[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
What this article really highlights for me is just how little the conservative side has actually got to throw at Obama.
Voting “present”
Rev. Wright
Town Hall Meetings
Public campaign financing
What’s more is the overt screeching to make many of those into HUGE deals of epic proportions that prove what a slime Obama is.
They’ve got almost nothing so are reduced to making mountains out of mole hills.
[sub]–This message paid for by smart people who want a smart president.[/sub]
[/QUOTE]
The Rev. Wright thing, while nauseously dishonest, was a tough attack to beat. A lesser politician would not have survived it. Think how bad Howard Dean got hit by just screaming. I don’t think any naive politician could have survived it.
The public financing thing is just lame. If you listened to conservatives talk this past week you’d think that they have been champions of public financing for the past decade or so.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I’m not impressed with Brooks’ arguments or his grasp on cliches. I think you could write an equally long article on McCain’s “split personality.”
[/QUOTE]
Steve Benen (Carpetbagger Report) has done so, and updates it on a monthly basis. Here’s his latest update. An excerpt:
It’s best to read them on Benen’s blog, because each instance comes with a link. Not to mention, I only C&P’d a fraction of his list.
As I said in comments there on another day, it’s one thing to change your mind on one thing, or even a few things. People do that, and even pols should have the freedom to do so every now and then.
But when you’re regularly changing your mind on a whole slew of issues, how on earth are voters supposed to know what you’ll stand for after you’re elected? If you just changed your mind on two dozen issues between last year and now, who’s to say you’re not going to do the same thing between now and next year?
Not to mention, if you’re 70 years old and have been in politics for over 25 years, shouldn’t you have really thought through your positions on most major issues in some depth by now, and as a result, shouldn’t your positions mostly be pretty robust? If you haven’t, and they’re not, then something is really wrong with you, and you have no business being President.
Re the article in the OP, I just have to roll my eyes. Whenever I read one of these trash pieces and find an error of fact in the very first point they try to make, I know I can easily dismiss the entire piece as nothing but garbage without merit.
For those reading here who haven’t participated in past discussions on the topic, the allegation that a “Present” vote in the Illinois legislature amounts to “not taking a position” on an issue is a flat out lie. It evinces an utter ignorance of how the Illinois legislature works, and what a “Present” vote actually signifies.
In short, voting “Present” is a “No” vote. It counts among all the “No” votes, and can work towards defeating a bill just like a “No” vote does. So why not just vote “No”, then? Because voting “Present”, while acting as a “No” vote, signals the authors of the legislation that the objection isn’t on the subject or nature of the bill itself, but some aspect of it that could be problematic, and if the bill fails as a result, triggers the authors to look at rewriting the problematic portions, not dropping the legislation entirely.
For further clarification and supporting links, see the following posts:
On Charlie Rose, Ted Sorenson (JFK’s press secretary and major speech writer) described John F Kennedy as a “pragmatist masquerading as an idealist,” while his brother Bobby was an “idealist pretending to be a pragmatist.” I think the JFK description is very apt for Obama.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
He’s saying what I’ve said for weeks now. Republicans aren’t dealing with John Kerry this year. Obama is no wimp. Good on the Democrats for finally fielding a leader with balls.
[/QUOTE]
As a Hillary Clinton supporter in the primary seasion, I hope the characterization is decently close to the truth. The presence of such characteristics is a bit part of what I liked about her.
If Obama does not have a streak of the calculating politician in him, Og help us all.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
As a Hillary Clinton supporter in the primary seasion, I hope the characterization is decently close to the truth. The presence of such characteristics is a bit part of what I liked about her.
If Obama does not have a streak of the calculating politician in him, Og help us all.
[/QUOTE]
I’d venture to say Obama’s calculating politician side won him the nomination, and will more than likely win him the oval office.
[QUOTE=Great Dave]
Brooks is a hack. I wish NPR/PBS would find someone better to represent the right.
[/QUOTE]
I want to add on-
How can E.J. Dionne stand the guy? Dionne is a regular on Diane Rehm, and his analysis is so much better- he actually analyzes the situation, while Brooks struggles to find a metaphor that shoehorns how he perceives the situation into his predetermined opinion. SOP for right-wing media types, but c’mon, isn’t there someone out there how can competently balance Mark Shields?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW, what is this “Scarlett Johansson set”?
[/QUOTE]
Scarlett Johansson has been an early supporter of Obama and has been emailing him frequently. In a recent interview, she marveled that Obama took the time to answer her emails personally despite how busy he is. A few other celebrities have mentioned that he takes the time to write personally respond to emails they have written him.
[QUOTE=madmonk28]
Scarlett Johansson has been an early supporter of Obama and has been emailing him frequently. In a recent interview, she marveled that Obama took the time to answer her emails personally despite how busy he is. A few other celebrities have mentioned that he takes the time to write personally respond to emails they have written him.
[/QUOTE]
Well, celebs swing influence and $. If I were Obama, I would be sure to answer all Scarlett Johannson’s e-mails personally.
Come to think of it, if I were me, I would be sure to answer all Scarlett Johansson’s e-mails personally. And in great anatomical detail.
[QUOTE=Oy!]
Yes, because most of us women are just waiting with bated breath to hear the exactly dimensions and description of men’s naughty bits. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no, the detail wouldn’t be about my naughty bits!
