home

Double Standards

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall writes:
One point that should not go unmentioned is that what former President Clinton is described as doing in that Times article is little different from what the first President Bush has done in his post-presidency. And his son is the president. So if it would be a problem with Bill, and I think it would be, it unquestionably is already a problem with the current president's dad. And no one has seemed to much bother about it.
Geez Josh. What could possibly explain that double standard?

< Pitching Edwards And His Supporters: Health Care Coverage | Was Bill Clinton A 51-49 President? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Double Standards | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Maybe Chris Bowers (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    will write a Unified Blogger Blindspot theory.

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST


    Parent
    speaking of double standards... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    did you notice that bowers banned some people for "stereotyping" online obama supporters as boorish, then touted stoller stereotyping online obama supporters as being from the "creative class"?

    whatever happens on tuesday, i'm looking forward to it being over with.

    The whole "creative class" thing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. Anybody who uses it seriously immediately loses most of my respect.

    Parent
    Believe Me It Was Noticed (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:49:25 PM EST
    My first thoughts were that the tactics reminded me of Red State where you are banned if you don't fall into the party line in just the right way.

    Not a pleasant thought.

    I, too, hope it will be over on Tuesday, but I'm beginning to think it will drag on indefinitely. A great deal of harm is being done by this feeding frenzy and I'm not sure how it can be corrected if it goes on much longer. Hope I'm wrong.

    Parent

    I think we will have (none / 0) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    a shake out. Look, if they supported him this much and lets say he wins, how will they view the actual presidency? Will this kind of twisting and gyration continue? It's about hits. Right now they are basking in the traffic. Traffic is traffic.

    Parent
    Trolls and miscreants (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    are always complaining about being purged, but that's the first time I think I've ever actually seen it done.

    Parent
    i don't go there, much (none / 0) (#16)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    and now i know why...

    Parent
    I recently put them back on my RSS (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    And there it was. They way he announces what he did, you'd think it was a joke.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    You know Bowers and Stoller.

    They are what they are.

    Parent

    Their obsession (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    with who's on whose side is kinda funny and pathetic at the same time.

    Parent
    the biggest problem (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    is that whoever wins the nomination, a great number of people have okayed slanted, biased media and will have NO CRED when they suddenly whine that the Dem nominee ias being swiftboated on some bogus charge.  Live by the sword and die by the sword.  Morons.

    Ever read Greg Palast's (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    stuff on Bush I and the gold miners who were bulldozed to death?
    If you read the article (none / 0) (#2)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    it is clearly a hit piece. Disjointed facts that lead the reader to jump to conclusions, but no connections are made.

    The time line jumps 2 years into the future, to suggest wrong doing; that the reporter even reports WJC refused to do...

    Bleah...but it is interesting that both articles, the ABC piece on HRC and the NYT piece on WJC came out on the same day, and BO's rhetoric in Denver...not into a conspiracy, just saying it is interesting...

    I could not tell what Clinton had done wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    And if the big objection is what Josh is pointing to, then I say "huh?" Presidents' spouses are NOT goping to be involved in charity fundraisng now?

    Parent
    that's the key to the "scandal" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST
    the money went to his foundation. so, we're supposed to be outraged that he's raising a ton of money to help fight aids in africa?

    Parent
    Seems a misfire from Times (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    and not likely to have any effect really.

    Parent
    depends (none / 0) (#28)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    once again, the shrill is strong, in the blogs. we'll see how the rest of the corporate media handle it.

    Parent
    Story is too opaque (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:32:29 PM EST


    Parent
    it's a van natta piece (none / 0) (#76)
    by english teacher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    as in gerth and van natta.  got his start making up/reporting whitewater, iirc.

    Parent
    Misfire?...its a 4 page misfire (none / 0) (#29)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:30:12 PM EST
    I mean, someone, somewhere had to read this at the times and say, "Whats the story here...agh forget it, lets put this on the front page and sell some papers" right?

    Not sure its a misfire...

    Parent

    You miss my meaning (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    It was an attempted HIT JOB that misfired.

    Parent
    I did miss the meaning (none / 0) (#34)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:35:46 PM EST
    Then that settles it...we're in agreement...well at least it SHOULD misfire...

    Parent
    to amuse you further (none / 0) (#3)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    The front page of the big orange place now has the following story:

    Obama Raises Stunning $32 Million in January

    After 2 quotes, followed by 2 paragraph, we get to this paragraph:

    Through the end of 2007, Obama had raised a total of $80 million.  Hillary Clinton had raised $90 million.  This is yet another indication that the enthusiasm and intensity is overwhelmingly with the Democrats.  

    Translation: see, we are not biased.

    This, after kos's post yesterday, that Florida's results coming from 1.7 million people is really not valid, and that Hillary is showing poor form drawing attention to it.  

    Can some bloggers take their opinions and shove it?

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    That is a perfectly fair post.

    It is a stunning figure.

    Heck, you could argue I am showing MY bias by not posting about it more creditably.

    I am waiting to see Hillary's numbers is my excuse.


    Parent

    They also posted a reader poll today (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    showing Obama 76%, Hillary 11%, without even a tiny mention of the fact that it isn't a scientific poll.

    That's some pretty severe bias.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    Not at all.

    Everyone knows it is not a scientific poll.

    You are overreaching, to put it mildly.

    Parent

    Everyone who understands science (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    knows it's not a scientific poll.  That is not necessarily true for every reader on KOS.  In fact, I've seen a number of people who have quoted that poll as proof of Obama's general popularity.

    The reason why MSM always states when their polls aren't scientific is because NOT EVERYONE realizes it.  Not everyone understands polls and statistics, etc.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    but if anybody wants to convince themselves that those results reflect his popularity in the real, not self-selected world, then they're simply setting themselves up for a shocking blow from reality. Which is really their own problem, IMO.

    Parent
    stoller apparently doesn't (none / 0) (#40)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    it's the basis for his theory that the "creative class" has galvanized behind obama...

    Parent
    Stoller is Stoller (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    You are not asking me to take him too seriously I hope.

    Parent
    Cui Bobo? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    Wow, "creative class" is as bad and broad a generalization as the allegedly notoriously leftist evil Hollywood that gets dragged out in RW rhetoric -- except for that half of Hollywood where Reagan, Heston and a whack of others hang out.

    Since that class is my particular homeroom it's probably more encompassing of the full spectrum of humanity than any other field.

    I remember this priceless moment on Crossfire when Robert "Patches" Novak imperiously asked Ben Affleck when was the last time that brazillionaire highfalutin' actor actually talked to someone from the working class.

    "This morning," said Affleck, who added that he came from a working class family.

    If you work in the arts, and live / work /commute to Hollywood you're probably MORE likely to be one degree separated from the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor than in most other fields, and a lot more than self-important bloviating Alpha Pundits.

    Parent

    Wonderful comment -- but people vote their hopes (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    and aspirations, as we saw with the working-class vote for Reagan, et al., in the conservative revolution.  That has been the basis of advertising from the start, too -- sell the public with messages of the economic class that it wants to attain, not its reality.  Sell it the things of middle-class life in a materialistic culture, even the things of upper-class lifestyles of the rich and famous, even if the buyer is working class and ignored.

    So "creative class" may resonate with those, such as the young, who still hold hope of upward mobility --  despite the reality of a downwardly mobile society in which we live, in which we are not living as well as our parents, in which our children will not live as well as we do.

    Parent

    Eight years of of Bushco damage to the economy (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    It's a long time for the 98% not enjoying the fruits of their largesse for the rich and very upper end of the middle class who -- in my age group -- face the bookends of ageing parents and kids who are suddenly within striking distance of college.

    My financial acumen changed from a philosophy of "do what you have to to do what you want" to getting smart, fast about managing the family funds.

    Last admin, we got an accountant, a budget, and prioritized our needs because the clap-harder stories on the news just didn't gibe with what was going on among the people we knew (aside from the fat cats.)

    We put off buying a permanent home and made health care, personal mobility, and financial flexibility our priorities.

    My spouse and I don't have kids but we assumed co-guardianship of our nephews to guarantee they had health care, dental and didn't lose out on college and my sister didn't lose the family home as energy, maintenance and increased property taxes skyrocketed.

    We also want to make sure our respective parents deservedly retire with dignity and proper options for health and lifestyle ss they watch what they own in this Ownership Society decreases in value.

    When some media goof excitedly spins the economy as grrrreat because "productivity is up and costs are down", it often means -- for people like my brother in law in the mid- middle class -- that the actual WORK has been spread amongst fewer employees who are working longer hours to hang onto the job they have, not getting the OT (cf, the downside of flex time and part time).

    I know people who make a fraction of what I do that are so deep in debt that -- thanks to the bankruptcy rules -- it practically makes me dizzy hearing about it. Hope sounds great but you can't eat it and, maybe it's just me, but even as a vegetarian I'd prefer the actual steak to the sizzle and know that the cats are living it up.

    When Bush's house of cards comes down it's going to be ugly.

    Parent

    Reader poll (none / 0) (#23)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:26:51 PM EST
    It is exactly what they said it was - a reader poll.  They have been running the same polls for months!

    You are trying WAY to hard on this one.

    Parent

    Reader poll (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone.  Many people are really gullible.

    Why is it so wrong for me to want KOS to mention that it isn't a scientific poll?  Is that so horrible?  If so, why?

    Parent

    until recently i recall edwards often (none / 0) (#68)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    did better than obama in the reader polls.

    Parent
    Correct - n/t (none / 0) (#71)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Dkos has never been Clinton country. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    In a weird kind of blog segregation, the Clinton folks migrated over to Mydd and took it over.  

    Parent
    The big orange Obama place (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    Now that DailyKos is so large, and therefore so influential, I'm trying to figure out how their "fair and balanced" assessment of things is so different from Faux News.

    Maybe someone else can help me see how it's different.

    I honestly AM NOT a big Hillary supporter, but this whole charismatic fanaticism/true believer following gives me the willies.  And the use of the right wing talking points used over and over again in the 90's that (whether they were true or not) are being played over, and over, and over again on DailyKos piss me off so much that...well I can't stand it anymore.

    Parent

    dKos... (none / 0) (#15)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    ... does not pretend to be fair and balanced.  He/They are unabashed partisans.  

    That, for the most part, is the major difference between "the internets" and the MSM.  

    Parent

    Speaking of partisan (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    someone asked on another forum last night why Obama supporters (some of them anyway) were saying they wouldn't vote for Hillary no way no how no matter what, but most Hillary supporters say they'll vote for the Dem nominee whoever it is (and no holding of noses is usually mentioned).

    The answer came back: Because Hillary supporters are Democrats first.

    Parent

    Not the FP really (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    Markos misfires a lot against Hillary, but there is no real bias on the FP.

    Now the diaries are a mindless joke.

    Parent

    You Evidently Missed One Of The Latest (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    misfires by a FPer at DKos stating as fact that Hillary campaigned in Florida.

    Parent
    Yeh, the Day that DKos Died (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    when the front page read like the wreck list.

    And when a front pager, despite hundreds of comments pointing out egregious errors, refused to correct more than a couple of them -- and got p.o.'d at the continued calling out for it.  Essentially, a front pager saying clearly that DKos does not even want to claim to be "reality-based" anymore.  

    So sad, but there's a lot of room on these here internets for other voices to fill these here tubes with reality-based talk.  This is not DKos' father's internet anymore.

    Parent

    I keep hearing that too (none / 0) (#60)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    Also that she campaigned in Michigan.
    I know she did go to a fundraiser which was allowed by the pledge they all signed.

    Parent
    You Are Not Getting With The Program (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    Clinton has fundraisers in MI or FL and she is campaigning. How dare she break the rules. Obama has fundraisers in MI or FL he is strictly abiding by the rules and Clinton is playing dirty politics. Obama has an impromptu new conference in Tampa which is considered campaigning but he didn't break the rules because it is not campaigning and Clinton is breaking the rules and playing dirty politics. Obama hints that if he is the prospective nominee, he will seat the FL delegation. No problem he is just being a nice guy. Hillary says the FL delegation should be seated. She is breaking the rules and playing dirty politics. Obama's has campaign ads running on cable channels prior to the FL primary but that is a national buy so it is not breaking the rules. The fact that Edwards and Clinton could purchase ads without them airing in FL is irrelevant because Clinton is breaking the rule and playing dirty politics.

    How dare you not see that and  get with the program.

    Parent

    hey - they dont ant (none / 0) (#61)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    the facts to get in the way of their postion.

    Parent
    Egh...depends on the FPer (none / 0) (#26)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Fair... (none / 0) (#27)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    ... but what I really mean is that they are partisan Democrats - and admit it.

    That is the difference between them and Faux News.

    And I agree that the FP is fairly unbiased on the current primaries.

    Parent

    there's an enormous fp bias (none / 0) (#42)
    by Turkana on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    against republicans...

    Parent
    They do pretend to want to elect (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:30:40 PM EST
     "DEMOCRATS" when they clearly favor only certain ones (even ones that aren't necessarily as progressive as other ones)....and they don't list that in their charter at all.

    Of course, they're left, but within that leftism they don't reveal their particular brand of partisanship.

    Leaning so heavily toward Obama and sliming Hillary as they wish is not about electing "Democrats".  The fact is, it damages the Democratic party.
    To  me, maybe not to you, but to me, they use their bias just as Faux does.  As a small operation, it's okay.  However, once you reach a certain size, you have a certain responsibility.

    If you believe my previous paragraph isn't true, then maybe we shouldn't be so harshly judgmental of Faux News either.  

    The internet is changing.  To some extent, it's becoming MSM.


    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#36)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    ... don't get me wrong - I am not trying to support DKos here.  I just think that some of the complaining about bias is off the mark.

    I don't like their brand of partisanship.  They (and this is a generality that does not represent all writers over there) are not about progressive values as much as they are about furthering the Democrat Party.  They are about winning, they are about electability.  

    I understand the need for that.  I just disagree with it.

    I still read here and there, but I avoid the diaries like a plague.  

    Parent

    I don't thin thats fair (none / 0) (#38)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    I think Jim Webb and Ned Lamont are not at the same place on the Democratic spectrum...they were huge in pumping both of those candidates

    I do however think that you're right about the community's sliming of HRC though...Lieberman wasn't treated as poorly as HRC is being treated, and that speaks volumes to how the community has morphed (esp since 2006), and how group think has taken hold there...I think it has gotten too big basically

    Parent

    The inmates run the prison (none / 0) (#5)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM EST


    Parent
    How... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    ... does the above quote show bias towards Obama?

    The 32 million dollar figure is a big thing, and it should be news.  

    Parent

    Definitely (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't think the "quote" is what (none / 0) (#24)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    the commenter was suggesting illustrates bias, but the placement of the quote as an aside at the end of a diary dedicated to touting Obama.

    Bias may not be the right word even in that case though...maybe preferential selection of praise?

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    First of all, it is not the supposed USE of the money that is troublesome, but the people involved.

    Clinton has clearly sold his reputation.

    I'm just amazed that such a small tarnished thing can be worth so much.

    Sold his reputation for what specifically? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Virginian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    And who did he sell it to?

    Parent
    Compared to Papa Bush (none / 0) (#63)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    Clinton is a choir boy. At least he hasn't taken  bundles of money from Sun Myung Moon and given speeches praising him.
    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/061406.html

    Can you imagine the outcry if Clinton had done such a thing?

    Parent

    Just checked (none / 0) (#41)
    by NJDem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    Hillary's Fact Hub [http://facts.hillaryhub.com/] out of curiosity to see if they commented on the NYT story, and it seems this story (the reporting on it) is not new.

    So either this front page story adds something very damaging or they're grasping at straws to make it a "hit job."  It's so opaque that it's hard to figure out.

    I guess time will tell...
     

    Idealist vs Pragmatist (none / 0) (#44)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    Obama's a good man. He's an idealist. Remember McGovern? He was an idealist, too.

    Hillary is a pragmatist. Pragmatism wins in November.

    Idealism usually begins in youth...I know I was a flag burning hippie and really adored McGovern...He was made fun of and became a laughing stock after the election...very sad...I can understand the youth being for Obama...they are all Idealists.....but what is wrong with a pragmatist that gets things done...God knows this government is hard enough to accomplish things...We need a doer not a dreamer...

    I get our connection (none / 0) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    the McGovern pain. My first love. (smile)

    Parent
    (smile) back at ya (none / 0) (#52)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    I saw this on another blog stating the reasons to not vote for Obama and if true why isn't it more a discussion amoung democrats?

     "Well, it's more why I did NOT pick Obama. His very unstatesman-like conduct in the last few weeks is mind-boggling, and shows very bad judgment and immaturity on his part. He referred to Paul Wellstone, very contemptuously, as a "gadfly." He worked with Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont. He criticized those who voted against John Roberts for the Supreme Court. He opposed an amendment that capped credit card interest rates at 30%. He voted against people getting reasonable redress when wronged by corporations. He voted for the appointment of Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State. He uses Ronald Reagan as a positive example of how to run the government."

    If in fact, that all this is true, why on earth would these so called "progressives" be in favor of someone like that...you can bet a progressive isn't a true liberal if true...I think that the term progressive was chosen to replace liberal when the wingnuts made it so demeanable..However, I am a proud liberal and to hell with those fools...they have proven in the last 8 yrs how much they do NOT care about the ordinary American...

    Parent

    References please (none / 0) (#64)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:43:22 PM EST
    Could you provide links for this? I would like to forward them to some of my friends.

    Parent
    Links (none / 0) (#72)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    Bernie, sorry don't have links, but had seen that on a blog and wondered if it was true....

    Parent
    Some of it (none / 0) (#73)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    looks pretty spun to me, to be honest. Both Obama and Clinton supported Lieberman in the primary, for example, but both switched to supporting Lamont once he was the Dem nominee.

    I hadn't heard about the Wellstone "gadfly" comment, so I've no idea whether that's true at all or how spun it is. The 30% cap thing is true, and was addressed to a degree in the last debate -- it was a mistake for him, IMO, and does damage him a bit -- but he voted against the larger bill (which passed).  I don't like his Reagan comments at all, but the way they're presented in that quote is more than a bit of a stretch, IMO. I think most of them voted for Condi Rice, and his criticism re: Roberts can be found in his statement here; this is not really an accurate representation of his point of view, even though there are some things in his statement that do bug me a bit.

    Just my take.

    Parent

    Obama's "Wellstone is a 'gadfly' " (none / 0) (#77)
    by BluestBlue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    A quick google produced this link...

    Mr. Obama Goes to Washington
    By David Sirota The Nation - 6/7/06

    Obama was calling because he was bothered that I had written a few blog posts questioning positions he'd taken that appeared to belie his progressive image
    ...
    Obama's deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched   on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties.

    ... And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It's because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.

    http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060626&s=sirota

    Parent

    excellent (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    Great article, it's great to see something written then, that is proving the things we are seeing. This is a keeper.

    Parent
    Another keeper, I think (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    From MyDD quoting a story from Australia-but really, it's more the picture that got me.  Hadn't seen it anywhere until now.  Man, this freaks me out.  What a hateful, petty stare.

    As an aside, in Australia and NZ, citizens are ordered by law to vote in every election, and there is a set limit to the total amount of money that can be spent on any politician.  I think it's around 200K.  I think the fine is 100AUD, but then you have to, as a matter of routine, prove that you've voted if you apply for a home loan or a job (I believe).

    Can you imagine how different our political landscape would be if everyone had to vote?

    The only law I want is an internet law that forbids folks from complaining about a certain politician unless they can prove that they voted in the last election.

    Parent

    Obama Is A Politician Using A Strategy (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    to get elected. Just a different way to say "I'm A Uniter. Not A Divider." The problem will come when Obama is held to those standards and the Republicans will not be restricted by those standards.

    Parent
    the problem is (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:49:15 PM EST
    a lot of the more vocal (read: nasty) Obama supporters want him to WIN.  They don't particularly care how he'll govern.  And please note that I am not saying all of them feel this way, but it seems to me that if you are a democrat and you say you will only vote for Obama, then you are not really a democrat.

    This brings me to a larger issue, which is that I am getting very wary of all these people who are losing sight of the democratic party as a whole.  Our values, our long list of accomplishments, our social responsibility, etc, is something to be very proud of. Welfare.  Medicare.  Medicaid.  Reduced and assisted lunch programs.  Unemployment benefits.  These are the cornerstone policies that make us who we are and we should be damn proud to talk about our DEMOCRATIC values.   Further, when I hear Obama and/or his supporters taking this "Let's all be friends with the republicans" attitude, it only reminds me of the shame that has been heaped upon us by the opposing party for so long.  

    We need to reclaim our party, and be proud to say who we are.  I have been a democrat all of my life, and I refuse to be ashamed of that, and I refuse to buy the line that the only thing separating us and the GOP is a smiling first term senator from Illinois who can't even stand to be in the same room with the woman who might well beat him for the nomination.

    Parent

    Yes , We Are Traveling A Long From Dean's (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:04:46 PM EST
    "I belong to the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." to Let's not mention I'm a Democrat.  Not to mention that the Clinton presidency was crap but wasn't the Reagan presidency transformational.

    Parent
    Speaking of Double Standards (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    The Kennedy endorsement extravaganza, took place on the Monday before the election. It got full steam ahead, full blown coverage. Coincidence? Can you imagine if Hillary pulled that stunt? Man. If they are so "high moral ground" it could have waited till Wed, or thursday? But...no, Monday before the election. If that was not campaigning then what is?

    also if the media (none / 0) (#53)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    loves to exploit a fight so much why did they not point out that the other Kennedy's endorsed Hillary??? Because that would help Hillary and God forbid they do that!!!!

    Parent
    They did... (none / 0) (#56)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    ... they just weren't as big of names, and in turn, weren't not as big for the media.

    Parent
    or they didnt (none / 0) (#58)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    call a press conference or were part of a HRC event.

    Parent
    MSNBC yesterday (none / 0) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    When Edwards pulled out, they said that Hillary had a not so cordial comment ( the clip was from some interview), but Obama was very eloquent, aka someone wrote it for him (clip Obama at a speech).

    Parent
    touche! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST


    Parent
    why is it (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    that we don't believe anything positive the media says about Bush, but we believe everything negative they say about Clinton?  Either someone is a liar or they are not.  You can't pick and choose and say what you agree with is the truth.  I think that the more I learn about the press, the more I think they are returning to their mudraking roots.  In this climate, Deep Throat would have never come forward.

    (and the "we" is in general)

    Double Standards | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment