Alternate interpretation: lots of Obama supporters wouldn't like Hillary and wouldn't want to vote for her even if Obama had never emerged as a candidate.

I don't understand this part:

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

Why would they not want him to be president? Because they secretly think he's a secret Muslim? Whuh?

Do you honestly think he would want you to do so?

Maybe they don't care what Obama would want them do to, because in reality they're not slavish cult followers but just people who think he'd be a good president and Hillary would suck?

edit:
p.s. Speaking of "we all need to get behind whoever is the eventual candidate and not parrot Republican talking points blah blah blah" -- Obama's legions of followers are a creepy and dangerous cult is already getting serious legs.

Actually, I was saying privately that SOME (not all) of Obama's support seemed a bit cultlike long before that idea showed up in newspapers and on the internet. And I'm sure no author of Republican talking pts.

Hey, I was saying it publically long before that idea showed up in newspapers and on the internet. So there.

I have no problem with people criticizing him or his supporters. I just yanks my chain when certain people here (not you) treat perfectly legitimate criticisms of Hillary as off-bounds because it's supposedly regurgitation of Republican propaganada.

When I see Hillary Clinton, my immediate reaction is that she's fake and will say/do anything to get what she wants, in this case win the Democratic nomination. I heard Bill a couple of weeks back talking about his comments during the South Carolina primary and he started out "I did not...". With that voice and speech pattern, all I could hear is "I did not have sex with that woman...".

I have to confess, like many folks, some of 'em smart, I underestimated Obama. But, at least when I see him I don't think 'liar'. He is charismatic. He apparently appeals to a lot of folks. The 60 Minutes stories last night on both Democrats were interesting.

Me saying something nice about Obama probably moved a few people over to HRC. Yes, I'm a Republican and worked against many of these folks. But, I can't help but think there are some middle of the road folks out there who have the same reactions to the Clintons and Obama. Bean makes a good point. HRC is extremely polarizing. She starts off with 47+% against her. She doesn't have far to go to lose in the general.

Ah, yes. More Hillary bashing. Do you really want the Obama bashing to get down and dirty?

More Hillary bashing.

My perception of the candidates = Hillary bashing. Geez. Apparently a lot of people have similar impressions of the former first lady. Are they just 'bashers' too?

I'd say some Obama bashing would suit Chad just fine.

I said generally nice things about Obama.

But, since you mentioned it, I do like the fight developing amongst Democrats (Piper v. Broyles on a national scale). It appears the Dems are headed to a contested convention, to be watched fairly carefully by lot of people, nightly on TV. It will be interesting to see how it's handled. My guess is the Democrats in charge of the convention have never had to deal with one of these fights. It may prove to be something to behold in terms of political theater. The Democrats no doubt have some smart, articulate folks. But, there are also elements out there who might not put such a nice face on the donkeys. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Carry on...

Resorting to this ridiculous "cult" notion insults the astute people who have chosen to back Obama because they like his stand on the issues as much as his personal style.

One person's "cult movement" is another person's intelligent decision making process.

It just depends on your bias.

It's a pretty low-down article.

Not surprising Krugman has a hit piece out on Obama's supporters, he has been bashing Obama from day one. This whole cultist crap is getting old, many people think Obama will make a better President than Hillary. Calling Obama voters cultists because they aren't Clinton fans is a childish argument to say the least. If Hillary won the Democratic nomination I'd easily vote for her over John Mc-100-years-in-Iraq-Cain. The large majority (but maybe not ALL) of Obama voters in the end when faced with the idea of a McCain Presidency would go with Clinton too. Also, I've seen a lot more venom from the Clinton folks against Obama and his supporters.

One person's "cult movement" is another person's intelligent decision making process.

It just depends on your bias.

I think that's true to an extent. I don't think Sen. Obama's following is necessarily like a personality cult as it is the following of a large group of young people attracted to something of a celebrity.

Whether that celebrity status should be part of the reason for voting for someone is, I think, irrelevant.

It exists because of the days, and culture, in which we live.

While I do think Krugman's argument is childish in the extreme and that the swipe on Obama supporters seems like a completely unsubstantiated attack sloppily tacked on to an otherwise rational piece on "Clinton Rules", is personality really such a bad thing to vote for?

If you look at it, the President doesn't make law. That is the job of Congress, and while the President can influence the bills, ultimately most of them end up being committee jobs. Thus the finer points of a candidates policy ideas are far less relevant than many, like Paul, make them out to be. In the end it will be senior advisors and members of Congress that have the most impact on new legislation. The best a President can hope for is to focus debate and create priorities. Bush has certainly had a far less important role in policy than Rove, Delay and Cheney have. In the end, it really comes down to personality and character. It comes down to how you approach the position, how you approach yourself, how you approach the nation and how you approach other nations.

"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I've not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I have been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character."

What does the first have to do with the second, other than the fact that they're married? How does that make her a fake, Chad? Let me take a swing at this: It's because of the blowjob. Right?

Sorry to disappoint you Andy, but if you'll look at the quote I referenced it was aimed at Bill Clinton and the lie(s) he told about the sex. It wasn't the sex. I could take 'spin'..."This is a private matter and I'll have no further comment" or something to that effect...but if you're the President of the United States and stand up on television and lie to the American people you lose virtually all credibility in my book. These folks are a 'team'. They play it up when it works in their favor. They play it down when they want to appear independent of one another.

I will be prepared for all the "Bush Lied" comments. Fine. Have at it. The President's statements have been debated ad naseum, on this blog and otherwise, what he knew, didn't know, should have known, and on and on. But, I'm talking about Bill Clinton and his blatant, no debate lie. You may like Bill and choose to overlook his shortcomings. You may blame every Clinton scandal on Republicans. Fine. I posted my impressions of the Clintons. You're welcome to disagree.

Apparently half (or more) Democrats don't like HRC. As posted before, how this election plays out on the Democrat side will be interesting to watch, particularly for Republicans.

if you're the President of the United States and stand up on television and lie to the American people you lose virtually all credibility in my book.

Really? It's all about the lies?

Well, I look forward to your condemnations of President Bush, then. He stood up on the television and lied to the American people consistently - and on the State of the Union, no less. Many things he said were verifiably false. This is all well-documented now.

Nine hundred and thirty five lies, many of them attributable directly to the President.

So either, (a) it is OK to lie to the American public in this manner because you voted for this guy, (b) it really was about the sex in Clinton's case, or (c) you're going to have to invent some other lie to cover for what you just said about how important it is for the President to be truthful when he's on your teevee.

How's Bush's credibility with you these days, Chad?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

The reason Clinton fired her campaign manager was because they were broke right before NH.

She did not find out till after the NH win & was forced to go 5 million in debt.

On the other hand,Obama had money not only for Super Tuesday but for the states that voted Sat & today & next week in Wis.

On Super Tuesday this allowed the Knox County Obama campaign to set up a hq in east Knoxville because the national campaign was not sucking every penny out of Knox County to survive.

The CNN exit poll said Obama got 77% of the black vote in Tn.

However,in the east Knoxville wards(9,12,13,14-E,14-M,15 & 30)Obama won 85% of the vote & a 1,798 vote margin over Clinton

We did very poorly in the other counties of the 2nd district.

Therefore,the margin in east Knoxville,really helped Obama gain 41% of the total vote in the 2nd congressional district.

No doubt the east Knoxville hqs helped boost Obama's vote.

One askes

Dude whats your point?

DELEGATES!!!!

The 41% Obama got in the 2nd district gave us a 2-2 tie in the district
delegate count.

East Knoxville hq...85% of the vote...2-2 tie..NOT..3-1 Clinton

The argument that Dems should support Hillary because she won't freak out when Republicans starting flinging excrement and bodily fluids on her sounds a lot like the rationale that gave Kerry the nod in 2004. Combined with the obsession over party conformity, the Hillary camp is starting to look like a suicide cult.

Don't get me wrong, though; I will happily vote for her in November if it comes to that. In fact, the more I think about setting her loose under the unchecked, no-account version of executive privilege Cheney and the Bush lawyers scrawled onto the Constitution, the more I wish I had voted for her last week.

Think what a Clinton could do if instead of being hounded by an unscrupulous special prosecutor boring into irrelevant personal matters like a parasitic worm, she could just flip Congress the bird when asked to testify, perhaps assenting to speak to them if no oath is administered and all recording devices are disabled. And if Republicans thought their phone calls were being monitored and their golf courses bugged with listening devices could they conduct any business at all? How would they know which corporation bought their vote or which lobbyist is willing to pay for a high-end call girl?

Republicanism as we know it would grind to a halt! Budgets would get balanced, innovation would rise, pollution would be curtailed, market freedom would replace economic anarchy, health would become a higher priority than vengeance, and rational decision making would take the place of praying for guidance from the voices in your head.

Andy doesn't disappoint. I knew the "Bush Lied" line would come, just as predicted, and quickly to boot.

935? According to the 'study', if the President said Saddam had weapons (meaning the same statement) 100 times over a year, it counts as 100 so-called lies. Multiply that times Cheney and Rumsfeld and the number grows. Just an inflated number to garner effect with those like Andy.

As previously pointed out, the statements by the President and others now have the benefit of additional intelligence and information. What the President knew and when he knew it are questions we don't know. Looking back with 20-20 sight, and throwing in a measure of the "I knew Bush was a crook" mentality, it's a short hop for some to Bush Lied. Andy = Frog. Hop along...

and you concede 100 lies about international intelligence

Goodness me Andy, where do you read such a concession? I simply recited the methodology to get to 935 so-called lies.

Should we consider this one anywhere near as heinous as a lie about a blowjob?

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

One, I do not believe President Bush lied. Two, if proven a lie, one is enough to question credibility. Three, those who believe Bush lied either make a jump based on hindsight and what they think he should have known, i.e. it was supposedly 'obvious' and/or, two, they just 'know' he's a crook and assume he was manipulating information. We had intelligence failures. Many are to blame. If you want to include the President, fine. But, if the President is making statements based on intelligence believed to be credible, it's not a lie.

In the end, few know what the President or members of his administration knew and when they knew it. Those who didn't like Bush in the first place, find reasons to like him less now. Democrats always complain that Republicans always respond with "Clinton did (fill in the blank)". As this thread proves, Democrats always respond with "Bush did (fill in the blank)".

What hurt Clinton in my mind is that he made such a spectacle of it all and had numerous other options (note my prior comment of 'this is a private matter...'). Frankly, that's what has frustrated me about some local politicians. They have good choices which will accomplish their goals and make them look responsible. Yet, they choose the option(s) which make them and our government look terrible. Same for Bubba.

Nuf' said.

April, 2005

"Now... by the way... any time you hear the United States government talkin' about wire tap . . . it requires . . . a wire tap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way. When we're talkin' about chasin' down terrorists, we're talkin' about gettin' a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand . . . when you think Patriot Act, Constitutional guarantees are in place . . . when it comes to doin' what is necessary to protect our homeland because we value the Constitution."

Then you obviously do not consider this a lie.

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

One, I do not believe President Bush lied.

Look up "credulity." You've got it in spades.

In the end, few know what the President or members of his administration knew and when they knew it.

Plausible deniability =/= truthfulness.

You're talking about a legal standard for veracity, not about common sense.

Riddle me this. When Colin Powell was given his speech to read at the UN, he reportedly said, "I'm not reading this! This is bullshit!" (Like the good soldier that he is, however, he did anyway.) So: If Powell knew that the case against Iraq was "bullshit" (and evidence that he was correct in this assessment is now legion), how likely is it that this wasn't general knowledge in the Cabinet?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." -George Costanza

:)

Direct quote?

Are you talking about the supposed 'direct' quote above with six omissions of words? Give me the complete quote and context.

April 20, 2004

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Source (roughly halfway down the page)

Is this the "above quote" of which you speak?

Please allow me to apologize for the use of such a shabby source.

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

HAPPY BIRTHDAY RIKKI,

Many happy returns.

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

I'll review and respond. It will take me a day or two. Work calls...

I provided that same example to CBT in a thread long ago. He never got back.

Though that example is one of W's most egregious lies, there are so many others. Like the time he said nobody foresaw breaching of the N.O. levees, before video was released that showed Michael Brown warning W precisely of that. When confronted, Bush made a pathetic attempt to weasel out of his lie.

Or his promise to fire whoever was responsible for the Plame leak, or just to get to the bottom of the leak himself, a promise reminiscent of O.J.'s pledge to find his wife's true killers.

I'll provide links if CBT explains why the other lie above was "better" (i.e., less egregious) than Clinton's one lie.

Happy Birthday, Rikki!

Though that example is one of W's most egregious lies, there are so many others.

When I started searching for a new link to that statement (I discovered I had the date wrong on my web site) I was overwhelmed by the pages of incidents going back to his days in Texas politics and, of course, his military 'service'.

Imagine my surprise when I waded through all those links with the idea that our resident Republican would only diss the author and found that link to the White House.

If you can't trust the White House, who can you trust?

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

may wish to bring Hornian Logic to bear in this matter.

• The evil New York Times is at fault for exposing a valuable covert and 'perfectly legal' tool in the war on terriers.
• The evil Hillary Clinton is at fault for giving my client her permission to do anything necessary in order to punish the man who tried to kill his daddy.

[/sarcasm]

Visit us at

Wearybottom Associates

Clinton's one lie.

Only one...ever? Gee, you and Bill must be tight.

I'll get back. I had to leave to be in court in Upper East Tenn. this morning at 6:30. Just got home from V-Day with the Mrs. I'll have some time this weekend. Too many things to do...

First, by your standards we can't count Bill's duplicate lies for the same transgression, nor can we count the type of lies all Presidents tell, e.g., "read my lips, no new taxes," "trees cause pollution," "I have a secret plan for ending the war/balancing the budget," etc.

But, hey, I would have been fine with impeaching Reagan or the first Bush over their lies. Wouldn't you, since you held Clenis to such a standard? At least no American soldier died when Clinton lied.

Just yesterday Duhbya fear mongered Congress to reauthorize the surveillance bill scheduled to expire on Saturday on the grounds that a lapse of the law would leave us vulnerable to terrorist attacks, because we would not be able to track the terrorists anymore. Except NPR interviewed a security expert who explained that the terms of the current law continue unchanged if/when the law expires, for at least one year. She said that the language of the law is very clear on that, and is not subject to easy misinterpretation. In other words, Bush lied again.

Ah, President's Day, no mail, no courts -- the perfect opportunity to reflect on the Bush years and decide whether it makes any sense for the country, the Republican party or personally to perpetuate the fraying mythology of Bush as an honest man making tough decisions based on solid information and sound advice.

As time settles and the distractions and inattention of our superficial news providers fade, and the core facts remain: stonewalled investigations, refusals to testify, signing statements and secrecy, immunity and pardons, military adventures privatized like never before, lost lives, lost dollars, and an enemy grown more powerful through it all, as if the only thing worse than negotiating with terrorists is legitimizing them with a declaration of war.

Is it time to disown the an executive branch that disregards the co-equal branches of government and hold responsible those who abused human and civil rights, or is it time to buttress the mythology with yet more propaganda?

As for the wiretaps quote, the President was speaking in a 'conversation' on the Patriot Act, FISA warrants. What the President said was true. He was not talking about NSA wiretaps, which were authorized under constitutional authority just after Sept. 11. This has been explained numerous times.

Should the President have been more clear and not made such a sweeping statement? Maybe. It will be no surprise that those who disagree with the President's policies will accuse him of misleading with his choice of words. I don't think Bush has ever been accused of being eloquent in his public speaking. What's always humorous is the same folks who claim the President is an idiot will likewise claim he's a mastermind at deception.

As for the wiretaps quote, the President was speaking in a 'conversation' on the Patriot Act, FISA warrants. What the President said was true.

First of all, this 'conversation' crap sounds highly nuanced. (Remember when that was "bad" for Democrats?) And I don't know what you're talking about. The FISA warrants continue as they have since the '70s, long before the Patriot Act, and the terms of the newly expired Protect America Act continue for one year after its expiration. So there's no lapse in wiretapping ability using either mechanism. Bush lied again.

The only thing "new" is that the telecom immunity issue is still left up in the air, and this could be (mis-) construed to mean that the government has a weaker hand to wiretap. That's a bit of a leap, though, and not what Bush said.

Details here and here.

...the same folks who claim the President is an idiot will likewise claim he's a mastermind at deception.

I haven't heard anyone give Bush credit for his deception. If there's a mastermind, it's the Roves, Cheneys, Gonzales, Abramoffs, etc. But these professional liars are no asset to Bush.

You still haven't even addressed the other lies. If this debate were presented in front of a jury and judge, you'd have lost everything. You need to consider having your mind deprogrammed.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone's policies and disagreeing with their methods. I disagree with Bush's policy on energy conservation, but I condemn his efforts to censor government scientists. The President's Day list Randy posted yesterday is not a list of policy disagreements, it is a docket of charges.

I no longer care what George Bush's policies are because I see him as the leader of a criminal enterprise, and I am starting to feel the same way about the entire Republican party. If you all don't have the courage to confront the facts, why should I care about anything you say?

Republicans: low taxes, lower standards.