Remember the disdain heaped on Hillary when a softball question she was asked in an Iowa townhall meeting turned to be from a staffer posing as an Iowan?
In such smug Obama strongholds as MSNBC, and right-wing Hate Hillary haunts as Fox & Friends, and Hannity & Colmes, she was accused of being disingenuous and manipulating, and the incident offered as proof that she and her evil husband would do anything to get elected.
(It's hard to distinguish between Fox News and MSNBC when the subject of Hillary Clinton comes up).
Meanwhile, Sri Barack was levitating over the grit and the grime of the material world like a Bodhisatva.
He's a different kind of politician, doncha know.
But on Friday, Dori Monson (KIRO, m-f, 12-3p) offered videos of rallies in LA, Santa Barbara, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and one in Seattle where Obama stopped his speech to help a girl who was swooninging in the audience.
In each incident, Obama gave identical instructions ("Make her some space!" to those assisting her; uttered exactly the same comforting words, and proffered the same bottle of water from the podium. He's sweet, calmly reassuring, and obviously his caring for the ailing girl trumps the grubby politics of the moment.
(The right is already calling him "the woman candidate," and a "metrosexual.")
Seems the victim is always a young woman sitting in a same row near the front;
in the same center seat affording the TV cameras a perfect shot. The
crowd cheers as he gives mellifluous triage into the microphone.
See the videos on Dori's page here. And here's a compilation that catches the spirit.
Of course it's not coincidence, it's good political theater, and
reminiscent of Peter Popoff or one of those Baptist healers who use
trite theatrics to carry The Word. (in America, trite works like a Mack truck!) To think otherwise -- that it's just
a collection of amazing coincidences -- is naivete, denial or
intentional blindness by the True Believers.
We honestly don't care; we consider such a tactic as effective and fair; but we wonder when those who think that St. Barack is somehow spiritually above politics will ever realize that not even he can take the politics out of politics.
Funny it took all these months for someone to notice. The press is
so smitten with Barack they aren't watching for such things... not yet.
It took a Wall Street reporter and Dori Monson to put it together after
months of repeating it nationwide. Medved made note of it too on his
national show.
We're glad Barack's campaign is showing wiliness, we were worried that his above-it-all strategy would leave him out of the fray. He has the same professionals running his campaign as everyone else; and they know if he doesn't say it: he must go negative and play hardball or he will fail.
CHANGE or more of the same.
Posted by: Nevets | February 15, 2008 at 11:54 PM
"We honestly don't care; we consider such a tactic as effective and fair"
Really? Shills in the audience faking an injury shows a disturbing lack of personal ethics. It is despicable. If this is true it shows Obama to be a pretty lousy human being.
I hope your comment was tongue in cheek. It didn't look that way to me, but perhaps your humor is more subtle than mine. If you actually think this way you need to spend a just a bit more time considering the concept of personal integrity.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah | February 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Every right-wing evangelical mega-church preacher uses the Fainting Shill as a time honored tactic to dazzle the congregation. Right-wing wackos are angry and jealous because Obama mastered their marketing gimmick.
Posted by: abob | February 16, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Well, I hope he knows what he's doing because with all the left-leaning KPTK talk shows bashing Hillary, he's about all we've got left.
Except for Mark Green. On Seven Days in America and his primary coverage with David Bender, Green tries to keep it straight and objective. I like that.
Even Maddow sneaks in a few shots when she can.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 12:23 AM
"Every right-wing evangelical mega-church preacher uses the Fainting Shill as a time honored tactic to dazzle the congregation."
Absolutely true. And they are contemptible slime. If Obama really is doing this he earns exactly the same level of respect as those charlatans.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah | February 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM
We will have so much fun with this fly-weight hippy who has been running so fast away from his race all his life. If the kiddies are still in the room in November, I'll be surprised. McCain should be able to peel everyone else, the yuppies, and the younger moms off by that time. Blacks alone can't elect a president.
Posted by: bingo | February 16, 2008 at 02:13 AM
OMG Oculus Bleu was referenced in a BlatherWatch post! We're no longer stuck down here in the dregs of the comments section. Me and OB are moving up in the world ... this may be the last post you hear from me now that I have status - later suckas'!!!!!!
Now that the video is getting airplay I may go down to Victory Studios and redo it professionaly with nice effects and cuts and such so it doesn't look as 5th grade as OB's version. Standby gang --
Posted by: Gay Gary | February 16, 2008 at 05:02 AM
Michael ..
I realize you are a cynic and support HRC for good reasons, but you really ought to find more substance than this.
I do not know if the events are staged or not. I suspect it is not simply because it strikies me as a stupid parlor trick and I would not find it surprising that if some folks do faint, given the media hype around BHO and, of course, his attraction to people "experienced" in this sort of religious activity.
I look at the media in 08 another way. To date the demo campaign has been free of swiftboating and largely free of Rovism. Somr attempts were made ... the maddrassah rumor, Bill's effort to be condescending, the attacks of Barackcare, and the current stylistic attacks on BHO as a hopemongering empty suit..
The curious fact is that lmost all of this has been directed toward BHO, he has run the most ethical campaign we have seen in years.
I try to look at the candidates in terms of objective data on what they are doping and saying. HRC's claim to be more experiences is valid though over stated. However, in issues her proposals are at best no more detailed than his. Frankly on the key issues I see little real difference other than technical details that fly way above the debate. (E.g. there ARE major differences in their helathcare proposals but thses are in fairly complex market economics issues that I can nto see as a subject of public debate.)
On "new ideas" they both have them and you can pick who has better ideas. I, for one, prefer the BHO concept of an aggressive diplomacy to the more restrained Clinton approach ... but again this si wonk stuff that really has little to do with the marketing of these people.
So ...
I wish people would at least be hinest. It seems to me that for many folks the BHO<->HRC choice comes down to personalo impressions. Some folks do not like HRC. Why? How do you dislike someone you only see as a cartoon on TV? I once read that Vincent Price was a charming, warm fellow when not playing a vampire. Maybe HRC's dyke-like persona is just TV? Some find BHO a gas bag, a Disney automatron. Again, all most fo us have is an impression from TV.
I will not make an arguement for BHO here, I think you know I have been a BHO supporter for a long time. Nor will I diss HRC. I would beg you, aski the best commentator on the media I know, to show a more balanced POV.
Posted by: SeattleJew | February 16, 2008 at 08:34 AM
I will be interested to see how the press covers this. Remember the "Rats" ad from the Bush 2000 campaign? It was an ad in which somebody found a "subliminal" message in a Bush ad. Democrats were outraged, and the Seattle Times ran a 1000+ word front page story. The Bush people said it was just a mistake, and that subliminal messages have been proven not to work anyway.
The Obama ploy can't be explained away as a mistake; it's a blatant deception, with Obama directly involved. Will it get the 1000 word treatment, or a gloss-over in 'news briefs?'
Posted by: wutitiz | February 16, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Let's hope this isn't Obama's "Howard Dean's scream."
Personally, I don't believe this is orchestrated.
Posted by: DT | February 16, 2008 at 08:55 AM
Or, if all of these fainting is not a coincidence, it's being done by a lower-level staffer who misguidedly thinks this is a bright idea.
Like I said before, this could also be the women doing it on their own to get attention, and the Obama campaign isn't in on it. In other words, they are faking fainting. Why would someone fake fainting? Either to get attention, or maybe they are HRC plants being used to set-up Obama as a shaman.
Posted by: DT | February 16, 2008 at 09:11 AM
gay gary, you should call into karels show on KGO weekend nights and promote you and OC!
Posted by: paris | February 16, 2008 at 09:42 AM
Come on Jew and DT. You are both smart enough to know that these are fully orchestrated events with Obama's knowledge and co-operation. Neither of you are that naive.
The real question will be "does anybody care?). I for one believe that this whole "scandal" will be gone within a week or two.
Just move along folks, nothing to see here.
Posted by: chucks | February 16, 2008 at 09:51 AM
The rumor about this possibly being the same girl fainting in each location is interesting. Could it possibly be Chelsea? :)
Doesn't matter folks...Obama may be the one fainting when the Super Dels vote...
Posted by: Duffman | February 16, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Stephan: I'm a skeptic, not a cynic, and I'm old enough to know what the Republicans are capable of... If you don't, listen to talk radio, and read the right-wing sites. They are coalescing around a playbook for ridiculing Obama. I'm also old enough to know that politics will happen; and Barack, if he's to win, will play them, too. (he already is, this different-kind-of-politician is schtick like any other). Hope, schmope, unlike John Kerry, he must be willing to get aggressive like the R's, if he doesn't he's lost. Hillary understands this.
He's lucky, he's got the media overwhelmingly on his side. That won't guarantee his success, ultimately; he must do what he has to do if he wants to win.
With this fainting development, it looks like he's beginning to.
I like Obama, but he hasn't made the case that he can win. I have seen these everything-is-beautiful liberal atmospherics go up in smoke before...ask Howard Dean, Geo McGovern, even Kerry, who lacked Obama's charisma, but had at least as much as his opponent). Democrats have grabbed defeat out of the jaws of victory so many times before.
I'm heartened by the hatred the R's have for McCain, and the huge Democratic turnout.
I'll support Barack enthusiastically if he gets the nomination. Until then, I'll keep asking skeptical questions, and not support him just because the cool kids are.
Posted by: blathering michael | February 16, 2008 at 10:23 AM
"Or, if all of these fainting is not a coincidence, it's being done by a lower-level staffer who misguidedly thinks this is a bright idea."
... and BO reacts the exact same way each and every time and doesn't notice anything is amiss? If that's the case, do we really want a President who is so completely clueless? (But of course that's not the case!)
When someone produces videos of scores of people fainting in the front rows of Clinton and McCain events I'll be willing to drink the Kool-Aid AND buy a $25 BO Prayer Towel! (I do enjoy the absolutely frantic reactions of the BOiphites, though. "The forces of Scientology and madness have won." -- Dr. Harry Bailey)
In any case, I feel confident information will come out on Thursday evening showing the "young woman" is the same person at each event. FA? But from which FN? (Did Oculus Bleu choose the Manchurian Candidate accidently or do we really have a Manchurian Candidate in this race? Quick - alert the Ron Paul Revolution! Tee hee!) Oh the succulent fruits are just starting to be squeezed into juice and we all wait with baited breath, ready to drink them up! Messy, messy, slurrrp, gargle, gulp --- yummers!!!
Coming in November: Clinton vs. McCain
Posted by: Gay Gary | February 16, 2008 at 10:31 AM
. I, for one, prefer the BHO concept of an aggressive diplomacy to the more restrained Clinton approach ...
BHO aggressive-Clinton restrained? Explain please.
... but again this si wonk stuff that really has little to do with the marketing of these people.
C'mon Jew. In America, it's all marketing.
...BHO<->HRC choice comes down to personalo impressions. Some folks do not like HRC. Why? How do you dislike someone you only see as a cartoon on TV?
See, that's called marketing.
Cartoon?
HRC's dyke-like persona is just TV? ... Nor will I diss HRC.
Jew, you prove Michael's case. Nothing like objective, issues-oriented thinking is there?
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Ah, gary the gay, you are a tease.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Well, apparently a reliable source has it that Hillary has fake fainters, too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971244/posts
Posted by: Mike | February 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Boy, there's a whole spree of fake Hillary fainters:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_sharpens_words_on_mcca.html
Posted by: Mike | February 16, 2008 at 10:51 AM
try again mike . . . no page found
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM
wooooo ... desperate times ... desperation is beginning to show ... infighting ... "but they did it too!" ...
--STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS--
Reminds me of when Oculus Bleu and I were fleeing The Dalles after the salad bar poisonings by the Rajneeshi's ... Ma Sheela insisting the poison did not come from Rajneespunah ... all followers of the Bhagwan united behind him in peace ... the Peace Force deploy Uzi-armed saffron and pink combat police onto the streets of Antelope, OR ... maybe we did poison the salad bars but that's nothing compared to the religious persecution we've suffered by INS or the Air Force who keeps sending fighter patrols over the peace and tranquility of Rajneespunah ... but where is that chartered jet going? No Bhagwan - do not leave us!!! --/STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS--
Posted by: Gay Gary | February 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Good Stuff Seattle Jew.
If it is an orchestrated 'trick' it is such a stupid one.
The Madrassa story, that was out of the Chris Lehane playbook....
"HILLARY VOLUNTEER SENDS ANTI-OBAMA EMAIL
Posted: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:34 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama
From NBC's Mark Murray
The liberal-leaning blog TPM is reporting that the Clinton campaign has "acknowledged that an Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign passed along the now-notorious email" that repeats "the false claim that [Obama] attended a madrassa as a child." This comes a day after the Clinton campaign charged the Obama camp with dirty tricks and making rude phone calls to Clinton supporters.
According to TPM, the charge originated from a Dodd supporter, who wrote on the DailyKos blog that he received an email from "a Clinton county chair," who repeated the Obama-is-a-Muslim-and-was-educated-in-a-madrassa story.
The Clinton campaign's internet director, Peter Daou, responded with this comment from Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle: "There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."
The Clinton campaign confirms to First Read that the comment from Solis Doyle posted on DailyKos is legitimate.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 16, 2008 at 11:28 AM
STUFF HAPPENS!! Any one who thinks these campaigns are as pure as the wind-driven snow is living in la la land. Keeping total control of all the exuberant workers is near to impossible with the way campaing camps are organized (or disorganized).
The important thing is that Mrs Clinton DOES NOT faint under any of the kinds of pressure she's been under heretofore. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 16, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Someone should look into all the payola and kickbacks Dori Monson recieves from his PHONEY endorsments he does all during his "talk show". I doubt that it is just coincidence that Mr. Monson is a "customer" of all the product/services he "endorses" on KIRO. Any investigator should be able to uncover possible criminal activity reagrding this blatant payola.
Posted by: KeepItSimple | February 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM
'payola' is a word of the sixties.
The way remuneration and incentives are structured now days in the radio industry that word would not apply. And you can 'investigate' all you want; the FCC does it on an on-going basis. The accounting is pretty tight. What might transpire 'away from the scene' (so to speak) is yet another issue, but I would never imagine Dori (with his values and ethics) to be anything but straight up.
Posted by: Duffman | February 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM
KeepItSimple, should someone also look into whether or not Dave Ross is sleeping on a Dux bed?
Posted by: DT | February 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I would imagine some advertisers want the host to be able to say he's a happy customer of their product, so there is some sort of standard thing advertisers and hosts do whereby the product is given for the host to use or sample, so the host can then say they are a satisfied user of said product.
Posted by: DT | February 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Here's Hillary "helping" someone who "fainted":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78rfAAjriBo
Posted by: Mike | February 16, 2008 at 01:35 PM
You guys should know that Dori Monson is always right. Can you imagine if some poor woman passed out at a Mccain ralley. He would have a Vietnam flashback and do an Axel Rose jumping into the crowd and kicking the poor woman's ass..
David
Posted by: David A Longdong | February 16, 2008 at 01:36 PM
John Nichols of Nation Magazine is discussing the obviously already-begun campaign against Obama. The right is currently circulating a video condemning Islam and Nichols proffers that this is the beginning round in a campaign against Obama by painting him as a Muslim (incorrectly, of course) and that he will be consistently referred to as Barack Hussein in the future.
Nichols also briefly touched on the successful hate machine that has painted HIllary inter-generationally - he said the kids of the kids of conservatives have been taught to hate her. Even Dems have fallen for the propaganda.
Now the right has to develop a hate machine to attack Obama and they've never worried about honesty or accuracy before.
He wants progressives to counter this attack on Obama head-on aggressively and continuously.
I wonder if Bush's new "they're coming to get us" rhetoric is part of this effort? Interesting timing.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 02:37 PM
"..he said the kids of the kids of conservatives have been taught to hate her."
I agree with this completely. It's been a manufactured and calculated and designed plot by the right to try to portray her with that image; there's really no real facts to back up any of the negatives they've attached to her.
Posted by: Duffman | February 16, 2008 at 02:58 PM
You know, duffman, I never thought I'd be defending Mrs. Wall Street.
Say what you will, I don't like hating unless well-earned.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 03:01 PM
A bit off-topic joanie, but thought you might be interested in this article How To Make Great Teachers..kind of interesting.
Posted by: Duffman | February 16, 2008 at 03:19 PM
I've read about half the article and have some comments already(I'll forget if I don't note them now):
Teachers need to be smart themselves. We are getting a lot of the lower achievers in teaching. I know because they sub for me and they write poorly and seem not to know much subject matter themselves.
Pay should be school-based rather than teacher based. Poor schools with at-risk populations must demand teacher collaboration within the school to make a difference. I've seen that work in Seattle but it takes a lot of effort and EXTRA TIME on the part of teachers.
While anecdotes support the notion of a great teacher here and there, truthfully, it takes a whole school and aligned good teaching to keep at-risk students achieving. So, I'm for merit pay for school-wide achievement where it can be shown.
I have a gifted group. I'm pretty highly valued. Do I deserve more pay? Generally, at this point in my teaching career, yes. But, specifically based on my kids achievement? No. I love teaching them because they LOVE TO LEARN! My biggest job is keeping them engaged.
Finally, the value-added notion isn't as great as it seems to be. When I taught comp ed reading, my mentor told me to write plans for the K-2 kids because you can almost always make gains with them. Then, you start noticed the walls come up due to dyslexia or other neurological problems.
I did come up with a program that sure helped my fourth and fifth grade poor readers but it was intensive and I left the program to go back to the classroom before I could try it a second year.
Finally, I've said it before but I think $30,000-$35,000 is a good beginning salary. You should pay craftsmen more - not the apprentices. Once a teacher has really learned to teach, that's when she deserves to be compensated.
A lot of teachers leave because they can't handle the discipline, the parents and/or the bureaucracy. No reason to over compensate them on their way out.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 03:54 PM
good luck there duff...
Posted by: mark | February 16, 2008 at 03:56 PM
One more thing about value-added: my principal who has a Ph.D. (many principals don't have Ph.Ds but just internship papers received from school districts) agreed with me. He said value-added has a lot of problems.
There are a lot of people out there who sell ideas and programs to administrators! Just like there are a lot of people out there who think they know everything there is to know about teaching even though they've never set foot in a classroom.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Sort of like Bush - our Resident Decider - who thinks he's an expert on everything even though he's never done a day's work in his life.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 04:07 PM
If you've ever been to a rock concert or other large gatherings, you know fainting isn't that unusual. And not much of a vote-puller either. I fear, Michael, that you have become part of the swift-boating meme: Obama is a cult. But you are a gifted writer, anyway.
Posted by: howie in seattle | February 16, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Howie, I got this link off your blog. I take it that you don't agree with it? What about the Rezko association?
"The Meme Prisoner"
BTW, we'll have to compare notes on rock concerts some day. I never saw a fainting. I'm sure there were some . . .
I'm afraid I also think Obama is a bit cultish not because of anything he's done but because Americans have become cult-like, hero worshiping, celebrity-loving vacant-eyed sheep.
And I like Obama...I'm just not sure yet. I admire Hillary, too.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Howie: thanks for complimenting my writing, but do you actually read what I write?
Posted by: blathering michael | February 16, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Michael: ouch. I sure do. Does it appear to you that I don't. Why would you ask? Did I miss the sarcasm and satire in your post? Joanie: as I read "The Meme Prisoner" it was about Hillary's problem being seen as other than calculating and ambitious. Why do you think I don't agree with it? As for Rezko, the "connection" smells bad, but I don't see any conflict of interest, or subversion of the public good. Obama worked with community groups who were trying to get Rezko to do some things for the local community. And then he purchased a strip of real estate adjoining his house to expand his lot. Did he get a "sweet" deal"? I don't think so. It looks bad, but I don't see any ethical issues of substance. Obama says it was "bone-headed" to buy the land, but he probably just wanted a few more feet on his lot. Fainting at rock concerts? All the time and at Hillary events, too!
Posted by: howie in seattle | February 16, 2008 at 06:06 PM
Fainting in the same place?
No, not about a few more feet of land. The seller wanted to sell both parcels but Obama wanted just one so Rezko's wife bought the other-$600,000. I don't think you know the facts here. And "bone-headed" by another name could be illegal" (probably not, just sayin') or "getting favors" - if so, for what? It would be hard to see ethical issues if you don't know the facts. But I consider $600,000 favors from a criminal questionable.
Otherwise, why even "boneheaded?"
I took the article to say that she's a prisoner of a meme - narrative - already established before she started campaigning.
Granted, it was a narrative she mitigated successfully when campaigning in NY.
I think she stuck with the narrative because she thought it was easier to try to use it to her advantage than fight it. I don't blame her for that. She couldn't appear to be weak. I think we both agree on that. She was between a rock and a hard place and had to choose. In hind sight, I guess she chose wrong.
Obama's selling an image, too. Surely you won't disagree with that. May be totally pure but politics is never totally pure.
Like I said, maybe I'll buy the Obama product over the Clinton product. But, please, don't try to sell me any bridges. Look at their resumes and decide. She's been a caring and honest woman. So, apparently, he's been a caring and honest man.
But, let's give credit where credit is due: the hate machine on the right created the Hillary currently being marketed and her decision to turn it back on them and use it is at least understandable.
Did you read cowpot's Machiavellian-referenced take on why Hillary is so hated? Right now on Clout, a guest is discussing the right's need for paternalism based on the religion model. I agree. Next to the sweet-talkin' Obamagon, she looks like the princess of darkness.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 06:51 PM
BTW, if you're registered online to the NY Times, there's a picture of Kennedy and an article on "Examining the Charisma Mandate: A “cult of personality” helped presidents like John F. Kennedy be effective. But it has some built-in problems."
Just goggle NY Times online - you do have to register but it's worth it.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 07:20 PM
"I wonder if Bush's new "they're coming to get us" rhetoric is part of this effort? Interesting timing.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 02:37 PM"
Everything is 'interesting' if you want to be paranoid. You must have been sipping the water over at Greenlake. Not a good idea given the number of geese. But I digress.
You are sounding a bit like those 9-11 Truthers.
He is the President, get over it. He will be gone soon. Get over that.
Oh by the way, have you noticed it has been over 2000 days since we have had an attack on America here in the States? One of the fallouts of this is a false sense of security that allows people to make political hay of anything Pres Bush does.
Geez, I am also sick and tired of W and will be happy to see him go off to Crawford.
But if you are gonna nail him for lapses then you must be prepared to give him credit for the successes. And no attack on America since 911 in over 2000 days is a success.
I will save you the effort: (insert your inane Olberman ref to Mission Accomplished here)
Posted by: PugetSound | February 16, 2008 at 07:30 PM
My problem is that for the supporters who think he walks on water "the mere suggestion that he is, say, mortal, risks vehement objection, or at least exposing the skeptic as deeply uncool." as the NY Times put it today.
We need to ask these questions. We were so fucking deluded in 2000 w/Nader; and in 2004 with Dean. I hear all of what is said and written, but the risk to those of us who dare look with a porcelain eye is that there's no middle ground: Barack's either the Second Coming and truly transformational and strong enough to pull off a movement (which would be fantastic) or he'll sink like a stone in the comparison to the crusty old warrior. (Also disastrous would be he end up like Carter, a one-term loser whose stubborness and weaknesses ushered in the Republican Ice Age).
I will support Barack w/out exception if he's nominated. I won't stop asking these questions until I'm either satisfied or he's got the delegates. My gut says he already has the nomination, and this is pissing in the wind. But the Deaniac obsessiveness has had me worried all along.
Posted by: blathering michael | February 16, 2008 at 07:33 PM
since 911? Bush was responsible for ignoring 9/11.
Posted by: justajoe | February 16, 2008 at 07:41 PM
"The trouble for Obama is that the Republicans aren’t terribly likely to let that dismissal stand—nor the polite avoidance of discussing his controversial minister, his wayward youth, or, indeed, his blackness itself. Again and again, as Clinton often points out, the GOP has proved painfully adept at taking compelling, carefully honed meta-narratives and blowing them to pieces. In ways too numerous to mention, Obama has been toughened up by the primary process. But no matter what his handlers say, the notion that he’s been subjected to the most withering press scrutiny imaginable is—how to put this?—a fairy tale.
Posted by: joanie | February 16, 2008 at 07:57 PM
Richard Clark was asked at the 911 Commission -you should read it- under oath if, President Bush had done everything recommended to him by Clark the day AFTER assuming office in 2001, would that have prevented 911?
Clark said no it wouldn't have.
I am not a big Bush lover, just important to get that fact out.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 16, 2008 at 08:14 PM
Blam, if Barrack is incapable of running a national election campaign against the Republicans and all of their 'rascally tricks' he isn't capable of running an effective Presidency. I sure as hell don't want him running foreign policy if he can't handle the likes of Karl Rove.
Kind of like Gore, given all of his advantages couldn't pull it off against W in 2000 told many that he probably wouldn't have been an effective president. Talk about f'n up an easy win. Solid economy, no war, et al. He still proved to be an incompetent campaigner -couldnt even win his home state.
I am a moderate. I see Barrack moving to the center. It will piss of the hard left for sure.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 16, 2008 at 08:21 PM