It's only February, and the litely vetted Barack Obama is getting a glimpse of the future.
From The Times of London: The Republican attack document on Mr Obama, which emerged during a “winter retreat” session attended by Mr Rove in Los Angeles on Sunday, lists five main alleged weaknesses to be exploited if he ends up facing Mr MCain in the battle for the White House. A master in the art of defining an opponent negatively, Mr Rove has been advising Republicans how to attack both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama.
Now this:
Clinton Camp Accuses Obama Camp of Plagiarism
By Matthew Mosk and Jose Antonio Vargas
The tightening battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama has literally become a battle of words.
More the point: Whose words?
Top advisers and supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton today accused Sen. Barack Obama of plagiarism for delivering a speech in Wisconsin that included a nearly-identical passage to one delivered two years earlier by then candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick.
(Click here to view video clips of the passages in question. The Clinton campaign must have realized the similarities immediately; Doug Hattaway, a spokesman for Clinton, was a consultant for Patrick.)
"In many respects he is asking the public to judge him on the strength of his rhetoric," said Howard Wolfson, a top Clinton adviser, during a conference call with reporters today. "When we learn he has taken an important section of his speech from another elected official, it raises very fundamental questions about his campaign."
Wolfson, who at one point used the word "plagiarism" to describe the incident, was joined on the call by Democratic Rep. James McGovern (Mass.), a supporter of both Patrick's and Clinton's. McGovern attempted to drive home the point about the two, very similar passages, by calling into question all of the speeches that comprise Obama's body of work from the stump.
"It is striking to me that it is word for word," McGovern said. "I
think it says something about the origin of his rhetoric. I'm not sure
if the origin of his speeches, if they're his speeches, or if they're
someone else's."
Obama's campaign aides have explained the similar language as the result of Obama and Patrick's close friendship. They said the two exchange passages and ideas for speeches frequently.
The campaign also released a list of examples where Clinton "freely borrowed rhetoric" from other politicians, including from Obama. That list even included the line that Obama has made a catch phrase during his presidential bid, "Fired up and ready to go."
"We are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa," Clinton said to a crowd while in Davenport, Iowa.
Ed is talking about this on AA. Lots of opinions and he aired his short interview with Obama who is pretty much blowing it off.
I think this is much ado about nothing.
I do remember when it deep-sixed Biden's first (I think first) presidential campaign some years ago. He was accused of plagiarizing a British Labor guy. In truth, he did but he also cited the guy but not consistently.
So, he got accused and found guilty for those times when he didn't cite his source.
Always thought that was petty, too.
Not a big deal.
Oh, Ed just got a caller who wondered if Bush should be charged with plagiarism for this "smoke em out" words and other cliches that come out of his mouth. It was funny.
Posted by: joanie | February 18, 2008 at 02:09 PM
I don't think this is a big deal either, but you know how they work, it's dribs and drabs month in and month out. Eventually regular people say, all this crap, this guy is really rotten! It's what happens when a candidate is givern a free ride by the media. Wait until Karl Rove's campaign kicks into gear.
Posted by: peeklimiter | February 18, 2008 at 02:27 PM
This "plagiarism" mistake is what happens when a campaign is more concerned with big picture inspiration than the minute by minute details. Pay attention!
Posted by: Chris Trager | February 18, 2008 at 02:30 PM
I smell the stink of too rapidly ripened fruit. Overconfidence, and hubris are rampant in the Obama campaign. Taliaferro was on early Friday morining on KGO POSTIVELY DRIPPING WITH MOCKERY AND CONDESCENSION for Hillary, the little lady, who according to Taliaferro, should just admit defeat gracefully and quit embarrassing herself. This during a campaign that will still be basically deadlocked going into the mini-supertuesday on March 4 , when Texas and Ohio will vote. One senses an unease, a shifting of ground as a mumbling and grumbling campaign gives way to fullblown "exposes" by the likes of Dori Monson, Medved and the blogosphere regarding the supposed Obama fainting shills and admitted plagiarism. It's not a big thing that he got together with the Mass. guy to steal his lines withthe guy's blessings, but it is a big deal that he didn't give him credit. He wants to appear smarter and better than he really is. It's narcissistic. Also the fainting shill thing seems to have some substance. There IS something creepy about it. The same hack lines, the same creepy, canned, Groundhog's Day rehearsed feel to each incident. I predict strong Hillary wins in Ohio, Texas and Pensylvania, which will break Barrack's momentum and seal the deal for Mrs. Clinton. Overripe fruit stinks.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 18, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Mistake? He made this speech, work for word all weekend. It is embarrassing.
Posted by: lou | February 18, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Mrs Clinton's latest strategy of 'it's more than words folks' is working beautifully. She will win those States and garner most of super dels and 'cruise' to a land-slide win over McCain. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 18, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Seems the left wants to kill its own before the main attraction even starts. Experienced people like Rhodes and Taliaferro should know better.
Posted by: joanie | February 18, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Monson's dogging his shift with tapes today, which isn't a real holiday other than for the feds, while most other hosts work live. For a guy who's had as much time off as he has in the last 6-10 months, he's being a lazyass and not carrying his weight.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 18, 2008 at 03:00 PM
I want toknow that Barack isn't just a puff of lovely cologne. Mike is right. We just don't know. It's just a lot of people's feelings, and the press who just wants somebody new so they won't be bored. I' m still afraid the Rethugs will eat this lovely man for breakfast.
Posted by: GG | February 18, 2008 at 03:01 PM
More and more I'm hoping Hillary will get the nomination. Obama likes to use smoke and mirrors, and for such a young person with so little experiance that's particularily scary. He's almost to liberals what Bush was to conservatives in '99, someone with little experiance or track record who people are choosing on account of their promises and how comfortable we feel with them as a person.
This is a big deal because Barack didn't preface his statement with "a friend of mine once said..." He's misleading the masses into thinking he's clever enough to have thought it all up himself, and that's a lie. What else does he lie about? Is the fainting woman a scam also?
I wonder who the best presidents have historicly been and what qualities they displayed during their first campaigns.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | February 18, 2008 at 03:24 PM
good way to look at it AA. It's pretty tough to separate out partisanship, but I think Truman is well-regarded by both D's & R's in retrospect, although he was wildly unpopular in his time. His major quality was toughness.
If toughness is the criterion, it would have to be either Hill or McCain. Either one of them is tougher than ball- bearing steel.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 18, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Forget about Karl Rove. He's nothing compared to the Clintons. They are utterly ruthless, and will do anything they have to to get back into the White House. I don't think Obama has a chance. I also don't think he knows what he's up against.
Posted by: DT | February 18, 2008 at 04:02 PM
"Seems the left wants to kill its own before the main attraction even starts. Experienced people like Rhodes and Taliaferro should know better.
Posted by: joanie | February 18, 2008 at 02:59 PM"
Do you want propaganda shills or their honest opinion? They want to be on the air after Hillary and Obama have moved on. It makes people question, are you tuning into them to hear what they have to say or recite Dem Party Talking Points?
Posted by: PugetSound | February 18, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Spot on Wuttitiz,
Political history is my deal. (Read McCuloughs book on Harry)
When Truman left office he was in the low 30's popularity wise and couldn't get out of town fast enough. Heck, he only barely won reelection in 48.
In time, many people came to respect his ability to make a tough decision and hold fast. Even when the polls ran against him. Crappy economy, unpopular war, charges of being too loyal to ineffective cabinet members/admin staffers were some of the many charges levied against him.
Hmmm, kind of make you wonder if we may see a repeat of history. W is derided for being stubborn, charged with putting us in a war that the american people don't want, being overly loyal (ie Rumsfield or Tenent), and the economy is softening.
You and I won't be around to see it in all liklihood, but in 60 years it will be interesting to see the take on W.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 18, 2008 at 04:21 PM
PS, what is your take on JFK. To me the popular image bears almost no relation to the reality.
He is god-like for today's dems, but he was ultra-conservative by today's scales. He was a staunch anti-commie (a McCarthy ally in his sen. days) an NRA life-member & gun nut, who took pride in his military service, and he cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Also he was somewhat of a foreign policy disaster in his short time (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam).
And with the many comparisons between JFK & Obama, what do you think this tells us about Obama, if anything?
Posted by: wutitiz | February 18, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Hillary is touting her support for gun-rights. "I've hunted" she says at her latest rally. She says her dad taught her to handle guns & she duck-hunted in AR.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 18, 2008 at 05:05 PM
yep you are right.
JFK, if he ran today would be a conservative unless he renounced some important accomplishments.
Taxcutter - Reagan would always cite that one of the first things JFK did was cut the marginal tax rate from 90 ish to like 50 percent to stimulate the economy. It worked. A supply sider, who would have thought. Cold war warrior par excellence -not likely he would be looking to bring Obama to justice in a courtroom. But the man was reckless bringing us to the brink of war at least once, having a showdown in Berlin that kept the tensions high -Krushev was convinced he could bully Kennedy, etc.
One wonders about the medicines he was being injected with and how it impacted his judgement. His acceptance speech an of 1961 you have everyone in heavy coat but JFK is wearing only a freakin suit and still sweating up a storm. Read Pulitzer Prize winning author Seymour Hersh's scandal book, 'Dark Camelot' to get a feel for the goings on. Most of the press was in the bag and liked the Kennedy's so they wouldn't say boo.
Bay of Pigs was a disaster. He continued to try and kill Castro after the Bay of Pigs covertly using mafia. His use of the mafia to assassinate foreign leaders may have been the ultimate chicken coming home to roost. Robert was on Joe McCarthy's staff and another staunch Commie fighter. McCartyhy was a family friend supported by old man Joe and even dated one of the Kennedy daughters for awhile. Kennedy's played rough. they used the irs to audit nixon's grandma in 62,
Posted by: PugetSound | February 18, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Hillary is setting up a right uppercut to Obama's tenderloins over his U.N. 'Global Poverty Act,' and its small-arms provision. She well remembers losing the '94 House over gun control, and Al Gore failing to carry Tennessee in 2000, also over gun control. Obama being from Chicago, where being anti-gun is a given, is not going to see this one coming.
Posted by: pee_limiter | February 18, 2008 at 06:26 PM
You lefties are so nave, [yep, I know how to spell it].. Karl's in charge. The righty candidate is not what he would have hoped, but he has to play the hand he's been delt. What better way to do it than to have the leftie candidates cut themselves to ribbons prior to the main event? Geeze!
Posted by: RiceRocketRickie | February 18, 2008 at 06:55 PM
Tommy, you are gone. Seriously, there is something wrong with you. No matter what topic BM posts about, you somehow work Dori Monson into it. Often, not even mentioning the post topic at all. For example, today BM posts a serious topic about Obama and Clinton, and you comment on how Dori's show today is a rerun? There is something wrong with your brain.
Posted by: DT | February 18, 2008 at 07:18 PM
The man with too many words in his name, The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior was also a plagiarist. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Posted by: DT | February 18, 2008 at 07:23 PM
DT, you're right. Taylor Branch discusses it in his 3 part bio of King. He was also a womanizer despite being a man of the cloth.
Bethatasitmay, he was a man of great accomplishments who should be revered as one of the best that America can offer. A man who inspired others to better things.
Read 'Letters From A Birmingham Jail' or just listen to the speech he made the night before he was assassinated.
I actually view his 'flaws' as comforting in that it shows the internal struggles we have and can overcome in pursuit of a greater good.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 18, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Obama has learned about the talk about change, the smoke and mirrors, etc. from none other that Bill Clinton - he watched his videos from 1992 and noted how the slick campaign rhetoric messmerized many to vote for him. Today in a more dumbed down society than then, why not go back to the well again and bring back hope and change as the themes.
Mr. Obama is proving to be an eloquent empty suit. The door has still not closed on the Clintons and it will get ugly before it sorts itself out.
Warning to all : If Barack or Hillary get elected, you will see higher taxes, a more depressed economy due to the higher taxes and an expanded nanny state with Universal Health Care and bigger government and income redistribution through higher taxes - aka more Socialism/American Style. The alternative will offer reduced spending, no raising taxes and an improved health care system, where people and the private sector still has its say.
Posted by: KS | February 18, 2008 at 08:48 PM
PugetSound, agreed. Now, back to Obama. I think he a good man, but I think between now and November, after the Clinton machine gets through with him, he's not going to know what hit him.
Posted by: DT | February 18, 2008 at 08:51 PM
KS, who do you think will get us out of Iraq quicker, McCain or Obama?
Posted by: DT | February 18, 2008 at 08:58 PM
I think the Clintonistas will not let this slip away lightly.
Figure this as a good test to see if Obama is 'Leader-Worthy' if you will -apologies to Seinfeld.
If he can't handle James Carville or Chris Lehane then I don't want him facing up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran or Kim Ill in Korea.
He has run a great campaign and now it is time to shift gears.
Anyone think the Clintons are going to give up easy? I don't. They'll go bareknuckle.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 18, 2008 at 08:59 PM
I heard tonight on CNN that Michelle Obama said over the weekend that seeing her husband being voted toward the nomination of her party makes her proud to be an American for the first time. First time? That doesn't sit well with me. These people are radicals, let's face it. Michelle has a chip on her shoulder against whites, as does Oprah, their chief patron. I don't believe he is a unifying candidate at all. We don't need these people in the White House.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 18, 2008 at 09:02 PM
We will smash the skinny guy from Illinois whosays nothing but says it so well...
Posted by: cinco | February 18, 2008 at 09:04 PM
It's unfair to label Obama an 'empty suit.' He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law & taught at the University of Chicago law school, which has produced such luminaries as Richard Posner and John Ashcroft. There can be no doubt that he is a super-achiever with superior intelligence.
He didn't claw his way up the political ladder, but then Hillary didn't either--her resume is primarily 'wife of Bill.'
Posted by: wutitiz | February 18, 2008 at 09:24 PM
"It's unfair to label Obama an 'empty suit.' He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law & taught at the University of Chicago law school, which has produced such luminaries as Richard Posner and John Ashcroft. There can be no doubt that he is a super-achiever with superior intelligence."
That may well be true, but so far he has said little of substance. According to a number of surveys, his ideology is farther left than Hillary Clinton's, which means even bigger government. Also, what about the $460 billion that he plans to donate to Africa of our taxpayer money to fight hunger ?
That is a dangerous precedent ! Academic credentials do not mean a person has street smarts or common sense or is a pragmatist - these are more important qualities in a president than being smart or an eloquent speaker.
Who will get us out of Iraq sooner - Obama or McCain ? Obama will, but that could prove to be perceived as a surrender by them if the enemies sweep on in. Congress has to weigh in on it before we deploy and they may not want to when he does. Unless we stay on the offense in fighting radical Islam, it will lead to big problems down the road and I don't believe that Sen. Obama understands that, in spite of his academic credentials.
Posted by: KS | February 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
O'Reilly adressed the Obama fainting shills tonight on his radio show and pretty much poohpoohed it as being anything other than coincidence. After listening to him I've toned down my suspicions from moderate to very mild, because he made sense. I never went farther than saying i found it odd and suspicious at my worst, whereas Dori went off like a horse's ass claiming that he had no doubt at all that these were staged acts and that ANYONE WHO COULDN'T SEE THAT THERE WAS NO COINCIDENCE but rather fraud, just wasn't using his or her brain. It was never OBVIOUS, except to Dori. I think that Dori was hoping for an invite onto Bill O'reiily's radio show along with his collection of Obama speech fainting soundbites. After all, Medved mentioned Dori's Obama fainting shill research on his show last week. Instead O'Reilly effectively shot down Monson's smug theories.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM
PS, I am rereading that book on Truman - comparing him to Bush is a stretch at best. Could you imagine Shrub in charge of the Truman Commission during WW2? the graft would turn Midas green...
Posted by: mark | February 18, 2008 at 10:57 PM
No, W is not derided for being stubborn but for being ignorant. He makes decisions (The Decider) without adequate or accurate information.
And when such information appears that should alter his decision, he ignores it.
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 12:36 AM
mark
the graft probe by truman was a highwater mark in good government for sure. as you know, it wasn't until then that sen truman was considered anything but just the corrupt tool of the pendergast machine. but i am talking public perception and how an unpopular pres becomes popular over time.
both are perceived as stubborn -unwilling or unable to change his mind in the face of facts, overly loyal, got us into unpopular wars, admin corruption, and as they were leaving the economic situation was poor.
joanie YOU may not deride W for being stubborn. i know many who do deride him for that. others will laud W for 'staying the course.' i also would say by your own definition, unwilling to change after information appears that should alter his opinion, is in fact being stubborn.
but hey, we'll most likely be gone before the real assessment of history takes hold.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 19, 2008 at 05:01 AM
Herr Barak Obama ist der nicht Scheißemann aber eher der Mann von Stierscheiße.
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 05:39 AM
Listening to the John Gibson Show this a.m. (KVI), he raised a good point for those of you who may be leaning toward BHO.
BHO discounted the plagiarism thing by saying that he and His Excellency Deval Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exchange ideas and words all the time.
One could gather from this an extension that possibly they might well govern accordingly. Too detailed to go into herein but one need only look up the record of 'His Excellency' and see what has transpired during his takeover from Gov Romney. Not the picture of a smooth transition to say the least. Food for thought. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 06:19 AM
Ahhh nice to be back within the (not so) friendly confines of Blatherwatch...all refreshed from a long weekend and ready to take on more disinformation! I know our esteemed righties have missed me (yeah right).
PS - You're a political history buff are you? That's nice to hear...I do have to wonder about your comparison of GWB to Truman though...
You submitted as proof of the comparison that both had poor approval ratings, barely won an election, unpopular war and loyalty to administration officials.
I think as a history expert you should know better than to make such superficial comparisons that don't really take account of the true situation for both Presidents.
Approval ratings? This is just empirically not a good comparison. The political situation is too different and far more complicated than to be boiled down to something like this. I'm sure you'd agree. However, I'll argue that his approval rating had a lot more to do with firing MacArthur than anything else. Since this issue is intertwined with the Korean War, I'll address it now. Korea directly attacked an ally...did Iraq? Totally different again and not a good comparison. As a history buff you must also know that Truman was effectively replaced from within the Democratic party. I wonder who in the current GOP would have the courage to do this today? I guess we can bury this comparison too.
Barely won an election? Again a superficial comparison at best. Do we therefore make Al Gore = Dewey? Again, in the election of '52 he faced opposition from his own party. Totally different situation entirely.
Loyalty to administration officials? This, of course, stems from complaints of cronyism which have largely proven to be false except for the story about the perfume salesman who gave Mrs. Truman a refrigerator for early access to a flight to Europe after the war. In the case of Bush we have volumes of information about the appointment of cronies to all levels of government, loyalty tests rather than competency measurements, politicization of the government at all levels. Remember that saying that Truman was so famous for?
The buck stops here. Have you ever, as a political history expert, ever seen a President, administration and a political party take less responsibility for more mistakes and corruption than the current crew? Forgive me if I find your reading of history somewhat lacking.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Hey Duff: Good to see you're still shilling for the right. Only a True Believer would be making sure to frame Obama with his middle name...can't forget to remind people he shares a name with Saddam can we?
Glad you're listening to Gibson to get your talking points. I mean you wouldn't want to get biased information after all.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 07:42 AM
Nice to see you back CPP3 from a refreshed week-end. Surely now you'd want to present your best case to SP and have it soundly 'handed to you'. But alas, I doubt it - you are happy pretending to be the big fish in the small pond. Lo siento mucho dude. :)
And "Only a True Believer would be making sure to frame Obama with his middle name.." HUH?? Surely you have me confused with someone who might give a s***. :) [I never even mentioned his middle name...do you read, or are you so anxious to expound your BS that you 'rush to typing'?]
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 07:54 AM
KS, all I said was that the 'empty suit' description was unfair. I don't agree with Obama's lefty thinking. And as you point out, book-intelligence isn't everything, as we saw with Carter, who was an intelligent man (nuclear engineer by training).
If a conservative with a Obama's background were running, I would not let libs get away w/ calling him 'empty suit,' so the same holds true for Obama.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 08:00 AM
" If Barack or Hillary get elected, you will see higher taxes, a more depressed economy due to the higher taxes and an expanded nanny state with Universal Health Care and bigger government and income redistribution through higher taxes - aka more Socialism/American Style"
Though I completely disagree with your "more depressed economy" hypothesis, you have put words to my American Dream, KS. Unfortunatly, it is a dream...universal health care will not be achieved by HRC or BO, due to the requirement for approval by the shattered Congress. Alas, so sad...
.
Posted by: Fremont | February 19, 2008 at 08:28 AM
Duff perhaps you lack perspective (being a right wing shill) but it is usually accepted that if you want to debate someone on a given topic you don't tell them to go and argue points somewhere else. Then again you consciously ignored me when I told you before that I do post on what are considered right wing blogs. And they are just the same as here: right wing folks light on sources making ideological arguments...I deconstruct them and source my refutations and either they change the subject or ignore that they are in error. I am sorry if you don't like that I don't post wherever you want me to...but as you say yourself, what makes you think I give a shit?
To that end, you have consistently espoused your agenda here. Recall the sources for news you constantly cite? Drudge, Serbian Holocaust Deniers and other right wing shills (remember your Al Gore link that I tore you up on point by point).
Just quit pretending and say what you really think without trying to couch your ideology in some kind of third rate virtual Trojan Horse.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 08:42 AM
I'll say it in my vote, thank you..and I've been saying it a lot longer than any herein (or elsewhere, for that matter) :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 08:49 AM
How long you have been voting doesn't matter a wit. Keep listening to those informative "news sources" of yours, Duff. I'm sure they give you a well rounded view of the world.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 08:53 AM
...and my guess CPP3 is that you too will fall in line for Mrs Clinton once you see that your man BHO is not gonna happen. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 08:55 AM
BHO...nice framing there, DuffRove. Just curious: Do you believe he is a Muslim? Do you believe that he was educated in a militant madrassa? Do you think he wants to attack Pakistan?
I bet you have bought into those talking points too. By the way those have, of course, been debunked (even though your boy Gibson has taken all of them and run with them). But you were aware of this, right?
As to whom I will vote for in the general, I think I am like most Americans. I've seen the failures of the conservative movement over the past 7+ years. Haven't you? Feel free to pretend to agree with me now.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 09:06 AM
I voted Republican once (for Nixon) and them's the facts - dude; hard for you to believe, I'm sure because I for one DO NOT follow talking points. Hehe...:)
And I've said for many moons now that it's a foregone conclusion that Democrats will win both Nationally and State in what could be a landslide (at least at National level) this next time around.
For the record I listen to all flavors - Gibson is far from my favorite but I thought his point about BHO this a.m. was interesting.
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 09:14 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clinton will be the nominee. I want Obama, but Clinton as the super-delegates on her side, and that will put her over the top in the end.
There are about 800 super-delegates, who are mostly made up of Democratic party officials and the establishment, and they make up about 20% of total delegates. Clinton right now has about 235, and Obama has 160. But in the total delegate count, they are running about even, at around 1200 each.
Anyway, I believe the fix is in. Deals have been made. Clinton will be the nominee. You are naive if you think the Democratic establishment is going to let Obama be the nominee.
Posted by: DT | February 19, 2008 at 09:16 AM
yeah, that was quite a stretch to compare Bushler to Truman. I guess it has gotten so bad when the cheerleaders for Bush need historical refuge and their is no room in the GOP hall of shame next to nixon. Bush is Truman, wow!
Posted by: coiler | February 19, 2008 at 09:18 AM
You GOT IT DT...I agree completely! :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 09:19 AM