or because she's a Republican?; 9/23/08, 11:23 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I really don't give a shit what Bill Clinton says, actually.; 9/23/08, 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Where did I say that criticism is off limits, Alpha? Where did I attempt to deny you any rights? Please be specific.

I'm merely pointing out that the only president your side has managed to elect in 28 years has diplomatically suggested that you are a complete tool for continually attacking Palin.

Maybe if she wasn't drawing crowds of 60,000 people in swing states, you could plausibly argue that these continual attacks have made some kind of positive difference in your favor. But you can't argue that, can you?

There are no fence-sitters here. Althouse is full of shit concerning herself. You aren't going to convince any McCain voters here of anything. So, dude, what, really, is your point? Why do you exist?; 9/23/08, 11:31 PM
vbspurs said...: Jdeeripper wrote:

Of course. David Axelrod didn't get involved running the Obama show with the hope of finishing 3rd behind Hillary and Edwards in order to lay the groundwork for Obama 2016.

Exactly.

Just think about this for a second, people.

If Obama didn't honestly think he had a shot in 2008, and really just went for a test run, why did he have so many powerful backers and advisors from the get-go?

You think those people didn't think Obama stood a chance to beat Hillary in 2006? Of course they did!

They bet their whole existences in the Democratic Party, because you know once they backed Obama as the only serious threat Hillary had, that they had screwed the pooch with the Clintonistas. Bill, Hillary, and all their pals had a LOT of money invested in this race, as they mortgaged their ideological future to Hillary.

It strikes me that the Clintons are not a forgiving type, either...

With apologies to Tina Fey, it's Obama who waltzed right in, on his dogsled and took the nomination away right under her nose.

And then Fate paid Obama back in the form of Palin. That's just desserts for the PUMAs. You know they love Palin because of that alone.

And Obama knows if he loses the whole enchilada, his future in the Party is not looking rosy. He would've had to wait for 8 years after President Hillary to make a run. Now he might end up waiting something like 4 or 16, IF the Democrats even nominate him again

Mr. Hitchens can't see this, and we can?

Hack.

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/23/08, 11:34 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: 7 machos, et al: Do you guys know who thoroughly unconvincing it is when you try and counsel us that we hurt our cause by criticizing Palin?

One, then why do you criticize Obama and other Democrats? Shouldn't you take your own advice?

Two, you're a bad source of advise for defeating McCain-Bush-Palin because you don't share the goal.

Three, your argument makes no sense unless a person thinks Sarah Palin must be sancrosanct. And it's downright unAmerican to say a candidate for public office cannot be criticized.; 9/23/08, 11:40 PM
Synova said...: AL, are you so stupid as to not understand that what I was getting at is that this is NOT a winning issue for Democrats. No matter how badly or how hard you try to pretend that it's got nothing to do with the proven bad behavior of the ex-husband you're not going to get rid of him.

And the only way for there NOT to be any crossover between private and public life in the situation is if getting elected meant that automatically you could no longer even *notice* that your sister was having trouble with an abusive ex who tasered her son and was prone to hyperbolic death threats.

This wouldn't even rate as *anything* if she'd done something else more spectacular. This is why people make jokes about the next scandal being library fines, failure to pay PTA dues and buying cookies for the pot-luck from the grocery store.

By politician (or even regular person) standards, the woman is so clean she squeaks.; 9/23/08, 11:40 PM
vbspurs said...: BTW... everyone caught that *interesting* thing Naomi Wolf wrote about Palin, yes?

Hey Synova. :)

I linked to the post yesterday, but Ann declined to blog about it -- the thought was that Wolf is irrelevant and her writing tedious, which it is.

I'm happy in a way, that I don't have to discuss it here. I did so at LGF already, and it would depress me to slosh around that bile again.

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/23/08, 11:42 PM
John Stodder said...: This food fight is boring America.; 9/23/08, 11:42 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Oh, machos, the shine is fading from that apple fast. Palin's novelty is wearing off and the shocking reality of this bad choice is sinking in.

And the more she hides from the press the more it ticks them off, as it did today.; 9/23/08, 11:43 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: "Food fight?" A Governor misuses their office for a vendetta, illegally uses personnel files, and then squashes an investigation.

And you call that a food fight?

You can't trivialize this one away. It's not about her reproductive policies failing in her own family. It's about abuse of public office.; 9/23/08, 11:45 PM
Anonymous said...: I've never criticized Obama for his past. I do have problems with it, but only to the extent that I think it will affect policy. Obama wants to raise taxes. He will extend the welfare state. He wants to compel volunteer work from teenagers. His foreign policy will be disastrous.

Obama seems like a very likable person and he's obviously very smart.

I really do think that it's dumb to continually attack Palin for these pseudo-scandals. I'm not trying to trick you.

It's also tiresome and trite. No one here cares. If you want to change anyone's mind, you should talk about what matters: policy.

If you don't want to change anyone's mind, then, again, why do you exist? Vent somewhere else. We don't care.

More; 9/23/08, 11:46 PM
vbspurs said...: By politician (or even regular person) standards, the woman is so clean she squeaks.

Been saying that since September 3rd, too. I can't believe what a gold mine this is for McCain.

Not only does Palin plug the Conservative holes in his career, but she built a 13 year career out of being a Republican whistle-blower and reformer during that time, similar to himself. Not only that, but all her "negatives" are the same as Obama's.

It's like God made a mirror of him in the form of Sarah Palin, but gave her character instead of hubris.

At this point, I think McCain/Palin will win this election, but even if they do not, I loved seeing the Democrats turn themselves inside and out trying to tear this woman down.

Given what they did to Hillary, and what Hillary did to Obama by throwing out the race card in South Carolina, as Republicans we've enjoyed the HELL out of this campaign, even without winning it all (yet).

Cheers,
Victoria; 9/23/08, 11:47 PM
Synova said...: Have you read the Naomi Wolf thing, AL?

Do you think that what she wrote hurts your cause?

If I were to suggest that it does, is my opinion on that suspect because I'm pro-Palin? Or could it be that my opinion is more likely to reflect that of normal people to a certifiably insane screed?

No doubt Naomi Wolf is as much a self-promoter as Hitchens is, but while Hitchens is pretty obviously wrong about Obama not planning/hoping to win from the start he's not presenting the man as evil personified.; 9/23/08, 11:49 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S. Yeah, Alpha, the press was so enamored with Palin. Right. Check. Gotcha.

But now the shine is wearing off. Better that she submit to questions from Big Media instead of going directly to the people where she can address 60,000 potential voters and get at least neutral local media coverage.

That makes sense. Big Media should be the gatekeepers of information and we should care about the Palin scandal du jour. Got it. You made your point. You can go now.; 9/23/08, 11:50 PM
Synova said...: I blogged about Naomi once because it seemed she was on the cusp of understanding something but then took a left turn back into la-la land. I felt it was a sad thing... the almost-ness of enlightenment that evoked a feeling of loss.

As much as my reaction to *this* was a sort of amazement I haven't actually commented on it anywhere because what is there to say?; 9/23/08, 11:54 PM
Anonymous said...: P.S.S. No question, Alpha. There's been a lot of talk recently about a presidential candidate dropping his vice-presidential candidate.

I seem to recall that the talk is all about Biden. I must be wrong.

As you say, Palin has been an unmitigated disaster.; 9/23/08, 11:55 PM
Donn said...: AL:
It's not about her reproductive policies failing in her own family.

Another lie from AL, since Bristol attends public schools and receives comprehensive sex ed. The only thing it proves is CSE doesn't work.; 9/23/08, 11:57 PM
Synova said...: I think her "reproductive policies" seem to have worked pretty well in her own family. ;-)

Not everyone feels that children are a bad thing. All true wealth is biological, after all.; 9/23/08, 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...: The odd thing about the full frontal assault on anything Palin has done or said is it makes the accusers look stranger and stranger to 80% of the population tuning in now and then. Like the shoddy Rathergate hit piece you just scratch your head and wonder if you are going nuts or are they?; 9/23/08, 11:59 PM
Donn said...: Alpha,

Check out this headline from the Chicago Sun-Times:

Uncharacteristically low turnout for Barack Obama rally in Green Bay, Wisc. McCain/Palin drew 4,000 more supporters at same venue a week ago.; 9/24/08, 12:02 AM
Synova said...: That said... I think it most certainly *is* about her reproductive policies. Or at least her utter failure to present having a baby as a "punishment".; 9/24/08, 12:03 AM
Anonymous said...: These kids today. Why can't they be like we were?; 9/24/08, 12:04 AM
John Stodder said...: However, the next time you hear that Palin's Wasilla charged rape victims for their rape exams, you can point them here.

http://tinyurl.com/43eqk6

Turns out that everything you think you know about this issue is wrong; and that some people are lying.

Go on the Frontiersman site and search the archives for 'wasilla rape.' You get 26 results. 25 are crime stories. The only story to mention the legislative issue is the much quoted one that showed up also in this thread.

My speculation is the police chief was called by a reporter looking for a local angle and just ran his mouth. Sometimes people do that when a reporter calls. Instead of saying "I don't know," they improvise, making up numbers if necessary to sound like they know what they're talking about. Old news clips are only the first draft of history, goes the cliche. To hang onto them like holy writ is a mistake. To read even more into them, i.e. the false fact that the legislation was aimed at benighted Wasilla is political slander in the guise of opposition research.

Prior to and after this story ran, there was nothing in the paper about the town charging rape victims, no story in which anyone mentions, defends, decries or in any way acts as if the alleged policy even existed. Could they have just missed it? Yes, the incompetence of most local newspapers cuts all ways. But this story is built on cotton candy.; 9/24/08, 12:07 AM
Donn said...: John,

I quizzed Michael on just this point earlier, but he never responded.; 9/24/08, 12:09 AM
Anonymous said...: AlphaLiberal said...Oh, machos, the shine is fading from that apple fast. Palin's novelty is wearing off and the shocking reality of this bad choice is sinking in.

And the more she hides from the press the more it ticks them off, as it did today.

Being hated by the liberal media never hurt Ronald Reagan.

Because he knew how to play them to an American public who recognized their unelected power.

Sarah Palin has no obligation to take questions from Obama's campaign workers.; 9/24/08, 12:11 AM
vbspurs said...: Or could it be that my opinion is more likely to reflect that of normal people to a certifiably insane screed?

I didn't read my mother the Wolf screed, but I did make her watch Sandra Bernhardt's stand up intro.

My mother is not internet-savvy, and has no idea about its Wild West cultural aspect.

She just silently watched it, turned around, and said, "Are people really allowed to say that online? She's hateful."

It was one of those "just dawned on us" moments when you realise your parent is suddenly less advanced than you are.; 9/24/08, 12:18 AM
Roberto said...: Campbell Brown:

"Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment," said Brown.

"This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency.

If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters... Let her have a real news conference with real questions.

By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with.

Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one."; 9/24/08, 12:22 AM
Revenant said...: Maybe if she wasn't drawing crowds of 60,000 people in swing states, you could plausibly argue that these continual attacks have made some kind of positive difference in your favor

Plus there's the amusement value of hearing Alpha whine that a woman who regularly draws crowds of tens of thousands of people is being "kept hidden". Doubly amusing is hearing that it is "stalking" to keep tabs on a dirty cop who threatened to kill you. But most amusing of all is that Alpha thinks he's either (a) hurting Palin or (b) helping Obama by continually brining this stuff up. :); 9/24/08, 12:25 AM
Anonymous said...: And German valise returns without answering any questions but with a new lurid charge.

It must be great to remain unperturbed by error or contradiction. I envy that about you and other crazy people.

Anyway, consider this, GV: what is the purpose of your existence? You are convincing no one of anything. Even the people who might be inclined to agree with you can't stand you.; 9/24/08, 12:27 AM
vbspurs said...: You gotta hand it to cynical Democrat shills like Brown.

The media, including her, tore into Hillary Clinton every day after Iowa, and then the Democratic nominee didn't even give her a courtesy-vetting, choosing instead a man as VP.

But it's the Republican who went with a woman who is the sexist.

It's wonderful to watch the reporters whine about no access. To quote that magnificent philosopher from Canada, Pam Anderson: you can suck it.; 9/24/08, 12:29 AM
Revenant said...: And the more she hides from the press the more it ticks them off, as it did today.

You mean that in addition to ninety percent of the press consisting of partisan left-wingers who have published dozens of proven slanders against Palin without bothering to fact-check them, they might... get mad? And do what, exactly? Threaten to stop writing exclusively negative stories about her?

Heh! Poor babies. Someone get them a glass of warm milk.; 9/24/08, 12:29 AM
Synova said...: I think that many of us are pretty used to the Wild West feel of the internet. I also think that it enhances the appearance of a heavily polarized and radicalized political reality that may not be accurate. Lord knows it gives the impression that far more people tend libertarian than actually do.

In other words... the population here isn't representative.

Add to that the fact that most people aren't the political junkies we are and then give them just a glimpse of the barbarians setting to with pikes and broadswords and I think we'll find that "normal people" find it shocking.

Though I may be mixing my metaphors a bit. One way that the internet is very Wild West-ish is that while "anything goes" it doesn't go without consequences to reputation.

And a whole lot of this stuff most certainly makes it's way to editorial pages of newspapers.; 9/24/08, 12:30 AM