There are more important things to me than nonsensical "gotcha" politics.
And that delusion is why you should never type "eriposte" into this site's search engine and read your past posts.
Not one of them actually refuted or responded directly to what you posted here....they all changed the subject and then went on to complain why [Sen. Clinton] didn't do more or nearly enough for other things that they feel might have proven to them that she was sincere enough in her efforts and doesn't torture puppies or eat babies
ROFLMAO!
Yes indeed! This is definitive of those with CDS. You tell us how nice Hillary is to puppies and kitties and we wonder aloud about the Wal-Mart board meetings where unions were trashed and her not raising a peep about the unions she now claims to have always adored. We should have been talking about puppies and kitties. I consider myself admonished.
PS: This is the part where you quote emal again and claim I'm not on topic. Then I post this about Texas.
Posted by phidipides at March 30, 2008 10:50 AMSen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04] Link
“He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago. Link
More embellishments, inflating the resume from the Obama camp. He did it in his 2004 senate campaign too. There is nothing new or 'changed' here. He Barry Obama is but a normal, every day politician. One that speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Just trying to deceive.
And about the Texas SD Conventions held on Saturday. Take the Texas 23rd SD meeting(SS Royce West). It was scheduled to begin at 8:30 AM, they couldn't certify the delegates until 6 PM! And it seems many...read Clinton supporters were told the meetings were canceled or started at later times, around 1 PM. Seems there were a bunch a robocalls made to the Clinton delegates. This is no "ratf*****g" going on, but Democrats messing with the process. My how badly Democrats treat each other. Who would have thought it?
BTW..according to BOR at 12:10PM it's 44.01 for Clinton and 55.99 for Obama with 65.23% in.
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 11:07 AMBTW..according to BOR at 12:10PM it's 44.01 for Clinton and 55.99 for Obama with 54.23% in.
sorry
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 11:08 AMWhile Down in Houston...Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee was booed by Obama supporters at a SD Convention being held there.
How civil Democrats are to EACH other.
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 11:13 AMPeter,
YOUR ARGUMENT IS FALSE; you should retract.
OBAMA WAS A PROFESSOR - why don't you read the statement from his former employer (U of C Law School):
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.
Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
They...the U of C, did him and you a disservice by issuing that press release a few days ago. This was settled years ago...in 2004. Anything new is just trying to 'help' their guy.
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 11:22 AMErr, we're still waiting for her 2006 returns. Are you telling us those are not ready yet?
Posted by CB at March 30, 2008 11:25 AM[Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at Chicago] said there is a major distinction between a lecturer and senior lecturer, though both are not full-time positions. She said the status of a senior lecturer is “similar” to the status of a professor and Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. While Obama was also part of the law school community, his appointment was not part of an academic search process and he did not have any scholarly research obligations which professors often do.
since the U of C statement said:
He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.
Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status.
As best I can tell, the university regarded Obama as a professor, but didn't officially confer that title on him.
I guess I don't see the scandal in Obama describing himself that way. But maybe the voters of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana will see something I don't...
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 11:31 AMOh come on Peter,
You don't accept the repeated reference to Professor Obama on the law school website, dated 3/28/08?
Posted by tfitznc at March 30, 2008 11:35 AM"He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004."
your own reference...no "professor" there.
***
Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.
The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”
It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.
Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.
More deception...No 'change' agent there. Just another politician.
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 11:43 AMPeter,
Let me ONCE AGAIN refer you to the official law school web site statement of 3/28/08 which I quoted above; and will cite again(in part) below:
"Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined".
BTW, in graduate school academia, assistant professors don't have tenure, by definition, either. In any event, Obama did not make a false claim as you assert and you should retract.
Posted by tfitznc at March 30, 2008 11:54 AMAn 'offer' doesn't make you one.
1. Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed.
2. Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma.
3. Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
4. Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "
5. Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'
6. 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.'
7. Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force.
8. 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform.
9. Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.
Wright, Emil Jones, Otis Moss III, and others...
Posted by peter at March 30, 2008 12:58 PMAnother off topic or make a few points and then change the topic thread (or move the goalpost once again for Hillary)....sigh.
I'm wondering if anyone actually read it...and I see the Bushminder here again... also off topic and also wrong (mots)...sigh.
And phid...I got nothing except frustration and sadness about the way you treat eRiposte and others here such as myself. I've known and admired your commentary for many years here, but now I'm a victim of it just because we disagree on Hillary's treatment and full record, even though we've agreed on many many things in the past, it's very frustrating.
Sigh...
eRiposte, Good for you for still keeping up with this. I certainly don't fully understand it myself. I mean think of all the people that have become vilified by many on the left(Krugman, Larry Johnson, you, Joe and Valerie Wilson for starters). I'm sure it will make for a fascinating book one day. Are you planning on writing one about this syndrome on the left?
PS.{and yes phid I realize I'm not totally on topic ...so sue me mmkay) Because I'm sure that it'll be worth you mocking once again but.... whatever at this point. I see the writing on the wall here... It's a no win here as apparently Clinton rulz and CDS applies to not only the Clintons, but even to anyone who doesn't totally despise all things Clinton and who makes comment about it out when it's observed.
Posted by emal at March 30, 2008 02:52 PMThis battle Clinton supporters are waging, constantly rolls into the gutter of personal insults. This base level of discourse has been encouraged here in the most dishonest way, with the help of eriposte. We have come to the level of exchanging insults even though it hurts our party.
We are set up by the structure of this Clinton supporter's arguments. Obama is constantly attacked on his strengths,-- right out of the playbook of Karl Rove,--mocking the Senator for those unifying strengths that would be most useful to this damaged society. And the tone of the insults is always the same tone of mockery and belittlement.
Eriposte, you have a nerve to talk of Jacobins, addressing people who would like something a little better, and different, than another Clinton out of the corporate machine, the most conservative democrat standing, who seems to be good at rubbing shoulders with the likes of Scaife or Murdoch. People have also caught on to what team players like Penn and Carville represent, in Clinton's world.
To turn one of your arguments around, Hillary said she would demand preconditions, as president, before sitting down with representatives of the country's enemies. But what preconditions did she demand of Richard Mellon Scaife before she agreed to the interview for his damned paper. That rag was looking for a potshot at Obama's pastor, offering some advantage to her campaign, to once again use the blunt instrument of racism to garner voters.
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 02:57 PM
Copeland,
To me someone who says Clinton is the "most conservative Democrat standing" despite her voting record in comparison to Obama and their statements and stances on a number of policy issues (which I've written about extensively in the past months) makes it clear to me that I'm on the right track about CDS.
You say - "But what preconditions did she demand of Richard Mellon Scaife before she agreed to the interview for his damned paper. That rag was looking for a potshot at Obama's pastor, offering some advantage to her campaign, to once again use the blunt instrument of racism to garner voters." Where is your concern when Obama gives interviews to Republican editorial boards that have savaged the Clintons, to the likes of MSNBC and other mainstream media that have falsely savaged and tried to destroy the Clintons through character assassination. Sorry pal, your get-out-of-CDS-free card won't work in this comment thread.
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 04:56 PMSo, we are supposed to forget Hilary botched universal health care in 1992? We are supposed to forget her concealment by her husband, until DNA appeared, and he needed her for cover? And she used him for ambition? We are supposed to forget her health care fiasco caused congressional turnover? We are suppose to forget her fabrications about Bosnia? We are supposed to believe carpetbaggers are honest? We are supposed to take her experience of entering Iraq, after her NOT reading intelligence reports? We are supposed to accept racial slander and throwing people under the bus is "okay" if you're a woman married to a philanderer? We are supposed to accept her supporters threatening the Speaker of the House?
I suppose her appeal to solve everything but pouring money on the problems, rather than addressing the systemic dysregulation, has an appeal to "rednecks," as conservative columnists gladly admit, but to "left coasters?"
Posted by The Gay Species at March 30, 2008 05:29 PMI'm starting to think that many commenters aren't reading more than one or two sentences of your posts before coming down here to scream "la la la I can't hear you". Read more than that and they'd have to think about what you are trying to say.
They don't seem to be interested (or know) very much about how our government works, and I hate to say it, but I'm starting to wonder how interested they really are in the democratic process--which is by its very nature sometimes frustrating and disappointing.
If it weren't so irritating, it would be an interesting study--what are the steps that lead people into demonizing one completely normal political figure and hailing another as a saviour.
The Jacobin comparison is apt, not just the insistence on political purity--I've been really surprised by the moral posturing:
married to a philanderer--my soul has been sullied!! OMG where's the scarlet letter?
Eriposte, I noticed you didn't comment on the mockery and belittlement of Obama that runs like a stream of sewage through your commentary. And you talk about derangement. Your candidate can't pass the test for leadership, can't surmount the arrogance and condescension in the comments of her supporters, can't offer much of anything but her connection to the big donors and well-fixed Beltway consultants.
Hillary Clinton is losing ground not because people are unsure of how she'll react if she gets power; but because they understand that she runs with the Beltway thought process, and the future with her is grimly predictable.
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 08:16 PMeriposte,
it's a brilliant post and i hope you cross posted it. in fact you should write an essay on the topic and include some of the responses listed here since they make your point for you. i especially love the misogynistic ones (e.g.,the gay species)which as a woman i always find interesting. although my favorites are really the assumption that i must be some sort of racist redneck to like her since if you like her, you can't POSSIBLY understand racism. these are all the more better since like Obama i am black and ivy league educated (we even share the same alma mater). but please, write it up like a dsm iv-tr disorder, it would be fascinating read.
Posted by kacey at March 30, 2008 08:42 PMAs kacey said above, brilliant post. And yes some of the people making comments absolutely prove the point of your post.
I belonged to what was called a 'Nation Discussion Group.' formed among people in my area who are Nation Associates (make a contribution in addition to subscribing to The Nation)
In this group 'Jacobinism' thrived exactly as described in your post and the provided excerpts. I found myself constantly defending various politicians that didn't meet their standards of purity and made continual vain attempts to explain the realities of politics, civics, etc. Almost all had voted for Nader in 2000.
I finally withdrew from the group early last fall when discussion of declared candidates and talk of finding a 'suitable' third party hero began to fill the air.
pants pissing peter supports war criminals Bush and Cheney and then has the nerve to attack Obama?
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 31, 2008 08:11 AM