Yes, he clearly should not have used the word "periodically". It is an uncommone term, and hardly ever used in any fashion but the pejorative.
He clearly should have said "Betimes". It is much more widely used and has fewer negative connotations.
Now onto really important issues, like that last bastion of punctuational sexism with which we all end our sentences.
Oh, damn, sorry about that.
Did it again! Dammit...arg...so much much sexism in one tiny fleck of a symbol!
Posted by Luce Imaginary at February 16, 2008 05:48 PMBO is a beacon of hope, light and inspiration for us unlike any other since David Koresh led the faithful to glorious fiery oblivion.
Posted by branch at February 16, 2008 06:16 PMYes, checking the punctuation, inflexion, and the spaces between words for sexism will be next. Betimes we will get the good scolding we deserve.
Posted by Copeland at February 16, 2008 06:22 PMFor Clinton's supporters to engage in this kind of thing is a sign of desperation or extreme anger at the turn of events. In either case, it isn't healthy and in either case, it isn't going to move any voters toward Clinton.
So what is it all about, then?
Posted by James E. Powell at February 16, 2008 06:55 PMThis same complaint showed up over at TalkLeft.
Last week I heard a female caller to a talk show complain that at the time Obama called the Florida non-primary a "beauty contest." She was holding onto this outrage for a month.
When Big Tent over at TL wrote this I knew that the Clinton supporters had jumped the shark. After all those primary losses in a row, and with another couple coming up, I can understand true believers wanting to focus on something else besides the primaries, but this is getting ridiculous.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 16, 2008 07:04 PM"Matthews is a Roman Catholic with a strong moralistic streak", (directly traceble to the Irish Inquisition, when it was not uncommon for an uncooperative suspect to have their memory refreshed with an Idaho up the arse.)
Posted by TIKI AL at February 16, 2008 07:14 PMBob In Pacifica and James E. Powell nailed this.
You really need to stop this, Eriposte.
All you're doing with stooping to this level of charges over innocuous comments is giving the Republicans ammunition in the general election against the likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. This kind of talk and ridiculous charges are the kind that sew hatred and division on this site and in the party. Is that what you want? Maybe you ought to be concentrating on why Clinton's now poised to lose in Wisconsin and why, according to some polls, she is tied or even losing in Texas. I can assure you, Eriposte and others, crying wolf like this will not help Hillary.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 16, 2008 07:48 PMOh, yes, I forgot; when anyone slings anything at Hillary, she's supposed to toughen up and take it. If anyone tries to defend her, even if they say nothing about the MUP, then it's "divisive".
I spent seven years being called a "traitor" every time I questioned Shrub, now every time anyone says anything in support of HRC, he/she's an "unDemocrat". Are you pols or are you pod people?
Posted by Blue Jean at February 16, 2008 08:10 PMPeople really call that eloquence? Attacking someone else's attacking is called hypocracy where I come from.
Posted by Sharon at February 16, 2008 08:27 PMSorry, I was refering to this video.
Posted by Sharon at February 16, 2008 08:29 PMWell, let's talk hypocrisy. The Obama campaign plays the racism card for everything it was worth after South Carolina. It pressures super delegates to change their vote on the basis of their race. All of that is fine.
But if someone calls him on his obviously misogynistic remarks, then they are playing the victim card.
Talk about projection.
Posted by cdalygo at February 16, 2008 08:35 PMLately, and much more often than periodically, I feel The Left Coaster has gone nutso.
Posted by Callimaco at February 16, 2008 08:52 PMCan somebody clue me in on what's 'left' about H. Clinton?
Posted by guy at February 16, 2008 09:17 PMI find this punctuation code facinating.
What was Boy George trying to tell us when he sang, "comma, comma, comma, comma, comma,".....
Posted by TIKI AL at February 16, 2008 09:50 PMOh C'mon. You have to be kidding me with this gender card crap.
branch, you aren't funny with your tired Obama cult jokes. Yes we like a guy who makes good speeches. Get the hell over it. First we like progressive, Democratic policies. Second we like a candidate who can carry that message to more than just other people like us.
Bob in Pacifica, you got it right. I heard a woman calling in to the Ed Schultz show to make that same point. They have truly jumped the shark.
It really undermines the fight against real sexism when they play the gender card in this manner.
Posted by midwestdem at February 16, 2008 09:53 PMBlue Jean,
The point is that the statements eriposte quotes are not an "attack" at all. No one is criticizing anyone for defending Clinton, but rather for imagining attacks against Clinton.
Posted by James E. Powell at February 16, 2008 10:05 PMWow,
It is funny to hear the Obama Fan Base tell us to ignore words after they spent weeks bending themselves into pretzels telling us how everything the Clintons said was racist code talk.
I wish I was a superdelegate so that Obama could give me hundreds of thousands of dollars like he's given 40% of his SDs and then I'd vote against him.
Posted by HypocrisyOfHope at February 16, 2008 10:49 PMThe point is that the statements eriposte quotes are not an "attack" at all. No one is criticizing anyone for defending Clinton, but rather for imagining attacks against Clinton.
Hello? Did you read the links eriposte has in this post? Or did you just rely on the "hysterical woman imagining attacks" stereotype?
If someone said "Obama's claws are coming out!", there would be a lot of folks crying "Racism!" Or if a comedian like Penn Jillete called February "Black Bastard Month" instead of "White Bitch Month". Or if a newscaster like Shuster said "Obama is pimping out his daughters." Or...
But why go on? Hillary has been attacked nonestop for the past seventeen years. Indeed, that's why some won't vote for her; she's too "divisive". I hope you guys are ready if Obama gets the nod, because what he's going to get from the GOP will make Gettysburg look like a pillow fight.
Posted by Blue Jean at February 16, 2008 11:14 PMSo, like the Obama supporters who have been holding onto their passionate beliefs are, like, all women?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9z-Aatd0wA
Look, Clinton and Obama standing next to each other. Amazing. A siple act of dignity Obama supporters on "progressive" blogs seem so incapable of. Get some help, please. The pathos has become pathological.
Posted by jeter at February 16, 2008 11:35 PMAch! I give up! You're right about everything.
Another blog succumbs to the disease.
Posted by James E. Powell at February 16, 2008 11:49 PMW.O.R.M....inspired...Eriposte, do you know how original you are? I just love your trademarked marvels of succinct political invention ...as particularly embodied by the Democratic hoax of our time, Senator Obama. Now if only Dave Letterman would read this blog and list your top ten. Or do we have ten yet? We wait with bated breath.
So, as we settle in to observe the spiral into insanity that is the Obama wing of the Democratic party..what can we attribute this embarrassment of effete intellectualism to? Can it be that so many of these cultural/political/intellectual elites really are just goofy teenagers to whom the sine qua non of existence is being cool? This descent into madness is unbearable to watch. Clearly, Paul Krugman suffers as well in his lonely perch at the once credible NYT. The witch burners are walking around in public carrying stakes and spewing venom...while the dons of the inquisition smile in satisfaction...Kelly Pavlik beat Jermain Taylor tonight in a 12 round unanimous decision...and the metaphor enchants me...I never loved boxing until I saw Kelly Pavlik win the middleweight championship (OK I saw the Edison Miranda upset fight wherein Kelly became the contender)...We need a lot of Kelly Pavlik's on our team...you are one..keep punching.
all right...once credible NYT is taking it too far..everything is relative.
Posted by lily15 at February 17, 2008 12:07 AMChecking punctuation??
Remember the treatment Joe Biden received for his "clean and articulate" comment?
Remember Eugene Robinson lecturing everyone over the difference between "articulate" and "eloquent"?
Oh, I forgot!! Supersentivity and fainting on the couch is reserved only for Obama and his supporters. Us peasants should just toughen up and take it on the chin.
Once? Twice? Trice? How many time does he gets to do this before you can admit it's ugly?
Now, it's us being sensitive?
Those living in glass houses should not throw stones.
Posted by ghost2 at February 17, 2008 12:53 AMMy initial observations:
Unlike eriposte, Lambert states what has ACTUALLY happened as a result of Obama's comment (i.e. O'Donnell and Mitchell bringing up the sexism in the comment). But I guess pointing out that Obama might catch some fallout from this would undermine the TLC narrative that The Media Hates Hillary.
Obama might be a real sexist asshole, but Hillary will be unlikely to play that for much political advantage. Ironically, any other candidate running against Obama would start a whisper campaign of "Is Obama disrespectful of women? Do we want another Bill Clinton in the White House?" That argument doesn't work so well when you are running a campaign that would put the actual Bill Clinton back in the White House.
Posted by space at February 17, 2008 01:03 AMBrian Bell
Please explain to me why Karl Rove's state of Texas is important to Democrats? Didn't the Democratic candidate for governor receive something like 25% of the entire vote? And George Bush and Tom Delay and Karl Rove are like icons in that odd state, no? So why would I let the media bamboozle me into caring about what happens in Texas in a primary where Republicans have been instructed to vote Obama? Now I really don't care about the African American vote, because it won't make the difference in this election. Ohio I care about and Pennsylvania...but Texas? A Democrat caring about Texas is insane. It will Never vote Democratic in the general..never never never...and along with all those other states that are McGovern red...I propose new rules...ignore them until they learn to win in their own states...a little harsh I admit...but really, who's kidding whom? Karl Rove has locked up Texas forever...and now we're going to let him control our primary choices? The joke's on us. But then again, cultists have no sense of humor. Or sense of reality.
Posted by lily15 at February 17, 2008 02:08 AMHaven't read all the comments, but....
I heard Obama make these comments and he said "when she is down", not "when she is feeling down." He was clearly referring to being down in the race, down in the polls, etc. Not depressed or sad or moody. I can totally see him using the same phrase in referring to a man.
As for "claws coming out", yes, that is I can see as sexist.
Posted by CG at February 17, 2008 07:02 AMSo why would I let the media bamboozle me into caring about what happens in Texas in a primary where Republicans have been instructed to vote Obama?
Maybe because you want your candidate to be the Democratic nominee? The nomination process ensures that the nominee reflect all Democrats in the country, not just those fortunate enough to live in blue or purple states. Without a substantial win in Texas, it would be damn near mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. Are you making phone calls for her this weekend, or just preparing excuses for if she loses?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 17, 2008 07:13 AMIt always astonishes me how commenters who don't like the topic of the post chide the blogger: "you really need to stop this sort of polemic" etc.
Um, if you don't like the post, feel free to go somewhere else (hint: the Obama echo chamber over at kos, for example). It's pretty rude, not to say downright idiotic to tell the blogger on their own blog what they can and can't blog about.
Posted by Kathy at February 17, 2008 07:18 AMSexism is so institutionalized in this country, even the insult of choice for a male ("bastard") is really a slam against his mama.
Posted by Sharon at February 17, 2008 07:40 AMThe whole point of blogging is starting a discussion, and that includes telling the blogger they are wrong. The phrase "claws coming out" would clearly be sexist; the rest are not. If that is the only example from someone who is speaking in public, his every word monitored, every day for a year, I'd say Obama has very little if any sexism in him. Remember that he married a high-powered, confident woman - not exactly the act of a sexist. Looking for sexism in truly innocuous statements only makes it harder to fight the real sexism engrained in our culture.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 17, 2008 07:43 AMBob In Pacifica @ 2008 07:04 PM
Keep trying to throw that shit past me, Meat, and I'll take you downtown.
Obama supporters are offended by the mere fact there's even criticism PERIOD of his words and actions. His say-anything campaign has been sexist, racist AND divisive.
I wonder how silent they'd be if someone said Obama was pimping his wife.
Michelle has said Obama supporters will simply stay home if he's not the party's choice for the ticket. Imagine if Sen. Clinton had said that.
I'm undecided, but the closer I look at Team Obama, the worse they look. We don't need another Bush in the WH, who refuses to explain himself and is offended that people even in demand it.
Posted by Ellie at February 17, 2008 08:06 AMAnd in the end, the W.O.R.M. isn't important. The important think is how many of Obama's statements can be "misconstrued" to the point of being absolutely INFURIATING..
Any woman who's experienced being told "don't mind her, she's on the r??" would definitely see the parallels to that in the last statement mentioned. Such a statement would REALLY piss them (me) off.
Next, Obama will go after McCain by offending older voters to their core -- you know RELIABLE voters -- and that will be the end of him in the GE....which would also be the end of his so-called "coattails".
The man is absolutely tactless. He thinks he's such a smooth talker, but he's not.
Posted by T at February 17, 2008 08:20 AMWow this isnt even a stretch its sheer desperation. I mean come on easy on the BS paranoia counter. I wonder if eri pauses and actually puts own the abhorrence wand to explain things like Iraq/Iran votes, or why the Clinton campaign is railing on about another debate in WI and yet their candidate leaves the state a day early? Guess those folks WI are not as important as the firewall states...then Penn and Ickles saying completely different things? Nah lets focus on a BS perception of semantics. Again I believe serendipity has granted us two superb candidates but yes I lean towards Obama. Why? Simple he inspires and as an officer in the military who leads there is nothing more important than appealing to many from different backgrounds to come together to do something they otherwise would never achieve. Oh yeh there are a couple of practical notes as well; Iran/Iraq/Cuba to name a few. However, if Clinton won the nom I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I wonder if eri can make the same promise?
Posted by jesse at February 17, 2008 08:54 AMCG :listen to the link and you most certainly hear Obama say it the way it was quoted. And as for the grammar and comma points...jeebus and I thought the font and kerning stuff was over the top...but hey go for it I guess.
Anyway, I thought most of those comments sexist, except I didn't find the "likeable enough" one that way at all. There's a pattern. and that is my opinion.
Kathy: It always astonishes me how commenters who don't like the topic of the post chide the blogger: "you really need to stop this sort of polemic" etc. It's all they have Kathy when they can't understand or tolerate why someone else doesn't agree with them and they don't like them pointing out why. Very telling and very sad that they can't handle people having differing opinions and voicing them on a blog of all places.
CApolJ: The whole point of blogging is starting a discussion, and that includes telling the blogger they are wrong. The phrase "claws coming out" would clearly be sexist; the rest are not. CaPJ I agree with you on everything except the that last part I bolded. That is your opinion...you are entitled to it but I disagree and do feel the others are sexist except the "likeable enough comment". Lastly, I mostly appreciate your ability to agree to disagree without resorting to over the top hysteria, name calling and such. I personally don't understand why people don't want eRiposte to stop blogging about the candidate s/he prefers and and the reasons why ...and appear to want this blog to stop. I think that is wrong. I also know we may often disagree over who the better Dem candidate is, but we both agree that both of them are far better than the republcian nominee and we both agree to support the nominee in the general election. Some of the others here on both sides(including Senator Obama's wife apparently) aren't willing to do that and I disagree with them.
great, another Obama/Hillary foodfight
Posted by gay veteran at February 17, 2008 09:17 AMEllie,
As far as I recall, you are talking about things we didn't discuss.
Don't know what's going on with this, but I think you are misstating what Ms. Obama said here. You say:
"Michelle has said Obama supporters will simply stay home if he's not the party's choice for the ticket. Imagine if Sen. Clinton had said that."
As I understand it, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to, someone blindsided Ms. Obama, asking her if she would work for Clinton if Hillary were nominated. Ms. Obama said something non-committal, but did not completely dismiss it. Was it a perfect answer? No. But it wasn't what you are saying. If you want to mislead yourself, that's fine. But that doesn't work to aid Clinton's position or increase her support.
Besides, there are plenty of Clinton backers who are right now writing blogs about how Clinton can win while Obama would be "another McGovern" or "another Carter '80." Isn't that generally the same thing, to say that if Obama's the candidate that Clinton supporters won't come out and vote for him?
I know that what Bill Clinton said in South Carolina was considered racist. He seems to have backed away from that kind of talk. But I've found more discussion of how what Bill said ISN'T racism in the Clinton blogs than discussion about it in the Obama blogs. Let's all get beyond it and get back to the primaries.
This is all so very silly. If Clinton backers would rather have McCain stacking the Supreme Court to finally and clearly take away the right to choice, I guess that's how the mess goes down. Myself, I think that everyone in the Democratic Party will behave like adults and get a Democratic President and Congress in place to clean up the horrible mess in D.C.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 17, 2008 09:22 AMWhy am I not surprised to see the Obama supporters demanding that such criticism of their candidate must be stopped "for the good of the party"? Oh yes that's right they are the only ones that are allowed to complain about "dog whistles" being blown by their opponent, because "everyone knows" the Clinton machine has no principles and will do/say anything to win while the Obama campaign is nothing but positive post partisan unity....of wait, whose campaign has been putting out negative attack mailers that are upon examination dishonest? Why the Obama campaign with the Harry and Louise mark two mailers, the mailer placing all the blame for the 1994 loss of Congress on Bill Clinton while forgetting people like Dan Rostenkowski, Speaker Foley and other major Democratic Congressional scandals occurring at the same time, etc.
If Obama cannot defend himself in this primary campaign when he is caught saying things that are either sexist dog whistles or are so easily seen as such even if that was not his intent, what do people think will happen when he faces the GOP machine which WILL put everything he says under a microscope to find the most offensive meanings possible regardless of his intent? If Obama cannot be precise enough in his language that he keeps walking into this with women in this primary why is he suddenly not going to have this problem in the general election campaign? Obama gives great inspiring speeches when they are prepared in advance, but he sucks in off the cuff situations which this latest example along with the claws are out and tea time comments among others makes very clear, which is why one keeps seeing the Obama supporters having to W.O.R.M./parse what he truly meant regardless of what he actually said.
One would have thought after all the silencing of dissent, of the “if you aren't with us you are against us” false binary choice framing and the bashing from Bushco and the GOP the Dems would understand that telling critics to be silent is a bad thing for democracy. It was after all the complaint of so many that support Obama because he shared their contemporaneous concern about the Iraq war in 2002-03 that they were told to be silent because their political speech was aiding the enemy, how exactly is that any different from telling Eriposte he must be silent because he is supposedly helping the GOP (just like criticizing Bush was supposedly helping Osama/Saddam) against Obama even though these are Eriposte's concerns and his right to make them known and this is the time to do so before he is elected to be the nominee?
I second that Scotian Motion!
Posted by Sharon at February 17, 2008 09:34 AMThird it...Scotian Motion
Posted by emal at February 17, 2008 10:38 AMemal, you're right, it was "feeling down" but when I heard it, I took it as down in the polls, behind in the race. He said "feeling...." and looked for a word and was maybe thinking "feeling like she's behind in the race". I don't know.
I've been accused before (by a former friend) of being somewhat oblivious to homophobia, so maybe I'm oblivious to sexism too. I guess I just try to take what people say in the best light possible, rather than making assumptions that may not be true. I also believe that we all have inherent biases, but those biases do not make us racist, sexist or homophobic.
Very interesting "test" on implicit association (or biases) here. You may be surprised (and/or disturbed) at what you find. It's a great exercise for everyone.
Posted by CG at February 17, 2008 11:18 AMMs. Obama said something non-committal, but did not completely dismiss it. Was it a perfect answer? No. But it wasn't what you are saying. If you want to mislead yourself, that's fine. But that doesn't work to aid Clinton's position or increase her support.
No, her statement was quite explicit. She wasn't sandbagged. After HRC said that she would back whomever the primary process chose, and she'd urge her supporters to do the same. Michelle Obama said she wouldn't support HRC.
I know that what Bill Clinton said in South Carolina was considered racist. He seems to have backed away from that kind of talk. But I've found more discussion of how what Bill said ISN'T racism in the Clinton blogs than discussion about it in the Obama blogs. Let's all get beyond it and get back to the primaries.
I think a great way to speed getting beyond it and becoming the change we want to see is for Team OB to take back their opportunistic stance of pretending WJC was a racist simply because media mistakenly pounced on that.
Do it for the good of the country, mmmkay?
.
Lily15 asked me, personally:
Please explain to me why Karl Rove's state of Texas is important to Democrats?...
Um, because YOUR candidate Hillary's campaign has defined it as being essential for her to win the Democrats' presidential candidate nomination. YOUR side has defined it as important.
In actuality, I think it is important for Democrats in general to show up there and compete for votes. The Democratic candidate for president is one of the country's candidates, not just the Blue State candidate.
However, for Obama, I do not see it as essential at all that Barack wins Texas. Based on the math I am seeing, as long as Obama loses by less than 10 percent or so in TX and OH and even PA, he still wins the nomination. Hence, why I repeatedly say, it's time for Hillary to cut this crap out. She's dividing the party. It would take a fair-sized miracle for her to win now.
So, again -- just so we're crystal clear Lily15 -- in this particular circumstance, Texas is important because YOUR side, Hillary's campaign has defined it as essential.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 17, 2008 01:56 PMNo, Bob, I WILL go out and vote for Obama if he's the nominee, but he ain't the nominee yet.
Frankly, all this talk about "give in for the good of the (fill in the blank)" reminds me of all the browbeating Gore went through during the Florida recount. He did the gracious thing, gave in though he could have fought on, and guess what? He got nothing, the Dems got nothing, and the country got screwed for the next eight years. If there's anything Florida should have taught us, it's to fight to the last ditch for what you believe in, only give in if you have to, and make sure you get something first. If worst comes to worst and Obama finds himself in the same postion Gore was in, I hope he fights for what his supporters believe in, just like Hillary is doing, instead of just giving in because the pundits find it unseemly to go on.
And I fourth the Scotian motion.
Posted by Blue Jean at February 17, 2008 04:38 PMBrian Bell...maybe you should supply the link wherein Hillary's campaign says a win in Texas is. But aside and apart what you claim Hillary has said, why is Texas important? Why is Idaho and Utah important? The poor Democrats can win nothing in their own states...shouldn't they be focused on winning locally, then statewide first...before they tell us nationally, how to vote?
The truth is...we should only be focused on the states that will provide our margins of victory in the general election. It is irrelevant how many states Obama has won...unless he is pulling from voters who will take us over the finish line in November. So my point is...the super delegates should focus on who has the voter quotient to bring home victory without regard to delegates from states that will make no difference. Let's evaluate this race realistically...not by paint by the numbers thinking. And by realistically, I mean states that we absolutely need to win and the profile of the voters who get us there. By my calculation, if we lose women and hispanics...we automatically lose the general. And then all your aggressive spouting off will be quite the Pyhrric victory.
Posted by lily15 at February 17, 2008 05:56 PMExactly. Hillary's already ahead by 1 million votes among the registered Democrats. Sure, Obama gets more votes from independents, but so was Kerry at this point in 2004. Who's to say that the people who are voting Obama are doing it for Obama's sake, and not just to beat Hillary Clinton? Who's to say they won't go running back to McCain once Hillary's out?
I think we're being played, and the music ain't pretty.
Posted by Blue Jean at February 17, 2008 07:15 PMLily15, I think the crap about having super delegates overturn the popular, democratic will of the people is flat-out fascist, no different than what the Supreme Court did in 2000. That's not going to fly, no matter what you think of Democrats and independents in red states. As for what Hillary's campaign thinks of Texas, you can read about it here and here. Hillary's strategist Penn indicates her comeback starts in Ohio and Texas, and Hillary praises Texas so much, you'd think she was the Yellow Rose herself. I can't help it that you are so uninformed as to not know what your candidate and her campaign want and have made a priority election-wise. Meanwhile, more are noticing Hillary is giving up Wisconsin. When are Hillary supporters going to notice their candidate's campaign is in real trouble?
Look, folks, Obama is not the devil. He's a good candidate who is surely more suitable and decent for this country than McCain or Bush. He's going to need all you soon-to-be former Hillary supporters to turn into Obama supporters. I hope you are ready to do that.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 17, 2008 09:13 PMeriposte....Alert Alert Tonight, at Politico.com Ben Smith and Mike Allen have highlight the Obama plagiarism problem. It seems Mr. Obama does not come up with his own oratory..he cribs his friend's speeches...which then contain truly great lines from FDR and MLK. Surely there is a word for this...another trademarked gem...
I'd love to see a MOnday post about the great orator Obama...who copies the speeches of other politicians and presents them as his own...I wince at the thought of what the Republicans will do with this...and surely the MSM will now have a good excuse for abandoning their star orator, come the Fall. They still have not forgotten Joe Biden's plagiarism...and here we have video!!
Posted by lily15 at February 17, 2008 10:20 PMP,S. the politico.com post is complete with duel videos so we can choose who has the best delivery (obama does)
Posted by lily15 at February 17, 2008 10:23 PMBrian Bell...I'm not doubting Hillary wants to win Texas...I'm merely commenting that while winning is better than losing...it is not definitive nor representative of who will make the best candidate.
But I would much rather you comment on Obama's plagiarism problem...take a look at Politico.com BEn Smith and Mike Allen. The two videos are there..one of Deval Patrick...and then copycat Obama. This is the voice of change? Or the voice of someone else?
These are the soaring words of the next great RFK and JFK? Or is this Joe Biden revisited? Please..knock yourself out..and explain to all of us why this is not a HUGE problem...going to the heart of Obama's character. He cribs speeches...from his buddy pal politicians. Is this the latest cool maneuver? Should we start teaching our kids about these new and improved cheating techniques?
Brian Bell
Isn't it great to be holier than thou, deeply worried about nascent fascism afoot in the Democratic party (although I would argue the rules in question...all of them , including proportional representation, caucuses, open primaries, and denying Florida all of her delegates fall far short of representing the will of the Democratic party electorate) while your new hopeful candidate can't even write a fresh speech of his own? After hearing both speeches, I didn't feel very hopeful or uplifted. I felt revulsion. That the great Obama would jeopardize the chances of the Democratic party by low brow cheating in full daylight..so the Republicans can get to know and love him better.
Lily, except for denying Florida's delegates -- let 'em in, I say -- I see no problems with proportional representation, caucuses or open primaries. All of them are different tools to the same end, measuring the will of the people. Trying to convince super delegates to usurp that will is fascism in my book. This, right here, what you Lily15 said, is patently undemocratic:
"I'm not doubting Hillary wants to win Texas...I'm merely commenting that while winning is better than losing...it is not definitive nor representative of who will make the best candidate...."
I think winning, in our constitutional, democratic system of government IS the very definition of who is the best candidate. What the hell do you mean it's NOT representative of who is the best candidate? Of course it's representative! The only modern systems where the best candidate is not determined by vote are monarchies or totalitarian systems. Is that what you want?
Anyway, Obama, plagiarism -- YAWN! Obama hasn't plagiarized anybody. Obama's using the same campaign strategist and campaign team as Deval Patrick, and Patrick and Obama are friends. If I had to guess, I'd bet the same speechwriter is responsible for the same words. It's a little tough -- impossible, actually -- to plagiarize yourself. Then there's what Patrick himself says about it. Patrick says Obama borrowed his words and he's welcome to do so. From an article on Politco:
The Massachusetts governor (Deval Patrick) said in a statement: “Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did.”
There's no story here, Lily15. Maybe you ought to be concentrating on why your candidate Hillary is giving up on Wisconsin and down in polls in Texas. Or better yet, start getting prepared to support Obama in the general election. As I said, he's a decent candidate, not the devil. Give him a chance.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 17, 2008 11:38 PMBrian Bell
to use your expression, he "borrowed his words." You can't be serious can you? We are not reading those words...we are seeing and hearing them...He is cribbing the speech...he is cribbing the theme...This is not only NOT a new idea...it is not a fresh idea either. And the speechwriter behind that theme is David Axelrod, the campaign manager of both. Why isn't he running for office if he is the one with the grand themes and great oratory? Or are we back to Ronald Reagan giving good speeches? How clever...going forward with the backward script reading dynamic of Reagan...it's all making sense now... So what are you suggesting substitutes for authenticity now? The man front and center is not the man he claims to be...and this isn't a problem? These are grand themes that have nothing to do with the candidate whatsoever..we are being sold a bill of goods... ..Obama has stolen someone else's themes and played them off as his own...and further, he has copied those words verbatim while in the same speech elevating the power of those words to a type of iconic status..except the irony of course is that none of it is his authentic vision.. This is a very big deal...if not now...in September...This is a nightmare...Who else in politics has "borrowed" another politician's words and themes? Please explain to me how this differs from what Joe Biden did years ago..something that haunts Joe Biden still? Or is permission to plagiarize given after the fact, not plagiarism...but friendship? Should we now teach our kids to copy their friends' book reports and essays...because Obama does it? And that's what friends are for? You are seriously over the deep end. We are not talking about the written word and a lengthy explanation of the error...we are talking about video...instantly recognizable as bogus...something the Republicans can mine for gold. This simply looks awful...and removes all pretense of authenticity. If Obama is not now a great orator or visionary,(because these are neither his words or vision) then what is his claim to fame?
Posted by lily15 at February 18, 2008 04:05 AMOK...let me get this straight. Deval Patrick ran a campaign where he was an empty suit and David Axelrod supplied the words, vision...marketing, strategy etc...then this exact formula is re used in the Barack Obama campaign...and although it appears Obama is cribbing Patrick...and Patrick gives permission after the fact..the truth is that it is impossible to plagiarize since the same person wrote both scripts? Is that about right? So Obama is sort of an empty suit following a tried and true formula...he's supplied the words, the theme..and he provides the vessel? And the Harvard degree? But the word FAKE appears all over this narrative... And the video captures the fraud, the hoax, the formula if you will. Nothing visionary or oratorical about Obama himself..just good marketing? And we should be relieved?
Posted by lily15 at February 18, 2008 04:20 AMYou're making a mountain out of a molehill, Lily. If Deval Patrick, the man with whom the theme originated, isn't claiming he was plagiarized, then there's no plagiarism. And, Lily, grow up -- you think Hillary wrote those words coming out of her mouth?
Posted by Brian Bell at February 18, 2008 06:29 AMwow, yet another Obama/Hillary foodfight
lily15: "The truth is...we should only be focused on the states that will provide our margins of victory in the general election."
gee, ever hear of Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy which helped the Democrats win the House in 2006?
Posted by gay veteran at February 18, 2008 07:18 AMBut that's lily's point. It may not seem like a big deal to us, but it's certainly going to be a big deal once the Republicans get hold of it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of Obama's "supporters" use it as an excuse to go back to McCain, once Hillary's out of the race. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not listen to all the talk shows debating plagerism all summer.
I think winning, in our constitutional, democratic system of government IS the very definition of who is the best candidate. What the hell do you mean it's NOT representative of who is the best candidate
Florida 2000, anyone?
Posted by Blue Jean at February 18, 2008 12:19 PMThis spurious speech attack is what I have now dubbed: Disingenuous Endless Attacks Typical Hilary (DEATH) well I thought WORM deserved a partner :)
Posted by jesse at February 18, 2008 02:37 PM