Ahahahaha. Misdirection from the somewhat floundering OP, dear boy. But oh so cleverly done. Why don’t you go and find a Democrat that does deserve pitting, and pit them, rather than laboriously transcribing every verbal tic in an effort to make someone with a perfectly reasonable answer sound more evasive? I’m sure such people exist, and I’m sure you in your infinite wisdom are more than capable of finding them.
Early Out, “adademe” is a word used by someone without a “C” key who wants to smear someone else as being elitist while simultaneously being pretentious and patronising themselves. The typo spoils the effect, needless to say.
Liberal I don’t know a lot of people that are interested in your private political-philosophical struggles. I do know a lot of people that get stuck reading about them.
Fucking cowards. Pulling out the December card when your pathetic mini-pile-on doesn’t produce the desired meltdown. Veering from the OP my ass. I’ve asked the questions four times. Was he embarrassed? And what was the message? Your answers were more evasive than even Obama’s. Just go ahead and say it. Say, “I’m up Kerry’s ass, and I think it smells great in here!” You’re a couple of weebles who support your team no matter what.
It’s all the same to you blind weebles. Democrat good. Republican bad. You cannot even think of a Democrat you would pit. Oooo! Oooo! I can’t think of any answers. You, you, you December!
Those are all nonresponsive tautologies: they summarize the OP. Obama is evasive because he is a politician and all politicians are evasive. Well, blech. As to what I would have preferred him to say, I would have preferred something like this:
You know what? We really are exclusionist, just like we were 8 years ago. I meant it then, and I mean it now. People who make the big contributions get the access, and others are left out. That’s the way it is and, yes, I am embrassed. I think it sends a message that both parties have abandoned the general electorate.
No, not really. Actually, not at all. Just because they have a take on Obama’s answer that doesn’t make him look bad doesn’t make them nonresponsive or tautological.
Can you not see that “I wish we were better than we are, but we’re still better than the other guy” is a perfectly valid and gasp somewhat nuanced construction?
Lib’s preferred answer:
And just because Obama isn’t saying what you want him to say doesn’t make him a hypocrite or mean that he’s had “a change of heart.”
By the way, “offended” != “embarrassed” in any case. It’s the inattention to the details that makes me think you’re just playing around here.
Heal thyself, physician. Speaking of details, I didn’t say, as you suggest, that the answers were tautologies “Just because they have a take on Obama’s answer that doesn’t make him look bad”. I said they were tautologies because all they did was summarize the OP and generalize the principle that politicians evade. I don’t see anything in Obama’s response that remotely resembles “I wish we were better than we are”.
Then you’re really not looking past the ums and uhs, are you?
Obama:
So, to paraphrase (please let me know if you have any quibbles, the source material is right above):
(1) the influence of money in politics is a problem for both parties.
(2) the convention notwithstanding [implying that he feels that there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the set-up of the convention], I’m proud of Kerry’s voting record [the phrase “for America and this country” is very awkward]
(3) nevertheless, it would be in the interests of the Democratic party to do more to encourage participation from people who feel locked out of the process
In what way does that not say, “I wish we were better than we are?” It is a statement of a problem, a statement of strengths despite the problem, and an aspiration to overcome the problem.
Pretty much everyone described:
a) what THEY felt Obama had said
b) why your interpretation was therefore an uncharitable reading that made your thread title hyperbole
Hardly “tautology.” You aren’t answering our actual objections, so unless that’s some deliberate joke you’re playing to parody Obama, I think this is getting pretty close to a trainwreck.
The comparison is getting increasingly valid, especially since four people have given basically identical answers to your question - a question that was simple and an obvious case of baiting to begin with. ‘Classic’ liberal or not, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time picking on Democrats in this manner.
And you’re determined to nit-pick them to death, which is apparently your definition of being non-partisan. Good for you, man, fight the good fight.
As much as I enjoyed his criticisms of the Iraq run-up, Robert Byrd has done some pit-worthy things, including voting with the Republicans on the anti-gay marriage amendment issue. (And he and others were pitted for it.)
But Russert did not ask him about both parties, or ANY party for that matter. Russert asked him whether he — a person, not a party — was embarrassed. He is, after all, the keynote speaker at a convention that, as Russert told him, was worse than the 1996 convention by his (Obama’s) own standards.
There was no mention of Kerry or his voting record either in the Cleveland Plain Dealer article or Russert’s question. Now, you’ve been active in another thread, joining Early Out in a pile-on accusing me of changing the subject when I stated my agreement with Diogenes. But here, you have no compunction about a man who avoids a direct question altogether with irrelevant nonsense about John Kerry’s record and a cheerleading reference to America. What gives?
Well, of course it would. But wasn’t the question whether he was embarrassed and what message it sends? Yes. Yes, it was.
What has become of you? You never used to hang your hat on such ridiculous fallacies.