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.
So, DT, what do you make of the news last night that Gore, Biden, Richardson and Dodd have been meeting with both Hillary and Barak? What do you think of the rumor of them looking at the results of the Ohio/Texas votes on March 4, and if Hillary does not take them by a landslide, they would suggest to her that she drop out, or they will as a block endorse Barak?
What do you make of the news that some of the superdelegates are rethinking their support if Hillary cannot win more states?
Posted by: sparky | February 19, 2008 at 09:30 AM
You agree, Duffman? I guess we'll see what happens. But I think all one has to do is just look at the math. The fact that super-delegates are going for Clinton 2/3 of the time, and there's no reason to believe that's going to change. I think that's going to put her over the top. I think there's also a bunch of behind the scene stuff going on. The Clinton machine will stop at nothing to get back into the White House. Personally, I believe she already has a lock on it, and now all we have to do is watch it play out.
Posted by: DT | February 19, 2008 at 09:33 AM
IMO Biden, Richardson and Dodd wouldn't matter, but Gore would, and I don't believe he'll enter the fray. And I hope I'm right, cause that would be the only scenario where I would possibly think that Mrs Clinton w/be in trouble.
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 09:35 AM
...but I also think she will win Texas, Ohio and Penn. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 09:36 AM
CCP3: Good morning and Good luck.
No worries. The country is waking-up from their 8-year Rovian hangover. This schill-speak by Gibson, Coulter, Limbaugh (and their loyal atomoton sheep) is like amplified nails on a chalkboard first thing in the morning.
I think we're ready to move on and toss this scum (and their willing ilk) into the asheap of history.
Note: Hussein - as common as "John" in Arabic culture - means "Good" or "Handsome". Terrible insult, right?
Again, just simple way for the Wingnut hosts to trigger the "Gut" latent racism of the listeners. Some people go for it, most don't.
Posted by: mercifurious | February 19, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Oh, I see merci...you must be demonstrating the subtle definition of the word 'ignore', which you so avidly preached. Just too tempting, isn't it? Hehe, you're too funny. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Ignore...like you chose to ignore what I asked you about your opinions of Obama and the various talking points. Just curious what you think about them, Duff. Let us know where you stand.
Yeah, Merci, its funny how something like a name will inspire such pant-wetting fear among conservatives. They've been trained like Pavlovian Doggies to behave in such ways it seems.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Fair question CPP3, I don't agree with all that's being said about BHO, as a matter of fact I would regard myself as an advocate of his. However I don't think it's the right time for him THIS time around. I think he has vision, is very intellectual and obviously one heck of an orator. Ideally I would love it if he is offered and accepts a VP position. THIS is the time for CHANGE, I agree but to a Democratic administration and congress and YES, for a woman.
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Duff I was asking about specifics. Do you believe what I asked you above? Those are all "points" as you might call them that Gibson has made. Perhaps you should find your "points" a bit more selectively?
Gibson is nothing more than a mealy-mouthed liar who shills for the right wing hate train.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM
"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?"
NO, to all of the above!
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM
WZZZZ: And as you point out, book-intelligence isn't everything,
Hear that, putsie?
Duffman, I think you are a joiner and have joined the conservatives on this blog because they're easier. More superficial and glad-handing with each other which seems to attract you.
In truth, you like assertive women and universal health care.
So, why is the role of fool so comfortable for you?
DT: You're simply contrary and a chronic iconoclast. Every indication out there says the super delegates will not change the vote. Common sense says that. Comments from some of those delegates say that. And pundits are saying that.
I've put money down on this blog that if the delegate count is outside the margin of twenty, I'll pay %50 to Michael as a tip.
Why do you continue to belabour the point? You have a habit of focusing on negatives constantly and mostly from the perspective of your crystal ball. Get over it.
Putsie, after reading all those books, try synthesizing the information and do some thinking.
Good show on Dave Ross today about what Michelle Obama is really saying when in her speech last week she talked about isolated Americans and asking them to do more to contribute to the general good. I think I've paraphrased correctly.
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Joanie: Spot-on.
Fits right in with the whole "going with my gut" on everything.
No foundation. No standards. Just entrails. A right-wingnut trait if I've ever seen one
Posted by: mercifurious | February 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
"In truth, you like assertive women and universal health care."
:), but not necessarily in that order.
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Joanie, I guess we'll just have to see what happens. I don't have a crystal ball. I'm just stating my opinion here, like everyone else. And you're right, I'm not going along with what I've been told to think. Does that anger you?
Posted by: recalcitrant iconoclast | February 19, 2008 at 10:38 AM
There you go DT, there's your new moniker 'reconoclast'; joanie just re-christened you. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
And merci, what part of "2/3 of super-delegates going for Clinton" is me just going with my gut?
Posted by: recalcitrant iconoclast | February 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Why should it anger me?
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM
And what were you told to think and by whom?
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM
BTW, putsie, read Chalmers Johnson's trilogy Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis and then tell us what you think. That might interest me.
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
clinton is getting desperate. she is on a losing streak of 9 states - so the politics of "atack" are coming out.
the question is - can she govern with these tactics?
Her experience is over-played - what has she actually accomplished?
The ability to take hits - does not make a boxer.
Screwing up health care does not make her an expert - she can't even explain her own plan and how it will be mandatory.
Bottom - line is that she is losing and resorting to ridiculous accusations - or worse her entire argument is that Obama is as bad as she is...some argument. I can see whre the politics of hope clash with the politics of sabotage. Clinton, Wolfson, Penn and their apologists are pathetic.
Ready on day one - ready for what? more smears? People are tired of the smears and the divisiveness.
Posted by: correctnotright | February 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
An apologist caller on Dori's show tried to sya thaqt since Michelle said Barack's success in the primaries was the first time in her adult life she's been REALLY proud of this country instead of "proud" thaT IT'S OK. his logic was that this meant that at some earlier times she was at least "proud" of the country. i don't buy it. I don't like what she said. It reeks of left wing kookbutt extremism. During the same hour, Dori revealed his ignorance by stating that Obama had been eleced to the House before he was a Senator. Monson, he went straight from the Illinois state legislature, where he was either state rep. or senator, to the U.S. Senate.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 19, 2008 at 01:10 PM
who the hell cares what Dori Monson thinks?
Posted by: Paul | February 19, 2008 at 01:55 PM
Hey, ease up...Tommy's listening so you don't have to. :)
Posted by: Duffman | February 19, 2008 at 02:12 PM
You go, Michelle. The campaign ahd better watch out, she'll spill the beans on how far-left her husband is. He's not going to make anything but pretty platitudes until he's safely nominated. He a pig in a poke. He's a nice guy, and thats what's important to the media and other liberals.
Posted by: JakeD | February 19, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Duff, DT, it looks like you've both been caught stepping out of lockstep. You boys better get right or some tolerant, diverse lefties will teach you a lesson you won't soon forget.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 03:18 PM
well, wzzz, another post about nothing. You're good at that.
Anybody just hear Rachel mocking WA St. Republicans for their puzzling and ridiculous primary procedure? I didn't know they were so disorganized and talk about manipulative. Wow!
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 04:03 PM
We republicans do it all. We're a bunch of mindless boob, alfred e. newman morons, and at the same time we're master manipulator, fiendish, lex luther evil geniuses. Or so say the Dems.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 05:51 PM
wzzz: We're a bunch of mindless boob,..."
Yep. And you said it.
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 06:04 PM
At least we are smart enough to recognize satire, however.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 06:22 PM
Do not forget that we are just a bunch of angry white men, wutitiz.
Posted by: chucks | February 19, 2008 at 06:59 PM
you said it...
Posted by: Dick Gregory | February 19, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Yeah, Chucks, except for Gay Gary. I remember in his rant about transportation he called himself an "angry gay man." I think he's going to vote for Dino.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 07:29 PM
wzzz: At least we are smart enough to recognize satire, however.
No, you aren't. :)
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 07:37 PM
Sent to me by another angry white man:
"In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man"
Is this you? Apparently so.
How do you like yourselves?
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 07:41 PM
The 'angry white male' catch-phrase was popularized in the mid-90's by lefties. I always considered it as race-baiting phraseology.
Do people like Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Ken Hutch., Ken Hamblin, and Thomas Sowell qualify as 'angry white males?' What about Michelle Malkin, too?
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Chucks is hoping that the republicans will pick up a spare by courting the "angry white vote" by including gays this time. We thought you were votin' for Obama?
Posted by: J.Hova | February 19, 2008 at 08:01 PM
Some other interesting tid-bits from the MSNBC exit polls:
Sixty-three percent of Wisconsin Democratic primary voters said that "regardless" of how they voted, they believed that Sen. Obama would be the candidate "most likely to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November."
Eighty-two percent of the voters said they would be satisfied if Obama were to win the nomination regardless of whom they voted. Sixty-eight percent of those voters said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination.
Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they believed Clinton attacked Obama unfairly. Thirty-three percent said Obama attacked unfairly.
Finally, 63 percent of those who participated in the exit poll thought Obama would be the best candidate to beat the Republican presidential nominee in November (presumably Sen. John McCain). The remaining 37 percent said Clinton was best suited for the challenge.
Posted by: J.Hova | February 19, 2008 at 08:10 PM
What about Ann Coulter, Kate O'Beirne, Dinesh D'Souza, Linda Chavez, Tammy Bruce, Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, Bobby Jindal, Condi Rice, Ward Connnerly, and the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzales? Angry White Males???
Posted by: wutitiz | February 19, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Anybody else think wzzz is a bit compulsive?
Anybody else know wtf he's talking about?
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Well, in the case of Coulter...yes!
Posted by: sparky | February 19, 2008 at 08:20 PM
wutzs, hold it down , ok? Half those people are not white, or ahem, males. Go hang out with Duffman and his exit poll etch-a-sketch.
Posted by: J.Hova | February 19, 2008 at 08:27 PM
And O'Beirne - now there's one tight-assed Republican. Her voice is unlistenable. Sounds like her pipes have been clogged for decades. Yeah, she's an angry white man.
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 08:28 PM
Yes, she is on that viper pit show on PBS, To the Contrary. That would be hell in a day coach riding with her.
Posted by: J.Hova | February 19, 2008 at 08:31 PM
laughing...laughing...laughing...
poor wzzz, he tries so hard. Ever consider returning the HA, wzzzz? Or do you think they're still comin' to get you?
Posted by: joanie | February 19, 2008 at 08:36 PM
joanie
Yep, that looks like it could be a lot of me in that description of "angry white male". Says pretty much what I am thinking.
Not one thing in that editorial that I disagree with. Suppose that I get to get back on your "shit list" because of it.
J.Hova
As I stated in a post done on caucus day, I went to the democrat post, sat amongst a group of people that excitedly talked about what the new democrat gummint was going to do for them. I decided that picking Obama or Clinton was like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. My heart was in the right place, but my brain took over.
Yesterday, I voted for McCain. He is damn near as liberal on some issues as your choices, but at least he isn't a limp wristed surrender monkey looking to dump the middle east problems off on my grandkids to appease the loony left. Not a popular stance to take around here, I know, but what the hell. It is the truth.
Posted by: chucks | February 20, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Yes, not a surrender monkey, just a 2000 GOP ex presidential candidate surrender monkey
During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, Senator John McCain was the target of a whisper campaign implying that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (McCain's adopted daughter is a naturally dark-skinned child from Bangladesh). Voters in South Carolina were reportedly asked, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?". McCain would later lose the South Carolina primary, and the nomination, to George W. Bush.
He did not fight. He later went on to embrace Bushler at the 2004 convention.
Posted by: coiler | February 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Just heard on Thom Hartmann...Drudge apparently edited that clip of Michelle Obama saying she is proud of her country "for the first time"..
BriteBart.com has the entire clip.
Posted by: sparky | February 20, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Chucks. Priceless goober here:
Yesterday, I voted for McCain. He is damn near as liberal on some issues as your choices, but at least he isn't a limp wristed surrender monkey looking to dump the middle east problems off on my grandkids
You mean just like Bush? Can't get the job done, so now he's gotta dump the middle east problems off on the next administration. DOH!
Or what about McCain himself? After all, 100 Years from now would mean our grandkids, right? DOH!
Posted by: mercifurious | February 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Chuckles...you're so full of it, your eyes are brown. We've been over the fact that there are divergent views on how to deal with the middle east and terrorism. Lest you forget we started the war on trumped up evidence because a bunch of neo-cons wanted to. Before you can even slam a Democrat for something in the future that they have not yet done, you need to address your party's notion of "crapping on the middle east."
Your hypocrisy is very telling when you say that you don't want to leave problems for your grandchildren, especially given the budgets and debt your hero Bush has given them. But you won't answer to that...
We differ in the approach to combating terrorism. Bombing countries and invading is really a crappy option. If we are doing that we've pretty much already lost the fight. Combating terror isn't about body counts, high fiving like sophomoric teenagers or a military penile contest. Its about stamping out the source of terrorism, instability. Of course this takes actual courage, brains and leadership, something Republicans have been bereft of for quite some time.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | February 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
coiler, this type of ugliness is inherently hard to pin down, because everyone will deny that they had anything to do with it. But that does not mean we have license to attribute blame to anyone who might be in the vicinity and we think deserves a shot.
No less ugly than the whispering campaign was the race-baiting 'angry white male' rhetoric. Consider that the 'black daughter' campaign was a whispering campaign, with perpetrators having to hide in anonymity, while AWM was a screaming campaign conducted in broad daylight.
Thankfully the vast majority of Americans want to leave race-baiting in the dust-bin of history, and to unite and move forward as a country, as we have seen in these primaries.
Posted by: wutitiz | February 20, 2008 at 11:09 AM