The poison pen episode -- from this thread, March 2006:
sozobe wrote:
Quote:Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama appeared to make up yesterday after their unusual public poison-pen exchange (McCain accusing Obama of "partisan posturing" and "disingenuousness"; Obama expressing hurt that McCain "questioned my sincerity") over lobbying reform.
As Obama entered the crowded Senate Rules Committee hearing room, he playfully brandished a fist while putting an arm around the seated McCain. Awwwwww! Many pictures were snapped. "I value his input," McCain told the panel. Said Obama: "I'm particularly pleased to be sharing this panel with my pen pal John McCain."
Thomas wrote:nimh wrote: There's plenty more instances if you just Google this or that phrase from the memo with quotation marks around it.
Yes, but why should Foxfyre and mysteryman bear the burden of Googling? When you're posting a claim that's flattering to your side of an argument or unflattering to your opponents', you are responsible for showing that it's not just cut&paste propaganda. It's common courtesy to your correspondents; you yourself show it practically always. Why expect less of Butrflynet? Unless I'm missing something, Foxfyre, Ticomaya, and mysteryman were asking perfectly reasonable questions. Or at least questions I ask them a lot, which may or may not be the same thing.
Shrug. I always insert the link, yes, I think it's a courtesy, and I appreciate it when others too. But I'm just saying, if there isnt a link and you really
are sincerely curious about the provenance, it takes about 20 seconds to find it. Copy/paste a paragraph of the text into Google and hop, there it is.
So although yes, I appreciate links as courtesies, and I try to always include them myself, I also never quite understand the furious demands that people (from both sides) tend to make to "provide the source!", in the cases where a poster hasnt included the link. I mean, writing and posting that takes more time than just finding it out for yourself. Seems a waste of time, and the resulting angry to-and-fro is wearying for other readers.
Agreed re: links.
Re: poison pen, one more post, from the next day (March 16 2006)
sozobe wrote:I wrote:What I've wanted since Bill Clinton is a Democrat who was just plain likeable -- who had the ideas and the charisma too.
I mean, look at this picture:
They have this big, public fight, the young Democrat and the established, experienced Republican, and who's in charge, in that photo? Obama's totally physically in charge, grasping one hand, the other encircling McCain; McCain is blushing a bit, disarmed, laughing at something Obama's said (and still saying) while Obama is all poise and control. And the description of the incident shows that Obama was the one who started it all, who came in with the playful fist-brandishing and then went to where McCain was sitting, who made it happen.
Those kinds of political skills are huge, not just in getting elected but in making things happen while elected.
Anyway, just musing.
Interesting to re-read the beginning of this thread. :-) Someday I'll read the whole thing...
Joe Biden
Wouldn't it be ironic if Senator Obama chooses Senatory Joe Biden to be his Vice President? Biden was my first choice for the Democratic presidential nominee.
BBB
Biden
Wouldn't it be ironic if Senator Obama were to choose Senator Joe Biden as his vice president? Biden was my first choice for Democratic presidential candidate.
BBB
sozobe wrote:Yes, it has. I'm not disputing that. It's been happening, and the actual moment of Obama cementing the nomination was a "wow" moment that focused the "been happening" aspect. This is such a difficult concept?
For me, yes. But I recognize I'm not an Obamaniac and I just might not "get" the euphoria of the moment.
nimh wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Do you feel Obama's anger management issues are a weakness for him?
Nope.
Now you and I can disagree about who has which anger management issues, but, at least so far, questions about McCain's have surfaced over and over again in the media and punditry - and with these things it's basically the perception that counts. Whereas, Obama and anger management issues? I'd never even heard of it. It's definitely not a mainstream concern. If anything he's been getting a lot of praise for being so equanimous in the face of all the hypes and turmoils of the campaign trail.
Yes, I've noticed that with "the press" when Obama literally backs a fellow Senator into a corner, it's spun as a positive.
nimh wrote:Thomas wrote:nimh wrote: There's plenty more instances if you just Google this or that phrase from the memo with quotation marks around it.
Yes, but why should Foxfyre and mysteryman bear the burden of Googling? When you're posting a claim that's flattering to your side of an argument or unflattering to your opponents', you are responsible for showing that it's not just cut&paste propaganda. It's common courtesy to your correspondents; you yourself show it practically always. Why expect less of Butrflynet? Unless I'm missing something, Foxfyre, Ticomaya, and mysteryman were asking perfectly reasonable questions. Or at least questions I ask them a lot, which may or may not be the same thing.
Shrug. I always insert the link, yes, I think it's a courtesy, and I appreciate it when others too. But I'm just saying, if there isnt a link and you really
are sincerely curious about the provenance, it takes about 20 seconds to find it. Copy/paste a paragraph of the text into Google and hop, there it is.
So although yes, I appreciate links as courtesies, and I try to always include them myself, I also never quite understand the furious demands that people (from both sides) tend to make to "provide the source!", in the cases where a poster hasnt included the link. I mean, writing and posting that takes more time than just finding it out for yourself. Seems a waste of time, and the resulting angry to-and-fro is wearying for other readers.
However, I still haven't seen any links to news stories replicating the GOP "talking points" without discussing the memo in question.
I haven't taken your advice and attempted to google this, but since Butterflynet made the point, perhaps she can.
Re: Joe Biden
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Wouldn't it be ironic if Senator Obama chooses Senatory Joe Biden to be his Vice President? Biden was my first choice for the Democratic presidential nominee.
BBB
That would be like manna.
Butrflynet wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Do you have a source for who said that the GOP sent out emails Butrfly?
That isn't what I said. Go back and reread it.
But, to answer your question, yes.
You are correct. I did misstate your quote which was:
Quote:Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts.
And this was followed by your statement that we know who sent them. So who did?
Obama will get a pass by the media on anything he does, says, or comes out of his past. Any attempts to bring these issues to the forefront by the Republicans will be called a racist attack.
Foxfyre wrote:You are correct. I did misstate your quote which was:
Quote:Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts.
And this was followed by your statement that we know who sent them. So who did?
The RNC. Full text of the memo was linked in above.
EDIT: And
here it is on the RNC's site itself.
revel wrote:woiyo wrote:From the FRENCH PRESS!!!!!!
What does it matter if it is was the french press? I didn't even noticed it was french. I just googled in the question you asked and that one of the results.
The point is there was a discussion of this in
Washington (in the US in case you don't know where that is) and the head of a think tank was there to discuss the Iran situation and the answer to your question of what incentives is there for Iran to talk with US was addressed there. To repeat.
"Those incentives amount to basically withdrawal of all of the existing sanctions, diplomatic normalization, overt support for WTO (World Trade Organization) accession and of course security guarantees," he said.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060228-iran-incentives.htm
Those are pretty big incentives.
ANd what does Iran do after we give away "the store".
nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You are correct. I did misstate your quote which was:
Quote:Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts.
And this was followed by your statement that we know who sent them. So who did?
The RNC. Full text of the memo was linked in above.
EDIT: And
here it is on the RNC's site itself.
No, I know what is on the RNC site and didn't question the talking points--looks like they did some pretty good homework there. It isn't much different than the kinds of stuff you see on the DNC site though I've always questioned the strategic wisdom of letting the opposition know in advance what you know about them.
I'm still wondering about the statement of 'e-mails going out' to GOP talking heads' though. Who are GOP talking heads? And how do we know that the RNC sent the e-mails? It isn't all that important. I mean if you and I can go to the website and get that information, anybody can, right? I just wondered if there was an unfounded assumption there. That's all.
Clinton supporters wowed with warm reception at Obama rally
REUTERS/Gary Hershorn
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses supporters Tuesday night in New York.
By Doug Grow
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The crowd kept pouring into the Xcel Energy Center. All ages. All races. All backgrounds. Young Somalis chanting "O-bama!" And older, white women, bedecked in sparkling red, white and blue and holding up a sign, "Women for Obama!''
But most noticeable was the arrival of such people as Buck Humphrey, who once had headed Hillary Rodham Clinton's Minnesota campaign. And Jackie Stevenson, a DFL activist, a feminist and a Clinton-supporting superdelegate, who at the last minute had changed her mind about attending the event. And St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, who was a Clinton supporter until sometime Monday. And Rick Stafford, another Clinton superdelegate.
Former Secretary of State Joan Growe was there. And Minneapolis City Council President Barbara Johnson. And a couple of dozen other people who had invested so much energy into Clinton's campaign.
Political healing process beginning
Their presence at the event where Barack Obama declared victory shows that, at least in Minnesota, the political healing process already is beginning.
No one is making that healing easier than Obama. Last night, after he had finished the sort of speech that leaves his followers exhilarated and exhausted, Obama did not just leave the arena. Nor did he head to the nearest television camera or the nearest fat cat.
Instead, he went to a room where the Clinton supporters had been gathered and one by one, shook the hands of the 25 people, stopping to chat with each of them.
"Chris (Coleman) walked around the room with him,'' said Stevenson, "and introduced each one of us.''
It was really pretty extraordinary.
"He shook my hand and said, 'Thank you for being here; I'm sure it's not easy,' '' said Stevenson of her meeting with Obama. "I thanked him and said that everyone involved in his campaign had been so gracious. I didn't know what to say, so I mentioned that my daughter works for a federal health clinic. And he knew right away which program I was talking about. He said, 'Oh that's wonderful.' ''
Stevenson, a feminist and Clinton supporter, had to admit this: "He's very impressive.''
And it didn't end with that. Michelle Obama arrived in the room of Clinton supporters some time after her husband had entered.
There was a little husband-and-wife moment.
"Where have you been?" he asked her.
"In a different room,'' she said. "I didn't know where you were.''
Then, they both went about the business of chatting with the Clinton supporters.
"She didn't have much time there because they had to get them out of the building," said Stevenson. "I was standing by the door and as she was leaving, she put her hand out to mine and rubbed her cheek against mine. I've never met her.''
Clinton supporters find evening filled with graciousness
The whole evening had been filled with similar graciousness and kindness, Stevenson said.
She had arrived at the building with Humphrey, and as they were taken to their seats, people kept stopping to hug them and thank them for being there.
Laughing, she spoke of how she decided she needed to make a trip to the restroom before Obama's speech. Again, people kept stopping her to shake her hand.
"Finally, I just had to wave and leave or I would have missed the speech,'' she said.
All of the other Clinton supporters received similar treatment.
In his speech, Obama had so many kind things to say about Clinton that her supporters often found themselves on their feet, applauding with the nearly 20,000 Obama zealots inside the arena.
Of course, not all of Clinton's Minnesota followers were at Xcel, and there's going to be resentment among some, perhaps forever.
"When you've had a race that's been so close, gone on so long and filled with so much history and passion, you're going to have some hurting,'' said Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, who was with Obama long before there was a bandwagon.
Coleman, the Clinton supporter until he saw the writing on the wall after the weekend, agreed with Rybak.
"I think especially for women of my mother's generation, it's going to be very hard,'' he said. "They had waited so long for this (a woman in the White House). But I've spoken with a number of women like that in the last day. I think they'll come around. You don't spend your life fighting for women's rights and then vote for Sen. McCain.''
Not all Clinton backers ready to forgive and forget
The question is, though, how many women will there be like Koryne Horbal, the founder of the DFL Feminist Caucus and a co-chair of the DFL Party in the late 1960s. She didn't go to Xcel, and she's not in a forgive-and-forget mood.
"I can't support John McCain, but I won't support Obama, either,'' Horbal said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon.
Angered over the way the Florida and Michigan delegates were divided by the party's hierarchy over the weekend, Horbal said she ?- and others ?- will urge feminists to write in Clinton's name on the presidential ballot in November.
She admits that her idea isn't off to a roaring start.
"Even Gloria Steinem isn't with us on this,'' she said.
Stevenson is not happy with Horbal's idea. Before Obama entered the room, she told the Clinton supporters that the idea of a write-in was not something sanctioned by the Feminist Caucus.
"In a few days, I'll try to talk with her,'' she said. "We've got two of our people who are going to be off the Supreme Court very soon. The next president will be making those two appointments and maybe more. There's just too much at stake.''
Stevenson told of how a couple of Clinton supporters in the room had listened to Clinton's speech last night before rushing to Xcel.
"They came in telling us that she was terrific,'' said Stevenson. "It made us all kind of sad. This was a very big dream for a lot of us. We're feeling pretty bruised.''
But the healing began ?- at a victory celebration for Obama.
What a nice article! Thanks, blueflame.
Thomas wrote:nimh wrote: There's plenty more instances if you just Google this or that phrase from the memo with quotation marks around it.
Yes, but why should Foxfyre and mysteryman bear the burden of Googling? When you're posting a claim that's flattering to your side of an argument or unflattering to your opponents', you are responsible for showing that it's not just cut&paste propaganda. It's common courtesy to your correspondents; you yourself show it practically always. Why expect less of Butrflynet? Unless I'm missing something, Foxfyre, Ticomaya, and mysteryman were asking perfectly reasonable questions. Or at least questions I ask them a lot, which may or may not be the same thing.
I didn't get it from a source I could link to. I got my copy via email. If I had, I would have provided the link.
Thanks for finding an alternative one and doing so, Nimh.
sozobe, it is nice. "We've got two of our people who are going to be off the Supreme Court very soon. The next president will be making those two appointments and maybe more. There's just too much at stake.'' Hillary would be great for the Supreme Court imo.
blueflame1 wrote: Hillary would be great for the Supreme Court imo.
That kind of thinking is very, very frightening.
cjhsa, yeah frightening to the Hagee, Robertson, Rapturite set.
