On second thought, that might be a bit broad. How about this? One of Hillary Clinton’s advisers called Barrack Obama “Ken Starr” for wanting Hillary Clinton to release her financial documents, which iirc she said she was going to release in one of the debates when she had the time. Comparing Ken Starr to a monster might be a bit over the top but it’s similar in terms of associate name calling.
If you’re going to try to play the “Oh yeah, well, she’s even worse!” game, in some vague hope that you can win it in some fashion, do at least *try * to be factual, will you? Wolfson said:
That was in response to Obama’s own statement that
and the little bit of mud-by-implication from his campaign about demanding she disclose her tax returns.
Now, how about that judgment issue? Are you happy about someone who’d pick for the role of prospective SecState, the country’s chief diplomat, someone who so easily and cartoonishly demonizes someone with whom she essentially agrees on the major issues?
Right. He’s “different”. *Above * traditional politics. Make me laugh some more - I could use it.
Well, the War of the Austrian Succession. But I agree with Brooks…the more he attacks Clinton, the more he’ll alienate a lot of his supporters.
Not what I was trying to do at all. You attempted to impeach his judgement using the actions of one of his advisors. I responded using both examples of Hillary’s own judgements and those of her surrogates.
Right. Thanks for the clarification. Of course, saying that Obama is imitating Ken Starr when Hillary herself said that she intended to release the tax forms is a bit comical, isn’t it?
I already covered this and you haven’t answered. Do you think that Obama bringing in an advisor who refers to someone as a monster is a bigger lapse in judgement than Hillary skimming laughable intelligence reports before going to war. Simply question so I expect a simple answer. Yes or no please. No rolleyes needed.
You know what’s really funny. Obama didn’t actually call anyone a monster (except for the boogieman when he was eight). Even funnier is that he apologized and fired the person who said it. Hilarity. 
Yep, Brooks has it right. Here’s a fine example already.
That’s not an answer. You’ve avoided answering the direct question twice now.
Surely he’ll answer it forthwith. It’s a good thing I don’t judge politicians based on the behavior of their supporters.
Judgment doesn’t mean that you predict everything absolutely. Judgment is inherent in how you respond to a situation. Obama asked for the resignation of the person in his campaign who screwed up. Clinton has not done so.
Daniel
By discussing only degree, rather than nature, you’ve already conceded the basis of the discussion - just as Brooks described.
But okay, then, since you think it matters … a single decision based on political calculation with no realistic alternative for the person who had to make it is *not * worse than a choice of a person as a highest-level senior staffer whose own demonstrated bad judgment, and irresponsible statements, would have effects and repercussions every single day of her tenure.
Now, what do you hope to accomplish with this approach?
Does it not at all matter to you that he fired her immediately? If he had covered for her after the remark, I believe that yes, I’d probably think less of him than I do. But he didn’t. But that doesn’t seem to matter to you. Why?
He didn’t really have a choice once it became public, did he? Why does he get credit for that?
Now, how many other times before this has she said the same sort of thing in private, in his presence even, without consequence and perhaps even with his approval?
Does it matter to you that he chose such a person as one of his highest-level advisers in the first place? Why not?
You too are discussing merely degree rather than kind at this point.
Again, not at all. You used the actions of a surrogate to impeach the judgement of a candidate. That’s a stretch at best and one that cuts both ways. There are instances of similar name calling and worse from Clinton staffers.
No realistic alternative? I’d like to know what you mean by this since, given her position as a senator of New York, a vote against the war would’ve been at least a powerful statement.
I wanted to see if you would apply the same standard to Hillary Clinton as you are to Barrack Obama. Clearly you’re not. To think that Obama’s not knowing that an advisor would, later in the campaign, refer to his opponent as a monster is a bigger lapse in judgement than not reading shaky intelligence reports on a war that some (including Barrack Obama) knew was going to be a disaster and voting for that war borders on ridiculous. To not even recognize that the standard also applies to Hillary Clinton and her staffers (muslim email, Ken Starr) is laughable.
Can’t win can he? If he keeps her on, he’s endorsing the comment and if he fires her, he’s just doing it so the public doesn’t know that he’s secretly endorsing it.
Pure speculation. That’s not an argument. It’s a fantasy.
No
I honestly don’t expect either candidate to be able to predict or control every word out of the mouths of their staff.
You’re absolutely wrong here, and failing to apply the same standard to both candidates.
I think there was only one irresponsible statement, which the adviser was immediately sacked for. Prior to the “monster” remark, what bad judgment did Samantha Power ever demonstrate? “Every single day of her tenure”? What, the one day between the article being published and Power resigning? I think the message is clear that Obama runs a pretty tight ship, and that his advisers had better watch themselves.
Meanwhile, McCain seems to be getting a pass from everyone for accepting Hagee’s endorsement, while Obama gets put through the wringer about a much more tenuous connection to Louis Farrakhan. Recently, it seems like the Clinton campaign is out there doing McCain’s work for him, trying to smear Obama to the point where, if he is the nominee (which seems more than likely), he’s in a weaker position.
I’ve always planned on voting, happily, for whoever the Democratic nominee is, even if Obama has been easily my favorite. And there’s no way I’m voting for McCain, even if he is the least bad of the Republican contenders. But recently the Clinton campaign has been eroding my ability to support them at all (also, I’m in Massachusetts, so it’s not like sitting this one out really helps the GOP). To me it looks like in their desperation, they’ve decided that if Clinton’s not the nominee, they’re going to punish the party. Maybe they’re setting Obama up to fail so they can have a go against President McCain in '12, I don’t know, but I don’t like it.
One can’t say that sort of thing without being the kind of person who would say that sort of thing, can one? Otherwise I agree with you.
McCain is being ignored because he already won his nomination. Agreed that’s unfair of the media, but as you may know then no one here is less of a defender of them than me. Note that the edia narrative changed for Obama since the SNL sketch embarrassed them - they may be making up for their earlier fawning now.
Of course not. Care to explain *why * not, though? :dubious:
I did. Right after I said no. Why are you giving Clinton a pass on something you’re so interested in damning Obama with?
What, Obama’s got bad judgment because his advisers talk shit about their opponents while sitting around Obama Campaign HQ? I suspect that every single president from Washington on down would be excluded if you held them to the same standard.
Sure, tu quoque isn’t much of an argument, but this is more of an omnes quoque.
Yeah, I’m sure everyone will sleep easier knowing that while their sons and daughters might be sent into harm’s way due to political expedience, no senior advisers will ever be quoted in European newspapers insulting other politicians.
No, the aspect of his judgment this episode reflects on is in his choice of senior advisers, and in the depths of judgment they would use in advising him. Have I not been clear about that?
And the worst part is that he knew she was going to call Hillary a monster and did nothing about it.
Shame on you Barrack Obama. Shame on you.
See Post 34, sentence 1.