• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Primaries

organik

TRIBE Member
GO RON PAUL!!!!

Even though he won't win... He's been inspiring to listen to. He would have been great for America, rather then the other 3 CFR members.
 
Last edited:

Deus

TRIBE Member
Colm said:
I thought Obama saved himself after the Wright debacle - but don't expect this issue to disappear if he wins the nomination. But whatever, that's for another time. What this episode has done for me is highlight what an effective campaign Obama has run compared to HRC, whose campaign has been a complete and unmitigated disaster. Just compare how Obama handled Rev. Wright and HRC's veep proposal to HRC with Bill's rants and her losses in a few key primaries. He's a very able politican, rising to the moment, as opposed to HRC, who very much seems to dread facing the public in a difficult situation.
Judging from the reaction on the American message boards, the Wright debacle has not saved Obama. Many people are weary of Obama now because a fuckwit like this was his spiritual leader for so many years.

I disagree with their sentiments, and think that a person shouldn't be judged through a proxy, but by his own character. But whoever expects Americans to be rational?
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
polls are showing that an overwhelming majority believe that Obama did a good job addressing Wright and that a similar majority agree with his address on race. I think Obama will be alright.
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
Bass-Invader said:
polls are showing that an overwhelming majority believe that Obama did a good job addressing Wright and that a similar majority agree with his address on race. I think Obama will be alright.
I think it would be really sad, though somehow not surprising, if his speech actually did more harm to his campaign than good.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
organik said:
rather then the other 3 CFR members.
You're right to point out that Paul's foreign policy stands in stark contrast to the "mainstream" candidates, and that the mainstream candidates all share certain fundamental assumptions about America's role in the world. They are after all, establishment candidates.

But what we're left with - among Obama, Clinton and McCain - can't be described as simple carbon copies of a foreign policy outlook, a "Council on Foreign Relations" outlook (if such a thing exists).

As much as Obama and McCain share certain ideas about "democracy" and intervention, there is nevertheless a series of very real differences between them. The foreign policy of America under Obama would be different - in tangible ways - from that of McCain.

On Iran, on Iraq, on terrorism - perhaps the most important areas of American foreign policy nowadays - they definitely do not see eye to eye.

And I think those differences - if I were American - would have me seeing my vote as probably more meaningful now than it would have been 10 years ago. I definitely would not feel comfortable with painting all remaining candidates as simply more of the same.

I do think its worthwhile to note the continuities of American foreign policy: the cloaking of self-interest in language of "freedom" and "democracy", its willingness to "pick a third world country to kick around now and then to show the world we mean business", its belief in a civilizing, messianic role not all that different from imperial nations that came before it. Even on domestic policy, there are certain facets of the status quo that remain unchanged or changed little due to the self-interest of elites and simple systemic inertia. In that way I can totally see how one could say "there's no difference" between Clinton and H.W. Bush or "generic democrat presidential candidate" and "generic republican presidential candidate".

At the same time, even in elections not as momentous as this one, ones where the groups jockeying for power had more overlap in their perceived interests (say, Nixon/Carter for example) that even then, there were important differences in outlook (and in the interests that stood behind each candidate) and that these differences resulted in political divergences in outcome worth noting.

Had Carter won his second term, pretty much unthinkable given the situation of the time, but had he done so - I guarantee the face of America would be very different. Reagan definitely took the country down a different course, especially on domestic policy and economic issues.

So while I can sympathize with the frustration felt when looking at continuing inequality, structural blockages to certain minority groups, all the damn wars and conflict caused by an arrogant and self-interested "hyperpower", I do think it's a mistake to let this frustration blind oneself to the nuances between candidates running for office. There's so much influence wielded by the President that even subtle differences between establishment candidates can change the lives of Americans at home and non-Americans abroad in meaningful ways.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Obama - Ahead of the Curve on the Mortgage Crisis

Here's a letter Obama sent on March 22nd, 07, regarding his worries about an impending mortgage crisis:

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes.
And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators' Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:

* What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.

* How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.

* How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.

* How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.

* How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.

* How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.

Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short- term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.

Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don't let this opportunity pass us by.​
 

Hi i'm God

TRIBE Member
I've seen a bunch of OMG she LIED fall outs from this already...

Clinton admits error over Bosnia gunfire claim

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Hillary Clinton said her claim of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia was a "minor blip," but Barack Obama's campaign saw a pattern of dishonesty that should disqualify her from the White House.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Philadelphia Daily News, the former first lady said she "misspoke" when she claimed last week that a hail of gunfire ambushed her arrival on a 1996 trip to Bosnia.

"I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire," Clinton was quoted as saying.

The New York senator has run into a hail of controversy since making her Bosnia remarks, part of a barrage of boasts of superior foreign-policy experience over Obama, her rival for the Democratic White House nomination.

"When you make a false claim that's in your prepared remarks, it's not misspeaking, it's misleading," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said late Monday.

"It's part of a troubling pattern of Senator Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience."
The Bosnia row, which has intensified since the release of 11,000 pages of Clinton schedules from the 1990s, has overshadowed her attempts to wrest the campaign narrative back to the faltering US economy.

*snip*

The Bosnia row has been an unwelcome distraction as Clinton battles to persuade Democratic elders that she would be a safer bet to go up against the veteran McCain than the freshman senator from Illinois.

Clinton said last week: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

But television footage from the trip, on which Clinton was joined by her daughter Chelsea, singer Sheryl Crow and a comedian, showed the then-first lady wreathed in smiles as she was met on the tarmac by an eight-year-old girl.

Clinton, interviewed by the Philadelphia newspaper's editorial board ahead of the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, denied that the row might undermine her national security credentials.

"No, I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book," she said.

"I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."
 

Colm

TRIBE Member
So Americans are still talking about Rev. Wright! I didn't think it would come up again until the Republican attack machine kicked in full gear, but I guess it's too juicy a target for disgruntled HRC supporters to pass up. And they do have a point - Obama did sit throught 20 years of Rev. Wright's anti-semitic and racist tirades. It gets tricky to distance yourself from a 'crazy uncle' when you spent the last two decades listening to this uncle every Sunday morning.

I think HRC's little white lie is just another nail in the coffin. Now the military is pissed with her for making light, especially in a time of war, of a dangerous situation. I can't understand why on earth she would lie about it, even if she did think it would boost her foreign policy credentials. The foreign policy-military experience relationship is important to political commentators and some neo- conservatives, but not to anyone else. As far as I know, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher didn't spend anytime in the frontlines, and they handled foreign policy as well as any of their male counterparts.

Now I suppose all that is left for Obama to do is not melt under pressure like Kerry and Dukakis did to secure the presidency. This is probably his weakest point (aside from being an entrenched left of centre-left democrat masquerading as a post-partisan politician) since no one really knows how he will react once McCain and the right unloads on him. He's handled HRC well enough, but she's got to consider the overall health of the Democratic Party and the possibility of forcing him to be her veep, so I don't think we've really seen anything yet.
 

dvs

TRIBE Promoter
obama's race speech was brilliant imo. ballsy. haven't heard the truth spoken like that in a long time. refreshing to say the very least.

d
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
"In a move that's sure to be seen as controversial, Hillary has contacted the NCAA Board of Directors to argue that Memphis is actually better qualified to be National Champion.

Ms. Clinton stated that Memphis, while losing the game, had actually shown more ability to act like a National Champion on Day One. She argued that Memphis had passed every test during the game, including scoring more points than Kansas for 38 minutes. For 38 minutes they had shown the experience necessary to be National Champion. 'Just because some team comes along in the last minute and scores more points than the other guy doesn't mean they're necessarily able to be National Champion on Day One,'"

- DPolitico.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Andrew Sullivan's live blog of the debate



9.51 pm. The big winner is John McCain. Then Clinton who seemed at least awake. Then Obama whose calm was nonetheless trumped by obvious exhaustion. Yes, the Clintons have shredded him. But that's what they know how to do. It's also what the GOP knows how to do. Obama has got to get used to this and find a way to withstand it and fight back without enabling the very cynicism it represents. That's not easy, and we are discovering if he has it in him. Tonight he looked and felt depleted beyond measure. Which is when his supporters have to take the weight.

The loser was ABC News: one of the worst media performances I can remember - petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about. At the end of the debate, it appeared that the crowd was actually heckling Gibson. "The crowd is turning on me!" complained Gibson. He has no idea. But he will soon enough.

9.49 pm. The closers: Clinton went into rote mode. They both need a rest. Obama's final words were great: against spin and PR and in favor of an honest conversation at a dire moment in history. It makes you realize that among the forces that have to be defeated if such a conversation is to take place will be the kind of "journalism" we have been forced to endure tonight.


9.44 pm. If you want to let ABC News know how you feel about this "debate", here's the link.

9.38 pm. A reader notes:

You understate how silly the constitutional snippets are. The first snippet, awarding the vice-presidency to the runner-up in electoral votes, was superseded by the Twelfth Amendment!​
And Gibson made it the basis for a question if my memory serves!

9.32 pm. No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran ... but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers. I'm all for keeping candidates on their toes. But this was ridiculous. And now we have affirmative action? Again, it's not illegitimate as such - but the only reason it is asked is to try and trip these people up and make Gibson and Stephanopoulos look smart.

9.28 pm. A reader writes:

Has Obama's message of a new vision of politics ever looked more attractive than after this display?​
9.24 pm. Am I the only one to find these Constitution snippets lame beyond belief? Talk about a failure of imagination. We're learning that the networks cannot actually handle these debates any more. Cable did them so much more effectively.

9.20 pm. Obama's convoluted capital gains tax answer was a brutal reminder to folks like me that he is indeed a redistributionist, and someone who seems to see the tax system as a way to decide what people "deserve" to have and keep. Ugh. Of course, Clinton isn't much better, but that Obama answer was dreadful. He's having an awful night; Clinton hasn't helped herself much either. It's a huge night for the Republicans. If McCain went up against either of these two in the form they have shown tonight, he'd win. Obama's performance is the worst in months. But, given the quality of the questions, you can see why. Still ... not good at all.

9.15 pm. The longest section on policy so far, in the age of terror, debt, and torture ... is about the capital gains tax. And Gibson is clearly trying to get both of them to say something that can subsequently be turned into a gaffe or a GOP talking point. There have been almost no clear, substantive policy questions designed to elicit real information.

9.11 pm. Check out the ABC News comments section. The viewers appear mad as hell at this pathetic shell-game. They should be. Money quote:

My pet snake would be a better moderator than the two dopes ABC has supposedly running this debate! After an hour, we get to a legitimate question??!!! HORRIBLE JOB ABC!!! Just plain HORRIBLE!!!!!​
9.07 pm. Jonah:

I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a "fighting Dem" who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the "real issues," I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.​
I don't think all such questions are irrelevant. But the massive emphasis on them for half of this debate has been staggering. My prediction is that many, many viewers will be furious at ABC News. Even on the substantive issues, which they have finally begin to discuss, the questions are all of the "gotcha" variety. The biggest winner so far is the GOP. The biggest loser: ABC News.

9 pm. Clinton will disappoint her neoconservative supporters by such a strong, unequivocal commitment to withdrawal from Iraq. She is, of course, lying. But she does it so well. They both seem exhausted at this point. But she has the capacity to run on fumes. This is all she lives for. Obama seems off-balance and drained. All I'm learning from this debate so far is that both need a rest and that ABC News is utterly out of touch with their viewers.

8.55 pm. A reader writes:

This debate is beyond disgusting. The triviality of this whole production from the intro segment to the nature of questions is just gross. There's no decency or dignity to any of this. "Clinton versus Obama." Is this a sporting event?​
Yes, it is. And a ratings event. Barely journalism. The worst display by the MSM in this campaign so far. It took a network, I guess, to plunge this low.

8.53 pm. They're actually asking a question about the war. Remember that?

8.44 pm. Ambers: "Even Clinton advisers can't believe that ABC asked about wearing the flag on his lapel."

I have to say I am actually shocked at the appallingly poor quality of the questions: the worst of the campaign so far. Pure MSM process bullshit. Again: it's now halfway through and there has not been a single question on the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, terrorism, Iraq or any other actual policy issue in this campaign. How much longer can ABC News avoid the actual policy issues in this election?

8.40 pm. Now, it's flag-pins! I'm just pointing out that we are now almost halfway through this debate and ABC News has not asked a single policy question. It's pure Rove, sustained and hyped and sustained by Stephanopoulos and Gibson. It's what they know; it's easy; and it will generate ratings. It is not journalism.

8.33 pm. So far, neither Gibson nor Stephanopoulos have asked a single policy-related question. They seem utterly uninterested in foreign or domestic policy. After the past eight years, we have had half an hour with nothing but process questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos are clearly part of the problem in this election and part of what has to be reformed.

8.32 pm. She mentions Hamas! So far, this debate is pure MSM elite issues. And Rove.

8.31 pm. What kind of question asks a candidate to determine another person's patriotism? When that person served his country in Vietnam?

8.27 pm. On Wright, again her shamelessness helps her. His affect is total exhaustion, alas, as if being pummeled with every Rovian tactic has beaten the life out of him. And he is being pummeled by the ABC hosts as well. One reason I like the guy is that he is still human; politics hasn't killed his soul.

8.21 pm. Obama gains a little momentum back, by tackling the bitter issue head-on. By reminding Clinton of her "cookies" gaffe and taking the high road with respect to her on Rovism, Obama also scored. Especially among Democrats who once sided with the Clintons. Her parsing to say she wasn't criticizing him but his marks are belied by her ads which she approved specifically demonizing Obama himself. Those ads are still in constant rotation in Pennsylvania.

8.15 pm. Because she's shameless, she's doing better. The appropriation of small-town life as part of her autobiography was a particularly brilliant touch. She was much subtler than her ads have been, or than she has been when she isn't looking at Obama. And that "Yes, yes, yes," to Obama's capacity to beat McCain was painful.

8.10 pm. That opening silence was priceless. But he seems exhausted. Since she has had her humanity surgically removed, she seems less so.

8.06 pm. Both opening statements total blather. But she looks a little more comfortable.

(Photo: a Clinton supporter at a Bill Clinton event in Pitanning, Pennsylvania. By Jeff Swensen/Getty.)
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Tell it like it is Senator!

So f*ckin refreshing!

"I will tell you it does not get more fun than these debates. They are inspiring debates. I think last night we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

It took us 45 minutes — 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.

Now, I don’t blame Washington for this because that’s just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversies and getting us to play gotcha games and getting us to attack each other. And I’ve got to say Sen. Clinton looked in her element," - Barack Obama, in Raleigh, today.​
Nice one on Clinton there too..:)
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
hey, no one can bat 1000...:)

and there's points to be made about how ABC ran that debate (ie, servicing GOP talking points for the first 50 mins)
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
hehe.... I guess my mind just kind of skipped over that foreign word, but what does "nuthug" mean?

weird word!
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
hehe.... I guess my mind just kind of skipped over that foreign word, but what does "nuthug" mean?

weird word!
LOL I love "nuthug", that's a great word. I'm guessing it's similar to "ballwash" when in reference to someone glowing about someone else (in the context of the last few posts anyways).
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
oh nut-hug!

I was putting it all together and pronouncing it kind of like "nuffug"

now it makes a lot more sense! :)
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Death By A Thousand Trivial Smears

by digby


I had another post teed up about Glenn Greenwald's latest, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, but will run it tomorrow instead because of the perfect nexus of one of the themes of his book and last night's egregious debate.

George Stephanopoulos, responding to the firestorm over his and Charlie Gibson's performances last night, told the LA Times earlier today:


“The questions we asked were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant and what you would expect to be asked in a presidential debate at this point,” he said. “The questions we asked…are being debated around the political world every day.”​
He expanded on that in an interview with Greg Sargent:

"We decided to focus at the top on the issues that had been at the center of the debate since the last debate. Everything we brought up in that front section had not come up since the last debate. And they all focused on the same theme -- which candidate would be a stronger Democratic candidate in Novembber."

"This is the core question for the campaigns, and a lot of Democratic voters right now. That's why we decided to lead with it."​
Heeere's Glenn, in Great American Hypocrites:

As always, they justify their vapid gossip by patronizingly claiming that it's what the little people are interested in -- all grounded in their condescending fantasies about the political assessments of the salt-of-the-earth simpletons who comprise the voting masses -- but this sort of childish, barren yapping is, in reality, representative of nothing other than how our empty Beltway media thinks.

That has been the dominant media theme for the last two decades in our political discourse, and particularly in our national elections. Leave policy and ideology to the side. Just ignore it. What matters is that Democrats and liberals are weak, effete, elitist, nerdy, military-hating, gender-confused losers, whose men are effeminate, whose women are emasculating dykes, and who merit sneering mockery and derision. Republican right-wing male leaders are salt-of-the-earth, wholesome, likable tough guys -- courageous warriors and normal family men who merit personal admiration and affection.

The Republican Party pioneered by Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and Karl Rove will redeploy these same personality-based themes in the 2008 election because it is all they know and, more important, because nothing has yet ended the efficacy of such deceitful strategies. A shallow and gossipy press continues to eat it up.​
The "issues" that Stephanopoulos and Gibson thought were of such interest to the Democratic primary electorate are the vaunted "character issues" which are pulled off the shelf in each successive election cycle and reused like an old winter blanket. These manufactured controversies are supposed to illustrate something important about the candidates --- indeed, journalists tout them as necessary to see if the candidates can "take it." Since the media see Republicans as being straight shootin' sons 'o guns who tell it like it is, there is no need to run them through the same meat grinder to find out if they are similarly "qualified."

It's absurd to think that Americans really care about flag pins or unreliable memories of a single event, (which have already been hashed out ad nauseum for weeks, by the way.) Of course they don't.

Glenn's book takes a nice long look at this phenomenon, examining the MSM's unabashed obsession with tabloid gossip and their eagerness to help the conservatives employ the death of 1000 trivial character slams, which we've all observed with slack-jawed incredulity over the past couple of decades. He carefully examines the long standing "Republicans are real men, Democrats are wimps" narrative that was consciously and carefully marketed to the mainstream media over the course of many years by the right wing propagandists. He takes us through the Dukakis campaign, through the bizarre case of Bill Clinton (where they feminized him by masculinizing his wife) to the recent atrocities of Gore and Kerry. It's not in the book, obviously, but we can see the same forces at work with Obama and Clinton just this past month.

The important thing to realize is that these themes have been completely internalized by the villagers. They really don't even question it anymore, it's completely natural to them. When you see George Stephanopoulos essentially explain that Democratic voters are choosing between an flaccid, unpatriotic "metrosexual" and a lying, delusional succubus, and it's simply his job to help them sort that out, you know that he's completely lost touch with what people actually need politics and government for. (It pays to remember that George made his bones by being the first in the media to use the word "impeachment" when Monica Lewinsky was revealed. He always knew which side his stale baguette was buttered on.)

In a particularly fascinating passage, Great American Hypocrites takes a close look at what happened in this cycle to John Edwards, former senator, vice presidential candidate and ardent family man. Essentially, he was turned into a preening gay hooker, primarily at the hands of a new news organization --- The Politico, run by a man who casually proclaims that "Drudge rules our world."

The most petty Politico attack began on April 16, 2007, when former New York Daily News reporter ben Smith, assigned to cover democratic presidential candidates for The Politico, published an item regarding John Edwards' haircuts. The item was titled "The Hair's Still perfect," and at the top displayed a large informal photograph, grinning widely.Underneath the photograph, Smith wrote" How much you ask [sic] does it cost to look like that?"​
Smith conveniently linked to the infamous "I feel Pretty" YouTube. Glenn continues:

GOP operatives repeatedly referred to Edwards during the 2004 campaign as "the Breck Girl," a slur disseminated most helpfully by the New York Times political reporter Adam Nagourney. Nagourney, in a front page Times article at the height of the 2004 campaign, actually granted anonymity to his "sources," whom he described as "Bush officials," to sling that emasculating insult at Edwards. (In this same ignominious article, Nagourney mindless parroted the same anonymous cowards as saying that Kerry "looks French," leading to that "observations" becoming a favorite anti-Kerry insult of the national media throughout the campaign.)

Three years later, in April 2007 --- in the midst of the Edwards hair "controversy" --- Nagourney wrote in the New York Times about his 2004 hit piece, sheepishly acknowledging the significant role the "looks French" and "Breck Girl" attacks he published played in demeaning the personalities of Kerry and Edwards during the election:

Our story may have had the result of not only previewing what the Bush campaign intended to do, but, by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialog, helping it.​
It apparently took Nagourney three years of deep contemplation to realize that turning over the front pages of the New York Times to anonymous partisan smear artists might actually end up bolstering their smears and cementing them in our national political dialog.​

That's just the beginning. Glenn deconstructs the entire episode and even someone as familiar with this sorry tale as I am was just astounded at how clueless and frankly incompetent these so-called journalists are when you see the whole thing unfold chronologically. Adam Nagourney is, by all accounts, a very nice guy and beloved by all who know him. But it's journalistic malpractice to not realize that you are being used for political purposes when you push out a story like that. Every time one of these apparent naif's do it the consequences for the country are immeasurable. You all saw what they can do in that revolting display last night in Philadelphia.

I'm sure the Village media see Glennzilla as the scourge of the beltway and resent him greatly for his bold, brave book which names name and takes no prisoners. As all of you who read his blog know, the man is a fearless outsider speaking truth to power. It should be required reading in every newsroom in America.
 

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
Bass-Invader said:
Did he fail to explain why he wasn't wearing an american flag pin enough for you or something?
Aw, did i hurt your feelings? Because clearly if you didn't think Obama did well in the debate it must be because of some trivial reason. And clearly one can't hold the view that he's the best candidate but had a poor performance, must be something more sinister at the core.
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
kerouacdude said:
Aw, did i hurt your feelings? Because clearly if you didn't think Obama did well in the debate it must be because of some trivial reason. And clearly one can't hold the view that he's the best candidate but had a poor performance, must be something more sinister at the core.
ooo, look at you, the puppetmaster, toying with the feelings of the fragile sheep-people on the internet. i feel fine, but i do think you're being stupid by trying to metric anyone's performance at all in that worthless farce of a debate.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Pompous or not, answer the question. It's boring to read insults slung off the cuff. If I wanted to see mud flying there'd be more sexy involved then there is in this corner of tribe.

Is it or is it not stupid to use the debate as a legitimate metric (not a verb) of Obama?

And then expanding on that... is it legitimate to use a debate like that one to measure the performance of any candidate or was the whole thing just added smoke to a house of mirrors?

Then the next step is wondering where the line is between a debate which would offer a legitimate basis for criticism and one that does not afford such a basis?
 
Top