home

Outrageous Attack On Obama's Patriotism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:37:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

The Associated Press continues its atrocious coverage, here it directs its attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism:

Sen. Barack Obama's refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism. Now Obama's wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Conservative consultants say that combined, the cases could be an issue for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, especially as he runs against Vietnam war hero Sen. John McCain.

Yes, as Mark Halperin says, the Media's political coverage is a freak show. Does this mean that the Media is now going to open up the show on Obama? This is just outrageous.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< The Obama Rules: Huff Po Style | 60 Minutes On Don Siegelman's Alleged Railroading By Rove >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Outrageous Attack On Obama's Patriotism | 151 comments (151 topical)
    I knew (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    this was coming down the pike. I kept getting emails about this stuff months ago from a Republican. And if you remember 2004, it's standard MO for the GOP.

    I think the press started to turn on Obama about a week ago or so. Gently first, with people like Joe Klein leading the way and David Brooks following. It started into a full throttle attack this past week with the plagarism issue.

    of course they will (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Turkana on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    they're almost done taking down hillary (with just a little help from the shrillosphere), and now it will be obama's turn. obama may be a safe moderate, but saint maverick is the real neocon, corporate kleptocrat deal.

    At this point I don't care (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    Frankly the media is a little late to the party. Barak and his wife have been saying and doing dirty tricks against Hillary for a long time, so that if the media turns on Obama, I say, about time.

    The whole thing has been biased against Hillary, this should at least begin to level things out.

    Of course the media is just beginning to take him down because they think he has the nomination wrapped up. If that is the case (I don't think it is) It will be an interesting year for Obama.

    You reap what you sow!

    that's no excuse (none / 0) (#35)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:39:21 PM EST
    BTD and others called out the NYT's horrendous journalism on the McCain story, even though McCain hasn't exactly been an ally. Bad journalism is bad journalism, and while I understand a bit of schadenfreude, it's something that should never be accepted regardless of its target.

    Parent
    no, it's not an excuse (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:08:27 PM EST
    but it is an explanation.

    I am a little low on outrage now, having so recently been outraged nearly to death.

    Yes, it's horrible.  Yes, it's disgusting.  Yes, it is very poor reporting.  All of those things.  

    As my granny used to say: the well is dry right now.

    Parent

    Obama's outrageous attack on Hillary (none / 0) (#148)
    by john5750 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:07:42 PM EST
    This is outrageous and shameful. Obameans are going after Hillary's First Amendment Rights.

    Obama is doing the same exact thing, but they are trying to silence Hillary. I guess the want Obama to continue to lie without any reprimand from supporters of Hillary or of the truth.

    That's not the kind of president I want.

    Obama backers seek to
    shut down pro-Clinton ads

    An Obama backer who drafted the complaint, says the new organization was established to allow "fat cat Clinton donors" to "cheat the system" by paying for their own advertisements for Mrs. Clinton even though they had already donated the maximum $2,300 allowed by law to her campaign.

    from www.hinessight.com

    Parent

    I get no joy from the suffering of others (none / 0) (#54)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    And for you to say so, is a personal attack to divert from the topic.

     The topic is that Obama has been guilty of dirty tricks, like the Harry and Louis flyers against Hillary. I find those as offensive  (because he is a Democrat and he claims to be an enlightened leader) as the right"s questioning his patriotism.

    He and his supporters have been hitting Hillary below the belt. Or do you agree with Michelle that a woman that can't run her home can't run the country? Is that fair?  
    Or Michelle saying that she unlike Hillary doesn't have to control her husband? Is that fair?

    So the point is this; Why should I defend Obama from nasty attacks when he has been only to happy to hurl them at Hillary or to keep quiet about them when it benefited him.

    I really want to know.

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#59)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    What Harry & Louise? That Hillary has mandates in her plan? She doesn't?

    Show me some links.

    Parent

    Thanks Cream City (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:45:01 PM EST
    Read the answer below, it has been answered...I'm going back to the Oscars.

    Using the GOP playbook as Obama is doing to attack another democrat, do you approve of it?

    I agree with mandates by the way. It's the only way to have Universal healthcare.

    Obama's plan  is not universal. Leaves out 15 million people  and he has said those who do not buy in will be penalized when they get sick and need medical attention.

    But getting back to the point. We're talking about dirty and unfair tactics. Patriotism, sexism and how we feel about it.

    Parent

    Bob, you have played this game three times now (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:48:13 PM EST
    asking "what mandates," etc., as if we have not explained to you over and over again.

    Why do you keep bringing it up like it's new?

    Parent

    You really don't know that (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:31:15 PM EST
    the Harry and Louise ad of 15 years ago was by the GOP -- and now is being replicated by a candidate for the Dem nomination? Or you do know and don't think that's, at the least, worrisome?

    Parent
    Harry & Loiuse (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:45:19 PM EST
    as a dirty trick.....It is nothing more than standard campaigning--it is not personal, it is about policy....The subject is mandates which have been discusssed at lenght....

    The "dirty" part is using a photo that reminds some of an add ran 15 years ago?  It is a lot of inside baseball....Dirty is going after the personal....didn't happen....


    Parent

    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:48:07 PM EST
    was asked a question about "controlling" Bill--and she said that was not the way she related to her husband.....She didn't bring up the question....

    Parent
    The First Response Above (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    Is the same way I feel.

    I don't care..   I used to.  But I don't now.

    Barack Obama once said attacks on Clinton, while not her fault, make it impossible for her to unite the country the way he can.

    He never mustered the words "Those attacks were wrong."

    Not one of his supporters ever mustered the words "Those attacks were wrong."

    Without qualification.

    Those attacks were turned into a reason why I should vote for Obama.

    For the next 8 months, 4 years or 8 years, there will be many attacks on Obama.

    Just speaking for myself, I will always understand that they are wrong to some degree but my outrage will be muted, muffled by what this Primary turned into.

    My reaction will never be free of "You reap what you sow!"

    I just don't care.

    Tavist Smiley (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    Yes, and one would think, gee, maybe Barack would come out and tell his supporters, "please leave Tavis Smiley alone".

    Nope, that didn't even happen.

    You get what you give.

    Parent

    That has been his MO this primary, (none / 0) (#166)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:52:06 PM EST
    Why change now?

    Jesse Jackson Jr. threatening black congressmen who supported Hillary with primary challengers??

    1984 video?

    Geffen comment?

    Did he ever, ever say, "they don't speak for me?"  Did he ever say that it was wrong?  

    NO, and NO.

    Parent

    Edgar08 I agree (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycblue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    Obama has been as divisive as they come. He's used right wing talking points, calling her divisive, and used sexism and race-baiting to get where he is.

    I don't see why these attacks on Obama are any different than the media's (and Obama's own) attacks on Clinton.

    Let him reap what he sowed.

    Parent

    trust me, (none / 0) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:53:15 PM EST
    These are really, really mild.  If that's all he is going to face, you might as well celebrate now.  Nothing to fear in November.

    Parent
    Not true, please stop exaggerating (none / 0) (#73)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    Not one of his supporters ever mustered the words "Those attacks were wrong."

    Some of his supporters, even on this blog, have said that that these attacks are wrong.

    Parent

    You Know (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    When it came to something like what Shuster said or even when someone compared Clinton to Hitler then sure, I'm sure some did speak up then.  When it got to such an extreme, then sure, it became impossible not to say something.

    Do you agree with what Obama said about how the Clintons were attacked in the 90s?

    Parent

    more than that (none / 0) (#110)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:01:32 PM EST
    I'll repeat again: some on this very blog who support Obama have written that Clinton has been attacked in an unfair and sexist manner.  Many pro-Obama blogs have said the same thing.

    Parent
    You Didn't Answer the Question! (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    Don't you think Obama should have at least been able to say "I think it was wrong," about how the Clintons were attacked in the 90s?

    Don't you think Obama should have at least been able to say "I don't agree with David and I told him that," when Geffen called the Clintons liars?

    Be the one Obama supporter who will answer the question!


    Parent

    This Thread is Closing (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:37 AM EST
    For the record, had I been around today, I would have deleted all of the comments questioning Obama's patriotism that are based on his knowing William Ayers. There is no smoke there, no fire, nothing worng.

    As I've said before, this site supports the right of former offenders like Ayers to be politically engaged, to contribute to campaigns and I appreciate any candidate who takes the time to get to know a former offender.

    This infection (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Duckman GR on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:46 AM EST
    is ridiculous.

    Hillary isn't that nad.  Barack isn't that good.

    Likewise, Obama isn't that bad, Clinton isn't that good.

    But compared to any republican alive, they're Apple Pie with a scoop of creamy Pistachio Ice Cream, a basket of Wilma Mae's Fried Chicken, Desert Wildflowers after late winter rains, a cure for Alzheimers, need i go on?

    Not cool (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    but at least we can plan for this to be the line of attack in the GE, should Obama be the nominee.

    I have to say that I think he and his campaign have been pretty savvy about the patriotism angle: whenever you see a video of one of the rallies, the "USA!, USA!" chant is prominent.

    YouTube: "Proud vs. "Really Proud" (none / 0) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    ******************

    The AP may actually be doing the Obamas a bit of a favor.

    There's a split-screen video on YouTube showing an early version of Mich's speech wherein she says this is the first time she's "ever been proud" of her country. Later in the day she spun it slightly to "ever been really proud".

    The latter statement suggests that she has been proud all along and is currently more proud than ever. Obviously the AP chose this less categorical, less tone-deaf version.

    For what it's worth...


    Parent

    Disagree on one point (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:13:36 PM EST
    "...at least we can plan for this to be the line of attack in the GE..."

    I think it's very dangerous to assume we know what the line of attack will be, or even to assume there will be only one.

    The same people who swiftboated Kerry will throw anything and everything they can make up about Obama (or Clinton) on the media wall to see what sticks.

    To me, this "lack of patriotism" idiocy doesn't feel like it has legs, and I'm guessing it will fizzle pretty quickly.  And I have no bloody idea what will replace it, but I'm highly confident some disgusting fabrication will, regardless of who our nominee is.


    Parent

    100% agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    It's hard to prepare for the attack when you have no clue what it will be upfront.  This little thing isn't going to hurt Obama much.  

    Chances are, if we can imagine the attack, it will be something different,much nastier and more effective.  GOP has won elections like this for a long time!


    Parent

    And there are quite a few (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:32:37 PM EST
    memes we do know about.  

    Parent
    This is good bet for right wing attack strategery. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Raoul Duke on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:37:19 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx5jgrrqbFE

    Should work about as well as any against Obama.

    Parent

    handling the question (none / 0) (#36)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    I remember he got the question (from Brian Williams?) a few debates back, and unfortunately handled it much like Dukakis's infamous capital punishment response. He should have responded with a slightly nicer version of "go Cheney yourself", but his actual response was more along the lines of "I'm not a terrorist, I promise!"

    Parent
    here it is (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:50:24 PM EST
    From the Las Vegas debate:

    WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a fresh question here.

    It may not come as news to you that there's a lot of false information about you circulating on the Internet.

    We received one e-mail, in particular -- usually once several weeks; we've received three of them this week. This particular one alleges, among other things, that you are trying to hide the fact that you're a Muslim, that you took the oath of office on the Koran and not the Bible...

    (LAUGHTER)

    ... that you will not pledge allegiance to the flag or generally respect it.

    How do you -- how does your campaign go on about combating this kind of thing?

    OBAMA: Well, look, first of all, let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible.

    WILLIAMS: I figured.

    OBAMA: I pledge allegiance and lead the pledge of allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding.

    (LAUGHTER)

    OBAMA: But you know, look, in the Internet age, there are going to be lives that are spread all over the place. I have been victimized by these lies. Fortunately, the American people are I think smarter than folks give them credit for. You know, it's a testimony -- these e-mails were going out in Iowa. They were going out in New Hampshire. And we did just fine.

    And then he veered off into left field and rambled on for a while. He had the germ of a good response in there, but it's barely noticeable.

    Parent

    Wait till he's the Candidate (none / 0) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:41:52 PM EST


    The difference is (none / 0) (#4)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    that both Democratic candidates have the spine to fight back against the slander. That was John Kerry's mistake.

    Parent
    Do you stay home (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:30:14 PM EST
    if it's the end of Roe v. Wade?

    Just asking.

    Parent

    Does he stay in the White House (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:37 PM EST
    and say "present"? That's the worry.

    Parent
    Present (none / 0) (#76)
    by AF on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:21 PM EST
    is good enough to preserve Roe v. Wade.  All it takes is a justice who isn't to the right of Anthony Kennedy.

    Parent
    Nope, not enough to get (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    a good nominee through Congress. I don't see strong evidence of coattails to even get a stronger hold in Congress.

    Parent
    Why do you (none / 0) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:59:55 PM EST
    keep perpetuating this myth?  

    Whether you liked his present votes or not they did not negatively impact reproductive rights in Illinois.  The bills in question were a setup.  They never were going to pass.

    I simply don't understand why you think he is weak on this issue when he gets overwhelmingly high marks from pro-choice groups.  Is it because you wish to make the debate about gender?

    Parent

    Obama is running on character (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
    and on his ability to take "stands" on issues.  "Present" is not a stand.  It has been said again and again that he was in the safest seat in the IL senate.  There were no serious challengers to his seat.  He would have been taking NO RISK whatsoever of losing his IL seat if he had taken a stand.  The risk to a presidential contender, however, was very great.

    By the way, the ratings from these groups are simply a tabulation of votes--yes or no.  They do not count "presents," so if he "presents" on 20 reproductive votes and throws in a "yes" at the end, then he gets a 100%.  You should do your research.

    Parent

    One more time (none / 0) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM EST
    whether he voted present or no to those bills is irrelevant if those bills were tossed out, as they were.  Just because you really really really want those tactical choices to be a reflection of his character, doesn't mean they are.

    Parent
    Again, no high marks from Illinois NOW (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:06:29 PM EST
    and you know it, we've been through it, and you refuse to deal with the split decision on Obama by the groups there. Therefore, by his actions or lack of them, he puts reproductive rights on the agenda. And as it has do with the reproductive rights of only one gender, he puts gender on the agenda. You may not want to deal with it, but he will have to do so.

    Parent
    no present isn't good enough. (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:18:40 PM EST
    getting off his backside and getting with the program and saving this country is enough and nothing less.

    Parent
    Getting Off His Backside??? (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:32:41 PM EST
    Really? You think Obama is lazy? Or was that just a poor choice of words.

    Parent
    poor choice of words? no! (none / 0) (#138)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:52:17 PM EST
    i am referring to obama's present votes. i am referring to obama not standing up for us in the senate the way i expected he would. i have real questions about someone who is already inviting the insurance companies to the table even before he gets there. yup, i have questions and expect him to get off his backside.

    Parent
    Your term, so (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:07:29 PM EST
    you explain why it occurred to you.

    Parent
    Yes, Obama is likely to (none / 0) (#168)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:01 AM EST
    appoint a pro-life judge....He is more likely to sell-out women's rights than triangulator-in-chief Bill Clinton, who always asserts abortions actually went down under his administration....in an effort to molify the right on this issue......

    Parent
    Not unexpected (none / 0) (#5)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    but I do believe this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    After all of the rhetoric on the blogs, the MSM is still in control of shaping public opinion.

    AP seems to get a pass fairly often, (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:50:02 PM EST
    compared to, say, the LA Times or NYT.  

    I think we can safely say (none / 0) (#11)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:54:12 PM EST
    the AP is just bad news. BTD was using an article where Obama got a free pass earlier as an example of Obama Rules. I think AP actually plays by the AP Rules (i.e. stir as much controversy as possible to sell stories while appearing objective).

    Parent
    Let's not doubt (none / 0) (#8)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    that this will be a successful strategy for the GOP, because it always has been. When all else fails, use "patriotism as a bludgeon" (in BO's words). How on Earth could this possibly be effective? Look at it this way: this doesn't make anyone want to vote for BO, nor does it turn people off to McCain, since he's not the one saying it. But it activates the radical right-wing base that McCain needs to win. In a country where the Council of Conservative Citizens is still influential, let's not underestimate the power of these low blows. We already know what they're going to say about Hillary. The worst is yet to come. As I have predicted before, the Media dutifully gets right on board and takes these people seriously, giving them free publicity for their radical views. They're doing this even while gushing over Obama. Sad days ahead!

    True. (none / 0) (#15)
    by ajain on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:03:48 PM EST
    If dems dont wake up there is gonna be trouble. Because even if hard-core dems ignore this, independants and conservative dems will get swayed by this. And not like McCain isnt liked by dems.

    What makes it all worse is that there video of Michelle saying that dumb line and candidate Obama not putting his hand to his heart during the pledge of alliegence. So there is no debunking that effectively.

    Parent

    Front page CNN poll (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:52:16 PM EST
    on whether Obama is patriotic enough too.

    Seems more unpatriotic to me to commit criminal acts related to scamming the public financing campaign laws.

    magster (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:12:07 PM EST
    who are you charging with breaking campaign finance laws and what is your proof?  

    Parent
    McCain? (none / 0) (#53)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    It's pretty obvious that's he's broken several FEC rules with regard to public financing.

    Parent
    You'll be able to use it against him, (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    if he did, around 2013 when the FEC rules.

    Parent
    McCain (none / 0) (#55)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    Also on CNN's front page, via Howard Dean.

    Parent
    Michelle is on her way to being (none / 0) (#10)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    more polarizing than Hillary Clinton ever was. They need to set up a photo-op of her cradling a dozen or so fluffy kittens.

    I was rather shocked by the really unflattering portrait of her in the L.A. Times the other day. But I have to be honest that I smirked at at the thought of the media turning on what they created. When I got done with the piece I was hoping that they had included Michelle attacking Hillary by saying that she couldn't run the White House because she couldn't take care of her house.

    See the video

    Michelle Obama attacks Hillary Clinton.

    Yes this is a great idea (none / 0) (#12)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:55:27 PM EST
    Let's encourage the media to turn on Michelle like it turned on Clinton in 1992. Just what we need - more unsubstantiated and sexist slander against independent women married to politicians.

    Parent
    No kidding (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:10:35 PM EST
    That's the last thing that anyone should advocate. It's hurt the party enough already.

    Witness all the right wing stuff regurgitated in the democratic primaries.


    Parent

    Oh look at you care about sexism (none / 0) (#21)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    all late in the game.

    It is cute.

    Parent

    Latino Voter, you're right... (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    ******************

    Latino Voter, you're totally right in your observation about this blogger.

    But, I'm concerned that responding to him just provides more opportunities for him, and his ilk, to keep replying back and to continue dominating the discussion.  

    I'd rather hear less from him and more from you.

    Parent

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM EST
    Do you know my position on the sexist smears against Clinton? (a brief summary: they're completely out of line and I denounced them).

    And since when is the fact that Clinton has gotten smeared unfairly by the media justification for allowing it to happen to another woman in a similar situation?

    Parent

    Pay no attention (none / 0) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM EST
    Your views are respected by most participants here. Even when you're wrong.

    And you're certainly right on this one.

    Parent

    did you stand up to the smears of racism (none / 0) (#94)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:04:09 PM EST
    leveled at clinton from obama and the msm?  or did you/do you think the clintons are racists?  just asking?

    Parent
    and so we are to run to our computers in (none / 0) (#125)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:22:40 PM EST
    michelle's defense? like she did for hillary? we told ya'll over and over this was going to happen, but some actually thought the repubs liked him. sad!

    Parent
    I've always decried the sexism against Clinton (none / 0) (#23)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    Look it up.

    Parent
    andrewwwm, in my opinion (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    is not a troll.

    Parent
    Thanks for the backup... (none / 0) (#56)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    I have to say that while I'm in the minority for my views on this site I have respect for the general level of reasonableness users usually give each other (including you to me - even when we disagree).

    Parent
    phew (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    I am glad I erased that part where I called you a goober.  hahaha!

    Parent
    ObamaTalk at TalkLeft (none / 0) (#88)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:44:51 PM EST
    ******************
    Kathy, thanks for the heads-up.

    Disclaimer: this isn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm just temporarily overwhelmed by all the hyper-vigilant, omnipresent, inexhaustible, hyperbolic, thin-skinned, highly voluble Obama defenders all over the web.

    At TalkLeft, they are generally well-mannered. However, I still find the sheer volume and magnitude of their output rather oppressive and impenetrable.

    Andrewwm says that his views are in the minority here at TalkLeft - that is not my impression if you're listening to the level of the rhetoric and looking at it inch-for-inch.

    Peace out.


    Parent

    wow... (none / 0) (#89)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    ... if you really don't think that Obama supporters (and their views) are in the minority at TL, I am not sure that you have been reading this site for very long.

    Don't get me wrong - I would much rather hang out here than at a place like Taylor Marsh, but TalkLeft (both front page and commenters) leans heavily toward Clinton.

    Parent

    More ObamaTalk at TalkLeft (none / 0) (#99)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:21:19 PM EST
    ******************
    To Mindfulmission:

    Dude, look at the volume and magnitude of your own, mostly, pro-Obama output here at TalkLeft: nearly 500 comments over the past two years.

    I dunno, maybe that's not a lot by your standards.

    For the record, I'm not looking to pick a fight with a staunch Obama supporter - I know I'll never have the last word - let's see if that holds true.

    Parent

    umm... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    ... I never said that there were not Obama supporters here.  Showing that I have a lot of comments on this site does not prove your point.

    I simply said that this site heavily leans towards Clinton.

    Thankfully that does not scare me and others who support Obama away, as this site, for the most part, treats Obama supporters better than most pro-Clinton sites.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#111)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM EST
    You're bringing up a luncheon from last August?  Are you guys that desperate to smear Michelle Obama?

    Parent
    Look at you twist yourself in a pretzel (none / 0) (#161)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    to avoid recognizing how tacky and disgusting her comment was. You think it matters that she said it in August?

    Parent
    michelle does have a problem with (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    open mouth and insert foot. the problem also is she sees no problem with it. and if someone complains about it, then they just might be a racist.

    Parent
    It was not (none / 0) (#13)
    by sas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:02:10 PM EST
    too long ago that Pat Buchanan said that it would take the Republicans about two weeks to bring Obama down.

    Buckle Up for a Long Ride (none / 0) (#14)
    by Joe Hill Fan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    As Paul Waldman points out in "Being Right Is Not Enough", we progressives have to be strong and united against the conservative right when they play the patriotism card and other such desperate ploys.  There is nowhere in the Constitution or any other US legislation that prohibits wearing or not wearing this or that button or failing to salute, kowtow, or place various and sundry appendages on various and sundry parts of our body.  Democrats and progressive Independents need to strike back mercilessly and with lightening speed at these cheap shots. Michelle and Barack Obama ARE free citizens of the United States of America and do not need empty, symbolic gestures to prove it.  Obama has chosen to strive for the most patriotic, citizen-serving opportunity there is, the Presidency of the US, and I hope that not a single one of us ever have to wear some token on our lapels or make some sort of gesture or swoon over any flag in order to prove to fellow citizens that we love our country.  Buckle up, progressives, the McCain camp is ready to use any ammunition in the neocon arsenal to carry on the Republican regime.

    how inspiring (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:20:50 PM EST
    I would find this progressive call to arms really credible and inspiring, except, oh wait a minute.... progressives didn't unite at all against the sexist smearing of Hillary Clinton, did they?

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#30)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:22:35 PM EST
    Hypocritical, that's what this is.

    Parent
    No we did not. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Joe Hill Fan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:48:02 PM EST
    But we should have.  It would appear that after a long rule of liberalism, progressives became falsely secure and are having to relearn to defend themselves.  No, words like progressive, liberal, and free-thinker, etc., are just in the end words.  But look at the alternatives.  We unfortunately work with imperfect tools that need to be sharpened and refined with every mistake we make.

    Parent
    That's convenient (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:01:08 PM EST
    I don't think it has anything to do with relearning to defend ourselves. It has to do with the "she-devil" being attacked, and benefiting Obama. That's the reason progressives didn't unite to fight the nasty sexism against Mrs. Clinton.

    If It had been Michelle Obama, the left wouldn't would have to relearn how to defend her. They would have been up in arms. But of course like BTD says; it's the obama rules.

    I don't buy your idealistic, let's  defend Obama against the rights attacks on his patriotism...He and his people alienated me so much, that I don't care what attacks they hurl at him.

    Parent

    I'm right there with you. After NH (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    when they played the race card and painted the Clintons as being racist I thought it was horrible and was really surprised. Then they went to Nevada and Unite Here ran the ad for the Hispanic voters that Hillary didn't respect Hispanics and he said nothing. It was at that point that I knew I could never, ever support him for anything ever again.

    I don't buy your idealistic, let's  defend Obama against the rights attacks on his patriotism...He and his people alienated me so much, that I don't care what attacks they hurl at him.

    In my weaker moments when my outrage has waffled and I've thought I could support him eventually his supporters have been there to remind me of my decision after Nevada. I've read some of the most racist things on pro-Obama blogs and forums aimed at Hispanics that I've had to double check and make sure I wasn't reading some RW hate site.

    Reading Obama supporters call Hispanic Clinton supporters "ignorant," "racist," "fools," and many ethnic slurs I know that the Democratic Party I joined is no longer in existence.

    Parent

    It was Hillary's pollster (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM EST
    that said that Latinos had a problem voting for African Americans--something I totally reject....but her campaign put that out....not Obama.

    Parent
    amen, mexboy!! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:02:56 PM EST


    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#19)
    by ajain on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    The problem is that people will get swayed and that is not a good enough defense for the "reagan democrat"-types.

    Parent
    I think the AP reporter has (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:05:54 PM EST
    been listening to too much am talk radio, which really trumpets the patriotism theme non-stop.

    Parent
    Obama's turn in the barrel (none / 0) (#16)
    by koshembos on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:04:19 PM EST
    God knows how many delegates Obama won with the direct help of the MSM and the A-List. Now, when Hillary is gone, the Dowds and the Kleins will make a living off Obama's skin. He is just paying the piper now. Personally, it's difficult for me to empathize with a race baiter.

    Hillary needs to win Texas and Ohio (none / 0) (#41)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:48:43 PM EST
    This will allow us to see how Obama can handle a month full of vetting before Pennsylvania votes.  If he makes it through that and wins Pennsylvania, then he will earn more confidence and support from people like me.


    Parent
    This has been predicted (none / 0) (#18)
    by nemo52 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    As soon as Obama appears to be a likely nominee, the "Clinton Rules" will morph into the "Obama Rules."  The media will turn on a dime and return to loving up McCain.

    The media will return to stirring up controversy (none / 0) (#22)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:09:26 PM EST
    to move news. Progressives have to reframe the debates so that doing the nasty Republican things that they do are controversial, while espousing progressive values are not. We are never going to win an arm's race in nastiness with the Republicans.

    Parent
    you had your chance (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    to reframe the debate during the primaries, particulary south carolina.  at that point obama SHOULD HAVE SAID, "look, the clintons aren't racists.  that's ridiculous.  we aren't going to let the media frame the debate about democratic principles".  

    OOOPPSS!! he didn't.  if obama want to "reframe the debate" now, all i can say is good luck with that.  you were warned.  

    Parent

    It's starting earlier than we thought (none / 0) (#38)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM EST


    They do this in order to jump to his defense (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jim J on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:46:10 PM EST
    That's what happened with the "madrassa" thing. Within about 24 hours of that e-mail getting around, Anderson Cooper front and center with a full-length special report "debunking" the attack so that Obama wouldn't have to.

    Remember the Obama Rules are always in effect, even when he is being attacked unfairly.

    Oh, c'mon (none / 0) (#74)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    The madrassa thing was not a set-up to defend him  It was two completely different organizations.  And we should be happy at what happened.

    FoxNews drummed up the midrassa thing, and CNN saw it as a good way to slam FoxNews.

    We should be happy that some other news organization finally called FoxNews on what they were doing.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#47)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    Michelle Obama has some issues.

    Of course, I think Obama has issues too.  But since we know so little about him and his relationship with real people, I guess we'll never know.  Funny, this is the only Presidential candidate I remember not being fully vetted.

    We know so little about him personally. I would just like to know more, like ATrios "I'd really be interested in knowing how much of what Obama achieved was due to some awesome master plan, and how much of it was just luck combined with a charismatic candidate."

    This "Not Vetted" Line is Obsolete (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Seneca on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    Can we all put to rest the old Clinton spin that Barack is "not vetted"? He has had everything from his record as an Illinois legislator to his kindergarten remarks micro-analyzed by Clintons attack-research team. We know everything about him, from the tribe his dad came from in Kenya to his supposedly "islamic" upbringing...How is he not vetted!! Please do re-hash this tired Clinton spin, but at least admit that this is what you're doing.

    Secondly, I hope we can put to rest the Obama rules bit. At various points, Barack has been described as a muslim, a drug pusher, a neophyte, an unpatriotic non-American - every Clinton attack cycles through the news for at least one cycle. The "Obama rules" are just another tired piece of spin...

    I recognize fully that most bloggers on this site are HRC supporters, but I hope that we can all have a little intellectual honesty and rise above just rehashing the respective talking points of the Obama and the Clinton camps.

    Parent

    nope (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    we can't put it to rest because it's still valid.

    Obama has yet to face real attacks because the media hasn't paid attention.  Based on what Clinton has been saying over the last few days, he's about to see what it's like to be in a real campaign.  We'll see if he can run with the Big Dogs.

    Parent

    yes, and it's about time (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Sad (none / 0) (#64)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    Well, go home when Obama wins and kiss your reproductive rights goodbye. America doesn't deserve your little hearts.

    Parent
    I resent that people like you that lecture women (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    about needing to vote for Obama in order to preserve their reproductive rights.

    Try to get this:  silence about the sexist smearing of Hillary Clinton by Obama's campaign and his supporters and the race-baiting by the same has enraged women to the point that they just can't stomach voting for him. Attempting to use reproductive rights as blackmail won't work. Women feel too disenfranchised right now anyway.

    Parent

    Exactly! (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    Not to mention, this sexist smear campaign could help erode reproductive rights even more than an outright challenge.  All that Matthews et al seek to do is reduce women to chattel.  Why do chattel need control over their own bodies?  It is the same tactic the anti-choice movement has used against us for years.

    There is a cascade effect of sexism that many fail to notice.  I liken it to war: the more you make the enemy less human, the easier it is to treat them like an animal.

    To tell us that we must vote for Obama or lose our rights because he will do us the "great favor" of protecting abortion is, to me, simply immoral.

    Parent

    what? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:17:27 PM EST
    Someone please explain to me why this is not pure madness.

    Obama will appoint liberal judges.
    McCain will appoint conservative judges.
    There is an assumption building in DC that three judges, all liberal, will almost certainly be retiring in the next four years.

    It is immoral to point this out???????????

    Parent

    on judicial picks (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:05:53 AM EST
    Hillary and Obama will be similar. The question is, which one is more likely to have the clout to get their judges confirmed?

    Parent
    Clout plus determination. (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:10:19 AM EST
    "Present" won't do it.

    Parent
    And Clinton? (none / 0) (#75)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    Has she said anything about the patriotism thing?  Has she defended Obama against the midrassa charge, or the "takes oath on the Koran charge?

    I don't think so.

    Should we now blame Clinton for all that?

    Parent

    nice try, but (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    an illogical comparison. What you list are attacks from the right wing against Obama, and there are plenty of those against Clinton too. The issues we're talking about come directly from Obama's campaign and his supporters.

    And don't bother asking for links, I'm so sick of the denial of the obvious.

    Parent

    ok, I won't ask for a link (none / 0) (#114)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:07:21 PM EST
    but I would ask for at least one good example, so we can discuss the context and whether, in fact, the Obama crowd blew it off or not.

    Otherwise, your accusation is vague and therefore impossible to defend.

    Parent

    Oh really (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:12:28 PM EST
    Could you please list the sexist attacks that are coming from the Obama campaign?

    And let's not try and smear Obama because some Internet supporters are saying bad things.  I have seen Hillary supporters who have claimed that Obama's mother was the heiress to the Armour meat empire, that he is a Manchurian candidate for Islam,  and all sorts of other crazy things.  I don't expect Hillary to condemn these absurd claims.

    Parent

    As a matter of fact, she did. (none / 0) (#172)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:50 AM EST
    Fox news brought the Madrassah charage, and wanted to make it look like it came from Clinton camp, and she slammed hard at it.  Really hard!!  

    Obama camp also attacked Fox News trying to blame Clinton camp.  For all of two minutes, I thought there was hope for democrats.

    Parent

    how many women (none / 0) (#79)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:15:04 PM EST
    do you presume to speak for?

    Last I checked, Obama ran even amongst women in the last primary.

    Parent

    you're right, (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    i have no idea how many, and i can only speak for myself (and lots of other women i know).

    Parent
    Dr Molly (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    in this instance, you speak for me as well as (I dare say) many women on TL.

    Parent
    by the way, the "about time" (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    does not mean the despicable AP attacks on his patriotism nor attacks from the GOP.  However, if the Clinton campaign steps it up and that causes him a problem, that's just too bad.


    Parent
    Well one of the things (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:17:05 PM EST
    Ayers has said is that "they weren't the terrorists, the marines were the terrorists".  I was one of those marines he's talking about and I don't take it lightly.  As far as I'm concerned he was scum then and scum now.

    Parent
    I am so sorry (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:43:22 PM EST
    I was married to a Viet vet, and "support the troops" was not the mantra then. I was against the war, but Dohrn, Ayers, et al., went too far -- it's like the "pro-lifers" who kill doctors and nurses. It's different from those who did their time but show remorse. Dohrn and Ayers still do not do so to this day. That will be the problem.

    Parent
    No sorrow required :-) (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    In fact I have a lot of respect for most of the anti-war protestors.  Heck I became one later myself.  I have no problem with those members of the Weather Underground who did their time and took some responsibility for their actions.  But Ayers and Dohrn seem to have weaseled out and apparently still think they were right.  That I have a problem with and I suspect I won't be alone.


    Parent
    You need to read up on the connection (nt) (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST


    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:09:19 PM EST
    but if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas.


    Parent
    Yeah! (none / 0) (#119)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    What Obama should have done is made sure that all of the controversial professors are the University of Chicago were fired before he took his ConLaw gig there.  Honestly his unwillingness to do that proves that he is a poor judge of character.  

    Parent
    This is not about them (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    both being at the UChi.  They are on the board of a small charity together and Ayers has been a contributor to his campaigns.  But I really don't owe you an explanation for my misgivings, so take a hike.


    Parent
    No I don't think I will (none / 0) (#134)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
     your rude behavior does not, in any way, carry any weight.

    You want to find anything you can smear Obama about.  Thus the strained Ayers connection.  

    Parent

    Has nothing to do with criminals (none / 0) (#131)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    but Ayers is a bit different.  He's an unrepentant terrorist bomber.


    Parent
    Being an unrepentant terrorist bomber (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    makes you a radical, yes. It was murder, you know -- or maybe you don't. And Dohrn and Ayers were well known for their pasts, and their continued lack of remorse. If you sought their support, took their money, served on committees with them and more, you would have to accept the consequences, too.

    Parent
    I don't need to prove it; I read (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:10:24 PM EST
    the research on it and decide what I think. Do you?

    Parent
    Being for the poor (none / 0) (#135)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:46:28 PM EST
    doesn't make you bad but saying in a 2001 interview that you were sorry you didn't do more bombings does.  I'm done with this.


    Parent
    Not to you, it does to me. (none / 0) (#154)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:24:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I've already reproduced thank you (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    If McCain wins, I have no idea if he'd appoint another John Roberts or a Sandra Day O'Connor.

    Continue pushing that fear though.  It'll do you good.


    Parent

    no idea?!?! (none / 0) (#77)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    I have no idea if he'd appoint another John Roberts or a Sandra Day O'Connor.

    Well, given that at least one organization ranked Obama as the most liberal Senator in the Senate; and given that the organization that Jeralyn cited gave him a lifetime Progressive rating of 89% (while Clinton has 91%, and McCain has something like 6%), can you make an educated guess?

    And can you make an educated guess as to which candidate of McCain and Obama is more likely to keep us in Iraq longer?

    Parent

    on justices (none / 0) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:12:53 PM EST
    no I really don't know and neither do you.  What I do know is there will be a democratic senate to advise and consent on any justice.  Maybe the democrats will roll over, maybe not?  Apply pressure to them if if come to it.

    As to Iraq, the military itself will provide ample reason for whoever is elected to get us out of day to day combat operations.  In another year or two it will be so broken we'll have to withdraw.  Unless there is a draft and we know that's not going to happen.

    Parent

    I said "educated guess" (none / 0) (#112)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:05:32 PM EST
    no I really don't know and neither do you.

    And neither of us know who Clinton would nominate either.

    I accept the obvious proposition that neither of us can foretell the future.

    But you avoided my question: can you make an educated guess as to who -- between Obama and Clinton -- is more likely to appoint justices that you would prefer to have on the Supreme Court; who is more likely to support Roe v Wade, defendants' rights, and etc.?

    Just an educated guess?

    Parent

    Between Obama and Clinton, no difference (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:07:55 PM EST


    Parent
    arggh . . . I meant McCain! Oy! (none / 0) (#130)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:34:26 PM EST
    thanks for catching the error.

    So, two points:

    1.  If there's no difference in this regard between Clinton and Obama, why say that if Obama wins, then it'is not worth voting in the GE.

    2.  What I meant to write was:

    And neither of us know who Clinton would nominate either.

    I accept the obvious proposition that neither of us can foretell the future.

    But you avoided my question: can you make an educated guess as to who -- between Obama and McCain -- is more likely to appoint justices that you would prefer to have on the Supreme Court; who is more likely to support Roe v Wade, defendants' rights, and etc.?

    Just an educated guess?

    Parent

    HaHa. To be perfectly hones (none / 0) (#158)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    I believe Obama's nominee would be better.  Can I say that for certain, no.  One of the things that bothers me is that I can't say for sure.  I don't have the history for it, or he doesn't one.

    That has little to do with my not wanting to vote for him.  I've been insulted by the campaign he's run and don't find him inspiring at all.  I honestly believe he could well be the left's version of Bush and I just don't want another.

    It's a visceral thing and I can't seem to get past it.  My reptile brain just doesn't like him.


    Parent

    bob, where were you when obama (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:27:20 PM EST
    was putting hillary down as a woman and then sitting on the sidelines while his surrogates did it? huh?

    Parent
    These generic (none / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:47:52 PM EST
    attacks have no meaning.

    When did Obama put Hillary down as a woman?  Please explain.

    Parent

    oh come on! that is being naive! (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM EST
    whole diaries were done here on it. i am not going to waste my time educating you.

    Parent
    Vetted, just wait... (none / 0) (#160)
    by john5750 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:36:21 PM EST
    You will get a new definition of "vetted" if Obama is the candidate.  The GOP will see to that.

    Right now, they are digging up Chicago dirt.  And, if they can't find enough, they will fill in the blanks.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#82)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    Why is it so hard for him to show a little overt patriotism?  For someone who knows verbal rhetoric, this is pretty tone deaf.  He might as well strap a sign onto his head that reads:  "please attack me on these grounds".

    This "ant-patriotic" crap is laughed off (none / 0) (#85)
    by kenosharick on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    as an unreal and ineffective strategy by obama supporters, but this line of attack has worked in the past- and will again, especially if national security issues heat p again.

    Well, let's see what Obama does (none / 0) (#90)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:50:15 PM EST
    I know what most Democrats would do, they would cry "Shame on you! That's outrageous! You should get your mouth washed out with soap!" This is undignified and is what Obama should not do. (It is what Hillary Clinton would do; it's how she reacted to Obama's supposed "Reagan" statement, which actually was a shot at Bill Clinton.)

    Hmmm. I'll just have to wait and see what he comes up with. The first and most important thing, though, is to appear annoyed, not outraged--and really to be annoyed rather than outraged, because outrage counts against you in an election.

    Ouraged? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST
    Why on earth is expecting overt patriotism from a Presidential candidate "outrageous"?

    That's just stupid.  You might as well expect a star pitcher to protest the requirement to wear his team's uniform.  

    There's a difference... (none / 0) (#95)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    There's a difference between "been without" and "never wears one".

    And criticizing Obama for this does not amount to "Mcarthyism" - ruling criticism out of bounds certainly smacks of something nasty though.

    Parent

    Idiotic Comment (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    As usual. The ultimate patriotic act is to run for president. He does not have to wear a silly pin to show his bona fides.

    Parent
    So Nader is very patriotic then. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:00:39 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#105)
    by jarober on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:55:06 PM EST
    You can call it that, but you're not correct.  Running for President hardly qualifies as "the ultimate act of Patriotism".  Ultimate grasp for power, I'll buy.

    Parent
    And wearing a lapel pin (none / 0) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:18:08 PM EST
    doesn't make someone more patriotic.

    Maybe it does who care more about symbolism than actions but they have their own problems.

    Parent

    From The GOP (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:24:11 PM EST
    Perspective you may be right, considering the criminals we have in office now. But among the democrats running it is all about patriotism.

    Parent
    Jarober is a conservative (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:15 AM EST
    Just a heads up to readers. He is not a Hillary supporter attacking Obama.

    Parent
    I don't care if Obama wears a lapel pin (none / 0) (#139)
    by vj on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    or puts his hand over his heart for the National Anthem.  I also don't care when or if Michelle began to feel proud of her country.

    But Barack is running for president, and I think a lot of Americans do care about these things, and won't necessarily understand where Barack and Michelle are coming from with this stuff.

    I thought they were smarter than this.

    Outrageous Attack On Obama's Patriotism | 151 comments (151 topical)