Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You misunderstand my 'cause.'

See, I don't think that the true believers of Hillary such as yourself will ever be brought around by logic. You're not interested in hearing logical arguments about how corrupt Bill and her have been in the past. When people present evidence, you ignore it.

I believe that even Lola is more likely to be persuaded of a defect or weakness in her preferred candidate than are most of the Obama supporters here are likely to stand still for ANY criticism of their revered and sainted leader.

Obama supporters, Cyclo included, display what appears to me as a truly dangerous and irrational belief in the power of their emotional commitment to their candidate to itself create beneficial change in the real world. It is useful to remember that the youthful commissars of Mao's cultural revolution were not forced to do their horrible duty - they did it with the enthusiasm of true believers, dedicated to the cause of their leader who promised beneficial "change" to everyone -- and set the country back a generation in the process.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:

It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

Sure they don't.

Lola: Accusing someone of being a liar is a personal attack. When Bill Clinton called Obama's factual representation of his record on the war "the biggest fairytale I've ever heard" he was lying through his teeth, while accusing Obama of being a liar. This is easily verified FACT at any FACT checking website. There is no such incident on the other side, and all things are not equal.

A fairy tale is not a lie. I think this is an example of good fair play. As in my favorite game of racquetball. When you're serving, it's against the rules to block a direct shot to the front wall, it's cheating, but it's good play to get as close to the line as you can get. And if you're returning the serve, it's not ok to deliberately hit your opponent with the ball, and it's cheating to claim that he was blocking your shot when he wasn't. But it's good play if you can come fairly close without actually hitting your opponent. Politics is by necessity an aggressive endeavor. The stakes are high, but it should be fair. The rules of the game should be the same for both sides. I think we should work harder to define our terms. Saying that Bill Clinton called Obama a liar, is like claiming that your opponent was blocking, when in fact he was actully playing smart and well. I'm assuming that your claim is not an example of cheating because maybe you hadn't thought it through. If you do it again, I'll call it what it is. And I won't be lying.

Lola wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Classical stuff from the master..... "...I didn't have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski...." No one can slice it so close and in such self-serving ways as 'ole Bill'. Elmer Gantry with a Yale education.

I think this is a straight forward answer. He's right, he miscalulated the effect of the fact that he's not just any spouse. I don't think he said anything that was factually not true. He was purposefully "misunderstood" and its wag the dog again. This is a political technique in the same way he was using a political technique. One instance is no differnt from the other.......other than the those applying them are on opposing sides.

I agree it is political technique - but so was Bill's disingenuous and self-serving answer. Clinton has a truly astounding ability to empathize with himself in public - and con the listeners into swallowing it. What he said is all literally true, but the notion that the master of deceit "miscalculated" and "forgot" that, unlike other candidate spouses, he had been a President .... is much more than anyone still in posession of his critical faculties could buy.

He knew exactly what he was doing - he regrets only that it didn't work.

There are several ideas being repeated on this thread and in the media that are wag the dog statements. They only "true" in the sense that you heard them on television. Is it really true that the Clintons will say anything to get elected?

I question whether "politics as usual" in the form of the use of reletionships is always an example of "backroom politics" in which the powerful purposely abuse those with less power in an unfair way. The ability to use relationships, built over time or even the use of coersive or trading favors techniques when dealing across the aisle are not in and of themselves unethical. I try to draw a distinction between a deliberate attempt to deprive any person or group of people their rights from those practices that are basically good bargaining techniiques.

The always interesting James Wolcott writes that "(p)erhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria.

Life-long atheist here.

Again, I get the worry. I'm not discounting the worry. It'd be nice if Obama supporters would be accorded a similar courtesy -- recognition that our support might actually be based on facts and research and knowledge rather than starry-eyed optimism.

Lola wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:

It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.

Sure they don't.

Lola: Accusing someone of being a liar is a personal attack. When Bill Clinton called Obama's factual representation of his record on the war "the biggest fairytale I've ever heard" he was lying through his teeth, while accusing Obama of being a liar. This is easily verified FACT at any FACT checking website. There is no such incident on the other side, and all things are not equal.

A fairy tale is not a lie. I think this is an example of good fair play. As in my favorite game of racquetball. When you're serving, it's against the rules to block a direct shot to the front wall, it's cheating, but it's good play to get as close to the line as you can get. And if you're returning the serve, it's not ok to deliberately hit your opponent with the ball, and it's cheating to claim that he was blocking your shot when he wasn't. But it's good play if you can come fairly close without actually hitting your opponent. Politics is by necessity an aggressive endeavor. The stakes are high, but it should be fair. The rules of the game should be the same for both sides. I think we should work harder to define our terms. Saying that Bill Clinton called Obama a liar, is like claiming that your opponent was blocking, when in fact he was actually playing smart and well. I'm assuming that your claim is not an example of cheating because maybe you hadn't thought it through. If you do it again, I'll call it what it is. And I won't be lying.

A fairy tale is not a lie? It sure as hell isn't the truth.

Obama tells truth.-> Clinton says it's the biggest fairy tale he's ever heard.-> Lola thinks Clinton is neither accusing Obama of lying by calling his truth a fairytale... and, apparently, believes Bill is being truthful about never having heard anything more fantastical than the truth that Obama told. Good fair play? You have no shame.

The single most uniting personality in the Democratic Party for the last decade tells outright lies about a fellow democrat to deliberately split the Party; and you blame the target of the lies for the division. Brilliant!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You misunderstand my 'cause.'

See, I don't think that the true believers of Hillary such as yourself will ever be brought around by logic. You're not interested in hearing logical arguments about how corrupt Bill and her have been in the past. When people present evidence, you ignore it.

I believe that even Lola is more likely to be persuaded of a defect or weakness in her preferred candidate than are most of the Obama supporters here are likely to stand still for ANY criticism of their revered and sainted leader.

Obama supporters, Cyclo included, display what appears to me as a truly dangerous and irrational belief in the power of their emotional commitment to their candidate to itself create beneficial change in the real world. It is useful to remember that the youthful commissars of Mao's cultural revolution were not forced to do their horrible duty - they did it with the enthusiasm of true believers, dedicated to the cause of their leader who promised beneficial "change" to everyone -- and set the country back a generation in the process.

Again, the issues are not what separate Obama/Clinton....it's the FEELING that people get from Obama.

maporsche wrote:

Again, the issues are not what separate Obama/Clinton....it's the FEELING that people get from Obama.

No, it's not. And it gets a little tiring to be told over and over again that I support Obama because of a feeling he supposedly gives me.

I just said something specific and substantial about a problem I have with Hillary last page but that's skipped over. Much more fun to set up a straw man (all Obama supporters are merely swooning at the foot of a false messiah) and then set fire to it (swooning at the foot of a false messiah is bad.) (No kidding!)

Well for one thing, as I'm sure you know, not everyone believes in health care mandates

Cycloptichorn

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe that even Lola is more likely to be persuaded of a defect or weakness in her preferred candidate than are most of the Obama supporters here are likely to stand still for ANY criticism of their revered and sainted leader.

Obama supporters, Cyclo included, display what appears to me as a truly dangerous and irrational belief in the power of their emotional commitment to their candidate to itself create beneficial change in the real world. It is useful to remember that the youthful commissars of Mao's cultural revolution were not forced to do their horrible duty - they did it with the enthusiasm of true believers, dedicated to the cause of their leader who promised beneficial "change" to everyone -- and set the country back a generation in the process.

This is patently false. There are things that I criticize about Obama. And have done so when asked. Repeatedly. I don't deify him, just believe he represents the best shot for fixing our national problems.

Just an attempt to marginalize those of us who have a fine candidate to support this cycle, is all.

Cycloptichorn

Lola wrote:

There are several ideas being repeated on this thread and in the media that are wag the dog statements. They only "true" in the sense that you heard them on television. Is it really true that the Clintons will say anything to get elected?

I agree with you that this happens on both sides. For instance, is it really true that Obama never offers specifics and is all talk and doesn't do the "hard work"? Did he really "play the race card" as he was accused of doing after Hillary didn't really say that LBJ did more for civil rights than MLK? (Just for sake of clarity, I don't believe she meant what people pretended she meant.)

Quote:

I question whether "politics as usual" in the form of the use of reletionships is always an example of "backroom politics" in which the powerful purposely abuse those with less power in an unfair way. The ability to use relationships, built over time or even the use of coersive or trading favors techniques when dealing across the aisle are not in and of themselves unethical. I try to draw a distinction between a deliberate attempt to deprive any person or group of people their rights from those practices that are basically good bargaining techniiques.

I agree. And you'll see that Obama does this very well too and isn't criticized for it. I don't think that's what "politics as usual" means in the way he's saying it though. I think that's more about whose interests take precedence when it gets down to the nitty gritty. About being beholden to special interests and other politicians and trading favors to get what you want to where you lose sight of who it is you really work for. About being secretive and non-transparent. And, fairly or not, my sense with Hillary (aka, the Clintons) is that she is willing to do what is politically expedient over and above what is right, and transparency isn't big on her agenda. Maybe she just thinks it impractical.

Cyclo, in full grip of the delusion, counts any criticism of Obamaism as merely a mean-spirited attack intended to "marginalize those of us who have a fine candidate..." Frankly the gap between the promises of Obama's admittedly fine rhetoric and any credible objective basis in his own record for us to believe he can really put political flesh on those rhetorical bones in a beneficial way - is so large as to defy acceptance by a rational person with some experience of life and the wisdom to have learned from it.