So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Obama

I'll make this brief.

Apparently a lot of you don't get Barack Obama.  I saw this problem coming a mile off, especially during that brief window where Kos didn't care for Obama and preferred Edwards.  The problem is very simple, and the way it's played out is pretty funny to me.

Barack Obama isn't a knife-fighter.  He doesn't slash, he doesn't go for the face.  Barack Obama finesses his opponents.  He outthinks them.  He seldom lands a blow because he seldom needs to.  He's great on the counterpunch, but his heart really isn't into bloodletting.

The netroots wants someone to make the Republicans pay for what they've done.  The netroots wants someone to kick their asses, if not kick in their teeth.  Well guys, if that's what you want, you don't know Barack Obama.

And I do...

This is the guy who, when he was in charge of the Harvard Law Review, made it a point to include conservatives in the publication despite the fact that those who preceeded and followed him generally did not.  This is the guy who takes the time to understand the other side, and learn from their positions.

This is what post-partisan "new politics" means!  It means you don't try to get cute and attack Senator McCain in any way related to his military record.  First off it's a phenomenally bad idea.  Whether it is right or wrong the American people believe very deeply that McCain's heroism is sacred.  It's frankly a bit overdone, but the polls show it consistently and my own life experiences make this plain.  You can't touch it.  You just can't.  Secondly, it goes against everything Barack Obama has run on.

You guys have deluded yourselves to no small degree if you expect some kind of progressive Smackdown champ.  Barack Obama is a Constitutional scholar and an inclusive thinker.  He is not into direct confrontations.  Look at how he's run every campaign and every major legislative effort.  He seems to avoid the head-on collision and tries to outfox the other side.  He generally succeeds.

What General Clark said was factually pretty correct, but it was waaaay off message.  Whilst Barack Obama is saying that he wants a more positive kind of politicking one of his most prominent supporters tries to cut John McCain off at the knees.  It doesn't really matter that Clark was correct!

Barack Obama gets to determine the message and underlying theme of his campaign.  Anyone involved in it needs to understand that.  If Barack Obama doesn't think that going negative, especially on an issue like McCain's military record, then frankly anybody in that campaign is doing themselves a disservice.

Clark was right, sure.  That doesn't mean that this was the right time or the right way to make this point.  Barack Obama has done pretty well for himself and for our party by his own techniques, and his methods don't involve a methodical deconstruction of his opponent(s).  He's more subtle than that.

You're going to have to accept it.  Obama hates the Right less than we do.  I want somebody better than me.  I want somebody who tries to make our political process more enlightened and less warlike.

Obama will hit McCain on the issues and on judgment.  I don't expect him to hit McCain on McCain.  It's totally out of character for him to do so.  

Obama is generally risk-averse (politically) and generally courteous, whilst keeping people at arms-length.  Get used to it.

FYI, this doesn't mean that us regular folks can't say and do what we like. I'm referring to people who work for Obama or hope to.



Display:


Tips? (2.00 / 15)

For the high road.

For knowing that we don't have to go there, and we sure as hell don't want our surrogates going their own way.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:10:55 PM EST

I think you're wrong. (2.00 / 5)

It's not a matter of the netroots wanting red meat, here.  It IS finesse.

Obama is what we die-hard chess players call a positional player rather than a tactical player.  

Rove would definitely be a tactical player, and a brilliant one at that, a player who pulls off brilliant, short combinations of moves that seem to defy expectations of the normal rules of chess.  

A positional player, on the other hand, lines up his pieces to control important ranks and diagonals and strategic squares and attempts to create and exploit small weaknesses in the other side.  It requires longer-range thinking and the ability to make subtle assessment of the board.  

Perhaps I am wrong, but that's where I see Obama's success coming from.  For all the belly-aching we have had about whether Obama can survive some horrible Swift-Boat adventure, Obama has been steadily improving his situation on the fundamentals of MONEY (a much better predictor of victory than polls) and GROUND-GAME.  

As for the bitter back and forth, Obama has done well to play a subtle game of distancing himself from the worst attacks against his opponent while at the same time expressing outrage against such attacks against him.  Hillary-ites know what I'm talking about.  This is strategy, and he is very good at it.

So let's not confuse this with Kumbaya politics.  Obama is in this to win, and if you don't believe that, ask yourself how the hell he got where he is if he isn't.  


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:57:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you just agreed with reaper... (2.00 / 3)

...while calling him wrong. I like your analogy of the positional vs. tactical player, but that isn't inconsistant with anything in the diary. There are many in the netroots who just want a hard hitting bloodbath right now. They aren't goping to get what they want--Obama plays a long-range game, and you're right, he is very good at it.


by Mystylplx on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hope you saw olbermann (none / 0)

no matter what obama does on fisa the gop is going to paint him as soft on terror.

what is obama's campaign doing to paint McSame?

for a while it was a bush third term, but I haven't heard much of that lately


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not too keen on your sig... (none / 0)

The primary IS over


by lolo08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

Barack Obama isn't a knife-fighter.  He doesn't slash, he doesn't go for the face.  Barack Obama finesses his opponents.  He outthinks them.  He seldom lands a blow because he seldom needs to.  He's great on the counterpunch, but his heart really isn't into bloodletting.

What utter bull.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."  -- Barack Obama


by Xov Wonk on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

Followed by the diarist's comment, "He's great on the counterpunch"

Oops. Sorry I ruined that for you. My bad.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:01:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

Are you quoting Barack Obama or Sean Connery from The Untouchables?


by nathanp on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would hazard (2.00 / 1)

no guess about Obama's personal beliefs.  I don't think we really know who the hell the people who run for President really are at a personal level.

Having said that, there is much in your diary I agree with.  


by fladem on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

Really enjoyed your diary. It's amazing what this young "inexperienced" man has accomplished. He just gets stonger and we can expect the new ideas
to convert more and more voters.
by Politicalslave on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

Then why is his lead shrinking?


by MNPundit on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where? (none / 0)

He just opened up in Gallup again, and has yet to trail there since the end of the primary.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:30:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rubbish (none / 0)

Obama has held an average lead of five of seven points over McCain since June 20. He isn't tanking at all.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/349/6 8525830gx6.jpg
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_obama-225.html


by EnzoValenzetti on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (1.50 / 4)

Loved your diary, because it gives such great perspective from the inside of the circle.

This is the new rehash of "Obama leaves no fingerprints".  Except that you see the fingerprints.  I see the fingerprints.  We all do.  You just deny that the fingerprints are right there.

If Axelrod told Obama that going after McCain's record would be a winning strategy, Obama would have been silent while his toadies repeated the talking points.  That's how the campaign has worked from the beginning.  You've seen it done.  I've seen it done.  Everyone else here has.  You just claim it doesn't happen.

A great perspective from inside the circle.  Thanks for sharing.


by SuperCameron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (2.00 / 1)

Tips for new trolls. It's best when it's your first day here to try and pretend that you're a Dem., this way your "concern" might seem legit. Rookie mistake. I guess you'll have to re-register now.

Oh and your welcome.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:45:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

If Obama loses this election, you can look in the mirror and know why.  Your attitude is a direct reflection of Obama's.  Like attracts like.

Cheers.


by SuperCameron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know you can read MY thoughts, boy... (none / 0)

MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW MEOW


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

TR'd for "toadies".  It's disrespectful, and obviously intended to incite Obama's supporters.


by ThinkerT on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

It's not disrespectful in the least.  Anyone who deliberately repeats someone else's lies for the sake of the campaign or because it's so important to "win" is a toadie.  It's bad enough that there are so many who go on the tv to do it.  If it's the average Obama supporter, this country is doomed.


by SuperCameron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? (none / 0)

How did you manage to write all that and say absolutely nothing?  The Republicans are wrong - I don't want this post-partisan "new politics."


by daria g on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not everyone want's the Jihad? (2.00 / 5)

"The netroots wants someone to make the Republicans pay for what they've done."

No, I think the most ANGRY and most unsophisticated netroots folks want the Jihad candidate?

Personally, I want FDR, who smiled out in public, and had his opponents legs cut out from under them (pun intended) behind the scenes.

He seems so benign and fatherly, but he was ruthless when he had to be. But it wasn't malicous, it was just to get the results he knew could drag the country back from the abyss.

America doesn't want an angry curmedgeon in the WH, which was Reagans sunny disposition trick.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:16:25 PM EST

Re: Not everyone want's the Jihad? (none / 0)

As much as I like FDR, I want someone more like Bobby Kennedy (both way before my time, so I'm going on history here).  We'll never know how Bobby would have been as a president, but he was progressive to the core, and he genuinely cared about people (FDR too).  Maybe FDR and Bobby are closer than I thought.  Both good people, both had affairs, both were major progressives, both knew how to play politics, both from famous political families.  Hmm...I smell a book here!


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:37:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Aikido Candidate? (2.00 / 4)

I think we've all had enough of watching political cage matches at this point.  But the question that the Obama campaign needs to address now is whether deflection is a methodology for him or his policy persona.  If Aikido can get healthcare past the Ultimate Fighting thugs, that would be beautiful to see.  I'm all in for Obama and have been since December.  I'm not looking for more political courage on the campaign trail, just a little more intellectual courage and innovation with regard to policy positions.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:17:40 PM EST

Ummmm (none / 0)

DUCK and cover! I hear incoming.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST

I agree 100% with the following statement (2.00 / 4)

It means you don't try to get cute and attack Senator McCain in any way related to his military record.  First off it's a phenomenally bad idea.  Whether it is right or wrong the American people believe very deeply that McCain's heroism is sacred.


by soyousay on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:19:01 PM EST

Re: I agree 100% with the following statement (none / 0)

SO, when did anyoen 'get cute' and attack McCain related to his military record?

Clark certainly did NOT do thtat, and that's what's wrong with this discourse.  


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree 100% with the following statement (none / 0)

I think you misunderstood - I believe what the diarist intended was that you don't attack McCain in any way that can be interpreted as being an attack on his military record.  You're right that it's what's wrong with this discource, but the problem is that it's been what's wrong with our national discourse for several elections and not going to change for this one.  

Winning the game by the rules you have, not the rules you should have or wish you had - or in other words, finessing the system.


by ThinkerT on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:48:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree 100% with the following statement (2.00 / 1)

you don't attack McCain in any way that can be interpreted as being an attack on his military record

The Republicans will DISTORT comments in order to have the media interpret statements as an attack.  They will keep distorting, and the media will keep following right along, unless someone in a leadership position stands up and fights back.  Where some see "post partisan," I see caving in without a fight.


by daria g on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree 100% with the following statement (none / 0)

I disagree with you.  I think there are far too many low-info voters who will always push back against any attack that even seemingly implies something negative about a Republican's military service.  When it was done to Kerry, on the other hand, no problems with that.  Apparently it only matters when it happens to "salt of the earth" people (which has to be the most ridiculous method to choose a president, and one of the more common ones in certain parts of the country).


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree 100% with the following statement (none / 0)

I didn't take "get cute" as positive language.


by soyousay on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:52:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree 100% with the following statement (none / 0)

SO, when did anyone 'get cute' and attack McCain related to his military record?

Clark certainly did NOT do thtat, and that's what's wrong with this discourse.  


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think I get "new politics" now (1.71 / 7)

"new politics" means Obama is a saint, and he will never have to be mean, and because of that politics will be really pleasant.


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST

Re: I think I get "new politics" now (2.00 / 3)

And here'ts the first fish who doesn't get it, but needs to get over it.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I get "new politics" now (2.00 / 5)

""new politics" means Obama is smart guy, and he will never have get bogged down in the wars with the radical right, and because of that his politics will be really effective.

I like Bill Cliton a lot, but he had to play defense all the second half of his admin, because the Republics dragged him into a streetfight.

Obama wants to try something different?

It's hard for a lot of progressives still stuck in the 90s, but the Millenials all get it.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is Obama the first to try "new politics" (2.00 / 4)

it's a wonder nobody's tried it before. You all make it sound so easy.


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To everything, there is a season (2.00 / 4)

Timing is everything...

It's the generational shift, like Kennedy had.

Remember, Truman (just like Bill) thought Kennedy was not qualified to be President.

If Obama wouldn't have done it, the next candidate up would have done it.

Seibilus, for one, plays the same style in Kansas.

That is whay Obama feels closer to her politics then he does to Hillary's.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK this is your first campaign. (1.50 / 4)

"The millenials get it."


by catfish2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Explaining my TR (none / 0)

Belittling another poster (your title) and condescending to an entire segment of the base (your comment). If I'm misreading, feel free to open dialogue with me; I check back semi-frequently and will undo the TR if I'm wrong.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Belittling anyone over 21 to say (2.00 / 1)

the millenials get it.


by catfish2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't read it that way (none / 0)

And I'm older than 21 myself, but I see how it could come off that way. I'll rescind the TR; let's both try to assume the best of our fellow democrats. Mea culpa.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK this is your first campaign. (2.00 / 1)

I'm 28 and I get it too -- except I would express it differently: that you detractors are stuck playing Chess while Obama's campaign has been playing Go since the primaries.

In Chess the rules are simple: checkmate the king. You can't checkmate the king without attacking him.

In Go on the other hand you can lose every single battle and end up winning the game because you're advancing on territory across the board, while the opponent is focused on a handful of small battles they consider "crucial".

Clinton lost the primary season exactly because she was playing Chess while Obama was playing Go, winning in margins across the board in states big and small while Clinton was giving it all for the "crucial" states.

Now all her former supporters demand that Obama starts playing Chess simply because it's the only game they understand. Well frankly I trust the Obama campaign to understand strategy more than I trust the Clinton campaign to do so.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Zero Sum (none / 0)

Go.  Love it.  And not before time, either.  Peaceful, contemplative and yet so bloodlessly and emphatically victorious.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:07:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK this is your first campaign. (none / 0)

Well, my first REAL campaign was doorbelling for Jack Kennedy with my mom, who was a precinct worker for the Kennedy campaign.

My ass has been embedded in Democratic politics ever since, but thanks for asking!

You see, unlike a lot of boomers, I recognized the change neccesary from the politics of the 90s?

So sad, many are still stuck on the cul-de-sac politics of that era.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You Said It (none / 0)

Funny, that.  But true.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:09:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's how I read the diary, too. (none / 0)


by Dumbo on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I get "new politics" now (none / 0)

Yes, politics will totally rule, if you're David Broder.  Every afternoon in Washington, David Broder will consider his approval of politics, drink tea, write a thoughtful column bestowing his approval upon the wonderful civility of it all, and take a nice nap, and dream of the magical Unity Pony.


by daria g on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 5)

Read the General's statement here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 608/Clark_wont_back_down.html#comments

By the way, how come Obama was so willing to engage in a knife-fight with Hillary but seems unwilling to engage in a knife-fight with McCain?


by Blazers Edge on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:24:41 PM EST

Re: Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 5)

He didn't get into a knife fight with Hillary Clinton.

Also, strictly from a pragmatic perspective it's just a really bad idea to engage McCain on his biography.  It's his absolute strongest point.  

Even Democrats tend to respect John McCain.  You wanna beat John McCain?  You tie him to Bush and you make it plain to the electorate that electing John McCain will hurt our country in ways we simply cannot afford.  McCain is all over the map on policy, and he doesn't have the intellectual depth that Obama does on policy issues.

Hammer him there.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 4)

He did get into a knife fight with Hillary.  He(his campaign) called her a liar, manipulating, triangulating and someone that would do anything to get elected.

He used a Republican attack ad against her and even acknowledged it's use, and endorsed it.  That's a tactical air to ground fire mission...yet, he puts the kid gloves on for McCain?

I don't know bot...Gun control, FISA, and now this...

If the netroots wanted a real fight they would have supported Hillary, because she was and did indicate that she was spoiling for a fight with the Republicans and was ready to go toe to toe with them on this very type of issue, so I don't think it's quite the case.  I think everyone is just waiting for him to take a stand.  We need to remind him that his primary campaign slogans still need to ring true now also.  Change starts here...now.

These recalculations and his hesitancy is what will lose him the election if he keeps listening to those pushing, pushing, pushing him to the center.  The same people who told Gore to ignore Bill, and not engage directly with Bush and the same people who told Kerry to not get into a direct confrontation with the President are advising and pushing Obama to the center.  They have already lost 2 elections for us.  If they keep doing it, they will lose another yet again.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not what's happening here. (2.00 / 9)

Obama is smart; look at the primary. He fought Hillary in the way she is vulnerable. Fair or not, she is seen as manipulative and false. It's her asset and her vulnerability; too good at reading the polls and reacting swiftly. That calculating image was her Achilles' heel, but the talent that created that image is also what brought her so very close to a comeback when she located, isolated, and pursued the exact message for the voters she was courting.

Obama will fight McCain in the way he is vulnerable, and I'm sorry but that's not on character. Besides the (in my opinion bullshit) reverential treatment of the man because of his war experiences, he's got his media 'base'. If McCain's character could be assassinated, his own behavior would have done it by now. If the media doesn't ding him for calling his wife a cunt or leaving his crippled first wife for a rodeo-queen heiress, he's unassailable.

Now I realize that Clark was doing no such thing. He answered a direct question directly and insightfully, but the McCain myth has a mystique to it, and simply shining the light on it won't undo that. In fact, a full frontal assault on a basic tenet of McCain's argument (I'll be a good President because I'm a war hero) serves only to put people on the defensive. It encourages a descent into those old Vietnam era battle-lines between those who venerate military service and the dirty hippies; it pushes the right-leaning moderates to take McCain's side simply because Johnny didn't dodge the draft and did his country proud. Clark didn't do anything morally wrong; politically though? He fucked up.

Winning the primary battle is all about selecting the battlefield. Fair or not, stupid or not, relevant or not, McCain's strongest suit is his biography. Whether or not it was an attack, even going into that territory allows the media narrative to dwell there, and in that place the terrain advantage is McCain's. He's been desperately trying to make this campaign about his service since it began. What do you think of Medicare? "Well, as a POW I...." What should be done about the economy? "Well you know, I learned a lot about hardship in Hanoi..." The man desperately wants to frame this election in terms of his military service; Clark gave him that.

Obama beat Hillary by moving the battlefield away from her her strengths and onto her weaknesses. Here are the perceptions, correct or not. Strength: fighter; weakness: two-faced. So what did he do? He neutralized 'fighter' with talk of post-partisanship and moved the battlefield to consistency (cite: "I was the only candidate against this war from the beginning").

He's doing the same thing with McCain. McCain's hero image is the impenetrable fortress. He doesn't even want to talk about McCain's biography except in the brief, dismissive, moving-along "While I honor John McCain's service..." prefix no one even hears anymore. You don't assault the Maginot Line; you go around it. Strength: biography; weakness: policy. Suddenly, Obama is a wonk. Let's cut the the character crap and talk brass tacks. Service aside, this man is bad for the country. Just as he played at the intersection of his strengths and Hillary's weaknesses before (Iraq vote: codeword Judgment), he wants to do the same thing now. Don't debate the biography. Don't even encourage people to think about it. Dismiss it and move on.

It hurts to see a valued attack dog saying what we've all been screaming get hung out to dry. Clark kicked some ass, and I think his perfectly fair, factual statement will have positive ripples, but those ripples will materialize best divorced from the formal campaign. Clark's no rockstar. Soon enough the narrative will shift back to Obama, and when it does, he wants the media to leave McCain's service behind and stop reminding the American people how much they love this mavericky war-hero. It's the corollary to the common wisdom on how you deal with smears; if it doesn't help you, it doesn't bear repeating.

Wes Clark made his point and planted his seeds. The ideas are out there, and they will serve Obama best if he leaves them alone and lets them grow naturally. The media unfairly made this into a character assassination, but whats done is done. Obama isn't here to go to bat for Clark; Clark is here to go to bat for Obama. He'll take the PR hit and get the idea out there; Obama will denounce it, benefit from the idea's gradual percolation, and allow it to subvert McCain quietly without arousing the "RAWR PATRIOTISM" crowd.

Renouncing the comment moves us past it faster. The sooner we get past this, the sooner Obama can reap the benefits. The worshipers put their backs down and start to think about what Clark said as Obama quietly, subtly, blamelessly alludes to the idea. Long after the mess is forgotten, he points out McCain's sudden tie to a swiftboater ( can't you hear it : "That's exactly the kind of old politics we're trying to close the door on with this campaign). Clark goes away for a couple months and gets a haircut, and by the time he shows back up most of America has forgotten that this is the guy who dared to say their beloved straight-talker was blowing smoke.

Clark and Obama are both best served by letting Clark get off the stage double-quick before this defines both him and the campaign. Denouncing the comment is the fastest way to do that. I love the man for saying what needed to be said, but now's the part where he takes a short-term hit for the team and we all move on.

The big seat, 3 justices, and a big majority in the legislature; if Obama wins this, we aren't just looking at a good four or eight years. This is a realignment. Republicans still haven't been able to undo the social programs that happened the last time Democrats had this kind of control. If we can get in there, by hook or by crook, the long term effects will be incalculable. Obama has to win. If that means a good man takes a fall for him here, it hurts me to say so, but let it happen.

Go donate.

Go volunteer.

Get your enthusiasm back up. Even if he's the most triangulating centrist Democrat in history (which he's not), we will still see incredible leaps forward under a unified, three-branch Democratic government.

He's doing what it takes to win, and thank God for that. Most years I'm an idealist; this year winning is everything.


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (2.00 / 3)

This should be a diary. Not complaining about it being too long, just think it deserves to stand out from a comment section. Extremely well-reasoned and well-written. Kudos.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! nt (2.00 / 1)


M. It's like W, but flipflopped.
by warmwaterpenguin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:52:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (2.00 / 1)

Brilliant comment.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (2.00 / 2)

He fought Hillary in the way she is vulnerable. Fair or not, she is seen as manipulative and false.

It's not fair, and it's a personal, character based attack, and had no place in the primary, and progressives should've stood up and said "no" when he did this instead of egging him on.  "Winning" by throwing out progressive, liberal values you were fighting for in the first place - what have you won?  At best, the right to govern from a position that is NOT progressive or liberal?  There are many ways to win, especially in a year that is overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats, I don't see any need for him to run to the right and not take on any tough fights along the way.  I don't see scorched-earth tactics as a requirement to win either, and I don't believe in them.  


by daria g on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:10:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (none / 0)

First, let's not pretend like Hillary was a saint during the primary.  The difference between the two is that Obama (largely) let his surrogates do his attacks, while Hillary's came directly from her and Bill.  Doesn't make either one more right, but the perception it created was important.

Second, since when is not attacking your opponent a progressive ideal?  Progressivism to me means moving toward a more fair economy, supporting social rights, and becoming a part of global diplomacy.  Progressivism to me has nothing to do with how politics are played.  Let's all keep in mind that politics is the means, not the end.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (none / 0)

She was hoist with her own petard.  Remember 'Well, now the fun part starts.' back on the second of December 2007?  Fun... always in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (none / 0)

Sure I remember that.  What is the problem?


by daria g on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not what's happening here. (none / 0)

Forget it.  If you can't even see it with the benefit of hindsight what's the point?


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (none / 0)

None are so blind as those that will not see....

Yeah, he's being SO gentle with McCain he has been ripping him for weeks?

On policy, which is probably what drive the bitter folks like you, still TRYING to fight the wars of the 90s into mass confusion.

Ghosts, you are still chasing ghosts.

The rest of us are moving on, but you, Texas Un'Darlin, are mired in the past.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (none / 0)

" The same people who told Gore to ignore Bill, and not engage directly with Bush and the same people who told Kerry to not get into a direct confrontation with the President are advising and pushing Obama to the center.  They have already lost 2 elections for us.  If they keep doing it, they will lose another yet again."

--------------

Look and you will find Donna Brazille at the bottom (or at least in the middle) of all 3 campaigns.

If you want to win you gotta cast out the Brazille.


by wblynch on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really??? (2.00 / 2)

Attack the strong points worked well for the last two elections.  Rove, slimy b*st*rd that he is, gets that nothing is too low for the electorate.  Who knew that attacking a Vietnam Vet's record, mocking his purple heart, would help win the presidency for a former drunk and druggie who went AWOL on his service?  America LOVES its vets?  Could have fooled anyone in 2000 and in 2004.  Rove had W Bush trash two vets (McCain and Kerry) .....and it worked.  So history says you are wrong.
Even the Obama campaign figured out "trashing strong points" work.  Hillary Clinton was admired, respected and loved in the AA community and Axlerod took a page out of Rove's book and turned Hillary into a racist, effectively taking away any support she had from the African American community.

So let's be at least honest here.  If Obama wants to win this thing, "respecting" McCain is not the road to take. And when you say "democrats even respect McCain" it is laughable.  Republicans were happy as clams to trash McCain in 2000......and to trash Kerry in 2004.  Military service means nothing.....it is all about the SPIN game.


by Jjc2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wonderful advice... (2.00 / 1)

...if we want to lose.

The Swift Boat attacks aren't what sunk Kerry.  Kerry's failure to respond to the Swift Boat attacks is what sunk him.  

I'd hazard a guess that most people knew that it was probably bullshit, but the deafening silence coming from the Kerry campaign on the matter led to some ugly speculation and questions about his willingness to fight for the country as president if he wouldn't even fight for himself as a nominee.

Furthermore, that was all Bush had.  Kerry was strong on all the issues.  Obama is strong on all the issues, he has no need to go after McCain's record.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wonderful advice... (2.00 / 1)

"The Swift Boat attacks aren't what sunk Kerry.  Kerry's failure to respond to the Swift Boat attacks is what sunk him."

BINGO. That two week period where Shrum and the old liners were telling Kerry to ignore the Swift Boaters cost him the election.

Had he gone on TV the next day, and called them out PERSONALLY Mano-y-Mano, he would stopped the bleeding, changed the story, and at least not looked like an elite wimp.

If it wasn't the key moment he lost, well....  


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 10)

Oh come on. He has been fighting McCain, but, he CAN'T go where Wes can go.  

Wes has the military bon a fides to go where Obama should not.  

And, you all know that?  Come on, at least admit it, that's what's going on here?

Obama has been ripping McCain over policy for weeks, but going at his Military bon a fides is no place for him to go.

Wes, on the other hand....


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you not remember 2004? (2.00 / 1)

George W's service to the country was a joke, and John Kerry won a purple heart and WHO trashed whom on military service?
Get real.  If the democrats play this stupid game again, afraid to attack, afraid to call out hypocrisy, then we will lose.
by Jjc2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:19:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not relevant (none / 0)

McCain's military record, however spotty and entitled due to his family name, has no bearing on where he'll take the country as President.  That's the gist of what Clark was saying, though he flubbed it badly.

We can beat McCain on the issues.  By doing what Obama has done, he also undercuts some of the shadier attacks by Republican servants.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you not remember 2004? (none / 0)

"If the democrats play this stupid game again, afraid to attack, afraid to call out hypocrisy, then we will lose. "

Wow, are you calling Wes Clark NOT a democrat?

Let me do this ONE MORE TIME for you folks evidently new to politics:

Campaign surrogate makes controversial charge against opponent; Candidate DISTANCES himself from the comment, stays on the high-ground; Opponent is forced to respond to surrogate; News Cycle continues.

Any comparison to Kerry misses the point: Obama wasn't in the military, if he is seen attacking McCain over his military service, the blow-back WILL BE the news cycle?

You Clintonites are so whigged out about "hard-working white people" I.E. the Appalachian vote?

Point is, if you are Jim Webb or Wes Clark, you can go at McCain's military background.

If you are Barrack Obama, it's quicksand.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Give me a break (2.00 / 1)

John Kerry was advised as the candidate to "not stoop to W's level"; to ignore; to let surrogates do the dirty work.

And that strategy FAILED....

and if Obama does not have the b*lls to be honest about this (Wes said nothing wrong), then he is going to lose


by Jjc2008 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 4)

I wondered the same thing myself in regards to the way Obama fought the Clintons.

I don't once remember him calling any of his surrogates to task for statements they made about them.  So why attack Clark in defense of his GE opponent?   Especially when Clark did nothing of the kind of 'attack' that folks here are claiming he made?

Good grief.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 1)

I don't once remember him calling any of his surrogates to task for statements they made about them.
Of course you don't. You were too busy jumping up and down and screaming about the evil obamatrons to pay attention.

You guys are funny. There are a bunch of you posting diary after diary about him throwing people under the bus and then you have the gall to say you don't remember him ever taking his surrogates to task for statements they made. I'll bet you remember the remark about Hillary being a monster alright. Do you remember that the person that made that remark was asked to leave the campaign the very next day? Of course not, because then you'd have to let go of some of your anger and that just wouldn't do. Anger is the only thing people like you have going for you.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, now that you .... (2.00 / 4)

bring it up, I do remember that.  So you are equating an Obama staffer calling Hillary a 'monster' with Clark's statement about McCain?

Ludicrous.

However, I will say that I have  never once 'screamed about evil obamatrons', and I plan on voting for him.  I just dislike hypocrisy.  I also dislike the explanations that I see here from the deeply involved Obama supporters claiming that it allows Obama to get this message into the political discourse and remain 'clean' of it and 'above the fray'.

That's not 'politics of hope' nor is is 'change', it's just the same old odwnright dirty tricks we've seen from the GOP for some time now.   Nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire, but please don't try to feed me dog shit and tell me it's caviar.

I also like Clark, and feel that he deserves much better treatment than the Obama camp and the Obama netroots have given him, overall.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, now that you .... (2.00 / 1)

I was not equating what was done with Clark with the occasion when Hillary was called a monster. You said you didn't remember Obama ever calling one of his surrogates to task and I gave you an example. Then you call that ludicrous. You did this even though I quoted the part of your statement that I was replying to.

I didn't disagree with your comments about Clark. I feel somewhat the same way. He is my second choice for Veep. My first choice is Edwards. Your first choice is probably Hillary and I respect that.

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with you. I've noticed that you have recently begun to enter into discourse and seem to be holding back on your anger about how things went in the primaries. This doesn't mean that you will ever be happy about that or will 'get over' it. What it does mean is that I think you have the best interests of the Democratic party at heart and are coming to realize that continuing to indulge that anger will only hurt the party.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (none / 0)

Clark is my FIRST choice for VP.  I have continually stated that I do not want Hillary on the ticket.  For Hillary to be placed on the ticket, to me, looks like giving her the "Miss Congeniality" award, or the 'also ran' trophy.  She deserves better, and can have a much more important role in other positions, IF the folks in the party who detest her so much will swallow their bile and realize her attributes far outweigh her negatives.

Most of my 'anger' about the primary has been directed at the DNC for their treatment of voters in FL and MI, and yes, I know about 'rules', but I also know about voters who had nothing to do with the changes that caused the mess, and their shoddy treatment by the DNC.  Other than that, the way the media stacked their coverage to be negative of the Clintons, and the influence of the 'ABH' crowd early on, folks I beleive who only detest her because of the AUMF vote and her reputation that was created by the VRWC, I had no problem with the primary.  Obama played better politics.  But that's not 'politics of change' or not being a 'typical politician'.  I can understand that.

What I thought was ludicrous was the equating of a very truthful statement by Clark with a very inane statement by an Obama staffer, and yes, I know you were'nt really equating them, but using them as examples.  But, following Obama's 'can't let that stay out there' model, I had to make a statement.

Yes, I am 'getting over' my aggravations and my dissappointment from the primary.  I can deal with the fact that in the end, there could be only one, and we had two very good choices.  It does dismay me that the 'winners' still for some reason have to try daily to denigrate the 'looser'.  I think if they could let go of that, we could all be friends again.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. (none / 0)

Clinton supporters and Obama supporters see exact opposite views about how the primary was conducted and who was worse towards whom. I don't even want to get into the FL/MI mess. You've heard all of the arguments from both sides on that issue.

One statement you made stood out to me.

It does dismay me that the 'winners' still for some reason have to try daily to denigrate the 'looser'.  I think if they could let go of that, we could all be friends again.
This is another place where the two sides see mirror images. If the statement was changed by switching the order of the words 'winners' and 'losers' that statement would make perfect sense to an Obama supporter.

I believe that as the GE progresses there will be less and less sniping by both sides. Once people learn to let inflammatory comments slide they will begin to focus on November and the bitterness will be put aside for now. That's my hope, anyway.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, now that you .... (2.00 / 5)

I like Clark as well. I'm sure we all do. I've made a couple DIARIES calling for Clark to be VP.

But General Clark is not stupid, and neither is Barack Obama. One of the most decorated men to ever wear a uniform made valid points about McCain's military (experience) for Executive leadership. He he STILL is getting slammed by the media. I just watched The Verdict on MSNBC, the host Dan Abrams is ordinarily very fair and very sharp. He let his guests completely chop up the facts about what Wesley Clark said. This is after Clark was just on fully explaining his position and how it was taken out of context.

The former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces can't even comment on McCain's experience (as it pertains to the Presidency) without media going on a feeding frenzy. If Obama tried to jump on that ship he'd get eaten alive.

Obama knows it, and CLARK knows it. I have no doubt Clark expected Obama to take the position he did, and has no problem with it.


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 01:14:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, now that you .... (none / 0)

"He he STILL is getting slammed by the media."

I think that's the answer to why Obama had to call him on it.  

I want Clark as VP, though I now realize I'm likely to be disappointed.  But the real problem (politically) with that Clark said is that it could have been said differently.  Instead of stating that being shot down does not make one qualified to be president, why not just say that being in the military does not make you qualified?  It would achieve the same point without any chance for negative consequences (though it would hurt Clark's chance of VP obviously).


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My take (none / 0)

Clark bungled it when he said that being shot down was not a qualification to be president, but that McCain showed courage and character after being captured, and those are things people look for in a president.

It was a seemingly conflicting statement, and what Clark needed to do was clarify that all he was talking about were the strategic-level planning skills a president develops a need for (and, incidentally, the kind that Clark has as former Supreme Commander), not the burnishing of status as a war hero and POW.

I like Clark a lot, but he's not very good at politics.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, now that you .... (none / 0)

In reality, I think that Clark's still being slammed by the media is largely our fault.

If we had a rapid response team that went out and repudiated the GOP frame of what Clark said with the rebuttal of the TRUTH of what Clark said in toto, we could slap down the media charade.  That's why 'we' as a party get slammed by the media all the time: we don't have the equivalent of the rabid talking heads to combat them on their own turf.  Faulty 'facts' get spread every day as truth and go unchallenged.  Half truths get foisted as fact, sound bytes become the full statement when they are not, and we let it go.  We also give in to the media's tactics when we do what Obama did and rebuke a statement that was true because only half of it is being made the issue.  Clark deserved better, and Obama is falling right in line for the media circus.  I'm dissappointed.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, now that you .... (none / 0)

"Instead of stating that being shot down does not make one qualified to be president, why not just say that being in the military does not make you qualified?"

THAT is what's getting missed in all of this. Watch the video. Clark was baited into saying it that way.

(paraphrasing)

Interviewer: "You know Obama never rode in a fighter jet and got shot down"

Clark: "Riding in a fighter jet and getting shot down doesn't make you qualified to be President."

Republicans: "Yes! Let's take that out of context! Beautiful!"


Gobama!
by USArmyParatrooper on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, now that you .... (none / 0)

"The former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces can't even comment on McCain's experience (as it pertains to the Presidency) without media going on a feeding frenzy. If Obama tried to jump on that ship he'd get eaten alive."

Chewed up and spitten out. Why don't the Clinton-Ites get that?  Actually, I think they do, but just are looking for reasons to trash the candidate.

"Obama knows it, and CLARK knows it. I have no doubt Clark expected Obama to take the position he did, and has no problem with it."

Sure he did. Wes is a big boy, he can surely handle himself just fine from the chattering pundit class.


"Either you're the butcher Or the lamb but even so, Everybody pays as they go-Jakob Dylan"
by WashStateBlue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark ain't backing down (2.00 / 2)

I wondered the same thing myself in regards to the way Obama fought the Clintons.

I don't once remember him calling any of his surrogates to task for statements they made about them.  So why attack Clark in defense of his GE opponent?   Especially when Clark did nothing of the kind of 'attack' that folks here are claiming he made?

Good grief.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tipped and Recced (2.00 / 7)

Thank you.  This election isn't about smashing windows and burning down government buildings.  It's about retaking the White House and building a filibuster-proof congress.  Period.

Anybody that doesn't see that as priority #1 between now and November doesn't know what they're doing.


by spunkmeyer on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:28:33 PM EST

And if that doesn't work... (none / 0)

then we go to the smashing of windows and the burning down of government.  j/k?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So Apparently a Lot of You Don't Get Barack Ob (2.00 / 4)

Obama does not practice the politics of contrast, he is not a straight up fighter for any particular principles. But he is quite skilled at what I consider the knife fighting of politics, character assassination. It usually takes his targets a little while to realize they are bleeding.


by souvarine on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:30:15 PM EST

LMAO. (1.12 / 8)

This is snark right?

I mean riiiigh?


by LatinoVoter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:32:41 PM EST

Re: LMAO. (2.00 / 4)

No, it is not.  Now go back to your fantasy land.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LMAO. (none / 0)

Your sig demonstrates that you still don't know the meaning of the term "riding dirty."


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My sig is a quote (none / 0)

from Obama's friend and spiritual guru. I just changed WJC to BHO and Monica Lewsinky to Alice Palmer and black people to Hillary.

If you have a problem with the use of "riding dirty" take it up with Rev. Wright.


by LatinoVoter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My sig is a quote (none / 0)

Nope, my point is that your use of it illustrates that you don't know what it means.  There was and is nothing offensive about the original quote.  I can only assume you are one of the people that (incorrectly) believes it means rape or anal sex.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LMAO (none / 0)

I love that you're projecting your sexual views onto me. LMAO. I know what riding dirty means, thank you very much.

Here is the original quote by Rev. Wright.

Bill Clinton was riding dirty. He did us like he did Monica Lewinsky.

Since you see nothing wrong or offensive with the original then stop whining about my remix.


by LatinoVoter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LMAO (none / 0)

I find nothing wrong with the original, because it means hiding something.  If your quote uses that original meaning, then I don't find it offensive at all.  Sorry that I jumped to the thinking that you were another idiot who thinks it means sex (there have been quite a few responses stating as such on this blog).  Mea culpa


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for this diary... (2.00 / 6)

See I am one of those Democrats that want to see Republicans pay.

What I thought was a lot of thirdway rhetoric coming from you is now clear to me.

I just hope that the blogosphere and activist base understands your point.

If we do, we are unstoppable.

Thanks again.

Recced.


by DemsLandslide2008 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST

Re: Thank you for this diary... (2.00 / 1)

Thank you.

What do you mean by "third way"?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for this diary... (2.00 / 4)

Little bit of insider baseball there,  third way is a PAC or as they say 'strategy' center.

Anyways I know one of the directors there, she left a very very liberal media outlet to go there.
I have picked up that the group also represents a philosophy.

anyways, check them out http://www.thirdway.org/


by DemsLandslide2008 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for this diary... (none / 0)

"very very liberal media outlet"

Oh my god, they still exist??  I thought they were extinct?  It's certainly not CNN or even MSNBC, and NPR has become more and more centrist.  I am hoping it was the NY Times!


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:54:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for this diary... (2.00 / 2)

I want to see Republicans pay, too...  I want the fighter as well... but, discretion is the better part of valor.... sometimes walking away from a fight is actually a victory.  Just ask George Washington, who won the revolutionary war mostly by running away from battles he couldn't win (and tiring out the British in the meantime), then striking hard on ones he could... on the battles that really matter...

There's also the Star Wars reference that letting your feelings control your destiny is a sure way to the dark side.  We certainly don't want to emulate the GOP... not when their name and tactics are so despised by the public right now...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for this diary... (none / 0)

Have you read 1776 by David McCullough?  Lots of insight into Washington and his troops.  Good read.


by ProgressiveDL on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So (2.00 / 2)

great diary.  you should cross post at daily kos...


by elie on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM EST