The Clinton games continue
T.A. Barnhart
Having signed up to receive notices from the Clinton campaign, I got this one from Jon Pugsley, a good Dem in Benton County:
I just had to email you this great update -- over 5,000 people have signed Hillary's petition to hold two presidential debates in Oregon. Great job!Unfortunately the Obama campaign is still stalling for time. His Oregon spokesperson even said Wednesday to The Oregonian that they "are continually reviewing the best way" to speak to Oregon voters.
They aren't listening to us. They say this is just an "old Washington game."
Is it a "game" to unveil a detailed policy plan about how our next president will work with Oregon? Or is the true "Washington game" sidestepping the tough questions and avoiding the issues Oregonians care about?
The real game, of course, is the Clinton campaign pushing for debates that cannot possibly occur until after ballots have gone into the mail. Where was the call for debates a month ago, when there would have been time to arrange them? We could have held one or two next week (sad waste of time though they've become), but only if the organizing had been started weeks ago. The Clinton idea of being prepared, I guess, is to cobble something together at the last minute and hope it works.
Like a 50-state campaign when you discover your opponent has kicked your butt on Super Tuesday.
The "detailed policy plan" may be justthat, but its late presentation is just another cynical game from the Clintons. As an Oregonian whose child is going off to war next year, I'll submit that the issue I care about is Iraq — and Afghanistan and Iran — and the tough question I want answered is why Hillary won't take responsibility for her vote to authorize the invasion? My next question: How the hell did she get suckered by Bush and his crew? Twenty-three of her Democratic colleagues knew better than to fall for Bush's lies. She didn't?
A policy paln, detailed or not, means nothing to Oregon if the nation can't be taken care of, and I've had enough of how Hillary Clinton takes care of things. Polls, games and an increasing reliance on dishonesty and deception. This bogus call for debates that either A) can never happen, or B) will happen after a big chunk of voters have returned their ballots, is just the latest example of how the Clinton campaign has no respect for the voters or our democracy. Not when there's an election to win — at any cost.
But the aim was never to expand the discourse in Oregon. Hillary stopped discoursing long ago. The aim was to create a false choice for Obama and then accuse him of playing the "old Washington game." With so much on the line in this election, to watch Clinton slide farther and farther from substantive discussions of the issues is nauseating. I hope enough Oregonians recognize her game for what it is: a sideshow distraction from the fact that behind the painted lady, there ain't nothing you really want to see.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 25, '08
Obama supporters do not seem to be aware of the hypocrisy they wallow in. They claim to be for unity but their rhetoric is more personal and hateful than that of the Clinton campaign or their supporters. What does it say that this man provokes this type of response in his supporters? This kind of demagoguery and hypocrisy reminds one of the GOP.
Obamas recent campaigning focuses on character of Sen. Clinton because it is hard to critique her proposed policies because he has nothing to counter offer. It is easier to attack her character than her policies.
Apr 25, '08
Got it, TA... you don't like Hillary Clinton. If you get up above 50 Clinton-hater posts per day, do you win a cookie?
Apr 25, '08
I don't know how much preparation it takes to put on a debate, especially since they have already put on over 30 in other states. It only took a few days to set up a venue when they both last came to Oregon, so logistics is not the issue.
And regarding Obama, if Hillary is so bad, then why hasn't Obama closed the deal with Democrats already? And why did he lose big in PA, and other major states?
I am no fan of Hillary, and probably would vote for Obama if I was not a NAV, but I think it would be beneficial to Oregon and to Obama for there to be some debates here. The longer he avoids debates, the worse it appears for Obama. And it isn't like he needs to fear her debating skills.
4:16 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
As an Obama supporter, I am in favor of debates between the candidates about Oregon issues...but like any campaign the Obama campaign should tread carefully.
I think Oregonians want a debate that will include questions about the Bonneville Power Administration rate system, about County Timber Payments...and the other issues that are unique to Oregon and also the ones that are not.
Our debates don't need fancy backdrops, big name moderators, national TV coverage. I think we ought to have a debate where our party, our press, and our friends sponsor it. Get the O, Statesman, Reg Guard and Eastern Oregonian to get a panel of folks assembled and have a debate. Heck, the Bus project could sponsor a special candidates gone wild event.
I don't want another typical national debate, we've had enough of those. If we're going to have one, let's have one that Oregon Democrats would be proud to sponsor and attend.
Apr 25, '08
No free air time for the Clinton campaign! It's a front-runner's prerogative to not paint a bull's eye on himself and give free air time for a turkey shoot to the debt-ridden loser.
Hillary doesn't want debates about Oregon concerns or policy issues. She wants more debates about lapel pins, angry black preachers,American flags, God, guns, and guts, who is the most patriotic, who is the most like "us" and not like "them", who is the "elitist"(code word for non-white), and who went to parties with former leftist radicals ( as opposed to who gave them pardons). After 21 debates of that kind of gotcha double teaming with media types like Stephanopolous or Clinton News Network Blitzie, who wants more debates.
4:32 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
I'm with Carl.
I support Obama, but I think they should debate in Oregon.
It'd be nice if it hit on some Oregon issues, or at least Western ones (note that there hasn't been a debate West of the Rockies except one in Hollywood.)
But even if it's just another national debate, I think it'll get the attention of Oregonians like no other. I suspect strongly that the average Oregonian hasn't watched a single previous debate.
If they're serious about earning the votes of Oregonians, both campaigns should be serious about discussing the issues in front of Oregonians.
Apr 25, '08
The aim was to create a false choice for Obama and then accuse him of playing the "old Washington game."
Thanks T.A. You sort of succinctly sum up the Clintons' posture. They could have predicted verbatim what the Obama campaign's response was when they issued their hokey debate "challenge." They're using a discussion of the issues facing our region as a wedge ploy to stay in the race (which will be extremely convenient should she lose IN and NC) and create bad press for Obama.
I think it might be useful to include a reference to the North Carolina debate debacle as well. Obama agreed early on to have a debate in NC, on Piedmont issues, before the PA primary. The Clintons refused, because they were mainly interested in using the debate as a reason to keep her in the race should she stumble in PA. The calls for her to quit the race haven't come yet, but if Obama wins NC and IN, they will. That's what this call for debates is about- keeping her in the race. The cynicism is just about surreal.
Apr 25, '08
Two months ago I would have supported debates in Oregon, but this election has already gone on too long and many of us are growing weary (not to mention wary). Now if McCain and Obama want to debate in Oregon, I'm all for that.
4:48 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
no John, if i get a dozen inane Hillbot retorts, i get a smilie face. thanks for adding nothing to the discussion. what do you win?
Apr 25, '08
I'm glad it's gone on as long as it has, so many new registered Dems means we'll be better off in November. Also, the more we hear these two candidates talk about getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, etc - the more it becomes part of the national vocabulary.
Apr 25, '08
If Clinton has already released her policy statement, then why do we need debates? Is she going to change her mind during the debate?
If we get a detailed interview in all the major state papers, that would seem to do just fine.
Plus Obama will be having more of those "big rallies". And Bill Clinton will be speaking to a standing-room-only crowd at the opening of a used car dealership.
Apr 25, '08
Did Hillary call for a debate about PacNW regional issues before Idaho? And before Washington?
If there was to be a debate about regional issues, it is kind of too late now that 2/3 states in the region have already voted.
Apr 25, '08
If Obama is so bad, why hasn't Hillary closed the deal?
Apr 25, '08
Hillary DID ask for more one-on-one debates weeks ago, intended for Oregon, but Obama refused. He knows she is much better at debates than he is. But now the offer is all over TV etc. he may HAVE to do them now, or look weak. I think they are VERY needed, especially considering the last one where Obama wiggled & squirmed trying to justify his relationships with rev. Wright & W. Ayers, when there really is no way TO justify choosing to have these relationships with these kind of people. One who hates white people & America & the other one a known terrorist, 1970-72 NYC Police dept., Capitol Build., & the Pentagon. Yes its a long time ago BUT Ayers stated in 2005,at a time when Obama DOES know Ayers, that he (Ayers) wishes he had bombed more places. I believe the voters need to know exactly who our politicians are, good & bad. Then make up our minds. Beats the heck out of electing a politician who isn't really FOR us. Kind of like Bush!
Apr 25, '08
TA is right, this is Politics 101. Simply put, when you're down and have no $ left, ask for debates. It's also a trick because if Obama commits but then say wins IN and NC (which most observers think would end the microscopic chance Clinton still has) the Clinton folks will come back and say that since Obama committed to a debate here, the campaign should continue until then.
Apr 25, '08
Link please about Hillary's demand for debates on PacNW issues.
I never heard about it.
Apr 25, '08
Hillary DID ask for more one-on-one debates weeks ago, intended for Oregon, but Obama refused. He knows she is much better at debates than he is. But now the offer is all over TV etc. he may HAVE to do them now, or look weak. I think they are VERY needed, especially considering the last one where Obama wiggled & squirmed trying to justify his relationships with rev. Wright & W. Ayers, when there really is no way TO justify choosing to have these relationships with these kind of people. One who hates white people & America & the other one a known terrorist, 1970-72 NYC Police dept., Capitol Build., & the Pentagon. Yes its a long time ago BUT Ayers stated in 2005,at a time when Obama DOES know Ayers, that he (Ayers) wishes he had bombed more places. I believe the voters need to know exactly who our politicians are, good & bad. Then make up our minds. Beats the heck out of electing a politician who isn't really FOR us. Kind of like Bush!
Apr 25, '08
I don't think he looks weak.
But she looks desperate.
Apr 25, '08
Is Hillary going to change her mind during a "debate"? Then why have it?
Detailed interviews in the state papers will do, and will reach more people.
Apr 25, '08
I've seen enough debate. If the sun would stay out I'd turn all this crap off till November. Whatever the Clintons are working at, it's got a nasty feel to it.
Apr 25, '08
Why is Hillary against interviews in the papers? What does she have against Oregon print media? About a year ago, Portland Monthly did an incredible interview with Smith. What does she have against Portland Monthly?
Apr 25, '08
I can't believe that anyone needs another "debate" but I certainly understand why Northwestern voters would like to see some of their major issues responded to.
It's completely quixotic but how 'bout the following:
Oregon Public Broadcasting hosts a one hour campaign special- a one-half hour Q&A with each candidate separately answering five questions that they have been informed of in advance and 3 followups that they haven't been given but which are exactly the same for both.
The segments would be taped up to 48 hours in advance of the broadcast and neither candidate would be informed of what the other had said.
With just the slightest cooperation from the campaigns, this could actually be done quickly enough to counter T.A.'s legitimate complaint about ballot timing and would answer the Clintonian camps demands for an airing of local issues.
Apr 25, '08
I like it.
5:10 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
In what sort of alternative universe are debates an "old Washington trick?" In what sort of democracy is a refusal to debate good for the political process? This is Oregon and in Oregon Democrats don't get to buy the election with tv ads alone - they also debate.
Novick and Merkley are debating 7 times. How many people on BlueOregon would have screamed bloody murder if Jeff, the original frontrunner, would have refused to debate?
There has not been a single Pacific NW or Rocky Mountain states debate, nor has the average Oregonian seen even one single presidential debate. Most have not seen even one. How many hundreds of thousands of Oregonians would tune in to an Oregon debate? And this is a bad thing?
Of course it's in Hillary's political interest to debate. It's also in Sen. Obama's political interest to debate, but his campaign doesn't seem to get that yet.
Most importantly - and more important than the political prospects of either candidate -- it's in Oregon's interest that these two fine candidates debate.
Apr 25, '08
Josh - stop channeling Dana Perino!
Apr 25, '08
Josh,
Did Hillary call for a debate about PacNW regional issues before Idaho? And before Washington?
If there was to be a debate about regional issues, it is kind of too late now that 2/3 states in the region have already voted.
But we already have a winner - Larry McD's idea above will work and I think we should all get behind it.
<hr/>Ron Wyden has said that he will not campaign against Gordon Smith. You are on Wyden's team, and Hillary's. Does that mean that Hillary will not campaign against Gordon Smith?
Apr 25, '08
Josh,
I am an Oregonian I have seen at least 10 presidential debates this year! Speak for yourself if you are not keeping up. In fact, that explains a lot if you have not seen any of the prior debates.
Apr 25, '08
When I'm at work, I usually have two bosses give me instructions in debate format. Because information coming from one person alone just doesn't work.
5:31 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
I've only seen one presidential debate this year, and that was when all the candidates were still running in the summer, I think it was in Hew Hampshire early June. Other than that, I haven't been able to tune in to many debates.
Apr 25, '08
The Clintons are going to take this thing all the way to the Convention, and it is really sad. I used to love them. Hillary moreso than Bill, but I was a big fan of each. Their deliberate attempts to undermine Barack Obama despite the fact that any neutral observer knows that he has won the nomination makes me sad. I'm as loyal a Democrat as anyone. I just wish the Clintons showed the same amount of loyalty. At the very least, I wish they would stop the race baiting. That stuff belongs in the Republican camp where we all know it is welcome.
Apr 25, '08
The best thing Obama could have done was just agree to these debates in the beginning. The longer this thing drags out, the weaker it makes him look. I'm really not saying that to be snarky, I just think the more they call a debate "an old DC trick," the sillier it looks.
Apr 25, '08
This is like the last few seconds of a close NBA playoff game where the team behind by a couple of buckets starts to hoist 3's and then foul's to get the ball back. And theres nothing wrong with good clean hard fouls by the way.
The real questions are; Whats a clean foul and whats a flagrant foul; And when is it time to call the game over even with a few second left on the clock, stop the fouls and let the team thats ahead dribble the clock out so that the obvious winner doesn't incur unnecessary injuries and has a fair shot in the next round.
I watched a Laker/Blazer game this year where the Blazers were ahead by three possessions, 5 seconds left and the Lakers CONTINUED to foul. They were roundly booed. Of course they were the Lakers.
Clinton and her supporters need to reach their own conclusion on when its time to dribble the clock out, shake hands and call it a hard fought race. To me, it looks like Obama leading by three possession with 5 seconds left. They better watch it, unless they want to be the Lakers.
Apr 25, '08
no John, if i get a dozen inane Hillbot retorts, i get a smilie face. thanks for adding nothing to the discussion. what do you win?
My critique is that you post the same anti-Clinton insults every day, pretending it isn't just more fodder for the echo chamber, and never feeling the slightest compulsion to comment on a how your candidate will achieve the things you claim he stands for.
So I win by giving you about 1% of what your constant personal insults inflict on the millions of grass-roots Democrats who are merely exercising their right to support their candidate and not yours.
John
Apr 25, '08
And the more she presses for it, the more desperate she looks. Not to be snarky or anything, that's just how I see it.
If Hillary is such a strong candidate, I am confident that she will saddle up and find another path to victory in Oregon.
Apr 25, '08
On KPOJ this morning, Ron Wyden said that there is "no way" this is going to the convention. He assured Thom Hartmann this will be over in June.
Apr 25, '08
Thanks, hmmmmmmm.
It's nice to know that somebody actually read it....
Apr 25, '08
Who is hmmmm?
Is hmmmm trying to catch up to the others in the Top 5 of BO's commenters in a single post?
Why haven't heard from hmmm previously?
Hmmmm?
6:25 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
I know that none of the commenters just fell off of the turnip truck here.
In every election cycle, up and down the ticket, the frontrunner (or incumbent) resists debates and the candidate that is behind (or challenging) presses for debates. The frontrunner always has a lot more at risk in that situation.
The differences in this case are that;
1) Clinton's out of money and really, really needs all of the free media she can get and;
2) She's demonstrated a commitment to portable goalposts in all manner of diverse areas, from what defines a frontrunner to what constitutes negative campaigning, to what the meaning of "is" is..........oops......that one's from her spouse.
Now me, I've seen at least ten of the so called debates so far, out of a total of 21. Does anyone really want to assert that additional posturing and gotchas are going to illuminate some policy point that hasn't been addressed yet?
Despite all of her pity prattle about the press's mistreatment of her (well except for FOX News, which she has recently found to be Fair and Balanced), the sad fact is that the alleged newspersons are all and only about either perpetuating their own insider mythologies about "straight talk", "experience", and "gravitas" or attacking the current frontrunner. They did it when she was the frontrunner, and they're doing now too.
Apr 25, '08
I couldn’t have been happier to sign her petition at http://www.debateoregon.com calling on both candidates to hold two presidential debates in Oregon. I just hope Obama joins the conversation so we can focus on the issues rather than the trivia.
Apr 25, '08
Yes, Curtis, that is correct. If Obama does not participate in the debates, he has no possible way to "join the conversation" and get his message out in Oregon.
Debates are the ONLY WAY this can be done.
Apr 25, '08
OK, those of you who support debates, let's hear details. 1) Location? Moderator? 2) Allow questions from the audience? 3) Substantive questions which matter in Oregon and not just another debate with generic questions we've heard umpteen times before? 4) Will Hillary be asked why anyone who ever worked on delegate selection rule revision should vote for her simply because she wants to ignore the way Michigan and Florida broke the rules? (I blame politicians in those states for the problem, certainly not Dean or Obama.) 5) Are there really voters in Oregon who have not yet formed an opinion but Hillary's campaign thinks all those who watch the debate will be so impressed with her answers they will vote for her? 6)Does she understand the underemployment rate in this state? Does she think no one who has worked part time, multiple jobs, temp. jobs etc should be anything other than positive and cheerful as long as they attend church? (What her complaints about the "bitter" remark seem to indicate) How well does she understand the Oregon Health Plan?
This whole debate thing seems like just more spin from the folks who are angry they didn't wrap up the nomination in February as they expected.
It would be great to see a debate featuring audience questions, but if the debate she supports is just a rerun of the first hour of the Gibson/Stephanopolous debate (must returning Iraq vets wear flag lapel pins to prove their patriotism? how often does Hillary wear a flag lapel pin? who is her pastor or is this all supposed to be about Obama's link to Rev. Wright who she has never met?) then spare me the froth.
8:08 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
It seems pretty clear that both sides are playing a cynical game here. Clinton wants debates because she doesn't have the money to run a credible campaign in the state and she is trailing by a wide margin. Obama doesn't want the debates because Clinton doesn't have the money to run a credible campaign and he is leading by a wide margin.
I'd like to see a Presidential debate in Oregon. My daughter will be my age before we see another one.
This is a historic election year for Democrats.
The eventual nominee is going to be a once-in-a-generation political figure -- this generation's Bobby Kennedy, and his opponent is the first credible female candidate we've seen in this country.
We should be celebrating this campaign.
8:24 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
John, i have been relatively low-key in my comments about HRC. they've become more pointed for 2 reasons. 1, she's gotten dirty and uglier in her desperation. she says "i want to talk issues" and the yells "Rev Wright! booga booba" while her campaign issues an ad with bid Laden in it. the second reason, as i've stated repeatedly, and which no Clinton mouthpiece has had the guts to respond to, is that with less than a year to go until my son -- my son, mind you, wrap your head around that -- is going off to a war she thought was a good idea and has yet to have the moral rectitude to take responsibility for. expect more anger from me as the day go by.
i do not trust her with my son's life.
Apr 25, '08
Well said Josh Kardon,you hit it right on. The only person afraid to debate is the one with nothing to say! As far as Hillary & money, haven't you heard? Sen. Clinton's campaign received over $10,000,000 in 24 hrs. after she won PA !! Plus it added 50,000 NEW donors to her side. Take that Oprah! Wouldn't you love to know how much she has given Obama? Grass roots my bottom! Imagine the "Bundlers" Oprah has sent his way. Considering all that $$$ shes up against Hillary is doing FANTASTIC! This is not the first time Obama has refused a DEBATE. The whinners keep saying theres been over 20 debates, enough. BUT the truth is we DO need more one-on-ones especially if they target specific needs of a state. Great idea from a great candidate! Go get him Hillary!
8:46 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
from Chuck Todd at MSNBC:
"...he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election.
half-a-million raised for Hillary, and he comes to the conclusion she's bad for the party & bad for the general election. i guess it's not just crazed Obama supporters who think she's gone too far.
8:48 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
by the way, Sharon, before you get crowing too much about Hillary breaking Ron Paul's record (oh yea, i'd be proud too) -- the $10 million equals her campaign's debt. w00t!
meanwhile, Obama still has more money, more donors, and more coming. the MSM wants to pretend the tide has turned just as badly as she does, but the voters are actually saying differently.
9:02 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
btw again, if you've been perusing the blogs, you've noticed ads reminding Oregonians that have to be registered by the 29th. who is it that is reaching out and making sure Oregon voters don't miss the boat? the Obama campaign. as they have done all along, they are registering voters. we call that "party building." of course, the fact that they have a vast support base across the entire nation (and i emphasize "entire") means they have the resources to do so.
plus, Obama actually does believe in party building. the money spent will help him win Oregon, but it also helps the down-ticket Dems as well. that's all part of the Obama campaign: helping as many as possible.
Apr 25, '08
We already have a winning idea - as posted by Larry above:
Let's all start rallying the Oregon media around this idea.
What should the 5 questions be?
Apr 25, '08
I agree that the call for debates appears more an act of desperation than a real attempt to mete out the differences between them. Clinton cannot hurt herself any further by participating.
That said, we are fed up with the robo-calls we have received from the Clinton campaign over the last 24 hours. We have received 7 of them at all hours of the day (thankfully none after 10 pm). There has not been a person at the other end of the calls, only machine generated messages. Conversely, the calls we have received from the Obama campaign have always been from a live person - 4 in total over the last 3 weeks, and the person on the other end has always been cordial enough to offer calling back at another time, not harrassing us all day long with impersonal recordings!
Regardless, it's too little too late for HRC at this point. I KNOW she would make a better president than what we have had for the last 8 years, but she has failed to differentiate herself in policy from Obama, and instead has resorted to tactics that appear like more of the same from Karl Rove - and that rubs more too many people the wrong way.
9:45 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
Sharon DePasquale:
Actually, Obama has a very low per donation average - under $100. In February, when he raised $55 million, his average donation was $75. During that month he had 727,000 donations.
In March he brought in more than $40 million, had more than 442,000 people contributed to the campaign in March, with more than 218,000 giving for the first time. The average donation was $96.
Overall his average donation has been around $109.
Any good presidential campaign is going to have a number of big donors - otherwise you're not going to make it far. But the fact that Obama has been able to bring in record amounts of money - and keep his donation level around or below $100 - that is definitely grassroots.
9:50 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
Larry, your suggestion has promise provided that the OPB questioner/ moderator is empowered to point out if a candidate is non-responsive or tries to turn an answer back to the trivia.
Katy and Curtis, I would have more interest in this if it weren't for your comrade Sharon de Pasquale and the large number of voices she represents (e.g. Sandra Longley and Christines around here). A lot of the Clinton campaign & backers are calling her nonsense "tough questions" rather than inane distractions. Do you think they're "tough questions"?
If that's what the debate is to be again, it isn't about substance and it isn't about common Democratic themes that we should cooperate to get out there, while arguing about the relatively small differences of substance. And Hillary Clinton has given up any standing to claim trust that she won't again abuse a debate in those ways.
I suppose from your point of view my very genuine concern about Hillary Clinton's recent threat to commit nuclear genocide against Iran's 60 million civilians would seem illegitimate. Should it be admitted in a debate, or would that just be trivia and gotcha point-scoring? In any case, Senator Obama is unlikely to raise it because he's no great shakes on the need to turn the U.S. from our path of arrogant militarism either. T.A. has more faith that Obama's 2002 speech reflects his future path than do I -- I trust more in his current policy pronouncements, which differ less from Senator Clinton's. But now she has put herself almost irrevocably ahead in the "bigger militarist" race.
John Mulvey, these threads have hardly been an echo chamber. To both you and "Oregon Democrat," the insults have flown fast and furious in both directions, both about the candidates themselves, and about their supporters, and claims by either side to have clean hands in that matter are simply ridiculous at this point.
And John, Obama is as substantive as Clinton is, and in both cases the substance is 3.2 beer, though better than McCain's sterno.
9:57 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
T.A.,
Is your child who's about to be deployed part of the big 3500 strong Oregon contingent scheduled to go out? Is that contingent visible anywhere on the "Oregon compact"?
My heart goes out to you and I will be hoping and wishing the best for him or her.
Are you in touch with Military Families Speak Out? They are a good resource for people with family members at risk who are opposed to the occupation & war -- you all bear a burden none of the rest of us do, and like veterans, people bearing that burden need to be able to talk to others who share the experience, I think. I can give you contacts if you like.
In any case, we'll all be hoping for the best.
10:05 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
T.A. -- sorry, I didn't see the second post where you identified your son as such.
Apr 25, '08
Believe me, I have nothing but respect for what you and your son are dealing with, and I respect that you’ve done an assessment of the candidates and decided that Obama is the one you’ll support. Every one of us has that right, including me.
I happen to be voting on the war myself, and I’m supporting Hillary Clinton because she has the requisite expertise to end it. Sorry, but I believe that Barack Obama will be in over his head.
I also believe that his status as darling of the left and a centrist will crash and burn when has to actually govern --and I don’t have the slightest doubt it will be the left that gets jettisoned when the time comes.
Despite what I’m told by the media, I don’t want a “change election.” It’s a pretty meaningless phrase, I think. What this ought to be is a competence election, given the various disasters our country’s in.
So, in the end your gut tells you not to trust Hillary Clinton. My gut tells me Obama is more typical than he would have you believe, that he is unlikely to pull off the sort of transformative political movement he’s promising, and that he will be, in a word, ineffectual.
For months, I’ve posted as respectfully as I could the reasons why I support Senator Clinton. I’ve rarely even mentioned Barack Obama. I’ve been called an asshole and a hypocrite. I’ve been told to “STFU.” I’ve been told I’m trying to destroy the Democratic Party. Well, frankly, the same to you all, times 100.
But consider where the audacity of hope has led: we now witness the spectacle of “progressives” arguing that a substantive public debate on issues specific to Oregon shouldn’t happen, and instead we’d prefer an election fought out by millions of ad dollars and slogans. The reason? Well, because apparently we don’t think honest debate is even possible anymore.
So far, Josh hasn’t indicated any particular preconditions by the Clinton campaign. If people here are frustrated with stupid questions by idiots from the major networks, let’s ask Josh to try to get a commitment to something else. Some people have suggested some ideas. Here's another: Why not let the City Club sponsor the debate, moderated by somebody local. Maybe not even a tv journalist, just somebody uncommitted. What about somebody like Randy Leonard? I suspect he wouldn’t go easy on either one of them. Let’s get real questions from Oregon voters. The national media could tap in, but it'd be a local event. People across the country would love to see such a thing, after all the bs they’ve been handed. And Oregon would (once again) be the coolest place in the country and everyone would know it.
Hey, let’s really show some audacity: let’s imagine we could submit questions.
Here’s what I’d ask the future President, if I could:
“Senators, under the current administration, we’ve seen a dramatic expansion in the use of executive privilege by the White House, to the extent that conversations by any executive officials are deemed secret. We’ve seen expansion of the use of signing statements, the effect of which is to give license to government officials to break the law. And by cloaking so much of their activities in greatly expanded interpretations of secrecy laws, this administration has essentially created a law unto itself, free of scrutiny by Congress or the public.
This has led directly to some of the most frightening constitutional abuses in our nation’s history, including politicization of the Justice Department and the apparent authorization of torture by our government, to name just two.
Senators, will you commit, as President, to reducing the scope of claims of executive privilege, eliminating the use of signing statements, and restoration of pre-Bush positions regarding the access by Congress and the public to information about the workings of the executive branch? Further will you commit to a public investigation of abuses in these areas by the current President?”
I’ve sure never heard a single candidate from either party address this issue, and I think they should.
John
10:08 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
"I don't know how much preparation it takes to put on a debate, especially since they have already put on over 30 in other states."
It all depends on how picky they want to be with rules, quite frankly a Santos-Vinick would be much appreciated in this primary.
As LT mentioned above, you need a moderator(s), a venue, and the candidates.
It's not like these candidates have all that many more contests to go grab up votes, after May 13th, OR, PR, MT, and SD are left. Are we going to see Obama and Clinton travel to Puerto Rico?
So why not?
Apr 25, '08
I know that kgw & katu both had very scientific polls (haha) on their websites asking "do you think the candidates should debate in Oregon?" and most responding said yes. My point is simply that I don't think the general public sees this thing the same way a lot of activists see it, I think they don't understand why Obama says no. I've talked to a lot of people outside of my circle of politcal friends who don't take any of this personally or find it emotionally upsetting in the least, and they're still undecided. Of course, I've been doing my best to sway them toward Clinton as I'm sure many of you have been trying to sway folks toward Obama. I also really think it would be pretty cool to see these two historical candidates debate in Oregon. If you don't want Obama to debate for whatever reason fine, but admit that it would be cool to see in our state?
10:13 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
Chris, yes he is. next March.
i hadn't paid any attention to the so-called "Compact." i don't recall Bill Clinton taking any real care of our troops even in peace time. the mistreatment of our forces and their families precedes this war by decades. and given that the real problem is that we're over there in the first place....
i have joined MFSO (i wear my shirt to the gym). i am working on a couple of projects with them, including one with a couple of members of the Constitution Party -- strange bedfellows indeed. but they are parents with a child who has already been over, and i'm one living in fear for what's to come. i'm trusting that as this year goes along, i'll find the support i need among families who can help me thru something they've lived (or are living) thru.
one thing i was too ignorant of, and that's stop-loss. i knew about it, knew it was a problem. until i met MFSO families, i had no idea it is as bad as it is. stop-loss may be legal, but it's an affront to the Constitution, or ideals of civil liberty, and to the brave men and women who dare sign up to serve their country in the first place. especially when it's being used by the chickenhawks in the White House.
please, if you're reading this and you know a family who is facing their loved one going away next year, show them support not just with good words but by working to get this illegal, immoral invasion ended and all our troops home. (and if you don't know anyone in that position, do it anyway.)
thanks again, Chris.
10:14 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
I'd like to see the debate here, too, for all the same reasons all the other townies got all gagga when their turn for the national stage came. We're human.
But it's a little rich that some folks here don't see the political context in which the Clinton offer resides. Obviously it has very little to do with (imagine gothic script here) Democracy. It's expedient politics, and we'd wonder if she'd gone soft if she weren't playing it.
If we're going to gripe about anything, how about the indecent delegate grab she's conducting in Michigan? I'd like Josh to mention that one.
Apr 25, '08
Having read Hillary Clintons 10 "Oregon" points, I can clearly see that an Oregonian wrote them. Not someone from Washington DC, not someone from New York State, but someone from right here in little old Oregon. Just too much nuance.
So, Josh, want to confess?
10:46 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
John, let me add this:
last September, when Obama made his first visit, i was invited to the pre-event event (?) where he addressed a group of folks who had donated $250 or so; i got in because of my organizing and writing. so he gave a brief mini-stump speech, and then he took questions. when i asked him about the war and told him of my fears for my son, he gave me his full attention. not fake attention; real attention. and his answer was not political. he talked about the young men & women he'd met who were serving in Iraq & Afghanistan and how amazed he was at the job they were doing under those circumstances. and finally, as he worked his way around the rope line shaking hands, he made sure he shook my hand. again he looked me in the eye, and it was not the look you get from a politician. i've had plenty of those. this was the look from a person who truly gave a damn and was going to do something.
you can think he's typical, but his background says otherwise. he did not go after the money or the big corporate gigs. he's spent his adult life finding ways to serve and help others. between his undeniable biography, the testimony of Illinoians (?) of all parties, and my own personal experience, i know he is the right person, not just to end this war but to start making the changes necessary to ensure we never again use war to make up for our diplomatic and political failures.
Hillary's experience? voted for a war & refuses to take responsibility for that vote. c'est tout, y'all.
Apr 25, '08
In September 2005, when over 1900 American kids had died in Iraq, my sister Lynn Bradach and Cindy Sheehan met with Hillary and Harry Reid in Hillary’s Senate office. Hillary told them:
“I feel your pain; I don’t want your kids to have died in vain; We had to take out Saddam Hussein”
[Now, we had just as well vote for John McCain; as Hillary]
She waited for American public opinion to come to overwhelming condemnation of the War (and in the meantime, a lot of kids died), before finally she called for an end to the War, coincident with her Presidential candidacy. She has never recanted her vote to give Bush the blank check. I now do not believe she will do what needs to be done to get us out of Iraq.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,fergusoncamp,68174,2.html
As reported by the Village Voice, in a September 20, 2005 article:
“It’s just a painful experience because of their loss,” Clinton said of her meeting with Sheehan, who was accompanied by her sister Dede and by Lynn Bradach, whose 21-year-old son, Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall, was killed clearing a minefield outside Karbala two years ago.
But Clinton added: “My bottom line is that I don’t want their sons to die in vain.”
<hr/>“But I happen to think that fighting for freedom is a noble cause. There are lots of things wrong with how Bush did it. I believe we should have gone through with the inspection process and acted through the UN. But I believe that standing up against someone as dangerous as Saddam was a good goal.”
Say I:
Invading a sovereign nation on a pretext will never, ever, ever be right.
It is not the America I believe in or hope for, and certainly violated International Law.
And, all those 4055 kids (including Marine Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall) are still dead.
Hillary bet wrong.
Apr 25, '08
Obama talks to voters as if they were intelligent adults--so he finds the debate format inadequate to the task of explaining his policy and position ideas.
Honestly, after 21 debates, does any voter really think that creaky old format is useful?
I watched the forum in PA where each candidate addressed issues of the intersection of faith and politics in the US. The each had 45 minutes, alone, with the same moderators and an informed audience that asked very interesting questions.
I learned more about both candidates from that forum than I'd learned from forcing myself to read their position papers.
If Oregonians want a true disucssion of issues specific or particularly relevant to the state, why not have a neutral party organize something like that?
The Clintons have latched onto this "gotcha" thing lately and its turning off supporters on both sides since it is so cynical.
Obama is never shy about doing sit down discourses especially with engaged audiences. Clinton is equally good in that setting.
The problem with debates, as defined by that sideshow in PA last week, is that NOTHING substantive is EVER discussed ina serious way, and no truly challenging questions get asked.
If you want real interface with candidates, and not some hyped up political gotcha game, where voters get 45 minutes of flag pins and guilt by association crap, and not ONE question on the environment...make the format something that appeals to both and is clearly apolitical.
Apr 25, '08
Josh does not respond to peons like us.
He drops in his little pr bits from time to time, and then leaves.
11:55 p.m.
Apr 25, '08
John Mulvey,
You haven't been told those things by me.
I absolutely and completely concur with the fine question you suggest being posed, and would support a discussion between the two candidates on that one question alone -- I'd rather have it called a discussion rather than a debate. It is one of my great disappointments about both of them that neither has taken a strong, clear, unequivocal stand on rolling back the Bushite assaults on the Constitution. Without such a stand, there will be institutional pressures on whomever is president to "defend executive prerogatives" even though they are illegitimate. In any case, it would be excellent to have them both pressed on the issue in enough depth that they couldn't get away with sound bites.
Apr 26, '08
Nick From Eugene:
The Clintons are going to take this thing all the way to the Convention, and it is really sad. I used to love them. Hillary moreso than Bill, but I was a big fan of each
Bob T:
A lot of people spent eight years telling guys like you that the Clintons were schmucks, but you wouldn't listen. Better late than never.
Bob Tiernan
Apr 26, '08
Bob, I think a more accurate version is: Alot of smucks spent 8 years telling us the clintons were bad people-and those smucks were right wing republicans, didn't listen then and not listening now. It's spring and the smell of fear is in the air, I say lets debate Oregon issues, and see how well both understand oregon and our issues, mark my words-obama will copy Hillarys programs and change a couple of minor things-and say see-there is very little differance between us-its happened since the first day i went to his website in the fall. He has adopted her posistion to tax corporations that take jobs out of the country-he changed his energy program to hers-he waits for her to state a posistion and plan and then adopts it as his own-I say go with the one who has the initiative to actually develope these programs rather than the one who copys-altho i give him credit for recognising a good idea when he sees it. Whats up with his standing in frount of a gas pump blaming the washington insiders for the gas prices-when he supported Cheneys energy bill and hillary voted against it. I guess it was just his lucky day they weren't filming that when i pulled up to get gas...
Apr 26, '08
Ron Wyden said this morning on KPOJ that there is "no way" this is going to the convention. The party will end it in June.
3:37 a.m.
Apr 26, '08
Chairman Dean has asked all the automatic delegates (also known as "super" delegates) to make their decisions as soon as possible. He understands that some want to see how their state votes or how the country votes. But with the last elections at the beginning of June, he wants them to make up their minds within a reasonable amount of time after the last elections in June 3.
He said the Party can't take dragging this out another 3 months.
I blogged about it earlier this month when he made that request.
Apr 26, '08
If you see Bill Clinton tomorrow, maybe you can ask him about this, from Terry McAuliffe's book:
5:38 a.m.
Apr 26, '08
The surge in newly registered Democratic voters in Oregon is mentioned in the 4/26 morning edition of the Oregonian. The story highlights the growing number of younger voters registering. Those younger voters have already had the opportunity to watch 20 debates..it seems they have made up their minds.
Another thing. Why would either candidate waste 2 days away from direct voter contact...a day of debate prep.....the day of the debate... then the spin on cable networks....defending the spin..correcting the spin...this late in the contest? The debate is a ploy to eat up Senator Obama's valuable time speaking directly to citizens.
Apr 26, '08
In December of 2007, Hillary had a lead of 107 super delegates over Barack.
As of today that number has fallen to only 23. .
source here
Apr 26, '08
Sandra Longley:
Whats up with his standing in frount of a gas pump blaming the washington insiders for the gas prices-when he supported Cheneys energy bill and hillary voted against it. I guess it was just his lucky day they weren't filming that when i pulled up to get gas...
Bob T:
Let's be honest about this complaining about high gas prices. I've been hearing for years that progressives (so-called) want to put a huge tax on each gallon of gas so that we'll be paying about five bucks or more like the Europeans do.
Bob Tiernan
9:11 a.m.
Apr 26, '08
Chris, i'm not sure what you've been listening to (or missing), but i have heard Obama saying he will be rolling back those attacks on the Constitution. here is his answer to a Philly reporter about the possibility that Bush Administration officials committed crimes regarding torture:
this is in regard to torture, not the full range of crimes. however, that he will immediately begin an investigation of the Bushies -- and since we know crimes were committed, we have to assume charges will be brought. will this mean the top-level criminals -- Cheney, Rice, Gonzales et al -- will be charged? i ain't holding my breath on that. but to hold the investigation and bring the most morally bankrupt aspects of this administration's crimes to the light will serve to demonstrate how very much things have changed.
and i know (quoteless at the moment am i) that he has repeatedly spoken of reviewing and removing all the many executive orders issued by Bush that serve only to undermine the Constitution. but since this is part of his stump speech and the details of his campaign, of course it gets ignored by the MSM because it's boring and doesn't let them show pictures of Rev Wright.
Apr 26, '08
Mulvey sez: "But consider where the audacity of hope has led: we now witness the spectacle of 'progressives' arguing that a substantive public debate on issues specific to Oregon shouldn’t happen, and instead we’d prefer an election fought out by millions of ad dollars and slogans. The reason? Well, because apparently we don’t think honest debate is even possible anymore.
"So far, Josh [Kardon] hasn’t indicated any particular preconditions by the Clinton campaign. If people here are frustrated with stupid questions by idiots from the major networks, let’s ask Josh to try to get a commitment to something else. Some people have suggested some ideas."
I'm sorry, Mr Mulvey, and BTW I will not join the people who you say are hurling abuse at you, but this logic is problematic. "Progressives" simply do not wish to see another absurd pseudo-debate featuring self-important bloviators asking gotcha questions about Bosnia and flag pins.
Honest debate is indeed possible. But within any sort of program that a national network is going to broadcast in 2008? Sadly, I do not think so.
And apropos those networks, whether or not Mr. Kardon and the Clinton campaign have preconditions about debate format seems frankly irrelevant. Please tell me how likely it is that a national network is going to broadcast a debate that is NOT moderated by one of their highly paid egomaniacal talking heads, and instead turn the affair over to rational people from the League of Women Voters or the City Club of Portland (as some people have suggested in this thread).
Apr 26, '08
Speaking of Hillary's shenanigans, let's not forget her failed attempt to completely divide the party. Eleanor Clift's piece in Newsweek sums it up:
I'm beginning to think Hillary Clinton might pull this off and wrestle the nomination away from Barack Obama. If she does, a lot of folks—including a huge chunk of the media—will join Bill Richardson (a.k.a. Judas) in the Deep Freeze. If the Clintons get back into the White House, it will be retribution time, like the Corleone family consolidating power in "The Godfather," where the watchword is, "It's business, not personal."
Notables who abandoned her for Obama will get the Big Chill. "He's dead to us," a Clinton aide was quoted saying of John Kerry, who along with Ted Kennedy was turned off by the perception of race baiting that led up to the South Carolina primary. A major donor, conflicted between the two candidates and apologetic over his backing of Obama, found Hillary less than sympathetic. "Too bad for you, because I'm going to win," she snapped.
Is that the type of person we want in the White House?
Apr 26, '08
Thanks for that Obama quote about investigations, T.A. Barnhart.
I have turned my energies from impeachment to electing Obama. I have hoped, from the edges of his speeches I have heard, that this was his attitude.
With him in the White House and a stronger Democratic Party presense in the Senate and House, we can plumb the crimes that launched the war and trashed the Constitution.
Apr 26, '08
Only a little more than a year ago Hillary still had part of her personal fortune invested in the war machine. I know you all can look that up! She is dangerous because she thinks she always has the right answer, yet she is often mistaken. Read that as wrong!
Apr 26, '08
At least Hillary Clinton and her supporters have conclusively disproven the claim that women have an inherently different voice we need to hear more in politics. In fact, she's played the race card and working class frustrations no different from a man to out-Rove Rove. Women and men have the same lust for power and are equally venal. Privileged women and men have always had the same disgusting, self-centered sense of entitlement, and will resort to the most gutter politics. That's the reality, get used to it.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters, regardless of whether they are men or women, have demonstrated they are truly odious people who have no place in the Democratic Party and deserve nothing but shaming and shunning. In the wake of the Bell verdict yesterday which demonstrates the race and class divisions in this country, we see exactly what kind of trash and bigots these people really are for their attempt to exploit these divisions. We also see that particularly low-class liberal/progressive NW style of bigotry that hides behind charades of "civility" when the DPO leadership does not step up and lead the DPO in denouncing Clinton as not representing what we stand for as Democrats.
Finally, it is the height of self-centered childishness that is so typical of a certain contingent here to think you in that contingent "deserve" a debate. If you're not clear on the previous points, and haven't told Clinton and her supporters they are not welcome in the Democratic Party precisely because their views and actions bring disgrace to the Democratic Party, you don't deserve anything.
11:53 a.m.
Apr 26, '08
T.A., Second to the thanks for the quote from John Bradach Sr. I'll look into this more because it will make a difference in the kind of enthusiasm with which I'll be able to talk about Obama in the general.
However, it would also be nice if he made some very broad statements of principle that would inform his policies. I.e. that the Bush doctrine of "signing statements" is wrong, unconstitutional and amounts to the executive legislating. I.e. similarly with the unconstitutional "military tribunals" that create an ersatz judicial branch within the executive, and make executive accusation tantamount to a finding of guilt. I.e. about the principle of habeas corpus.
Perhaps most especially I'd like more clarity on his views of war powers and whether terrorism should be treated exclusively in terms of war (despite the fact that the "enemy combatants" are held not to be real soldiers or prisoners of war by Bush et al.) or put back more on a judicial footing. This is particularly important since Obama's critique of Iraq is not simply that it's wrong but that he wants to shift resources to fighting in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda.
I genuinely don't know about these things, and it's not really about Obama personally. It's about the sociological reality that if an organization or section of one gains power, new incumbents to positions in the organization or section tend to see questions about the legitimacy of that power gain with a structural conflict of interest. And it's also about the Democrats extremely poor record in standing up to Bush on those things, and Obama's going along with the leadership overwhelmingly in those bad choices.
However, Hillary is no better and worse on some things, like anti-Iranian bellicosity.
Apr 26, '08
The highest ranking AA member of Congress, Rep. James Clyburn, has just given a veto thumbs down to Josh Kardon's Team Clinton Path to victory, a back-room Super D coups d'etat. This is significant. His audience here is the SDs and he is telling them that the Clinton path to the nomination of overturning the primary results of pledged delegates will cause a permanent splitting off of the most loyal electorate in the Dem. coalition.
Josh Kardon, and your henchmen, take notice: Today's WaPo-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042503707_pf.html
“If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party,” House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. “I’m telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable.”
12:29 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
it doesn't take much to find where Obama stands on these issues. from his comments accepting Sen Dodd's endorsement:
here is Obama on "signing statements" --
from the same Boston Globe article:
and that's just a quick look. he writes about the Constitution at length in "The Audacity of Hope". i think we'll see a return to constitutionality that's been missing since Andrew Jackson gave the Supreme Court the bird and enforced the removal of Cherokees.
Apr 26, '08
first of all, you have some facts wrong, and are misleading in some areas:
21 Democratic Senators voted against the Joint Authorization to use Force in Iraq, along with 1 Republican and 1 Independent. In case you are wondering, that is 42%. The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for this bill, including Sns. Biden, Kerry, Nelson, Feinstein, and Rockefeller. To be fair to Clinton, most of the American public was under the impression the war was a good idea too, and she delivered a speech on the Senate floor expressing strong skepticism of it but voted for it anyway.
She gave the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt, and was betrayed. That is her only error.
Obama has had chances for debates for months that he hasn't taken. This isn't a recent issue. He knows he is terrible at debates and thinking on his feet, which I find to be a worrying characteristic. I want a president that has a sharp, quick brain, personally.
12:49 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
fava bean:
the majority of Americans think "gay marriage" is wrong, too. the majority of Americans once thought Africans were sub-human. the majority of Americans think our gas is too expensive, totaly unaware that we pay less than most of the rest the world and they are funding this discount in many other ways (like the US military).
go read The Federalist Papers and understand why our Constitution protects against tyrannies of the majority and minority. and for gawdsake, try to at least be consistent: you want a president with a sharp brain (president of the Harvard Law Review and being singled out by Laurence Tribe as his best student ever isn't quite good enough) but Hillary going along with the crowd and being duped by Bush despite being skeptical... seriously? that's what you want us to know about (anonymous) you?
Apr 26, '08
Fava Bean, you can post facts all day but it won't sink in to people that are more "Hillary Hater" then they are "Obama Supporter".
Gotta run, going to check out President Clinton at an event in a few hours.
4:09 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
TA,
Thanks for the pullquotes from Obama re civil liberties and executive power. I've been a supporter but had not seen these unequivocal statements until you posted them.
Maybe one of Clinton's supporters can put up some info demonstrating her equally strong support for the rule of law and against executive abuses of power.
Apr 26, '08
fava bean snd BloodDana, I don't see you denouncing her race-baiting tactics, which I think makes clear why nothing you say deserves a response. Get out of the Democratic Party, if you even are Democrats, we don't need the votes of scum like you and we need to make that clear to the country so we can regain many times over the votes you take with you.
Apr 26, '08
To Bob T:
As the days go on and on in this campaign, your point about the Clintons represents, to coin the McGoofy Group on public television, "lurching uncontrollably into the truth."
Although, the one thing more despicable for me than some of the recent Clinton attacks and machinations were the attacks and machinations about tarmac haircuts, Vince Foster suicide conspiracy theories, impeachment hearings over sexual peccadilloes, over the Clinton presidency.
But, we can settle this question of which one was worse right here and now: I have the sinking, uncontrollable feeling that if either Clinton or Obama get elected, within the following months and years, we'll have endless calls for investigations into whether Obama has been wearing his flag pin (conducted, no doubt, by someone who forgot to wear his own flag pin on the TV interview); into possible allegations that Hillary is a bit tipsy from slamming all those shots on the campaign trail in IN; or into possible allegations that Barack Obama was in on a point-shaving scandal with all those pickup basketball games, all obviously fertile ground for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Will you have much of anything to say, Bob, when all this goes down? I won't be holding my breath.
Apr 26, '08
SeeYaa sez: "Get out of the Democratic Party, if you even are Democrats, we don't need the votes of scum like you and we need to make that clear to the country so we can regain many times over the votes you take with you." +++
That is the marching orders from many Obamaniacs. And from the polls I read that is gonna be the case. Up to 20% are being purged because of their bad Democrat beliefs. Only good Democrats need apply. The other bad 20% can stay home, or worse, stray from their old home (McCain?). Obama has supporters and voters to spare.
Apr 26, '08
The question of why Barack has not closed the deal is a laugh. Hillary is the one running around with a past president as a husband. The real question is why is she behind in delegates and states won? Why because Bill and Hillary have not run for office since the incidents that took place when they were last in the white house and while democrat have bad memories, republicans do not. They really really want Hillary to run. Her Baggage is ripe for the picking.
Barack has the organization and the supporters to win the white house. The only thing the Republicans got is Rev. Wright and a flag pin. Come on...the GOP is calling for Republicans to vote for Hillary...why? She is not a threat...Barack is. Don't be ignorant. Google Hillary and Bill and find out the truth. Choose someone with Charecter for the white house. We do have a choice. Barack never brought up Hillary's baggage. He has tried to focus on the issues that matter to ALL American's He is running for President of the US not just Oregon
Apr 26, '08
Hey Harry, you should have quoted the rest, but it's typical of zeros like you to misrepresent the point, so I'll quote the whole thing dirtbag. You're right this is about chasing trash like you, if you're registered as a Democrat, out of the Party:
I don't see you denouncing her race-baiting tactics, which I think makes clear why nothing you say deserves a response. Get out of the Democratic Party, if you even are Democrats, we don't need the votes of scum like you and we need to make that clear to the country so we can regain many times over the votes you take with you.
And by the way, you're also a moron for assuming I'm voting for Obama for any reason except for the fact he's not Clinton and he represents change in a way that is even more then he wants to represent.
Apr 26, '08
And for the ignoramuses that think the point is that Obama hasn't closed the deal yet. To any serious student of voting mathematics, the point is that Obama has been on a steady path to overtake and beat Clinton after she started out as the presumptive nominee. He cut what had been a 20% advantage for Clinton in PA to slightly less than 10%, which means the wind is at his back and she is losing altitude day by day. Those are the neutral facts, choke on them bigots who won't denounce Clinton for her race baiting and her disgusting Rovian tactic of playing on the frustrations of working people.
6:35 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
That is the marching orders from many Obamaniacs. And from the polls I read that is gonna be the case. Up to 20% are being purged because of their bad Democrat beliefs.
Actually, I hear this from a small number of people on both sides. The vast majority of us want to grow the Party and make it a more welcoming place to be. That's why I've participated in caucuses like the Faith Caucus and the Gun Owner's Caucus. And that's why I work to try to bring people into the Party (or back into the Party if they've left). I don't think we need to chase anyone away. We're all going to disagree on some issues, that doesn't make anyone any more or less of a Democrat than someone else.
8:04 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
absolutely "No!" to anyone telling another person to shut up, that they're not welcome, that they should leave the party -- anything at all like that. very very few Obama supporters feel that way, and certaily not this one.
all i'm asking for is consistency, decency and playing this thing out on the up-and-up. i don't think we've gotten much of that from HRC, and i don't think we need that crap in the party, but we won't change things by running people away: we'll change it by winning hearts, minds -- & elections.
go 'Bama.
Apr 26, '08
Please....no more debates. It's a ruse to arouse more controversy, confuse the issues, and serves only to show the nation how divided the Democratic party is. And it will only give the GOP more ammo when our candidate fights what should be the real and only battle.
I haven't seen a true debate at all during this season. The powers that be, and certainly the MSM, must think we are idiots.
Apr 26, '08
@Oregon Democrat,
Well said.
Apr 26, '08
He's been acting like he is the president now. A few days ago only reporters were invited could ask him a question. His advisor asked him to keep quiet after his bitter speech. That's why he is afraid to have another debate unless CNN or MSNBC host the debate.
Apr 26, '08
@Sharon de Pasquale,
Well said. I agree with you. Especially he has ads on tv, radio everyday. People do not really know their candidates issues might be mislead by promotions.
Apr 26, '08
Don't blame ABC for the last debate. He could not answer directly about the economic issue. That's how he failed on the debate. People in PA saw this issue and they doubted he can take care the economy problem. He said he can't lower the gas prices also. That's what people need the most right now. He favors the oil company rather than working class people.
He also canceled the NC debate even CBS was going to host it.
10:39 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
i love bb's drive-by commentary. slap down some semi-coherent phrases and zoooom....
all candidates do "availability" gigs. talk to just the press (i think that's the tag for it; can't be sure). happens frequently, especially on the campaign jets and buses. that's how "only" reporters get to ask question. Hillary and McNasty do the same.
and the idea that he wants CNN or MSNBC to host a debate is beyond laughable. i think he might go for the League of Women Voters (as Mary G suggested) or perhaps CSPAN. but any of the MSM or cable crews? those people have all done crap jobs. (ask Edwards or Kucinich et al, who got ignored regularly.)
but it's too late now. it was too late when she issued the challenge. hence the bogus nature of the offer.
Apr 26, '08
Obama won most of the caucuses’ states. So, it seems that he has good organization to bully people. Many of Obama supporters on this site are very quick to tell anybody who is not supporting him to go away. Why Obama attracting such mean spirited people? May be debate can show his personality a little bit more. By the way, here is interesting post about caucuses’ math: http://alessandromachi.blogspot.com/2008/04/deconstructing-barrack-obamas-caucus.html
11:06 p.m.
Apr 26, '08
Winning caucus states isn't about bullying people. It's about having supporters that are willing to show up for what could be hours of their time. It's about having the organization in the state to contact your supporters, ensure they have all the information they need, etc.
I get really tired of all this "attack the caucus states" stuff that comes from some of Senator Clinton's supporters (and has come from her own campaign on more than one occasion).
I lived in a state that had caucuses. I've attended three in my home state - one when I was 14 with my mom and then two ones I was old enough to vote. In 1996 I was the secretary of my caucus, in 2000 I was the chair. Both times I was elected as a county delegate and then later as a state delegate (competition for those few seats is very heavy).
I also attended a Washington caucus in 2004 as a volunteer.
It may be easy to attack caucuses because you don't understand them, think they're not fair, etc. But the fact is the people who participate in the caucuses are often times more dedicated than those who just vote. Caucuses can go on for hours (often times late at night on a weeknight or on an early Saturday morning), can be hectic, can be confusing, etc. It takes a lot of dedication to your candidate to show up at a caucus and fully participate in it. And it definitely takes a lot more dedication than sitting at home, filling out a ballot, and then mailing it in.
Apr 26, '08
The vast majority of us want to grow the Party and make it a more welcoming place to be.
absolutely "No!" to anyone telling another person to shut up, that they're not welcome, that they should leave the party
T.A. and Jenni your comments make it clear you're not very consequential people. Nonetheless:
There is a big difference between being inclusive, and condoning the race-baiting and Rovian tactics of appealing to the worst instincts in people we've seen from Clinton supporters, which is the opposite of inclusive. Those who do the latter have no place in the Democratic Party.
You are childish, and frankly a living sniveling example of what has become a party without any real principles over the last 20 years, if you lack the character integrity to tell these kind of people to either clean up their act now, or get the hell out because they aren't welcome and aren't needed.
People like me really are deciding whether losers like you now define the Democratic Party, and therefore whether we want to be associated with a pathetic party that doesn't stand up for honorable values without compromise. Do I make myself clear?
Apr 27, '08
So when I "get out" of the Democratic party do you think Howard Dean could cut me a check for all the money I've donated?
12:27 a.m.
Apr 27, '08
SYA:
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. There are plenty of people who say rude and hateful things in the middle of hotly contested campaigns. Am I going to tell them to go to hell and get out of my Party? Of course not. I can tell them they should clean up their act, that they make the Party and their candidate look bad, that their comments do nothing to forward the progressive agenda of our Party, etc. But it's not my place to tell them to get out of the Party, nor should it be. It's not black or white - it's not either you tell them to get out or you must agree.
I'm a firm believer in the freedom of speech and the freedom of someone to make a complete ass out of themselves. I don't have to agree or like what they say, but for me to tell them to get the hell out of the Democratic Party? Nope, sorry.
Apr 27, '08
Jenni, what makes you think it counts for anything if you disagree?
Some things cross the line. Race-baiting and using Rovian tactics to divisively play on the frustrations of working people who should be the Democratic Party's base are those things. Particularly in the face of the Bell decision in NYC where we are reminded once again just how fast and far this country is regressing.
It's obvious your comments, loaded as they are with 'I this' and 'I that' self-referential statements, really having nothing to do with defending the integrity of the Party by demanding that we stand up for the real values we claim to represent. Good luck with that, and to the DPO once utterly dismissable people like you are all that are left because the rest of us can no longer be associated with that self-indulgent lack of integrity.
So when I "get out" of the Democratic party do you think Howard Dean could cut me a check for all the money I've donated?
BloodDAnna: Typical of people like you to think of the Party as someone whose services you've bought. And how you want your money back when some of us say the Party needs to stand up and tell you to either clean up your act or take a hike if you are going to support and defend candidates who use race-baiting, Rovian tactics.
Of course, with comments by poor examples like Jenni, it's obvious why people like you who disgrace the Democratic Party (if you're even a Democrat) have that idea.
Apr 27, '08
Okay, this has now gone into stupid-cuckoo territory. The only way to make sense of SWA's posts is to assume he's talking about the Democratic Party of Burma, or the Democratic Party of Pakistan, or maybe just the Democratic Party that exists in SWA-sleepyland.
Here in the physical plane, in the Democratic Party of the United States, the simple legal fact is that anyone who says "I'm a Democrat," is a Democrat.
That means even conservatives. It probably means some total jerks. It might mean racists sometimes. It might even mean someone who supports a different candidate than you, or with whom you disagree.
SWA obviously doesn't realize this, and really, there's a lot he doesn't understand. For one, he has this fuzzy notion that at some point in the past, there were only left wingers in the party... Proof positive of a total disconnect from reality.
Anyways, I'm glad SWA decided to share. It raises the issue of what kind of party we should be, especially as we absorb many people who wouldn't have joined only a few years ago.
John
Apr 27, '08
John Mulvey: Thanks again for demonstrating just what kind of clowns and dirtbag jerks purport to speak for the the Party. You're obviously just a little too dense to grasp the difference whether someone can call themselves "D", and whether the Party in expressing the values of what makes us Democrats should express acceptance of people who call themselves "D" but engage in Rovian race-baiting and other tactics.
You're obviously also a little too ignorant to realize that imputing grand theories what someone else believes or knows about the history of the Democratic Party from statements about whether we should endorse these specific campaign tactics as examples of what we represent as Democrats, and what it means about today's Democratic Party and us if we do, just confirms what kind of losers the DPO has come to represent (if you are a Democrat). At this point, I'm really interested in what the leadership of the DPO has to say about what is going on in this race and the Party.
From my perspective as a "D" whose heard nothing from them remotely resembling moral or political leadership (and they have my mailing address they use whenever they want to spout airheaded NW platitudes), they have been lazy, cowering zeros.
Apr 27, '08
Wikiwiki:
As the days go on and on in this campaign, your point about the Clintons represents, to coin the McGoofy Group on public television, "lurching uncontrollably into the truth."
Bob T:
I was there very early on -- where were you?
Wikiwiki:
Although, the one thing more despicable for me than some of the recent Clinton attacks and machinations were the attacks and machinations about tarmac haircuts, Vince Foster suicide conspiracy theories, impeachment hearings over sexual peccadilloes, over the Clinton presidency.
Bob T:
I agree that all of the above were not examples of what the Clintons are all about (themselves, power, etc). But keep in mind that had there been a Foster-like incident inside the Bush White House you guys would be having a field day for years over that. As for the Monica thing, the Democratic Party loyalists should hold that against Clinton because by allowing himself to get caught in that situation weakened his presidentcy and thus his ability to get some more things done in the last few years of his administration. You will say that the Repubs are the ones who weakened it, but the fact remains that Clinton and anyone with half-a-brain knew ahead of time what either party would do to an opposition president in that situation. Clinton could not think too far ahead, such as, "Is Monica wired? Will she run off and give details of this to the Republicans or a reporter?". As we all know, she blabbed to someone who was no longer friendly with Clinton and the phone call was recorded. That was incredibly stupid on Clinton's part, and reckless. Or the info could have been used to blackmail him into signing a Republican bill he really hated, had Monica had other ties.
Defending Clinton's right to drop his pants for anyone is one thing, but recognizing the political problems it could bring requires seeing beyond that two-dimensional outlook.
Wikiwiki:
But, we can settle this question of which one was worse right here and now: I have the sinking, uncontrollable feeling that if either Clinton or Obama get elected, within the following months and years, we'll have endless calls for investigations into whether Obama has been wearing his flag pin (conducted, no doubt, by someone who forgot to wear his own flag pin on the TV interview); into possible allegations that Hillary is a bit tipsy from slamming all those shots on the campaign trail in IN; or into possible allegations that Barack Obama was in on a point-shaving scandal with all those pickup basketball games, all obviously fertile ground for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Will you have much of anything to say, Bob, when all this goes down? I won't be holding my breath.
Bob T:
On those matters? Nope. That was a pretty stupid list. No one will be investigated over such matters, let along call for such investigations. Are you the best Blue Oregon can come up with to reply to me? No wonder you've been fooled by a cardboard cut-out.
Bob Tiernan
11:35 a.m.
Apr 27, '08
T.A.,
Thanks for the quotes. Serious question, what was your search strategy to find them? I need my coffee so maybe I'm being unusually dense, and after I'm done here I will go do my own experimenting, but wouldn't mind a tip.
The signing statement quote is really excellent. Torture and habeas corpus looks good too.
This one:
is also excellent on the specific issue of detention of citizens. But it would be nice to have a clearer view of what he thinks about "commander-in-chief" claims more generally, to have a statement concerning them comparable to the fine one about signing statements.
Because I haven't see that, (will look further) I am much less happy about "balancing" security and liberty. To me, the liberty is what needs securing. Bush's "they hate us for our values" justifying his power grabs and constitutional attacks is another version of "to save the village we had to burn it." "Balancing" is also a weasel word, as balance can occur with very different weightings and resulting orientations.
As with Ron Wyden, I am not much impressed on the telecom immunity issue. That seems to me to be a shell game about avoiding the fact the Wyden and Obama are voting to allow the same activities and immunity going forward for the telecoms. He needs to oppose warrantless wiretapping entirely.
This bit also is concerning:
Apr 27, '08
It appears SYA is one of the "new" Democrats we hear so much about in the news. I'm curious to see how this all plays out for the party actually, since I don't recall seeing so much hate and anger within the party before this election.
12:35 a.m.
Apr 28, '08
BDA -- I take it then you weren't around for a lot of Bill C.'s triangulations and the attacks by the DLC (which he helped to launch) on other Democrats. At least some of the stuff coming Hillary's way is not "new" Democrats at all, but her facing reactions to that. How fair that is I don't know, except of course that if she wants to claim credit for things some people liked about Bill C's presidency she's bound to get blame for things others didn't like.
The most hateful stuff I've seen aimed a Clinton, though, the really misogynist stuff, has come either from the media (esp. pre-New Hampshire) or Republicans. Obama hasn't faced the same directly from the media, though some of the stuff inflected through the Rev'd Wright was nasty enough. Again the Rs circulate really scurrilous things.
Enough Hillary supporters say they feel hated by a section of Obama supporters that I've got to believe the feeling is real. But from where I sit it is equally or more true that there is a significant chunk of Hillary people who are willing to be really vicious. Sandra Longley here on BO was retailing some truly hateful Muslim-bashing & smearing stuff.
Not having a strong attachment to either candidate, it strikes me that the profound loyalties each inspires in many followers become tainted and poisoned in a proportion of cases, though not all or a majority; but that the tendency of the other side is to take the worst cases as a) typical and b) representing the "real" opposing campaign. To me both cults of personality are a problem.
I take it you don't agree with Katy, who in supporting the call for debates claims for Hillary a share of bringing new people into the DP. Well, that's good, maybe will dispel myths of lockstep thinking.
12:39 a.m.
Apr 28, '08
Oh, I should say though that while I used to plan to abstain in the primary, Clinton has pushed me into voting for Obama with her incredibly irresponsible willingness to threaten nuclear genocide against the whole nation of Iran.
Apr 28, '08
Chris Lowe:
Clinton has pushed me into voting for Obama with her incredibly irresponsible willingness to threaten nuclear genocide against the whole nation of Iran.
Bob T:
Hmmm, I've seen references to this comment by Hillary but not the exact quote -- I'd like to see it. If she said that then it was really stupid and revealing (tho' I doubt she used the word "genocide", an term overused by the left).
But wait, does this sentiment of yours also mean that you would vehemently oppose Iran if that nation's leaders show an "incredibly irresponsible willingness to threaten nuclear genocide against the whole nation of" Israel. Or would that just be seen by you as "fighting back"?
Bob Tiernan
Apr 28, '08
The Iran comment is derived from a question she answered during the PA debate. The way it has been regurgitated is not exactly what she said or in the context of how she said it. It would be nice if people actually researched their facts before they start parroting them.
10:42 a.m.
Apr 29, '08
Damn it, TypePad ate my homework.
Seriously, somehow a comment that looke like it went up last night didn't, probably my groggy fault this time.
BDA, I have researched my facts, with the help of a fine BlueOregon column by Steve Petegorsky on the subject of Hillary Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran. Steve includes a Reuters link reporting the context.
The context was that she was asked on Good Morning America what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, to which she answered that "we would attack Iran," and "we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Interestingly, Reuters provided not just the immediate context of the Good Morning America question about what she would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, with her "totally obliterate them" answer. They also gave the the context of a less inflammatory response she gave to the same qusetion a week earlier -- "massive retaliation."
Here is part of what I wrote over at Steve's column:
But Hillary did not give a sober, nuanced response. She answered a hysterical question based on a farfetched premise (Iran has no nuclear weapons nor any near-term prospect of acquiring them) with an outrageous answer threatening nuclear genocide.
Bob T., if you don't think that "totally obliterating" another nation inherently constitutes genocide and would be a massive crime against humanity we have no prospect of a meeting of the minds.
BDA, some months ago Hillary Clinton criticized as reckless Barack Obama for expressing willingness to send incursions into Pakistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces without the Pakistani government's knowledge or consent. She had a point.
But if that is the standard of recklessness, Hillary's expressed willingness to "totally obliterate" a nation of 60-70 million people has not just broken the recklessness meter, it has vaporized it. She has definitively answered for me her earlier question about who do you want with your finger on the red button at 3 a.m., and it is not the candidate who threatens to nuke other countries.
Clinton's judgment is untrustworthy and her moral compass in foreign and military policy broken beyond redemption.
Apr 29, '08
Bob Tiernan,
Your post about nuclear genocide ignores the facts. The US carries nuclear weapons on its ships off the Middle East. Our ally Israel has nuclear weapons - though they comically continue to deny it. Our ally Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. In the region, Israel's military is the only one that has attacked it's neighbors [Lebanon and Syria] in recent years. All this fear mongering about Iran is a murderous game. It is analogous to the playground bully complaining, "he made me hit him."
12:08 p.m.
Apr 29, '08
What Tom said.
Especially this: "All this fear mongering about Iran is a murderous game."
Bob, I'll criticize anyone who threatens to obliterate another country.
But I'll also take most seriously such threats by the largest nuclear weapons power, one which refuses to hold itself to the same standards it holds others and has asserted (falsely) to violate international law against military aggression -- the fundamental principle of collective security on which the U.N.-centered international system is built -- against torture, against treatment of prisoners and so on. That would be us.
Hillary's threat is not yet an official one by the U.S. I will be voting to see that it stays that way.