or except on those occasions when he doesn't show up to vote at all on really meaningful Bills that might cause problems on the campaign trail. You know the ones, eriposte...the same ones that Clinton doesn't show up to vote on. Real Leaders, both.
Posted by T2 at December 20, 2007 08:41 AMWow...I don't think I have ever read as much sarcasm in anything in my life as in eriposte's last few posts. In fact, I think he is a little more over the top than Ann Coulter...and I really love her work. Keep up the "good" work there eriposte...I feel better for not supporting Hillary after each of your posts.
Posted by the professor at December 20, 2007 08:58 AMWhile Clinton was in China speaking about women's rights, Obama was in the Illinois senate voting "present".
Present is for p*ssies!
Posted by JoeCHI at December 20, 2007 09:22 AMSince most political commentators don't have the ability to recognize irony when they see (hear?) it -- "fun" anyone? -- I applaud eriposte's very effective use of it as politcal cover.
YES! YES! YES! Notice I failed to vote "present".
Posted by B Merry at December 20, 2007 09:38 AMIn fact, I think he is a little more over the top than Ann Coulter...and I really love her work
That you love her "work" pretty much shows you have no idea what the phrase "over the top" means.
I think it's a brilliant bit o' snark, eriposte! Keep up the good work. And someone get the professor some smelling salts. He's lookin' a mite peekid!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 20, 2007 09:47 AMI think Obama's comments about Clinton's triangulating and avoidance of offending Republicans could be the basis of a thesis on projection. He is a prime example of every fault he accuses her of, including playing the victim.
I really hope that some voters and the press and blogs get hit with a cluebat and start looking at this guy without swooning with their newfound infatuation. There is no way in hell he is ready to lead us anywhere, and especially not to safely navigate this country through the neocon blockade in Washington and out the other side.
Posted by WMCB at December 20, 2007 09:53 AMUmmmmm!
Snarky goodness.
Posted by snark at December 20, 2007 10:08 AMI must quote Ed Lasky of American Thinker:
"Was Obama just a placeholder in the Illinois State Senate as his vision extended beyond Springfield? Did he neglect his duties as a State legislator? If so, history seems to be repeating itself.
"He has been criticized for missing a string of votes in the United States Senate as he barnstorms around the nation to bolster his Presidential campaign (his absence on key votes in the Senate has become a source of consternation and has played a part in the inability of Senate Democrats to push their agenda). If Obama cannot take a stand when delaing with comparatively trivial state issues how will he perform as a President when dealing with decisions with a wordlwide impact? Will he freeze then? Will he be neglecting the need to take steps to benefit America because he is entranced with the possibility of winning the Nobel Peace Prize?"
Hi, left coaster. I am over from Taylor's blog. I will be visiting often.
I am not in Obama's camp. I believe he is too concilliatory. I don't believe in "finding common ground" with people who are dead wrong. The next president will have to be tough and clean up the mess Bush has created. Clinton, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd could do that...Obama not so much.
from the World of Mitt -"A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 -- although possibly not on the same day or in the same city."
geez..what a liar.
Good post. I'm gonna re-compare some issue positions, not that they are anything but campaign promises.
On voting "Present"…
The system is being gamed to present legislators Hobson's choice or faux dilemma bills. Until there is a "Not good enough" vote option, "Present" is the best, least worst, choice.
Sure "Present" can be, is being used to duck controversy. For a "Not good enough" people could expect a statement about why, and what would fix the dilemma. That would be interesting.
Also "None of the above" would be an outstanding choice for some primaries and elections.
Posted by jaynicks at December 20, 2007 11:34 AMNo to Obama!
No to Hillary!
Has anyone here actually LOOKED at Hillary's record on Iraq? On international law? On the UN? On the International Criminal Court? On the military? On foreign policy and international relations, and on the place of the United States in the world in general? Obviously not, or you would have seen that she is more similar to than different from Bush in most respects in those areas.
Posted by Shirin at December 20, 2007 11:52 AM"I really hope that some voters and the press and blogs get hit with a cluebat and start looking at this guy..."
I really hope that some voters and the press and blogs get hit with a cluebat and start looking at Hillary's actual record instead of pretending she is some kind of progressive. She isn't even that much of a liberal.
Oh yes - I forgot to mention something in my comment above. Take a good, honest, realistic look at her record on nuclear proliferation - scary!
Posted by Shirin at December 20, 2007 11:56 AMcoyote,
"That you love her "work" pretty much shows you have no idea what the phrase "over the top" means."
The fact that you didn't detect the irony in my post "and I really love her work" pretty much shows you aren't as astute as you think you are.
I never said that eriposte's work it isn't brilliant writing. That is why I compared it to the adam's apple's work...it's a masterwork of creative writing. I wish I had that much free time every day.
The problem I have with eriposte's recent entries is that the "over the top" creative flourishes make the entry seem less serious, distracting from the detailed analysis within his post. Imagine Austin Powers delivering an analysis in 1961 on the threat of Soviet influence on Cuba. The message gets lost in the "cuteness" and becomes a turn-off.
Brilliant post, and I couldn't agree more! I will be happy with any of the OTHER democratic candidates. But Obama scares me to death. His own record, his rhetoric, his fights with Krugman, make it very apparent to me that he is clueless.
I can sleep a bit easier tonite not worrying about Dan Tancredo being elected president. One down, the rest to go. Tancredo threw his support behind Mitt the Mormon...serial liar.
Posted by T2 at December 20, 2007 12:46 PMIf this is such a good point, why isn't the Clinton campaign using Obama's "voting present" state senate record against him right now?
I suppose they could be waiting until they are sure they need to (e.g., if Obama wins Iowa)...but isn't that kind of risky to wait that long?
Posted by Shard at December 20, 2007 01:36 PMObama is a cheapshot artist! He has been attacking Hillary for lacking the toughness to to be level with the American people while he himself has been triangulating all through his insubstantial career. On top of this he wants to appoint Arnold to his cabinet?
Posted by CC at December 20, 2007 02:09 PMObama is no worse than Hillary.
Posted by Shirin at December 20, 2007 03:59 PMGreat post. Love the sarcasm.
Posted by Jessica at December 20, 2007 04:30 PMSpeaking of Obama not vetted and things Hillary isn't using....
Obama has had friendly media coverage, and in 1996 and 2004 he did not have strong opponents looking for ammunition.
In 1996 he was the only name on the ballot! -- he had wiped everyone else off the ballot by challenging their petitions (inluding Alice Palmer, who had helped him get in the race). In 2004 his opponents (primary and Nov) had "imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed."*
Hillary hasn't used this or other ammuintion given free (eg Obama's admitted cocaine use), much less dug for more. But the GOP won't be so gentle.
Any surprises in Hillary's past would have to be since Ken Starr's $50 million investigation. But Obama's whole past has never been seriosuly investigated. Lord knows what the GOP can find or invent.
Even the facts from the Chicago Tribune article about Obama's 1996 'election' would be enough for a GOP opponent to charge Obama with dirty politics.
*cite: CT article
"Showing his bare knuckles
In first campaign, Obama revealed hard-edged, uncompromising side in eliminating party rivals"
By David Jackson and Ray Long | Tribune staff reporters
April 4, 2007
Posted by 1950democrat at December 20, 2007 05:37 PM
I just posted that on a new story from Obama claiming he HAS been vetted by all the press coverage. It's at
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/T92N7T9NFD7RJATE2#comments
and still a very short thread.
What matters about Hillary's - or any other candidate's - past should be her record on critical issues. What has she supported? What has she not supported? What have been her statements on these issues?
Same for Obama.
Same for everyone.
Posted by Shirin at December 20, 2007 08:44 PMI'd guess the reason Hills is not raising the "Present" issue is that she has a shit load of NVs, not voting, in her record at vote-smart.org
A snip…
Vote Bill Title
NV Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill)
NV Energy Act of 2007
NV Government Sponsored Farm Insurance Policies
NV Water Resources Development Act of 2007
Y Energy Act of 2007
Y Alternative Energy Subsidies
NV Offshore Drilling in Virginia
Y Clean Energy Achievement Criteria
Y Removal of ANWR Provision from HR 2863
Y ANWR Amendment
Y EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule
N Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
JayNicks,
Actually her campaign is raising this as an issue. The issue is not people not voting (all of the candidates have NVs against their name - in some cases due to campaigning and some cases due to travel or other reasons). The issue is showing up to vote and not taking a YES or NO position.
Posted by eriposte at December 21, 2007 05:10 PMT2, now that I re-read your first comment, please let me know which votes you are referring to that Clinton didn't show up for. Thanks.
Posted by eriposte at December 21, 2007 05:11 PMI think judgement matters also, and not harming one's own faction or allies for personal advancement. When the record shows such past actions, those are valid issues.
Look at the results of Obama's treatment of Palmer in his first state senate race. THeir faction (black activists) had that as a safe seat, with Palmer, a respected 'elder stateswoman', available to continue there, and Obama available to use his talents to pick up another seat elsewhere, increasing the number of black activists in office.
Instead he fought Palmer for her seat, and instead of making it a fair race with the voters, he challenged her petitions and got her thrown off the ballot. This damaged her reputation and his, and left his faction with only the same seat it had before; no gain, and the loss of a good activist to politics.
I hope the current race doesn't have the same result: a seasoned winner (Hillary) damaged and lost to us (too old to run later) because Obama wouldn't run for some other office this time. I think it's reasonable to question Obama's judgement and party loyalty in challenging Hillary instead of helping her.
Here's more detail on Hillary's experience in the White House.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/23/124323/36
Posted by 1950democrat at December 23, 2007 01:55 PM