posted
kmboots, to the extent that your comments relate to the circumstances under which Matthews asked the question, I have no comment. My comments have only been about the substance of the question, specifically the idea that legislative accomplishments can and should be identified for legislators running for president.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's your point, Ic? There was a miscommunication on the prior page where Rakeesh said something about Michelle Obama, then repeated the essence of McCain's statement without naming her. P.S. Aw crap, make that two pages ago. Anyway, I believe any perception that Rakeesh was criticizing Obama rather than McCain was a miscommunication. Deconstructing it seems kind of weird at this point.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Texas is open. When I first moved here, I was very confused at voter registration, because before I was in a closed state. When I asked about party affiliation, the woman helping me register looked at me like I was nuts. I don't see why people in closed states register independent. It seems like that just makes them ineligible to vote in any primary.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I was checking wikipedia for an answer to that. Ohio is open to registered Dems and Independants. Texas is a little confusing, but it seems to be essentially open, like they're saying "You have to be a member of the party to participate, but all it takes to be considered a member of the party is the act of voting in the primary." So in terms of whether or not people who are considered Republicans today can vote in the Democratic primary on the 4th, I'm pretty sure it's a Yes.
posted
They do it because they like to think of themselves as independent, and they didn't know the rules because their primaries have never mattered before.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think it is a fair question to be asked of a candidate or a candidate's surrogate. I think that it is an important thing to know about a candidate.
I think that the circumstances under which it was asked - an interview that was "supposed" to be about something else, giving the impression that it should be a simple question to answer, putting the unprepared surrogate on the spot in the way that it was done, and only doing this to one of the surrogates - was unfair and gave an untrue impression.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama wins the Democrats Abroad vote. This is for American citizens curretnly living outside the country. They get 22 delegates (14 pledged, 8 super) with 1/2 vote each.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. When he wasn't being put on the spot by Chris Matthews pounding him with, "Name one! Can't you name even one?" over and over again on live television. Goodness. I am good at speaking extemporaneously and I'm not sure I could have remembered my name in that situation. It was a "deer in the headlights" moment and designed to be. Chris Matthews was not trying to get a fair answer to the question of what Obama has accomplished - and he admitted that - he was playing gotcha.
Did you watch the same video I did? Matthews didn't start pounding at him until after he failed to mention even one accomplishment. First he asked him, in a completely normal and natural tone of voice, what some of those "accomplishments" might be. When the guy came up blank, he said, "Okay, just name one." When he couldn't do that, Matthews started hammering him. Quite appropriately, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the actual interview live. Did you read either his apology or any of the articles linked?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All that exchange with Chris Matthews proved was that the Obama surrogate was not adequately prepared with basic information about the candidate. We probably will not see him again speaking for Obama.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the circumstances under which it was asked - an interview that was "supposed" to be about something else, giving the impression that it should be a simple question to answer, putting the unprepared surrogate on the spot in the way that it was done, and only doing this to one of the surrogates - was unfair and gave an untrue impression.
kmbboots,
I also watched this live and I was struck by the exchange between Matthews and Olbermann after the interview.
Unfortunately, the only place I've found a transcript is on a conservative media watchdog group - but I guess there really aren't any truly unbiased "watchdog" groups out there.
quote:OLBERMANN: In defense of Senator Obama, and also in context, can you name one accomplishment of the United States Senate in the last seven years?
MATTHEWS: That's a broader question requiring a larger preparation.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, you don't have an answer to that, either.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: But, let me say-but, you know what, Keith? They should be able to make some points, here.
OLBERMANN: I'm not disagreeing with you on that.
In two weeks...
MATTHEWS: But I'm not here to defend the U.S. Senate. He's here to defend Barack Obama and he had nothing in his-well, he had nothing to say.
That's a problem.
OLBERMANN: In two weeks, Chris and I will have complete coverage of the primaries in Ohio and Texas, at which I'm expecting a written reply to my question.
MATTHEWS: Why do you think they call it HARDBALL?
OLBERMANN: But this isn't HARDBALL, we're doing the election results.
Olbermann gets way over the top sometimes in his commentaries, but he generally plays it pretty straight when he's doing a gig like election returns.
In case it doesn't come across in the transcript, I don't think Olbermann was very pleased with the aggressive grandstanding by Matthews.
posted
That's basically Chris Matthew's thing, though, isn't it? My impression of him is that he is not big on getting to the actual truth of things as much as just putting pressure on people.
Sometimes this can actually get to information that people didn't really want to reveal, but a lot of the time, you're just adding completely unnecessary complications.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. And if the surrogate (I really should find out his name*) were going on Hardball he should have been expecting it. This was just a post election "reaction" interview. Generally these are along the lines of, "So how does candidate A feel about winning/losing election X? What are his/her plans on moving forward? Do you think they need to change strategy?" I fact, if I recall correctly, that was pretty much what they asked the Clinton surrogate.
It would have been smart of the Obama guy to be more prepared, but it is not at all surprising that he didn't have this information on the tip of his tongue.
I bet everybody does now, though. Heck, they could interview me at this point!
edit to add: It would not surprise me if Matthews was trying to deflect some of the criticism from the Clinton campaign that he has been harder on Clinton and giving Obama a pass.
*Texas State Senator Kirk Watson. Now I know.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Chris Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Bill O'Reilly when it comes to journalistic quality, even when both are being provocative.
That's an interesting point. Depending on how the Obama camp handles this, it could turn out to benefit his campaign. If they can drop the sort of information that was brought up in the other thread and in Kirk Watson's apology, it could make the people attacking them on it look bad or foolish.
Could you imagine Kirk Watson going on Hardball in a week or so and talking for about 5 BS-free minutes of things that Barack Obama has accomplished?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I meant everybody the campaign was likely to send out, but come to think of it, I bet most of us know more than we did before it happened. And we are not the only people talking about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Chris Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Bill O'Reilly when it comes to journalistic quality, even when both are being provocative.
Just another reason why Fox has greater ratings than all the other cable news networks combined.
That's hysterical.
Is this the same Bill O'Reilly that said:
quote:"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
Tell me how it's responsible journalism to use the words "lynching party" on anyone, but especially a black person, given the special history of association that word has with the black community? Tell me all about the journalistic quality involved with thinking it's okay to suggest attacking someone because they don't think America is perfect?
And this comes a week after President Bush said using that word was harmful and offensive. I eagerly await your reply.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It most certainly is OK to challenge someone who says she was never proud of her country in all her adult life, until now.
So now you want to lynch O'Reilly, alleging he used a "code word." But he said he did NOT want to go on a lynching party. If anything, he was accusing those who might be gearing up to go after her as participating in a lynching party, which would be a criticism of them, not of her.
It is irritating how the PC mentality is used more and more to set aside the constitutional right to freedom of speech. It really seems to be a political tool for harassing people who take liberals to task for their schizoid world view that leads them to diss America at every turn.
Abraham Lincoln is supposed to have said something to the effect that any U.S. office-holder who says things that gives aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war should be hung. Maybe that's the lynching party we need to have.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
(Commenting on reactions to Michell Obama's "pride" comment)
quote: That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down. (emphasis added)
quote:"The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest," Bush said.
"As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive," the president added. "They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."
posted
This nonsense about O'Reilly's use of the word "lynch" is silly. Get back to work, you slackers! Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you'd feel very comforted, Ron, if someone reassured you that he did not want to key your car, unless there was a good reason.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the New York Times, which ran that smear article on McCain (and is being roundly condemned for it on every hand), ENDORSED McCain as Republican candidate for president on Feb. 5.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Looks like Lyrhawn had the same great thoughts and types much faster than I do.
You took the time to look up the Bush quote. I'd say we're even.
Ron -
It's about as PC as not using the N word, which even in a civil discussion without any animosity I still won't say. That could open a broader discussion about who gives power to words by refusing to use them and by owning them, but I don't really want to get into it. The point is that people find it highly offensive, and I respect them enough not to say it. Lynching was a tool of terror Ron. Of terror. It was used selectively on a few in order to terrorize the whole. You who thinks Democrats are insane because they don't think America is and always was the best it could be are okay with a Republicam demagouge who is on your side using a tool of terror, the same tool used by those you think are our greatest enemy, against an American citizen?
Explain that away. Michelle Obama has already further explained how she feels on the subject and what she felt she neglected to add earlier, so guessing her feelings is a moot point, or it's being outright dishonest in the wake of her explanation. You can say whatever you want Ron, you have the right. But as many have pointed out in other discussions on free speech, your words have consequences far beyond your legal right to say them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not like "lynch" actually described anything literal either. It was a metaphor he selected. I won't go so far as to claim he selected it deliberately, I'm sure it just popped out of his subconscious, though I'm rather disaffected that he won't apologize. I mean, I don't really know that much about O'Reilly, but my general impression of him is not positive.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I won't go so far as to claim he selected it deliberately, I'm sure it just popped out of his subconscious,
Honesly, I'm not sure that it wasn't consciously chosen for it's connotations of something that was done to "uppity" blacks when they "forgot their place" by doing things like trying to vote.
Not that I think that Bill O'Reilly is racist himself, but I could definitely see him trying to stir up the racism in some of the people who listen/watch him.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See? Squicky does not think he's a racist himself, Ron. He's defending the guy! (p.s. this is attempting to be a rhetorical device)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Below are some comments from Eugene Robinson, a columnist for the Washington Post. I saw this exchange between him and Olbermann as it happened and was struck by how obviously angry Robinson was - I don't think I've ever seen him that way. And for those of you who aren't familiar with Robinson - yeah, he's African-American.
quote:OLBERMANN: Let's go now to Eugene Robinson, political analyst for MSNBC and both columnist and associate editor at The Washington Post. Thanks for staying with us, Gene.
ROBINSON: Good to be here, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I'm sorry it's under these circumstances.
ROBINSON: As am I. As am I.
OLBERMANN: Can you convey what Mr. Bush apparently failed to get through to everybody, some sense of the obscenity, the moral obscenity, involved in a national discussion of whether to launch a lynching party against the black woman married to the black man running for president?
ROBINSON: I think you've kind of said it, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
ROBINSON: That's the offense. You know what lynching was. Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.
It wasn't -- the idea of course wasn't to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you -- that you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.
There's nothing funny about lynching. There's certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama, and the word "unless," followed by "[w]e'll track it down," is way beyond the pale. It's -- I'm almost speechless, but I have more to say, of course.
OLBERMANN: As we both do. And you're right, this is about disenfranchising people. It wasn't just about killing people. The rest were disenfranchised, and people were essentially told black people will not take office. There will not be people in government. There will not be --
ROBINSON: Of course not.
OLBERMANN: -- there will not be dog catchers.
ROBINSON: You will not vote. You will not --
OLBERMANN: Right.
ROBINSON: You will not own property that we don't want you to own.
OLBERMANN: You will not do anything. How many incidents like this does it take? And the Sylvia's restaurant story and "more iced tea, m-fer" now seems to lose all but one of its interpretations. How many of these stories does it take before a fair observer concludes this man is not color blind, he is not reckless with language, he has that insidious kind of low-grade prejudice that we see in ordinary American society still, low-grade prejudice against black people?
ROBINSON: Well, this is enough for me, now. But here's what's going to happen. You know, by tomorrow morning, some defender will come out and say, "I know Bill O'Reilly and he's no racist." And my response is: I don't care. How can anyone know what's in his heart, what's in his soul? That is irrelevant to me. All you can go by is his words and his actions. And he keeps saying these things that sound pretty darn racist to me.
posted
I understand Reilly's motivation now. He doesn't care about stirring up his racist listeners. He wants to make prominent black people defensive.
Obama didn't want his race to be an issue in this election.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bill O'Reilly saying that we should lynch Michelle Obama if there are hard facts isn't making people defensive. It's royally pissing them off and they've got every right to their anger. I think this brings up the bigotry of a certain section of the Republicans/conservative a lot more than it does Barack Obama's race.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who are defensive very often have a right to feel that way. I didn't choose that word to try and offend anyone.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think defensive means, pooka? It doesn't sound to me like we are using the same definition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is irritating how the PC mentality is used more and more to set aside the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
...
Abraham Lincoln is supposed to have said something to the effect that any U.S. office-holder who says things that gives aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war should be hung. Maybe that's the lynching party we need to have.
How do you rationalize the powerful cognitive dissonance here?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I consider someone who is unjustifiably angry to be umbrageous.
P.S. To me, defensiveness is not about whether anger is justified, but how productive expressing that anger is at the moment. I don't think Romney or Giuliani were unjustified in their remarks at the YouTube debate, but they did hurt themselves with the way they conducted their remarks.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It strikes me that there is plenty of questionable behavior in lots of the media right now. I haven't seen the breaking news from last night discussed and this seems like the appropriate thread.
Last night, the NY Times posted a story (it's in today's paper) containing poorly sourced allegations of a possible improper relationship between John McCain and a female lobbyist.
I'm not a big fan of McCain and will almost certainly vote for Obama or Clinton in the national election, but the story looks like a real piece of crap. The good news for McCain is that this piece is actually generating some outrage on behalf from the conservative base of his party.
quote:WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
posted
Yeah, Glenn Beck was actually (kind of, sort of) defending McCain today. I think Glenn Beck is a nutjob* by the way, it's just the most palatable method I have for keeping an eye on Crazy Town, as someone dubbed it.
*mostly on the subject of immigration
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, To me, defensiveness implies that the person feels a need to defend themselves against something they might be seen as being wrong for. That is not the case here.
They are angry but they do not appear in any way defensive to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the sportscaster said that people would have to gang up and lynch Tiger Woods if they ever wanted a chance to win, I thought that the outrage over the comment was unfair. I also didn't like the outrage when a politician called a highway project a giant tarbaby. So, I am usually on the other side of this issue. But in this case, there has been fear, esp in the African American community, that some racist will decide to harm the Obama family. And most Americans have agreed that there are crazy racists out there that probably will plot against him. With that background, using a term for a racially motivated killing is highly insensitive and inappropriate. I am not ready to say we can never say lynch again, but I think this usage was wrong.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It most certainly is OK to challenge someone who says she was never proud of her country in all her adult life, until now.
Michelle Obama's not much older than I am. When in my adult life have we elected a president who should have made me proud of my country's choice?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, when have I ever sprung any traps? Is asking questions to probe your meaning, one at a time, automatically a trap to you? I'm just trying to understand your stance, because I don't. And there was no point in asking my second question before I knew the answer to my first one. Specifically, I first thought you had misunderstood the context of McCain's statement, and thought that it was just a random statement of pride in her country. Then I saw that you were aware that it was a response, and I could not understand why you won't stand for Rakeesh maligning either Obama or McCain, but you seem to be okay with McCain maligning Obama. Therefore, my second question, logically, was do you see it as intended to malign Obama, or do you see it some other way?
Really, why is it too much to ask for you to just answer questions as they come? Have I put words in your mouth? On the contrary, I have taken great pains to ascertain your position before responding to it. I have no rhetorical traps, and I have no reputation for misbehavior on Hatrack.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
February 20th - Hillary Clinton 50%, Barack Obama 43%, No Opinion 6%, None of These 1%, Other 1%
Source for that one is the Washington Post/ABC News. Plus/minus of four. It's a virtual tie in Ohio now.
Pennsylvania
February 18th - Hillary Clinton 44%, Barack Obama 32%, Other 4%, Undecided 20%
I can't remember if I posted this poll or not for Pennsylvania the other day when I did the polls for the 18th. She might be ahead by 12 points, but with a plus minus of five and 20% undecided, the poll is useless. It's anyone's game there.
I have four different polls for Texas (which is apparently more important than Ohio if the attention paid to it is any indication).
Texas -
February 20th -
Hillary Clinton 50%, Barack Obama 45%, Other 2%, Undecided 3% Hillary Clinton 46%, Barack Obama 45%, Undecided 9% Hillary Clinton 47%, Barack Obama 44%, Undecided 9% Hillary Clinton 48%, Barack Obama 47%, No Opinion 3%, None of These 1%, Other 1%
It's a tie, with a slight, razor thin edge maybe for Clinton. But too many undecideds for it to mean anything. This will come down to people who make up their minds on election day, and even if it's a tie, funky rules might give Obama an edge, plus the caucus at the end of the day that tends to favor him, I think that really we could say he's in the lead there now.
I don't want to say it, because I'm generally pretty reserved about it but, I think Clinton is done. Momentum is going against her, she's not going to smoke him in Ohio and Texas, and superdelegates are going to peel away and demand that she drop out for the sake of the party. She won't be able to afford PA anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went to YouTube to look up this supposed plagiarism, and ran across Lou Dobbs's take on it . . he said something to the effect that Obama and this other guy might want to reconsider the stance that "We hold these truths . . . " "We have nothing to fear . . . " "Ask not . . ." "I have a dream . . . " etc. are all just words, because a lot of blood and sacrifice were represented by those words and blah blah blah blah.
Holy crap, is that what passes for educated political commentary these days?!
Way to totally miss the point of the speech(es)!! Their point was that these were not just words, and that words were not meaningless!
I'm just flabbergasted.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not quite sure what the plagiarism problem is. Should people not take chances on their aspirations? Why does it matter who says it first? The truth doesn't go out of style.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Most of her attacks on Obama in the debate tonight were thin. Obama didn't really seem to spend any time attacking her, other than drawing some contrasts about electability in the fall, but mostly I think he spent his time outlining his positions and defending himself from her rather poor attacks. I actually think he was trying to debate, scoring debate points, rather than attack points. It was nice.
In the end though, I think this was a stalemate. I think Obama made her look silly for trying to attack him for just making speeches, clearly I think he's turned that argument on its head by now. And I thought she did a decent job of...well, I guess keeping her status quo out there. I don't think this debate did anything for her, and it might not have done anything for him either. She was looking for him to make a major gaffe, and he didn't. And I think he was looking to land some sort of knockout punch, which he didn't, especially in the end moments of the debate, where she had her best delivery. We'll see how Tuesday goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
