I agree with President Clinton that Obama is a risk as Commander-in-chief. I would go one step further and say, If Obama is the Democratic Nominee, we can be for sure of another 4 years of Rethugs in the WH.
Agree with the first post. But leave it to Iowa to pick another loser for us.
Posted by xjt at December 17, 2007 07:31 AMObama sucks as all the candidates Republican and Repibdecrats suck Bush's balls. This campaign shit is staged prefacing the uber-staged so called Presidential election next year. Don't any of you realize that?
Amerika is done; the Chinese own us. Might as well call us Coporate Republic of Amerika with Noodles.
The more that I read about Obama, the less I like. Thinking back; Punjab-D, the "present" votes on abortion, the "hit piece" by the MT Dem chair...Under that slick exterior is a nasty piece of work with a thin skin.
Posted by Steve at December 17, 2007 08:48 AMOh..and I forgot to mention his good friends Joe lieberman, Tom Coburn and Donnie McClurkin...
Posted by Steve at December 17, 2007 08:52 AMWhen will George Bush ask CIA Chief Hayden to take off his uniform?
Posted by T2 at December 17, 2007 09:08 AMMan, this is incredibly lame and misleading, even for you.
Time to fact-check you into next week.
First, the Oprah disclosure:
"ABRAMS: Joining me now is Lynn Sweet of the “Chicago Sun Times” who is covering the Obama campaign in New Hampshire tonight. She broke the story. She joins us on the phone now. All right. Lynn, it sounds like Barack Obama was not quite ready to disclose this.
LYNN SWEET, CHICAGO SUN TIMES: Oh, no. Not even close. That‘s one of the perils when (you) do real campaigning and you want to work the rope line and people toss you questions and he wanted to be responsive and he was. It just so happened I happened to be standing there as were other reporters, you know, who were mingling around. I was in the right place at the right time.
ABRAMS: Do we know how much campaigning she‘s going to do?
SWEET: I don‘t have any other details to tell you. I don‘t think the campaign was thrilled that I broke the story today on Oprah committing to stump for Obama. In some ways, Dan, the details don‘t matter. If she shows up in Iowa or New Hampshire to do any kind of a campaign event, I think it will be a very big story."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21978723/
So, not only is there ZERO evidence that the campaign planned this information to come out via a plant, but the reporter who actually broke the story indicated that the campaign did NOT want the story to come out.
Eriposte dissembling and deception: debunked.
Now, to the more recent episode:
"The student who asked the question was standing in the press section, near the audience. Obama pointed to the student but it was not clear if he could tell where he was standing. After the event, the press swarmed to the student asking him who he worked for and why he was asking about taxes, a campaign talking point from an event earlier that day. The student said that he was a high school newspaper reporter and he was interested in the subject. No one told him to ask the question. The reporter buzz continued.
CBS News later spoke to the student via telephone later in the evening. The student, Jim Mohler, a senior at a local high school, said he was writing a story for the local Estherville Daily newspaper. The newspaper editor knew Mohler and asked him to write about the Obama event from a youth perspective. The story was intended to be a supplement to a staff reporter’s overall news story.
Glen Caron, the publisher of the Estherville paper, called Mohler a “smart kid” and thought it would be interesting to get a youth perspective. Caron said that neither he nor anyone from his newspaper told Mohler what to ask Obama.
Mohler said he planned to attend the Obama event because his mother, a campaign volunteer, heard about it from another supporter. Mohler’s mother watched a previous Obama event online and discussed the issue of taxes with her son. “We’re a middle-class family,” Mohler told me. He said he simply asked Obama a question on taxes because of his family’s concern over the issue. “I had a list of other questions,” Mohler said. Did anyone else approach him to ask a question? “No,” Mohler said, “I was wondering about taxes as a person in the middle class.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3624735.shtml
Question: How are these two incidents different from the Clinton habit of planting questions?
Answer: There's no evidence that the questions were planted by the campaign or anyone else!
You're getting sloppy. Now we can see why you don't post this drivel on neutral sites--you'd get exposed.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at December 17, 2007 09:44 AMHillary's campaign must be getting pretty desperate to try to peddle the lies that good people like eriposte are mistakenly buying into.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 17, 2007 09:53 AMThere is no mistake. Eriposte fully knew that there was no evidence that either of the Obama questions were planted.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at December 17, 2007 10:04 AMNice debunking, guys. As I said last week, the quality of the analysis on this site has beeen going down since it's turned into a Clinton campaign subsidiary. Once you start stumping for a particular candidate, your analysis naturally looks through that candidate's prism. Despite initially leaning towards her, Clinton will never get my vote. I'm leaning towards Edwards because I think he's the only one who seems to get that most of this country's problems have to do with class warfare. Obama would also be acceptable to me.
Posted by turtleguy at December 17, 2007 11:21 AMOh yeh, will eriposte be posting a retraction or will he/she let this stand as it is? If you leave it on the site as it is, many people will mistakedly believe it because many people don't read the comments. In the interest of fairness and, you know, truth, maybe a retraction or another post offering the additional info is in order, don't you think?
Posted by turtleguy at December 17, 2007 11:25 AMSo questions from a Clinton supporter at the Republican debate was a plant by the Clinton campaign. So tough questions by Wolf Blitzer to Obama at the debate were manipulated by the Clinton campaign, so the question about pearls and diamonds (which a student in Nevada submitted as her OWN) was manipulated by the Clinton campaign. I do tire of stories about St. Obama can do no wrong and his campaign is so clean that he would never plant a question in the audience. And by the way, I'm sure Oprah will be out there campaigning for him. No doubt but I have to tell you here in another midwestern state, people are turned off by what she is doing and I suspect that a few Iowans might find it offensive. Just a guess
Hillary's campaign must be getting pretty desperate to try to peddle the lies that good people like eriposte are mistakenly buying into.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 17, 2007 09:53 AM
It is not surprise that Obama's supporters will blame this for Hillary's fault...
Where is Chris Matthew ? Where is Fox news ? help....
Hope is hopeless.
"Oh yeh, will eriposte be posting a retraction or will he/she let this stand as it is?"
I pointed out the inaccuracy of this charge last time to Eriposte he claimed Obama planted the Oprah question.
But, why let the facts get in the way of the talking points emailed from Peter Daou?
Posted by Geek, Esq. at December 17, 2007 11:40 AMSue, did someone blame this story on Clinton? I read through the comments and I didn't see anyone say that. That's what's known as a strawman argument, which I guess is all you have on this particular issue.
The story as described by eriposte is incorrect. Do you deny that or are you just going to make up stuff to avoid the issue?
Obama's campaign isn't perfect. I'm sure he's made mistakes and will make others. But he didn't plant that question or the story about Oprah. Admit you are wrong and deal with it.
Posted by turtleguy at December 17, 2007 11:42 AMGeek, Esq.
When I posted this I knew I would see a comment from you accusing me of lying. Guess what. I'm not. I am showing two incidents which are open to interpretation, just as you guys and Edwards' supporters interpreted things a different way when something happened with Clinton's campaign. Which is the exact point of the post! If Clinton's camp had some incidents - everyone blames her for orchestrating stuff. If something similar happens in the Obama camp, oh, Obama could never have done it and I'm the liar, huh?
Thanks for making my point, yet again, on the abject hypocrisy of Obama and Edwards supporters who automatically blamed Hillary when similar incidents surfaced previously.
Posted by eriposte at December 17, 2007 12:22 PMJust to emphasize, the issue here is that some Obama/Edwards supporters simply believe the denials of the Obama volunteer and Sweet, and refused to believe the denials of the Clinton campaign that the Clinton incidents were somehow orchestrated by her. Edwards went far enough to create a politics of planting parody. I'd love to see the same now. After all denials can't be believed right?
Posted by eriposte at December 17, 2007 12:26 PMExcept for the part, you know, where Clinton's campaign admitted they planted the question.
And here the neutral party who broke the Oprah story says that she doesn't believe that it was planted or planned.
You thus try to compare a case where the evidence is CONCLUSIVE that there was planting to one where the evidence strongly points against planting.
The treatment of the situations is different because the fundamental facts are different.
The dishonesty comes in not acknowledging the basic truth involved.
To recap:
Clinton: admitted to question planting.
Obama: No evidence of question planting.
Eriposte: The facts are biased againt Hillary.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at December 17, 2007 12:42 PMLink for you, Eriposte:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/clinton-camp-ad.html
"ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: The Clinton campaign has admitted to planting questions in Iowa. They have confirmed that a campaign staffer approached a student to ask Sen. Clinton a question about global warming during a campaign stop at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, on Nov. 6. "
Yes, those awful Obama and Edwards supporters didn't believe a factually false denial from the Clinton campaign.
But, they don't get out their tinfoil hats for an Oprah questions for which there is not even an allegation of planting, let alone evidence.
Shorter Eriposte: People are biased if they believe fully confirmed and proven allegations against Clinton but don't believe stuff I make up about the Oprah question being a plant.
Yes, eriposte, we know you like Hilary Clinton.
Posted by Luce Imaginary at December 17, 2007 01:13 PMGeek Esq.,
I forgot you have severe reading comprehension and honesty issues. So, one last explanation and then I'm done since I don't have time to waste on hacks like you.
You conveniently ignored the points I made in both my comments about Hillary Clinton herself. Hillary herself has asked questions from people who were not "planted" (even in the original "planting" incident) and there was no evidence she had authorized this practice. So, let me repeat it yet again. Despite the fact that there was no evidence that Clinton herself authorized or asked for this practice, Edwards compared her to Bush and called it the politics of planting and Obama supporters made similar accusations about her, the person (not her campaign). That is the rank hypocrisy I am talking about in this post.
Now, there are two occasions where someone associated directly with the Obama campaign asked Obama an incredibly softball question. This is like the "press conference" that FEMA held. Yet, if this had happened to Hillary - it would have resulted in her being compared to Bush time and again. Yet, Obama hacks like you come whining about "lies" and what not without understanding the basic comparison I made here.
P.S. I've written previous posts specifically acknowledging that the Clinton campaign acknowledged that one of the volunteers did what he did, so I don't need reminders on that.
Posted by eriposte at December 17, 2007 02:42 PMUh huh. So says the person who ran three solid months of pro-Clinton, anti-Obama and Edwards posts while pretending he hadn't made up his mind.
The Clinton campaign was planting questions. That is a fact.
There is no evidence that the Obama campaign was planting questions. In the Oprah case, the evidence weighs against it. In fact, you (a diehard Clinton propagandist) are the ONLY person to even raise it as an allegation.
In the case of the student, again there is no one claiming the question was planted by the Obama campaign.
To summarize:
Clinton: Undeniable proof that her campaign planted questions.
Obama: Not even an allegation, let alone evidence, that his campaign planted questions.
Sorry, but you've been preaching to your little choir too long here. When called on your patently dishonest bullshit, you just whine about how people who treat different fact patterns differently are liars, hypocrites, and sexists.
You used to be an incredibly skillful propagandist. Now you're just an average hack putting out easily debunked garbage.
I share some of the other commenters dissatisfaction with the direction this site has taken.
I am particularly distressed because eriposte compiled the best analyses of the Iraq-Yellowcake mess...well, anywhere. I honestly cannot believe that someone who went through the time an effort to dig into all that would end up on the bandwagon of Hillary and Bill Clinton.
I know the Clintons have legitimate and substantial criticisms of the post-invasion actions of the Bush administration. But, really, their response to the fact that the Bush administration lied us into a war with phony documents (that they in all likelihood produced) has been a giant "Who gives a f---?"
I just find it all to be odd.
Posted by space at December 17, 2007 05:49 PMe,
Wouldn't you expect Obama supporters to be asking Obama questions at an Obama event as Obama mingled? He wouldn't be mingling with the press after all, so who else would ask the questions at that time?
Dude, really, your analysis really doesn't make much sense. Again, I don't think that John Edwards compared Hillary Clinton to George Bush, he pointed out that they both were using similar tactics, planted questions from the audience. That is a valid point, when somebody stoops that low somebody else needs to point it out. That's called friendship.
And I'm very uncomfortable with your negative posting on all candidates except for Hillary. Well, Obama and Edwards, you don't give much time to anyone else.
Any Democrat, including Mike Gravel, would be an improvement over ANY Republican, because they make appointments from the Democratic gene pool, not the regressive retard Republican gene pool. I wish you would recognize that and stop trying to destroy the others. Why don't you tell us why Hillary would be such a good president, what's her health plan going to do in the unquenchable detail that only you can provide us with, how about that?
Posted by Duckman GR at December 17, 2007 10:58 PMDuckman,
If there is no issue with "supporters" asking someone questions, why in the world was it a problem if Bush supporters asked him questions, even if they were self-driven softballs or "planted" questions? After all, if they wanted to ask them, what would be wrong with asking them? This is getting to the absurd level where you are making Bush seem like he was just doing normal things.
The issue of course is that we are not talking about "Obama supporters" asking him questions but people who work for his campaign asking him questions. In principle, this is not different from FEMA holding a "press conference" where the questions were from FEMA employees. If you can't see something that obvious then I see no point in continuing the discussion on this topic.
As for your other comment, about my "negative posting on all candidates except for Hillary", I'd like to ask you something very simple. Edwards and Obama have been relentlessly attacking her on all manner of things. Many people in the media essentially declared war against her in the last month. She is subject to the vilest, most hateful and fraudulent attacks of any Democratic candidate. Is it your principled opinion, that she does not deserve any factual defense to rebut those attacks? If so, why is that the case? I'd love to know.
If I had all the time in the world, I might have time to write more than just debunk attacks by Obama and Edwards and more than just show them to be guilty of the same thing they accuse Clinton of. (Apparently, some Edwards and Obama supporters seem to be uncomfortable with their candidates being shown to be hypocrites and as being as imperfect and full of it, as they believe Clinton is). But like many of the bloggers on this site, I do this on my free time and given you are a past blogger here, I must say I am pretty disappointed with your line of attack on me ("trying to destroy the others" - wow! - will I see a comment anytime about how Obama and Edwards are trying to "destroy Clinton"?), rather than giving me some benefit of the doubt on why I must be doing what I am doing.
Posted by eriposte at December 18, 2007 05:58 AMBush doesn't have supporters. He has sycophants and co-conspirators and props. He doesn't have campaign events, he has propaganda pr shows.
As far as I can tell from the descriptions provided, Obama was talking to people at one of his rallies. Not planted "reporters" like Jeff Gannon/Guckert meat puppet at a Bush "Press Conference" so I don't see the similarity there.
Campaign Rallies and Press Conferences are two vastly different events despite any surface similarities. Supporters and Campaign workers would be expected to be at one, the other would be expected to be full of, well, THE PRESS, no? Just because I was working for a candidate doesn't mean that I'm not interested in his views or plans on some subject, after all, just because I support a candidate doesn't mean I'm going to agree with everything they say or do.
And isn't that part of why you work for a candidate? Not just to get them elected, but to try to get what you believe elected, or to have access or some shred of influence or input on a personal issue?
I disagree that "Edwards and Obama have been relentlessly attacking her on all manner of things," every time I see Edwards on C-SPAN, the only place you will see Edwards on teevee really save the debates, he's talking about himself and his campaign and so on with pretty much no mention of Hillary Clinton at all.
The media, now that's a different story. In fact, I'd say that the media is truly horrible and the root of all the things you think Edwards and Obama are doing to poor Hillary. Yes, they did declare war on her, because that is all they seem capable of, creating a sporting event, a gridiron classic out of our political discourse.
If Thomas Paine were alive today he'd probably drop dead at the substanceless political discourse we have foisted on us by the corporate whores of the corporate media.
Defend her indeed, but I must confess that you lose me every time with your defense by calling Edwards and Obama "hypocrites and as being as imperfect and full of it" as her, as if that negates whatever "attacks" are being made against Hillary Clinton.
Your postings on the subject are long, full of claims, rhetoric even, such as equating the Obama supporter at an Obama event asking Obama a question while Obama is mingling, with an admitted plant at an event (a plant being a person who represents themselves as something other than what they are) asking Sen. Clinton questions she was primed to talk about.
You use sarcasm, and sarcasm is meant to ridicule somebody, not just amuse the reader/listener. Perhaps destroy was too strong a word for you, I don't think you have quite that much power [sorry! ;-) ] and I also most certainly don't think that any of the candidates are trying to destroy each other, just differentiate themselves. But the media and candidates supporters, that's a different situation. Perhaps I should say belittle the others to their detriment. And when I see things that I think may give ammunition to the gop or their scum detritus supporters, or inflict unneeded harm (for lack of a better word) on any of the candidates I'm going to say so.
And I think that you go way overboard in your belittling rhetoric against Obama and Edwards.
Let me finish this diatribe/rant/comment by saying that I'm very conflicted about Hillary Clinton. I'd have no problem voting for her or working for her. But I think she has issues, both good and bad. Her past with the DLC. My boy Bill. The hatred that the gop generates against her, why I don't really comprehend. Her toughness, her smarts, her savvy. I remember when she talked to that true prick Ken Starr, when she talked to the press afterwards, great performance, grace, smarts, cool.
She could be the greatest Democratic candidate, or a freaking nightmare. The gop has thrown all manner of shit at her, not much has stuck with most people, and she comes back smiling and wins a Senate seat in a landslide. But her corporate support, and the massive upgrade in gop desparation if she wins the nomination, and the Clinton/Bush presidency of the past 20 years concerns me.
And I like John Edwards and what he talks about, because he talks about the fundamental problems we have in this country, and Hillary does not so much, she talks more about incremental solutions, and I don't think we have the time for that.
Posted by Duckman GR at December 18, 2007 10:31 PM