Diet or regular?
Is it? He may have had permission from Patrick to take his rhetoric, but he still didn’t credit Patrick with the rhetoric.
I care about plagarism. I don’t care whether Obama plagarized, or maybe it’s better to say I don’t care enough whether he did or not to have a long detailed discussion with Obama supporters about it, which won’t change any minds and just leave me more and more frustrated. Is that a better restatement of my position?
I don’t know about that. It seems like there’s greater acrimony between the supporters of Clinton and Obama than there was between the supporters of the Democratic candidates in recent presidential races. In any case, it’s definitely not a good idea to piss off the supporters of a candidate within your own party. You may need them later.
The sense is that you are applying an unnecessarily rigorous and ahistorical understanding of plagiarism to support your position of dislike for Obama.
No problem, it’s your life. But do be aware that yours is not exactly the consensus view. William Safire wrote a neat little piece about this after Biden’s self-destruction.
I don’t see any reason Obama won’t just keep doing what he’s doing…And now he’s winning, he’s also out spending. He outspent Clinton in WI 4 - 1. She doesn’t have the cash…but expect a bump in this coming week from someone somewhere - this race wouldn’t be the same without high blood pressure. Still - I think it’s statistically impossible for her to take the coming states by any large margins…It just won’t happen. The teamster’s endorsement today was Enormous for his Campaign…Big Money Unions tend to back winner’s I’d think…
Some news show the other day showed how common this is anyway- both Edwards and HRC used the same dumb “we can keep track of Blockbuster rentals, why can’t we keep track of who enters the country” line recently, among other examples.
You know, way back during the “Great SC Racewars of '08 exclamation marks” I entertained thoughts that maybe the Clinton’s, and the rest of the Dems, were actually a few steps a head of the public at large. Perhaps Obama had been anointed by the party before the primaries had even began, and having the political clout and public rep to “get away with it” they, the Clintons, intentionally brought the race card into the game before the inevitable Republican race attacks. A ‘preemptive-JJ’ if you will.
(and hey, if it works to their advantage well for them “a win’s a win” right?)
If you look at the fallout from the whole mess, the general public seemed to become so burned out and offended by the race baiting that there was a major backlash against it. To be honest, I think it actually worked out to Obama’s favor as a whole, not just by eliminating the competition. It also, as bad as it was, didn’t rise to the level that Rove could(and probably still will) take it; essentially blunting the force of the attacks to come from the right.
So yeah, I was all willing to stretch reason and excuse the Clinton’s after S.C… Telling myself it was a strategic, for-the-party firewall and sacrifice; I mean they couldn’t be this low down and short sighted could they? Now…not so much. I mean, I would still like to think they have somewhat of a clue and keep some shred of respect for them, but this all is getting to be just plain sad.
A lot of Large Corporations, Unions, normal-everyday-folk do agree with you, and are therefore coming out in droves to vote Obama. It’s working…
To late to edit, but rereading what I wrote, I suppose it would make much more sense(though still far out there) with the Clinton’s giving Obama a trial by fire(prepare him or eliminate him), as oppose to some than some wide spread Democratic conspiracy. Of course none of the above is likely true, so it is all moot anyway.
FTR, even I do take all this(my own posts) with more than a few grains of salt, probably more IMHO musings than GD worthy. I know it is merely trying to predict the future by cherry picking past. That, and wishful thinking too I suppose, but I just can’t make any other sense of the Clinton’s strategy while still giving them even a little bit of respect at the same time.
This is true. What ever the true intentions of the Clinton’s were, I am just thrilled that the American people have so soundly rejected these type of dirty tactics.
Maybe there truely is hope in the Proles.
Absolutely the proletariat by in large are moving his direction. ABC news and CBS news tonight just now basically said: She would have to do the impossible to beat him, or he’d have to seriously mess up for any real gains to be made by her campaign. Basically, it’s not going to happen. If there is one thing I can see with my own eyes is that Barack is razor sharp, and he’s got common sense from what I can tell.
This always cracks me up.
-
This is the first time California’s had anything close to having a voice in primary elections in my lifetime (I’m 41). Sorry, but by the time the primaries get around to us, everything is usually over but the cleaning up. So…nice try, but all we do is go along for the ride.
-
The Dem primaries in California and NY are not all or nothing. Obama got plenty of support in both states, both popular and delegate wise. Far more than anyone expected. And plenty of the eeevil Hollywood heavy hitters were behind him as well. Try a little perspective.
-
These tactics aren’t new, just disappointing. Look at what Karl Rove did to John McCain in 2000. The only difference is that it was successful in that case.
Technically accurate, but bullshit. McCain’s hero Dubya said the same thing.
Basically, the question was along the lines of “If you could bag Osama because you knew exactly where he was, and he was in Pakistan, would you go after him without asking Pakistan’s permission?”
Since Pakistan is, by some opinions, actively shielding Osama, it seems a valid question to me.
-Joe
They way I understood it was he said if he knew 100% the location of active terrorist camps in Pakistan, would he bomb if Pakistan did not give permission, he said yes. A bit hypocritical for Republicans to use this against him, giving recent events.