Obama: Safe... but No Cigar

Fear-mongering at its worst.
The only thing you have to fear is...
Obama following in the tragic footsteps of Kennedy and King.
Now don't you see why we must vote for Anyone Else?
Excuse me while I adjust my snarkometer.

The Times is worried:

http://www.nytimes.com/...

DALLAS — There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

Oh yes. It's the supporters who are worried. Not the GOP. And look at the dateline of the story. Straight Talk out of Dallas. Where's Oswald when you need him?

MSNBC is worried too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
linking back to the TIMES story.

In the infamous three-word clarion call of Obama's Democratic competitor, shame on you (the collective you) for planting horrific images of a man's death in the minds of the people. The delusional voters that we are, that will forsake our vote to protect Obama and Michelle and those adorable, cherubic, White House-picture perfect ready Kennedy-like Obama Daughters. No salute photos for Sasha or Malia. (G-d forbid.)

You'll take Clinton now, won't you? Better yet, vote McCain. No earmarks. No psycho killers on his trail. No worries.

Sic semper fearmongers.

•  Be Gentle. I Write for Children...

  Not political junkies.

  (Okay. I can do both, can't I?)

  by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:26:31 AM PDT

•  What are you talking about?

  Many average people have certainly expressed this concern in my presence.  I hope they are being cynical and disillusioned, but I don't think it's a conspiracy against Obama. It's simply a human fear that their hopes will be crushed.

  by bythesea on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:27:26 AM PDT

  •  It doesn't belong on the front page

    There's a BIG difference between worrying about it and suggesting it to nut cases. It's immoral and inexcuseable.

    Hey, maybe we should find the oldest, most boring candidate just to be safe...

    Oh, wait...that's what the Republicans did.

    by MrMichaelMT on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:30:42 AM PDT

    •  OK

      I can agree with that.

      by bythesea on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:32:46 AM PDT

    •  This is also a repeating theme from the MSM.

      The story about African-Americans not falling in behind Obama because of worries about his safety was also on the front page of the Times a few months back.

      This just gets to be concern trolling after a while.

      by psericks on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:45:04 AM PDT

      •  really? i always got that he may not be

        electable (race) and after Iowa & NH, it was "yes we can!" vote for him ;) despite the polls showing we could.

        but that may also have been my mindset. so much 'concern' with MSM as to "are we ready?" for either a woman or AA, i thought i was going to scream. i think i did a happy dance when votes shut that crap down  ;)

        by nycstray on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:00:20 AM PDT

        •  That's not the issue

          Telling the tiny fraction of violent right wing nuts in this country that everyone is worried about Obama's safety is just planting ideas.

          by MrMichaelMT on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:36:02 AM PDT

•  I don't care

  Who's safer.

  I hate Obama.

  by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:27:56 AM PDT

  •  Are You A Compassionate Conservative?

    Hate?
    Don't Care?

    Thanks for that good morning wake up call.

    Sad.

    by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:31:18 AM PDT

    •  A good smile There

      no.

      I just hate Obama as much as Obama supporters hate Clinton.

      If Obama supporters don't hate clinton then i guess i'm wrong and i don't hate obama at all.

      let me say that i will always hate obama as much as obama supporters hated clinton when she was 20 pts ahead in the polls.

      i claim to be no better than obama supporters going forward.

      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:34:56 AM PDT

      •  cut back

        on caffeine and take up a hobby, you're gonna blow a gasket soon Edgar.

        relax, go with the flowwwwwwww

        by Zwoof on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:36:51 AM PDT

        •  Oh

          Don't blame me.

          I hate Obama then.

          Blame it on caffeine if you want.

          by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:38:26 AM PDT

        •  This is...

          the height of Obamatron creepiness.

          Go with the flowwwww?  GTFO

          Since when has American Politics been about "going with teh floowwwwwww"??  Never, get over it.

          Maybe in early 20th century Germany.  But never in America.  

          Well, except for maybe Dubya.  Lot's of people went the THAT flowwwwwwww.

          by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:44:34 AM PDT

          •  It wasn't a political comment

            Edgar is clearly wound too tight and needs to relax -- by taking some deep breaths, not by voting for Obama.

            by droogie6655321 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:12:24 AM PDT

      •  i don't hate clinton

        http://jedreport.dailykos.com/...

        what you said is reprehensible. you are a very little person.

        clinton needs to start paying her shills better.

        where did the smart ones like partially impartial go? he was by far the smartest of the clinton-folk.

        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:44:20 AM PDT

      •  Hey Edgar,

        I don't hate Hillary. In fact I supported her until a few months ago. I've caught my share of hell on this site for it as well. Then a funny thing happened. I figured out that I like Obama even more. Sure I'll vote for Hillary if she can win fair and square.

        by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:48:40 AM PDT

        •  What did you think of the Obama

          supporters who said they'd never vote for Clinton in the general election?

          Is that what attracted you to them?

          by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:51:32 AM PDT

          •  If you're smart, you never listen to the most

            extreme voices in any situation.  If you're really smart, you try not to be one.

            by lineatus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:02:12 AM PDT

          •  No actually they piss me off still.

            I see very little difference in terms of policy between Obama and Clinton. For me it comes down to style I guess. The one thing that always impressed me about Bill Clinton was his good manners. Obama reminds me of Bill in that regard. Another thing that I  liked about Bill is his amazing intellect. Obama reminds me of Bill in that regard as well. I liked the way Bill would just destroy the likes of Gigrich, Starr and Delay with intelligence and ease. When, in a debate a moderator asked Obama about getting advise from Clinton's former advisors, Hillary laughed and said "Yea, I want to hear that". Obama simple said that he'd be asking for her advise to. Pure Bill Clinton. Intelligent and right on the nose. That was the moment for me.

            I'm all for having another Bill Clinton in the White House. Funny thing is, his name is Barack Obama.

            by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:44:59 AM PDT

      •  I didn't hate Clinton

        but my feelings are changing after the actions of the last few days.

        And actually I still don't hate her -- I just want her and Bill to go away.

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:16:54 AM PDT

  •  Need a hug? n/t

    by chicago DEM on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:33:23 AM PDT

    •  No

      Just a statement fron at least one obama supporter saying he or she would have supported clinton in the general election.

      You know i never ran across one obama supporter soul who said that and yes it'll be easier to say that now than it would have been 2 months ago.

      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:37:14 AM PDT

      •  I would enthusiastically support Clinton

        I wrote this on super tuesday:

        I've gone through every column written by Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, and Frank Rich since September 1, 2007. (I also looked through the columns of David Brooks and Gail Collins, but decided to exclude them from this analysis. Brooks is a conservative, and Collins tends to not be as polemical as Dowd, Rich, and Krugman. Herbert writes less frequently about the candidates than Collins, but when he does, he tends to take a more clear-cut position.)

        Here's some of what I've found:

        First, overall, the foursome has written 146 columns since September 1. 110 of those had nothing (or little) to do with the campaign. 36 (roughly one-quarter) were about the campaign.

        Of those 36, 18 were anti-Hillary and 14 were anti-Obama. 3 were pro-Hillary, and 10 were pro-Obama. (A column can fall into more than one category.)

        Of Bob Herbert's 39 columns, 6 (15%) were on the election. 2 were anti-Hillary, 1 was anti-Obama, 1 was pro-Hillary, and 4 were pro-Obama.

        Of Paul Krugman's 44 columns, 8 (18%) were on the election. All were anti-Obama, with 2 also being pro-Hillary.

        Of Maureen Dowd's 43 columns, 12 (28%) were on the the election. 9 were anti-Hillary and 5 were anti-Obama.

        Of Frank Rich's 20 columns, 10 (50%) were on the election. 8 were anti Hillary and 6 were pro-Obama.

        Excluding Krugman, there were 28 columns about the election. 18 of them (64% were anti-Hillary). 6 of them (21%) were anti-Obama. 10 (36%) were pro-Obama and 1 (4%) was pro-Hillary.

        In short, other than Paul Krugman, the New York Times op-ed page has been a virtual love-fest for Barack Obama, and a hate-fest against Hillary Clinton.

        Even with Krugman, the page is tilted against Hillary.

        Now, I agree with much of what Frank Rich has written. (I detest Maureen Dowd's hackery and am mostly bored by Bob Herbert.) And, as I said, I hope Obama wins Super Tuesday.

        My point, however, is that put in perspective of his colleagues, Paul Krugman is providing some necessary balance to the opinion page.

        Not pro-Hillary balance -- but rather constructive criticism of Barack Obama.

        One thing you'll notice if you read through the columns I analyzed (they are copied below) is that the criticisms of Hillary are far more likely to be personal in nature than are Krugman's criticisms of Obama, all of which are grounded in either policy or ideology.

        Attacking Hillary's personality or character achieves nothing constructive; indeed, if anything, it makes you wonder the extent to which her "likeability" problem is created (or at least reinforced) by writers like Maureen Dowd.

        Meanwhile, Krugman's criticisms of Obama are on things that Obama could actually do something about -- such as his health care policy.

        I'm really under no illusion that extreme Obama partisans are ever going to agree with Krugman's critiques of Obama.

        However, they really ought not demonize him. Indeed, they should keep in perspective the fact that 82% of his columns since September 1 have had nothing to do with Barack Obama. There's a lot of value to be found there.

        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:48:10 AM PDT

      •  Of course I would have voted for her.

        Huh?  The overwhelming majority of Obama supporters would have supported her in the general.

        Both of these candidates are favored by ~70% majorities of Democrats.

        by psericks on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:48:18 AM PDT

        •  especially when they treat each other with....

          ....respect.

          lots more listening to mandy grunwald should be done.

          mark penn is a cancer.

          he ruined hillary's campaign, but i guess she must own the responsibility as well.

          by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:55:53 AM PDT

      •  Jeebus, there are tons of us who will support her

        in the General Election.  Spend more time outside of candidate diaries and you'll discover that.  Give it a fucking rest, though, because you're not giving Hillary supporters a good name.

        by lineatus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:53:32 AM PDT

      •  i wasn't here two months ago

        but how about two days after Super Tuesday?

        The funny thing is that the responders to my post at that point made the same argument that you're making even though it is so obviously untrue.  Ask my entire family and extended family and all of my friends (with one Libertarian exception).

        by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:59:46 AM PDT

      •  Of course I'd vote for her!

        I'm not insane.

        by chicago DEM on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:00:31 AM PDT

      •  I would have supported Hillary Clinton

        in the general election if she became the nominee. And I was an Edwards supporter who heard crap from both the Obama and Clinton camps around here, including from you Edgar IIRC.

        And more important, I'm going to be doing what I can to give a Democratic President a Congress that he/she can work with.

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:21:27 AM PDT

    •  Oh

      And please be more condescending in your next post OK?

      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:39:17 AM PDT

      •  Hey Edgar,

        I was trying to figure out what AB stood for. Then it occurred to me....Auto Ban. So, if that's the case I just want to let you know that you eat my first and second doughnuts...ever. I'm not big on TR's but I just couldn't resist. I feel a bit bad about it now. I'm starting to think that you may have good intentions but awful delivery. I hope you manage to make it through. If so, I hope you can try to treat others with respect. We're all on the same side.

        by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:06:18 AM PDT

        •  It seems like some Clinton supporters

          went to the Mark Penn Charm School...

          by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:24:02 AM PDT

  •  You made it through yesterday

    AB should hit today. And then, perhaps, you'll find something constructive to do.

    by anotherCt Dem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:34:11 AM PDT

  •  If he chooses Hillary

    as his VP, no one will dream of harming him. (snark)

    by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:42:21 AM PDT

    •  Except.... Hillary? I Kid. I Kid. N/T

      by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:43:27 AM PDT

    •  If He Does So

      I hope she denies it, and if she does not deny it, my estimation of her will diminish.

      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:44:27 AM PDT

      •  are you going to vote for mccain...

        ...or just sulk?

        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:52:38 AM PDT

        •  I'm guessing ... sulk.

          by lineatus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:54:39 AM PDT

          •  If that's what you want to call it

            Then fine.

            by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:55:56 AM PDT

            •  i'm going to start recc'ing your comments

              just because I don't think you want to be recc'd.

              by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:59:35 AM PDT

              •  it's like a little tickling. NT

                by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:59:53 AM PDT

        •  Yep

          At this point, call any criticism of Obama sulking??  That'll bring me over, won't it??

          I don't care.

          I don't care about Obama.

          I just don't.  And I know Obama supporters don't care about Clinton so it's all mutual, OK??

          OK???

          by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:55:28 AM PDT

          •  Sideways

            At what point will you actually listen to my question.

            Criticism of Obama isn't sulking. Krugman style criticism of Obama is actually great for the Party.

            Hillary's character assassination is horrible, but when she spars with him in debates on health care or iraq, she does great -- that's the hillary we like.

            anyway, my question is whether you will vote for mccain...you say yes? you'd actually vote for mccain?

            really?

            i assume you live in dc, md, or va, but still....

            by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:58:45 AM PDT

            •  I will not vote for Obama

              Nor will I vote for McCain.

              My experience on this blog is defined by Obama supporters who recommended an idiot who said he'd never vote for Clinton.

              When that experience changes, I'll change.

              Banning me will only solidify my experience.

              I REALLY HATE OBAMA.

              I REALLY DO!!!!!!!!

              by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:05:16 AM PDT

              •  You're not seeing the irony are you? n/t

                by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:07:10 AM PDT

                •  What Irony

                  As far as I know every Clinton supporter I ever met (besides me) says they'll vote for Obama if it comes to thaat.

                  I wish I could say the same of Obama supporters.

                  by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:09:06 AM PDT

                  •  you can say the same

                    just do it.

                    it will make you feel better.

                         p    r  om   i   ;s      e

                    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:10:36 AM PDT

                    •  It was a serious question

                      As far as I know every Clinton supporter I ever met (besides me) says they'll vote for Obama if it comes to that.

                      Do you think Obama supporters can say the same?????

                      All of you are hypocrites.  I trust none of you.

                      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:12:22 AM PDT

                      •  as well you shouldn't. we're all closet democrats

                        heheheheh.

                        when you least expect it we're going to force universal health care down your throat whether you like it or not!

                        it will be awesome when we do it. i'm looking forward to hillary being at the signing ceremony, having led the floor fight in the senate to get the bill through the chamber, standing right beside obama, just like mlk was when lbj signed the cra and vra.

                        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:17:47 AM PDT

                        •  Yes....

                          Because having the opt in Healthcare system is change you can believe in.

                          by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:41 AM PDT

                          •  By "Healthcare system" do you mean

                            private insurance?  When HRC proposes real Universal Health Care (i.e. Single-Payer), I won't criticize her mandate.

                            by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:18:53 AM PDT

                            •  Neither will I...Neither will I n/t

                              by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:37:24 AM PDT

                      •  Did you read my link to my post on

                        Feb. 7?  All of my Obama supporter friends, family and extended family say the same.  Passions run high.  Just like yours are now.  People say things because they get mad.  People try to persuade people to their candidate.  I don't have time to dig them up, but I have seen countless posts by "Obama supporters" (as if that was a definable category) that have said they will not vote for McCain.  We have been in the fight for the Dem nomination.  People are not arguing for Dem vs. Rethug.  They are arguing Obama vs. Clinton.  Also many people do not party affiliate as strongly as you.  Is that reason to hate them?

                        I don't hate you.  I really, really don't.

                        by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:20:19 AM PDT

                      •  I eagerly await

                        your GBCW diary then.

                        (Sorry, you're starting to make me angry...and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...)

                        by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:29:58 AM PDT

                  •  So you're the only dick among HRC supporters?

                    That's a compliment to her campaign.  Of course, it comes from a dick and therefore doesn't count for much, but it's still a compliment.

                    by Inland on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:47:30 AM PDT

              •  allow me to change your experience

                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                h       e   ll
                  
                 
                  
                 
                 
                 

                by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:09:17 AM PDT

                •  Didn't Change my mind

                  Ok.  fine.

                  by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:10:01 AM PDT

                  •        ho w

                      a     b    out

                    this:

                    you shouldn't support or oppose a candidate based on their "supporters"

                    i love bill clinton. he's very inspiring. you're going to love this video -- it's called a story of hope and pessimism.

                    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:12:56 AM PDT

                    •  Clinton Supporters

                      Don't remind me of being involved in a something.

                      If I take the supporters out of it Obams is still inocompetent.

                      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:18:20 AM PDT

                      •  he's super competent

                        i'm sorry but hillary made a mess of her campaign. maybe she'd be a better president but she totally blew this campaign.

                        she EASILY could have won after NH...but then she threw it all away with bob johnson. sooooo freaking dumb.

                        mark penn has done more damage to hillary than you can fathom.

                        if she'd just let mandy grunwald run with the strategy, or gotten carville more integrated into her operation, she'd be the nominee right now.

                        obama has run a nearly perfect campaign...if she'd run just a decent campaign, she'd be walking away with it.

                        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:22:08 AM PDT

                        •  It's hard to tell

                          On this blog anyway.

                          For instance, in the last three weeks he's won 11 states and lost a percentage point in the tracking poll.

                          Is that right?

                          I don't know about competence as far as electoral politics is concerned, but Obama hasn't given me an confidence is his ability to run a country.

                          by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:39 AM PDT

                          •  that's your problem

                            eye of the beholder

                            meanwhile:

                            

                            by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:32:00 AM PDT

                            •  Edgar08 Just Wants To Lose....

                              ....He's simply too used to the politics of the past.  And cue crickets.

                              by tkmattson on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:52:47 AM PDT

                        •  It's not....

                          like it's too difficult when you have to burn through your money 3 times as fast to overcome all the negative, or at least lack of positive, press.  Money makes or breaks campaigns.  Sad but true.  Obama has nearly DOUBLED the amount of positive press when compared with Clinton.  Not too hard to run a successful campaign under those circumstances.

                          by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:15:52 AM PDT

                      •  If I could

                        I would introduce you to my parents-in-law; they're Obama supporters but unlike most of the folks around here are not obnoxious about it.

                        If you'd log off the Internets and go out and talk to some real people, you might be surprised at what you find out there.

                        by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:31:57 AM PDT

              •  Why?

                And I'm not asking why you hate Obama supporters - you've made that clear.  

                But why do you hate Obama?  I can understand thinking Hillary's better; even though I settled on Obama, I could be perfectly happy with Hillary.  I can't understand a visceral hate of either candidate, so I'm curious why your feelings are so strong.

                by lineatus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:12:13 AM PDT

                •  I hate Obama

                  Cause he has never said one Obama supporter who has attacked Clinton unfairly is wrong.

                  On that count, Clinton has said some of her supporters are wrong and even fired them for attacking Obama unfairly.

                  I hate Obama cause he has never been able to find the courage to say the republican attacks on the clintons were wrong.

                  That's all he had to say.

                  Those attacks were wrong.

                  Ok.

                  Believe it or not.  Ignore it if you want.

                  Some of the reservations are legitimate, OK?

                  by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:16:34 AM PDT

                  •  D-Punjab is the only example that you'll be able

                    to come up with of a staffer doing something that was outright wrong.

                    It was marginal to have provided the list of quotes to the press in sc, but it wasn't false or anything like that.

                    Can you think of any other examples?

                    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:19:26 AM PDT

                    •  I'm sorry, no

                      It's about the 90s.

                      And how the Clintons were attacked then.   DO you think it was wrong?  Does Obama think it was wrong???

                      If Obama is ever attacked like that I'll never defend him simply cause I know he didn't defend a fellow democrat under the same condittions.

                      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:22:19 AM PDT

                      •  of course it was horribly wrong. the VRWC

                        really did exist. how else could they have possibly gotten those three judges to fucking boot fiske and replace him with ken starr?

                        i personally know some of the people involved in that on the right wing side from  my days in college, they are vile repugnant human beings.

                        frankly i don't care that president clinton did what he did; and it certainly wasn't impeachable, and of course he should have said what he said. and whitewater was bullshit, and so were the rose law firm billing reocrds...hillary handed everything over, but yet they claimed she didn't....fiske said she did, so they fucking canned fiske andn put starr in.

                        they are the worst people in the world, putting out their stupid claims about murder., inc. -- complete bullshit. and they are aided and abetted by worthless hacks like maureen dowd and david brooks who everybody knows are really right wing stooges despite their occasional homages to the left.

                        so yes, the clintons were screwed royally in the 1990s.

                        and their presidency was better than bush's.

                        here's a chart i did on that exact topic:

                        

                        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:28:39 AM PDT

                        •  So Obama was Wrong

                          Not to say it was wrong?

                          by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:29:20 AM PDT

                          •  what are you referring to?

                            by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:29:59 AM PDT

                            •  Obama saying

                              That the 90s were not a very good example of Democratic Party governance.

                              He has repeatedly said that the 90s were divisive.

                              I say they were divisive because of the media.

                              What do you think?  Because the Clintons were devisive.

                              Or because of the media?

                              by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:32:48 AM PDT

                              •  he did not say what you said he said

                                believe me, i know exactly what he said. i listened to the whole interview several times.

                                it was very disturbing at certain points. i also think he was very tired.

                                he made a stupid comment about the gop being the party of ideas, he also offered a very bad accounting of the the history that led up to reagan.

                                he has since offered a better version of the history.

                                it is nothing compared to the stuff that hillary has pulled this campaign though.

                                by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:08:37 AM PDT

                                •  I think Obama was right though

                                  The GOP was the party of ideas -- and unlike the Democrats they were the party of principles and stuck to those principles. How many times have we bitched about the Democrats not sticking to their principles, or even having any? Look at the current Congress in taking impeachment "off the table", and caving in to Bush's appointments and petulant threats. Adjourning for the President's Day break instead of caving in on the FISA telecom immunity is the first time that this Congress has begun to show some cojones.

                                  Obama never said that the ideas the GOP had were good ideas -- but Reagan took advantage of a country in the doldrums and ready for some sort of change...then Bill Clinton took advantage of a similar turn of America's mood when he made GHWB a one-term President. The 2006 elections may have been a harbinger of a similar change in America's mood -- and Obama has positioned himself as the one best able to take advantage of it. Clinton could have done the same thing -- but her continued support for the AUMF (by never expressing regret) and her vote for Kyl-Lieberman left some severe doubts in the minds of many Democrats as to whether she would be able to provide the change that's needed.

                                  by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:45:35 AM PDT

                            •  Yep

                              Everynight i engage this blog i average 4 to 5 questions go unanswered.

                              even the civil questions i ask.

                              by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:40:07 AM PDT

                              •  i was engaged in something else nt

                                by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:06:01 AM PDT

                        •  Oh the humanity...

                          Now you can see visible cues from the punditocracy that they are becoming uneasy bashing Hillary Clinton and blind fury for Obama.  

                          Did you watch Brooks and the rest of them on MTP yesterday?  That fathead Tim Russert pretending to be impartial?  David Brooks voice audibly shaking when he attempts to explain why the Clinton campaign is "failing" so hard?  Chucky Dodd and his case of pink eye?  His presumptuous and flawed electoral calculus after WI?

                          SNL lampooned the FUCK out of the "4th" estate on Saturday and you can tell every single one of them saw the intro.  They all looked SO incredibly FOOLISH.  SNL did a GREAT job on Saturday putting perspective on the unbridled enthusiasm the "4th" estate has shown for their candidate, Barack Obama.  

                          by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:24:29 AM PDT

                          •  I don't pay attention to the msm. Why do

                            you?  They are all "fatheads".  Their one and only master is ratings.

                            I canceled my cable subscription and I think all of the NY Times columnists are grossly out of touch (that includes Krugman, btw.  He may be a great economist (or whatever) but he's definitely pulled some stuff straight out of his a$$).

                            My decision is based on a balanced assessment of the facts that I've been able to gather on both candidates.  I pay close attention to factual criticisms and praise.

                            by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:40:10 AM PDT

                      •  The problem is

                        she's running on her record, which includes the 90s -- my doubts about her during that era have nothing to do with Zippergate, but rather the polarizing way she handled the health care issue. If you're going to highlight the positives, you also have to deal with the negatives; you can't just pretend they didn't exist.

                        by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:36:00 AM PDT

                  •  I distinctly remember

                    Obama speaking to that very topic in Boise, Idaho. I can't give you a verbatim, but I do remember being impressed by his decency.

                    by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:22:55 AM PDT

                    •  What'd He Say

                      Win me over.

                      Did he say attacking the Clintons sucked?

                      by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:26:33 AM PDT

                      •  I Think You Hear What You Want to Hear...

                        because Obama distinctly referred to trivial attacks as part of the "Silly Season" of politics.
                        He didn't say the attacks only came from his side of the campaign aisle.

                        You know... it can go either way. ;}

                        I will tell you that it offs me that Hillary Clinton say she is better prepared to be president because she's already been splattered against the wall by the right wing pit bulls.

                        I'd say this is lowering the electability bar, wouldn't you?

                        If I hear this at Tuesday night's "debate," then you'll know where to find the confidential source of the "Danger, Barack Obama! Duck!" fearmonging stories:

                        HRC: "They've already shredded me to bits
                        and the Secret Service hasn't received any Hillary Death Threats against me or McGrandpa. Shame on you, Barack Obama, for worrying the nation."

                        by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:55:08 AM PDT

                      •  Like I said,

                        I don't remember well enough to quote. But, I can say this. Obama was not attacking Hillary. It was clear that Hillary was not the enemy. He came down hard on the fear and smear tactics of the right wing. His speech had more to do with the vision that he had for the country and the world. I felt inspired and uplifted. I do know that Obama and Hillary co-sponsor each others bills in the Senate. I know that their working relationship has been very good in the past and I think it will be in the future. Obama And Clinton are both pros. When this is all over they'll work together either way. What is going on now is mainly theatrics for the benefit of the voting public. Try to relax and enjoy the entertainment.

                        by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:00:02 AM PDT

                      •  Edgar, I just wrote a long post

                        explaining why I've been critical of Bill Clinton (who I think was an excellent president but I have some problems with his concept of the "3rd way").  But having read your posts, I think it's a lost cause.  I'm not trying to be mean.  I just think you're not movable (which is cool) and there's no real dialog going on.

                        by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:00:18 AM PDT

                •  OK

                  i really hate Obama.

                  And all he had to say is it was wrong.

                  that's all he had to say, and i'd be on board.

                  by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:19:31 AM PDT

                  •  say WHAT was wrong?

                    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:29:26 AM PDT

                  •  You Sound Like My Mother, circa 1970-something

                    "Just admit you did it and you can come out the corner."

                    by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:24:39 AM PDT

                •  All he had to say is

                  it was wrong.

                  Why couldn't he say that?

                  by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:28:03 AM PDT

              •  Enjoy the next 4-8 years then

                if Obama is elected.

                And if McCain is elected, I'll remember you and those of your ilk when McCain re-institutes the draft so we can march into Tehran, and appoints the last judge needed to overturn Roe v. Wade.

                by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:28:41 AM PDT

              •  Are you chanelling Dr. Seuss here? Spoof below

                "I am Edgar
                in a jam
                I will not eat
                green eggs and ham

                I will not vote
                I won't you see
                Unless I vote for Hillary"

                Now you're sneaking into my territory. ;>

                by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:48:00 PM PDT

                •  This spoof was directed towards Edgar, FYI n/t

                  by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:51 PM PDT

          •  We're not asking about your criticisms

            but you made a big deal about hearing from Obama supporters who would have supported Clinton in the general election -- so we're just wondering, if Obama is the nominee, would you vote for him?

            My guess is no, which makes your protestations about Obama supporters who "hate" Clinton a bit hollow at best.

            by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:26:15 AM PDT

      •  What a joke....

        that would be.  After all the snubbing, sexist attitudes coming from Obama himself, I would not be surprised if she slapped him dead in the head.  I wouldn't blame her either.  Obama supporters, please spare the rhetorical questions like, "WHEN did Obama EVER snub Clinton?  When did Obama EVER have a sexist attitude?"  It's all veiled of course.  He would never DREAM of being overtly sexist toward her.  Else, how would he dip into her women demo?

        Look, she now has some real contempt for the guy.  Again, I can't blame her.  Any real man would have some decorum (especially the fact that she is a good 13 or 14 years his senior) when interacting with her.  

        They are both power brokers.  Only one of them has actually worked to get there.  Only one has taken the full force hate machine that Republicans bring to the party.  Only one has the knowledge and skills to run a successful administration.  Well, at least the ORGANIZATIONAL skills.

        Obama said it himself;  his weakest aspect is his organizational skills.  Now, I don't know about you, but I consider that a true sign of laziness.  In his own words, "If someone doesn't hand me an important paper seconds before I need it I'll probably lose it."  When you can't even pick up a folder, label it "important papers" and keep it in a safe place that's flat out laziness.  

        Maybe you've worked for one of these types in the past.  In my estimation they are extremely hard people to work for.  They frustrate you.  They anger you.  It's uncomfortable to work for a "boss" who can't keep track of his most important documents and needs YOU to do it for him. Sorry, but, I see that as a deal breaker when considered for the highest office in America.          

        by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:01:34 AM PDT

        •  Link? n/t

          by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:05:20 AM PDT

          •  For which?

            If you're asking for the answer to the question of "what is your weakest aspect" to which Obama responded "my organizational skills" I can't find it beneath the mountain of links that say he is the best organizer in the history of American Politics.

            Is that the one you wanted?

            If not which one?  You have to specify.

            by TheKost on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:36:01 AM PDT

            •  No. I loved that he answered that question

              honestly.  Unlike HRC saying that her biggest problem is that she "cares too much".  I mean, please.

              I'm referring to:

              the snubbing, sexist attitudes coming from Obama himself

              I'll read your links, if you have them, and I will consider them.  But if I happen to disagree with them will you say I'm part of the "Celestial Choir" of Obama?

              by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:18 AM PDT

            •  His personal organizational skills

              may leave something to be desired -- but if you judge from the success of his campaign, he has the skills to choose qualified and competent individuals to take care of the details that need to be done, and after nearly 8 years of cronyism and incompetence and "Heckuva job, Brownie", that is going to be the most refreshing part of a new Administration.

              Besides, any CEO will tell you that when it comes to personal organization, that's what "executive secretaries" and "personal assistants" are for. :)

              by Cali Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:53:10 AM PDT

              •  Cali Scribe, I don't want to smear

                anybody, but I highly recommend that you read the above users' comments.  

                We're pissing in the wind.

                by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:56:03 AM PDT

        •  So I guess he'll need a secretary

          and a file clerk. I think the American taxpayers can handle that.

          by crystalboy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:00:20 AM PDT

          •  Sure Wish We Had Foot the Bill for a Nanny for W

            ...or didn't we?

            Cue to Condi, Cheney, Rummy, Scooter, TurdBlossom and all the cool kids in Georgie's clique.

            by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:09:03 AM PDT

        •  Dear TheKost,

          I don't know what your motivations are but I've been reading through your comments.  Do you just like stirring the pot?  Are you a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise?  I must tell you that it sucks to realize that I've wasted my time responding to your posts.  Maybe that's your intention?  Distraction?  I don't know.  Please stop wasting people's time.  This election matters to many of us, if not to you.

          by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:47:20 AM PDT

•  Thought the same thing!

  How could they print that? What utter, incendiary garbage. Who controls their editorial staff?

  by MrMichaelMT on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:29:30 AM PDT

•  In the immortal music of Pink Floyd...

  by Trix on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:32:36 AM PDT

  •  more floyd (not the mashup)

    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:50:21 AM PDT

  •  btw trix...

    ...do you know where partially impartially has gone off to?

    i miss having him around. every time I wrote a diary i thought might be controversial i tried to anticipate his potential criticisms.

    i'm worried that i'll get lazy if he doesn't come back soon!

    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:54:13 AM PDT

    •  I don't know...

      I have enough trouble keeping track of myself.

      :-)

      by Trix on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:59:26 AM PDT

      •  have you seen trix lately?

        maybe a special apperance from ceiling cat if you got one in ya'?

        by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:00:40 AM PDT

        •  The Secret Service handles this kind of hate ;)

          empty

          by Trix on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:04:17 AM PDT

•  Suggest this: 150 Cities will burn

  Want to play silly games?
  These fuckers are leaving.
  We try it the easy way first.

  by MadCityRag on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:55:22 AM PDT

•  It's the Audacity of the Insinuation...

  that hope begats assassination.

  I could see this on TMZ. Drudge even.
  But the Times?
  Giving legitimacy to the right-wing NRA fruitcakes?
  Giving a sense of normalcy to the murder of our nation's best and brightest?

  I need a swig of Edgar's coffee to swish the stain of nausea from my insides.

  by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:55:54 AM PDT

  •  lol

    i want to start a campaign of wreccing edgar08's non-100% dickish comments. think of it like tickling. lol.

    by JedReport on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:01:43 AM PDT

•  There was GREAT security in Austin....

  ....we had to walk through metal detectors, prove that cameras and any accessories work, and more or less dump out and walk through every item in any bag anyone had.  Yes, he has had death threats.  That's why he has a ramped up security process, and a massive secret service detail with him.

  by tkmattson on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:07:49 AM PDT

•  I Want to know Why...

  Why doesn't HRC advise Her People to lay off the whisper campaigns? She who projecteth Karl Rove into the mix makes me think the lady doth protest too much.

  I started this diary because the news stories creeping into the media in re: Obama's safety trouble me as a human being.

  That any politician is given such a megaphone warning by The People that one's life is in danger because said politician is out there trying to make a difference hurts this heart to the core of my being.

  Did I miss any headlines in 1999 and 2004 that smacked of fearmonging vs. W? Why is Open Season on Obama considered a Fact of Life? I'm not naive to think it's not there.

  I just want to know... why.

  by WriterRoss on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:46:47 AM PDT

  •  WriterRoss, I'm so with you on this.

    I've been making a real effort to evaluate these candidates on the facts and the issues, but there's so much weird smearing going on, it makes it hard.  Which I think may be the reason why HRC is doing it.  I don't want to misrepresent myself in that I've preferred Obama the whole way, but I completely rejected HRC after South Carolina.

    I've been fascinated by the presence of freepers on dKos and I've been trying to follow their posts to try to understand if they really believe what they're saying, or if there's something else going on.

    Read the posts by the TheKost who is posting on your diary.  I don't want to smear anybody, but it's suspicious.  Here's a sample:

    This guy looks more and more like a dirtbag wordsmith manipulator everyday.  He, almost verbatim, used some other guys speech that ran against Romney years ago who was attacked in the same manner Obama is today regarding his empty rhetoric.  He, of course, explained it away after the fact.  "Oh we 'bounce' ideas off each other a lot".  What, when you guys play Politician 2.0 on Xbox 360?

    Yesterday, I followed a user named "getalife" who was just posting venom all over dKos.  That user got banned.  I can't link it bc the comments were hidden, but my responses to that user are still on my comments list.

    It's impossible to say what people's motivations are, or whether they are Republicans or people working for Hillary, or just really angry people.  I can't say.  But the Clinton campaign does seem to have accepted an "anything goes" kind of attitude.

    by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:17:35 AM PDT

  •  I hope I didn't break a dKos rule

    by calling out another user.  I really didn't mean it to be a smear.  I just want to make that clear.  I've just had this feeling, that I guess I'll never be able to prove, that the Clinton campaign is loading up blogs with venom.  Every blog on the internet has this almost constant stream of factually incorrect and venomous posts.  It's so creepy to me.

    by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:38:34 AM PDT