sozobe wrote:All together now...
WE KNOW, BLATHAM, WE KNOW!!
Pleased you've read the research.
When you bump into something which you don't already know, please feel free to PM me and I'll consider a further contribution here.
No, that's not what I mean.
Contribute away, you bring lots of good stuff.
It's just, well, I'll quote myself (from a month ago):
sozobe wrote:And we've definitely talked -- over and over again -- about the fact that Obama will come under ever-increasing scrutiny as he progresses in the race (to the point where we just groan and say "there you go again, we know already!!!" when blatham brings it up for the umpteenth time. ;-)).
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3174785#3174785
nimh wasn't saying "I'm shocked, I never expected this!" he was saying "argh." Me too.
We can both dislike it and not be surprised by it.
Blatham,
While you are correct that the Bush campaign used the Willie Horton ads, they didnt start them.
Actually, Al Gore used Willie Horton against Dukakis,and Bush just used them later.
Both campaigns were wrong for using them,but Gore deserves the credit for thinking them up.
mysteryman wrote:Blatham,
While you are correct that the Bush campaign used the Willie Horton ads, they didnt start them.
Actually, Al Gore used Willie Horton against Dukakis,and Bush just used them later.
Both campaigns were wrong for using them,but Gore deserves the credit for thinking them up.
Neither campaign was wrong for using them. Dukakis's Willie Horton mistake was huge and most certainly a matter of public interest. The side effect (true intent) was obviously nasty, but the information should have been put front and center regardless of Horton's color or how scary he looked.
Robert Reich endorses Obama for President:
Quote:Friday, April 18, 2008
Obama for President
The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares. My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.
I believe that Barack Obama should be elected President of the United States.
Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama's strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.
He also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.
Finally, he offers the best hope of transcending the boundaries of class, race, and nationality that have divided us. His life history exemplifies this, as do his writings and his record of public service. For these same reasons, he offers the best possibility of restoring America's moral authority in the world.
Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Hamas endorses Obama
Hamas endorses Obama for President:
April 16, 2008
Hamas Endorses Obama
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."
Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.
mysteryman wrote:Blatham,
While you are correct that the Bush campaign used the Willie Horton ads, they didnt start them.
Actually, Al Gore used Willie Horton against Dukakis,and Bush just used them later.
Both campaigns were wrong for using them,but Gore deserves the credit for thinking them up.
The Willie Horton crimes were so unspeakably horrible and unconscionable, the idea that such a person would be furloughed only to commit yet more murders was fair game to access Dukakis's record as governor and how he might govern as President. And yes, the issue was first raised in the Democratic primary before the Republicans recognized it as a valid (and useful) issue.
But everything regarding a person's value system, ethics, and verifiable record are fair game when assessing those we want to lead this nation. It was not wrong to use the Willie Horton issue any more than it is wrong to consider McCain's age, his voting record, his temperament, and other factors that help us assess whether we are comfortable with him at the helm.
And the same goes for Obama and Clinton.
Re: Hamas endorses Obama
H2O_MAN wrote:Hamas endorses Obama for President:
April 16, 2008
Hamas Endorses Obama
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."
Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.
Hamas's memory is also a bit deficient. The Arab world HATED Carter. One reason Iran held the hostages so long was that they didn't want Carter to have the satisfaction of being in office when they went free. On the other hand, Bush Sr. was well loved in the Arab world, especially for his role is freeing Kuwait.
Perhaps Hamas knows a lot about US Politics and knows that by endorsing one candidate, they will drive knee-jerk voters the other way. It certainly would help their efforts to have another divisive President in office who would further separate the US from its European allies.
I wouldn't worry about that Foxy.
The Federal Reserve is at the helm.
Possibly so, but I still would rather not be scared about who occupies the oval office. In retrospect, however, I am guessing that THIS picture did Dukakis far more damage than did the Willie Horton ad:
And he had nobody but himself to blame for that.
It seems Obama has overtaken Hillary in PA; their scores almost reversed itself according to a recent poll. I'm not sure about the org that did the poll nor its accuracy, but it was nice to learn that Hillary is losing ground in the "must win" state.
Paul Krugman has done something unusual with Obama's remarks about rural Pennsylvanians being bitter: He has investigated their merits. Krugman's concluion is unflatering:
Paul Krugman wrote:Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.
Full Story
Thomas wrote:Paul Krugman has done something unusual with Obama's remarks about rural Pennsylvanians being bitter: He has investigated their merits. Krugman's concluion is unflatering:
Paul Krugman wrote:Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.
Full Story
Krugman has morphed into an anti-Obama hack of late, so there's hardly anything surprising about this.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Thomas wrote:Paul Krugman has done something unusual with Obama's remarks about rural Pennsylvanians being bitter: He has investigated their merits. Krugman's concluion is unflatering:
Paul Krugman wrote:Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.
Full Story
Krugman has morphed into an anti-Obama hack of late, so there's hardly anything surprising about this.
Cycloptichorn
Why is it that you consider anyone that writes anything negative about Obama an "anti-Obama hack", but anyone that writes anything negative about McCain is non partisan and is being objective?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Krugman has morphed into an anti-Obama hack of late, so there's hardly anything surprising about this.
Cycloptichorn
Although it's evident that Krugman is anti-Obama, I don't think you've established that he's a hack -- as opposed to, say, an honest and intelligent commentator who happens to disagree with you. Moreover, even if Krugman was an anti-Obama hack, that wouldn't mean that Obama's statements are correct. Personal attacks on the messenger don't make an adequate argument against the message.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Thomas wrote:Paul Krugman has done something unusual with Obama's remarks about rural Pennsylvanians being bitter: He has investigated their merits. Krugman's concluion is unflatering:
Paul Krugman wrote:Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.
Full Story
Krugman has morphed into an anti-Obama hack of late, so there's hardly anything surprising about this.
Cycloptichorn
But his argument still has merits. Not that it moves me from the Obama to McCain camp, but you can't dismiss his argument just because he is on the other side of the fence. The "bitter" part is fine, but the "clings" to guns and religion and xenophobia part is off. Krugman makes that point well.
Cyclo,
Tread carefully. Thomas is particularly attached to the rat-faced little punk.
George, It's not Krugman's Jesuit-like profile that I am attached to.
"Jesuit like"??? reduced to THAT ??!!
