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.
I know one of those retired officers Joanie. He gloats about socialism and welfare but also brags about his posh military housing. He also stated that the educated shouldn't have to go to war as it was not fair, the less fortunate should go as their options are limited. I guess we should privatize the military to even things out.
Posted by: coiler | February 23, 2008 at 07:57 PM
hey
having a strong peacetime military serves as a deterrent to keep us safe. it's not a jobs program. you make it seem like serving is an easy thing. low pay and long hours. lots of missed holidays. i know you don't believe me, but the military is a dangerous place even in peace time.
heavy military equipment like tanks/planes and doing stuff that is inherently dangerous like jumping out of planes isn't stuff that is forgiving of a mistake.
sorry you think so little of your brother's service. i don't. of course, i've served and you haven't.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 23, 2008 at 08:42 PM
hey
having a strong peacetime military serves as a deterrent to keep us safe.
Hey, stupid. Having full employment lowers the crime rate and keeps us safe.
You're just stupid on the fact of it, puts.
BTW, haven't you heard? Firefighters go into burning buildings. BTW, haven't you heard? Nurses work in buildings where contagious diseases are routinely found. BTW, haven't you heard? Airline pilots fly those big airplanes quite frequently. BTW, haven't you heard? Some people work two jobs which means long hours, few holidays, and low pay everyday.
And some people jump out of airplanes for fun.
Oh, and BTW, noticed the crime rate at schools lately?
BTW, read Coiler above.
And Hey, you're still an idiot puts.
And I don't worry about what an idiot thinks of what I think of my brother. He appreciated what he had. He was a good liberal.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2008 at 09:18 PM
Yeah, Coiler. I know one,too. Talk about looking gift horses in the mouths. They have no appreciation for what we taxpayers do for them.
They are part of the elite.
Putsie must be a wannabe.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2008 at 09:22 PM
all of those things you listed above is true. of course, without a secure and safe America we wouldn't have much call for it, would we now Joanie.
For some reason you think this is a zero sum game. Praising those who serve in the military in no way denigrates firefighters, airline pilots, teachers, et al.
you really don't get it, now do you. again, praise to your brother. sorry that your life has turned out so bad for you. it must really suck to be you.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 23, 2008 at 09:24 PM
joanie
"For what it's worth, I'm firmly in the Obamagon camp now. Randi read a pretty long list of his accomplishments while a State senator and I was impressed...
Just had to share. :)
Posted by: joanie | February 21, 2008 at 03:02 AM"
Now I see your sudden conversion from Hillary over to Obama.
Got 'The Word' from drunk ass Randi, eh?
Talk about the loyal listener...staying up til 3 am listening to talk radio. YIKES. I doubt even Star Monson would wait around for Dori like that.
Joanie, do yourself a favor. Get Podcasts so you can download at your leisure and get some rest.
Some sleep would probably reduce the anger and bring some calm reflection into your life.
Waiting til 3 am to get 'The Word' is pretty damn scary. It must really suck to be you.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 23, 2008 at 09:44 PM
Ralph Nader is an ass. He's gone from crank to buffoon. Go to Hell, Ralph.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 24, 2008 at 09:05 AM
You're still an idiot, puts.
I agree, Tommy, Nader is the fool. He's becoming a caricature of himself. Too sad.
Posted by: joanie | February 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Some speculation on blogs that Ralph Nader is coming in on the behest of the Clintons. He is to the left of Hillary and more likely to take away from the Obama count. Hillary just needs to get to the convention fairly close in the Delegate count.
Obama hasn't been fully vetted. (and maybe there is nothing to really vette but no one really knows.)
Hillary is fairly well vetted. Maybe after seeing the 'potential' of the Times piece on McCain -which fizzled- she may be playing for the hail mary at this point and hoping that her campaign can come up with something...they spent a lot of money on the Chris Lehanes to go home empty handed.
So Duff, not all is lost.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM
"You're still an idiot, puts.
I agree, Tommy, Nader is the fool. He's becoming a caricature of himself. Too sad.
Posted by: joanie | February 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM"
Pot meets Kettle regarding Nader.
no analysis, just name calling. well within your skillset Joanie. poor thing.
Posted by: PugetSound | February 24, 2008 at 11:14 AM
cowpotpi3
I just saw your rejoinder on truman and after i got down dusting the 'straw' off my shoulder i had to laugh a bit. to be fair, before i point out a few of your errors let me tell you that truman is probably my favorite president. be that as it may, it doesn't blind me to certain truths.
first off, in 52 he didn't run and a factor in that was that he was damn unpopular at the time. it wasn't a one day poll, rather it was fairly consistent. even in 48 he wasn't considered the likely winner by dems especially when Democrat strom thurmond formed the Dixie Crats and threatened to hurt Truman in the south with his third party candidacy.
second, in 48 the repubs controlled congress. he ran against the 48 congress as the 'do nothing' congress. the dems didn't replace truman from within.
third, the truman administration was beset by a myriad of charges of corruption/soft on communism that didn't get cleared up in the publics mind until much later...hence, a reason for his low numbers THEN in the polls.
stay away from the wikipedia, might explain some of your earlier issues with misrepresentation such as calling the national journal the national review as means to prove a point. did you ever offer a correction on that? hmm.
if you want to really learn about truman you'll have to invest a little time in reading one of the many fine bios out there. unfortunately this will take more than a 15 minute scan on the 'puter.
my favorite is the pulitzer prize winning mccullough biography. i've read it a few times and enjoyed it every time.
i really hate to dice you up like that Cowpotpi3 aka
Cubesteak
you seem like a nice fellow. and much smarter than joanie or that andrew fellow. But my earlier comparison stands on bedrock absent you doing a little more spade work. It's not an absolute I'll grant you, but you have some interesting parallels that historians will have fun in debating.
Both he and Bush had poor approval ratings -in the mid 20's- , both barely won reelection, both were held responsible for an unpopular war at home (this was even before he made the correct decision to can McArthur as the country was still weary coming off of ww2 and not anxious for people to be drafted to fight another war overseas), economic issues, and 'extreme' loyalty to administration officials to the point of charges of corruption. I forget to add that back in his day Truman was disdained as a fairly lightweight intellect and he was a strong supporter of Israel.
Posted by: PugetSound | March 01, 2008 at 07:36 AM
You are actually comparing Truman to Bush?
Mr. "The buck stops here" to Mr. "I don't care what you think" ?
Amusing.
Posted by: Phil | March 01, 2008 at 08:16 AM
phil
instead of going with 'slogans' why don't you offer some insight. what i am saying is that we are way too close to bush to give it any real context or historical perspective. right now, it is pretty knee jerkian or emotional. i am not telling you that bush will be as favorably compared to truman. just that there are some interesting parallels that need time to flesh out.
it was a number of years before we saw the wisdom of truman. his stand against communism vis a vi the truman doctrine, the marshall plan, his civil rights initiatives, etc.
it will be interesting to see how history treats bush in the year 2038. many of us won't be here to see that.
sooo phil, go ahead dazzle us....
Posted by: PugetSound | March 01, 2008 at 12:31 PM
putsie, you don't wait thirty years to get "insight."
Insight is the ability to see into a situation-understanding intuitively.
You're the one who needs to learn to use insight.
Now, you do the work. interesting parallels
Like what?
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Has time turned Hoover into a great President? Harding? Coolidge? Bush will be remembered as a great and wise President only if his mama writes his memoirs.
Posted by: Phil | March 01, 2008 at 01:58 PM
joanie
historical perspectives that by definition take time to develop.
i suggest you re-read the postings. i laid out a number of interesting parallels.
if you want to take issue with 'em, put up a counter to it.
word of advice, be coherent. otherwise you'll just end up looking silly. so go ahead, 'learn me' if you will.
and 'phil,' you miss the point. i would have a hard time comparing harding, coolidge, or hoover to bush. i made a direct comparison of bush to truman. go ahead, use reason to knock it down.
please, go ahead.
Posted by: PugetSound | March 01, 2008 at 05:08 PM
anyone want to lay odds that joanie won't take the coherency challenge and instead invoke the age old standby: the seattle skedaddle.
c'mon joanie, i know you don't read. but surely some google time is within your skillset.
Posted by: PugetSound | March 01, 2008 at 05:10 PM
And your comparison was in reference to making no judgements about Bush at this time because History was kind to Truman down the line. All I am saying is that time was not kind to Hoover or Coolidge, and I find it laughable that History will someday say that Bush was a brilliant President.
Posted by: Phil | March 01, 2008 at 05:21 PM
the ball was in your court - lay out the parallels. Maybe you can't think of any...?
BTW, at least I taught you a new word: insight
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Bush is Truman? That is the stupidest thing since, since "Mission Accomplished"
Posted by: Dick Gregory | March 01, 2008 at 07:29 PM
phil
i didn't say brilliant. nice try but straw is flammable.
funny, none of you can refute what i am saying. if it is such a stupid thing then delineate the reasons why. i am willing to listen.
joanie
i laid out the parallels. you are either being dense or in preparation for the skedaddle. but i'll give you another chance to flail away. oh yeah, lets avoid the obvious play i'll even define parallel for you per meriam.
"3: a comparison to show resemblance"
"Both he and Bush had poor approval ratings throughout their presidency and towards the end-in the mid 20's- , both barely won reelection, both were held responsible for an unpopular war at home (this was even before he made the correct decision to can McArthur as the country was still weary coming off of ww2 and not anxious for people to be drafted to fight another war overseas), both were beset by economic issues, and 'extreme' loyalty to administration officials to the point of charges of corruption. I forget to add that back in his day Truman was also disdained as a fairly lightweight intellect and like Bush he was a strong supporter of Israel."
Posted by: PugetSound | March 01, 2008 at 08:45 PM
and Nixon's was at 24%. Can't you de better?
Posted by: Dick Gregory | March 01, 2008 at 09:09 PM
All irrelevant (sort of like saying they were all men, white and over forty) except perhaps this one:
Truman was also disdained as a fairly lightweight intellect and like Bush he was a strong supporter of Israel.
So you think the weight of history may show Bush to be a heavyweight intellect and strong supporter of Israel?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted by: joanie | March 01, 2008 at 09:24 PM
that is odd, comparing Bush against someone else. Bush can be judged as the worst based on Iraq alone.
Posted by: J.Hova | March 01, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Well at least a few people understood the point I was making. We have refuted what you said. Just because Truman became beloved after the passing of years does not mean Bush will too. The idea of it is absolutely ridiculous. He's a privileged little shit who doesn't give a damp hell for the opinions of the people he was elected to govern. He buys into the toxic economic theories of unreconstructed capitalism, despite never having had to earn an honest living in his life, and he supports a worldview that cuts out anyone who hasn't had his good fortune. He's stupid in the truest sense of the word: willfully ignorant and determined to surround himself with people who keep him that way, not only resistant to different ideas but actively hostile towards them.
Conservatism is very dependent on maintaining various myths and fantasies within its ranks. The biggest fantasy of all is that America will look back on the Bush years and see them as anything but a huge disaster that harmed the country.
Posted by: Phil | March 01, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Phil
Nice litany of name calling. Now that you have that out of your system give me some substance.
Joanie
Should we call the Skedddale now or do you want to dither awhile longer?
I gave both you and Phil some parallels and it is interesting neither of you can rise above some name calling. If it was so easy to knockdown I would think you both would be all over it and citing facts to show me wrong. Like I said, I am open to being wrong about it. And I am not saying Bush will necessarily be termed a great president 30 years hence. That is unknowable at this point.
I am saying that the parallels have substance and the fact that you're not able to knock 'em down gives credence to it.
Posted by: PugetSound | March 02, 2008 at 05:55 AM
but, putsie, you didn't my parallels: age, gender and ethnicity. All three factual. So, why should I answer yours?
Posted by: joanie | March 02, 2008 at 11:26 AM
"Nice litany of name calling. Now that you have that out of your system give me some substance."
I think he just did. 'Course you'll do the Elliot Bay two step and dodge the bullet.
Posted by: shadow | March 02, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Puts, are you going to turn this into another marathon post like the Shark one, where we have to guess the magic word to sound credible? I hope not!
I count at least 7 points that Phil made regarding Bush's integrity and intelligence. And as far as name calling goes, compared to others on here, his were sort of mild, dontcha think? Take out the names "little shit" and "stupid" if you must, but overall, he has pointed out how Bush is different not only from Truman, but from all the other Presidents as well. You said you don't like Bush, so Im not sure why you are attempting to put him in even the faintest of a good light.
Posted by: sparky | March 02, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Phil had seven rants toward Bush. That's all he did. He never made any substantive headway on the premise.
But I guess that counts for substance around here.
What was of interest is the fact that I posted something that most of you instinctively reacted to in a negative fashion. Yet the best that could be mustered up was a little name calling and a few rants. Hmmm, no wonder many of you never venture forth where your opinions may get challenged.
We'll just have to let time pass.
You all have a nice week.
Posted by: PugetSound | March 02, 2008 at 08:30 PM
step one two three
turn one two three
Posted by: shadow | March 02, 2008 at 08:44 PM
Are you kidding? My opinions are challenged every day at school by short people! So I choose to keep arguments to a minimum on the weekends when Im off the clock.
Posted by: sparky | March 02, 2008 at 08:46 PM
I plead guilty. Puts, sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. You put up arguments that are so merit-less that it is hard to take you seriously.
Read the Chalmers Johnson trilogy. Then I'll listen to what you have to say. That would be interesting to me.
Posted by: joanie | March 02, 2008 at 09:03 PM
Putz, go fuck yourself
Posted by: Dick Cheney | March 02, 2008 at 09:14 PM