home

McCain Says Obama Ripped Off Hillary's Economic Plan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama unveiled an economic plan this week. From the Chicago Sun Times:

Obama's plan today is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen," McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

"He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own," Hassett said. "If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school for something this terrible ... I remember Mrs. Clinton saying shared prosperity and I remember the bill that she introduced in August for infrastructure. The fact is these are things Obama has taken as his own without crediting the source of the ideas which was Mrs. Clinton."

Hillary's campaign responds: [More...]

The New York senator's campaign said she proposed a national infrastructure bank in August and that Obama's energy plan is a rehash of hers. The Obama campaign responded that his bank proposal is better than hers and that he introduced his energy plan before hers.

Obama's response (a little too cocky for my taste):

"John McCain started attacking me on economic policy, which I thought was flattering. It makes clear that he knows who his opponent is going to be, and I am looking forward to a great debate on the issues with John McCain," Obama told a crowd at the Waukeshaw County fairgrounds in Wisconsin.

< Clinton Close In Wisconsin? | Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain Says Obama Ripped Off Hillary's Economic Plan | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's flattery. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST


    There is no stupider story (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    than the "who ripped off who's plan" in politics.

    This one is no different.

    Not to say that J's post is is not smart (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
    Just that these underlying fights on this nonsense are stupid.

    And yes, Obama does it too and his supporters do it as much as anyone.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Nice save! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    "What BTD Really Meant"

    Parent
    "Ripping off" someone else's. . . (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    good policy is, itself, good policy.

    Parent
    Not Stupid (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    in a campaign where you're trying to portray yourself as the different candidate.

    If Hillary had ripped him off you can bet his people would be screaming that she be forced out of the race.

    Parent

    They scream it now (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    You must know there are fools of every stripe.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Stupid (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:32:26 PM EST
    Hillary has had these ideas for months and Obama has not. I noticed a couple weeks ago Obama had co-opted the Clintons' idea to trade student loan debt for public service. The Clintons had that idea in 19992, so it's a little hard for Obama to claim it as his own.

    Another glaring example of this man's inherent dishonesty. He's the one who'll say anything, do anything to win. He has no ideas of his own, only a silver tongue that constantly delivers MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. That's the first thing he ripped off.

    Parent

    You forgot Abe Lincoln. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:43:35 PM EST


    Parent
    I heard a story of how, when he was 8 yrs old, (none / 0) (#129)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Barack skinned his knee on the playground. As his mother was bandaging him up, she whispered in his ear - "sorry honey, I wish I could get you better care, but sadly, we dont have universal health care, with mandates".

    Although he is disappointing his mother on that last point, clearly this is absolute proof that hillary has ripped off Obama's mother's idea. Just goes to show what a horrible, dishonest poltician she is, someone who will do anything to get elected.

    /snark

    Parent

    BTD does (none / 0) (#163)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    snark  MUCH  better  than you  do.  

    Yours  falls  flat.

    Parent

    "Audacity of hope" (none / 0) (#185)
    by bordenl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:29:06 PM EST
    is from his minister, according to his book. Whatever black church preaching style he has is probably by osmosis from that same church.

    Parent
    Oh, come now. I can think of (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    many just as stupid stories:

    Did HRC campaign in FL?

    Did HRC cry?

    Did HRC somehow cause Vince Foster to commit suicide?

    and on, and on, and on.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    this one is the stupidest.

    Parent
    New Clinton strategy (none / 0) (#67)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    "It's the authenticity, stupid."  

    Parent
    No this nonsense (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    is as old as political camapaigns

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#91)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    and I've obviously got to improve on snark ;-)

    Parent
    I agree that this is a stupid story. (none / 0) (#136)
    by wormdirt on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:17:30 PM EST
    So  why is it beng trumpeted on Sen. Clinton's website?

    YadaYadaYada said Kevin Hassett, Sen. John McCain's economic advisor.

    Right there on the official campaign website.  Senator Clinton quotes the stupid story, furthering it and lending credence to Senator McCain's campaign.

    A very strange campaign tactic for a Democratic candidate.

    Parent

    If (none / 0) (#175)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    it is true, why shouldn't she use it.

    Parent
    I would say that's not the story. The story (none / 0) (#177)
    by derridog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    is why John McCain is standing up for Hillary. Does he think she's easier to beat? I'm sure it's not altruism.

    Parent
    I can not speak for Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    But I do not want these comment to degenerate into childish fights of the "are to, are not" variety.

    There have been forceful debates on substance in may threads here.

    So far the debate in this thread has been juvenile.

    I have deleted all of that.

    One thing is for sure (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    that Republican smearing of Clinton in the 90's was sure effective judging by the way Obama's Campaign and followers keep using the same lines to smear the Clintons during this primary.

    I think this is all indicative (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by dk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    of the box that Obama has sort of put himself into by running on the post-partisan kumbaya platform for most of the primaries.  

    After running to Hillary's right for most of the campaign on domestic issues, Obama's strategy now seems to be to finally run left to tap into Hillary's base.  The problem is that this kind of talk is not going to go down well with the Independents who make up part of Obama's base.  Scoff all you want at McCain, but I think this tactic of calling out Obama every time he sounds like Hillary will peel of many independents.

    This is the big potential problem of the Obama candidacy given the way he has run over the last year.  His coalition is anti-war, anti-establishment progressives, and political moderates.  So far, he kept this coalition together by avoiding substantive talk and on the basis of his charm and good field organizing skills.  But how long will the coalition hold on those fumes?  I, for one, certainly don't think it will hold during an Obama presidency, which is why I think that if elected, he'll pretty much have a Carter-like term.  In the short term, the question is whether he can hold it until November.

    I feel (none / 0) (#164)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    the  same.   He may get  elected,  but  he  won't  get  much  done,  won't  get  a  second  term,  and  Democratic  Party will have  lost  the  potential  of    16   straight  years  holding  the  White  House.  

    Snatch   defeat  from  the  jaws  of  victory,   as  usual.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#176)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:02:41 PM EST
    make so many good points.

    His constituency is held together without knowing what he will do, except on Iraq.

    Parent

    In the primaries, (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:27:34 PM EST
    Obama will take Hillary's  policy positions but will take the Republican position in the GE - count on it.

    Jim Webb borrowed Obama's tactic of reaching "across the aisle" on FISA and now the Netroots are angry at Jim Webb.

    Exactly what does the Netroots think Obama's "reaching across the aisle" means?

    Clearly, (none / 0) (#165)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    it  means  giving  the  Republicans  everything  they  want.  Lieberman-style  "bipartisanship."  

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#178)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:04:35 PM EST
    Obama will really be Republican Lite.  I have no faith that he will take strong stands on issues, and believe he will compromise so much as to make things meaningless.

    Parent
    I know. That's the part that mystifies me about (none / 0) (#180)
    by derridog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    his appeal.  The one thing he is absolutely clear about is that he wants to reach across the aisle to the Rethugs.  The progressives have been hysterical about Leiberman doing that, not to mention Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  So why are they so excited about Obama?

    It's just so weird. It's like Republicans voting for John McCain because they are anti-war.  I mean, "huh"?

    Parent

    I didn't think (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    Obama liked debates?  

    Here's a mydd diary that copies a bulletin from the Clinton campaign calling Obama out on taking her ideas.  I wonder if this will gain traction.

    More interestingly, with McCain now attacking Obama and Obama being the clear frontrunner, I wonder if the press will take a harder look at him.  They love McCain as much, if not more, than Obama.  Criticism from the lying shrew was hardly worth considering, but from a straight talking maverick?  Now that's serious.

    I don't look for it to gain traction (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    The media has their narrative of Obama being the inspirational, transformative figure and they will stick to it.  Reporting on anything substantial requires a lot more effort on their part.  

    Parent
    Oh ma... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:41:05 PM EST
    Now I know you're blind. He loses debates to Hillary very badly, by any objective measure. And stealing her slogan doesn't make it otherwise.

    It's not just that I disagree with you, it's just that your posts are so repetitive and content-free.

    OK, OK, you think Obama is wonderful. WE get that. How about posting something other than hero-worship?

    Parent

    He looked great? (none / 0) (#48)
    by badger on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    Is that your criteria for debate victory? Seems a little shallow to me.

    On substance I found Hillary to be more believable, better informed and more in line with my political views (I thought she looked great too, but I wouldn't consider that the deciding factor).

    Parent

    He has (none / 0) (#52)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST

    "looked great" in debates?

    ...Are you speaking purely superficially?  Because by all other accounts, he's failed miserably at debates.

    Parent

    miserably??? (none / 0) (#58)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    failed miserably? please show that clip.

    Parent
    Gladly. (none / 0) (#64)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST

    I don't have a clip, but a link to the transcript.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/21/se.01.html

    Please enlighten me as to why Obama constantly dodges Rezko.  Please.

    Parent

    because it is a non issue (none / 0) (#70)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    that Clinton want to turn into something it is not.

    Who knows what Hillary is hiding since she is pulling a Cheney with her tax records. I would love to see J do a big bold story here about that.

    Won't hold my breath though.


    Parent

    Are you also interested in (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    Obama's relationship with Rezko?

    Parent
    The Chicago Tribune (none / 0) (#83)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    (a conservative newspaper that loves him not just because he's local) said in their endorsement that they wished he had handled it better, but it is a non-issue to them for the presidential race.

    Parent
    It is also a non-issue to the headliners here. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    Hope McCain got the message though.

    Parent
    It's a non-issue until he gets the nomination. (none / 0) (#184)
    by derridog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    Then we'll see what kind of an issue it is.  If the Rethugs could make Whitewater into an investigation that went on for 8 years, please don't assume they won't do that to Obama.  

    Parent
    one possible reason (none / 0) (#74)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    to dodge Rezko...maybe so Hillary can call him the "slum landlord from the South Side" again?  For people who are from Chicago (as Hillary has pointed out with her dad driving her into skid row to show her how not to grow up.) we know what the code language means.

    Parent
    Rezko (none / 0) (#166)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    The  rightwing   hate  machine, including  AM radio,  won't  CARE  what   the  Chicago  Tribune  said  about its  truth.  They'll  FEED on   the  Rezko  issue,  and  their  listeners  will believe  every  lie  they   feed  them.  

    Hide  and  watch.  

    Parent

    In the last debate (none / 0) (#65)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    In California, Obama had the lead on positions (my opinion only, press coverage said Hillary slightly ahead).  1-on-1, Hillary was ahead on healthcare, but Obama was way ahead on Iraq.  I've never seen any analysis suggest the Obama has failed miserably at debates.  In fact, the only major failure was Hillary with driver's licenses many debates ago.  Which failure are you thinking of for Obama?

    Parent
    You're likeable enough, Hillary. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST


    Parent
    that is it? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    that is it?

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#75)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    Sure I'll concede that one.  Also not a debate, but the handshake snub after the State of the Union were his 2 major flubs.  Neither had to do with policy though.

    Parent
    that came off rather badly, agreed (none / 0) (#78)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    but to claim that this is evidence of losing debates? When the whole underlying theme of the charge is that somehow he is less substantive, or less able to discuss policy in a spontaneous manner?

    You point to one statement that came off sounding rude?

    If we are going to do the one-liner criterion, then acknowledge that he had the best one-line response of the whole campaign - the "I'm looking forward to you advising me, Hillary" - after her mocking (and rude) interruption.

    But no, I dont think that that line equals "winning" that debate.

    Parent

    From the article (none / 0) (#40)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    "The Clinton campaign helpfully e-mailed his [McCain advisor's] comments  to reporters."  

    So this criticism also did come from the Clinton campaign.

    There'll likely be two more 1-on-1 debates.  They're willing to take the hit right now, because a debate a week would increase press coverage for the campaign with the lower cash flow.

    Parent

    It's posted on the Clinton site (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:51:16 PM EST
    Everyone can see it and mass emails go to people who register.  What is the point, McCain people would not have found it?

    Parent
    I was responding to (none / 0) (#102)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    BDB saying that "Criticism from the lying shrew was hardly worth considering, but from a straight talking maverick?"

    Parent
    Look (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    Have you NOT noticed how many of your comments disappear?

    you need to find a new way of expressing your views or you need to find a new place to comment.

    Parent

    haha... (none / 0) (#111)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    Look... I am an Obama supporter.  I have been from day one.  

    But Clinton has won most, if not all, the debates.  

    Now that does not mean that the debates have helped Clinton more than Obama.  I don't necessarily think that they have.

    But Clinton is DEFINITELY a better debater than Obama.

    Parent

    McCain trying to tie Obama to Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    It not cocky if it is true. Hillary is over if you look at the numbers and the contests ahead.

    McCain sees that, and since he can't run against Hillary, he is trying to tie Obama to her. Hillary was the one canidate that could unite the fractured right. They hate her. obama winning the primary will be a big blow to the fundraising and mobilization of the right.

    By November (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    They will hate Obama, too.  Or haven't you heard that he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance?  That he's a secret Muslim infiltrator?That he has a picture of Che Guevera in his office (okay, that one appears to at least maybe be true)?

    Here's a question, name one position Hillary has taken that would make her more polarizing or unacceptable - based on ideas and policies - over Obama?  If you can't, then you're left with thinking that Hillary is someone uniquely capable of being demonized by the right wing.  Which might be true, if it weren't for Gore, Kerry, et al, who join her in those illustrious ranks.  Or, just perhaps, the Republicans demonize their opponents relentlessly and the reason Clinton is so hated on the right is that she's been a target and, so far, Obama hasn't been.  That will change if he's the nominee.  

    Tying Obama to Hillary is the least the right wing is going to do to him.  If you think his great Obama-ness will let him escape being polarizing by November, then you've been asleep for the last 20 years.  

    The Republicans are out of energy and out of ideas, this is going to be an incredibly nasty, personal campaign.  I can think up several ads in my head right now about Rezko, one tying him to such "liberal causes" as gay rights and affirmative action, one claiming he wants to grab everyone's guns, one claiming that he wants to ban the death penalty and is soft on crime (with heavy racist implications, of course).  All of which, it should go without saying, will be untrue and unfair.  

    So argue that only Hillary will unite the Republican base to help your guy get the nomination, but just keep in mind in the back of your head that that's not really true.

    Parent

    They can't tie (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    Obama to gay rights.  Not after the "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour back in the fall where he pandered to the homophobic evangelicals in South Carolina.  The press only heard of Obama's written disapproval of Donnie McClurkin's beliefs...Obama didn't even bother addressing the fact that McClurkin wasnt't the only anti-gay act in his faith-based tour (because no one but some savvy GLBTs knew/cared to learn about it).

    Parent
    Since when have facts (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    ever stopped the Republicans?  

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#179)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    not trust Obama on GLBT issues.  He hangs with known homophobes.

    Has he addressed any issue like civil unions, gay marriage, gays in the military?

    Parent

    very true (none / 0) (#82)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    So argue that only Hillary will unite the Republican base to help your guy get the nomination, but just keep in mind in the back of your head that that's not really true.

    Ummm yes it is true. Just hit a hardcore Repub website and look at the banner ads. They use Hillary to raise cash all the time.


    Parent

    Yeah, right. (none / 0) (#161)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    Here's an example of right wingers using Hillary to raise funds.

    Epic fail

    Parent

    Do you follow these? (none / 0) (#94)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    where are you getting this idea?  I actually pay attention to the right wing hate people and forums(at least the major ones, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly) and terorrist rumors, while constant, are constantly debunked and conservatives stand up for Obama on hannity forums, for example.  Plus, they've convinced themselves that McCain is a liberal, and "claim" (I don't but it) that they would consider voting for Obama as a protest vote (to tell the Republican party to pick someone more conservative).

    Parent
    If you believe they would (none / 0) (#96)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    I heard of some Fl swamps that up for sale.  <----Old joke

    Parent
    We have a piece of FL swamp (none / 0) (#103)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    It's tripled in value in the last 4 yrs.

    Parent
    I know it has (none / 0) (#107)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    But watch out for the sink holes.

    Parent
    Touche (none / 0) (#106)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST
    If you believe they don't hate Hillary, I've got a bridge in Arizona for you :)

    Parent
    Yes they hate Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    The question isn't if they hate Hillary but why so many Obama supporters think he won't be turned into the same type of hateful caricature that has been made of the Clintons, Gore, Kerry and others?  The fact is that they will hate anyone taking or trying to take the presidency with a D after their name.  It's not an argument in Obama's favor.  

    Parent
    This is the exact reason (none / 0) (#114)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    that Obama went to campaign in Idaho!  Did you agree with that decision?  But then Hillary and Mark Penn try to hit him for that and keep the country at a vitriolic red/blue.  I've lived in many red states and I think Obama can overcome that.

    Parent
    I hope your Dream comes (none / 0) (#116)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    true if Obama is the nominee and that's a big if.  Reality is that from what I've seen in the senate from the Republicans it isn't  going to happen.

    Parent
    I hope so too (none / 0) (#131)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    This is why it's more than just rhetoric/empty promises to those of us that do believe the intent behind the famous convention speech.  It's actual action--by going to Boise and motivating 15,000 people.  The rhetoric, the motivation, the speeches give you the mandate, then you demand change from the ground up.

    Parent
    And not just Idaho (none / 0) (#117)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    apparently now Georgia, Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Maryland, etc. are not "significant" enough.  If you campaign and govern like only big states matter, the rest of the country will turn you off no matter what your political ideology.

    Parent
    I support the 50 state project (none / 0) (#123)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    So I support campaigning in all states.  I don't think that HIllary's campaign was well run in this.  However 30% of the population will not support us or our candidate whoever s/he is.  So there will be a virulent group of people who will attack whoever the candidate is with whatever they can find.  These lies and slanders will work their way into the media through such sleaze mongers as Drudge.  The media will then have to choose who they love the best their long time love or their new crush.  Seeing the history of the media and our candidates I think realistically we better accept that Obama's lovefest will end with his assumption of the Democratic mantle as our candidate.  

    Obama will be attacked and attacked viciously.  To think otherwise is wishful thinking.  Who knows maybe the media will change their ways.  What I know is that we can't run a campaign on hope and wishful thinking.  We'll see what happens but I rather think that we stand a worse chance with Obama just because of such unrealistic ideas as this.  He has actually said he thinks he's been vetted because he's run against Hillary.  If that statement is a how he's really thinking we're in for a rough ride with him as the candidate and will more than likely lose it because of those ideas.

    Parent

    I think you'll agree that (none / 0) (#134)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    Obama is pretty damn shrewd.  Ironically, it's his naiive "Bambi" image that allows not just him (but us-he empowers us as followers, so it's not really about him) to infiltrate the ranks.  I think we got a good chance!

    Parent
    He's already changed (none / 0) (#137)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    the discourse, so that we can take the word liberal back!

    Parent
    How by using right wing memes? (none / 0) (#139)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    I'm not a fan of his type of politics.  I'm a fan of BTD's politics of contrast.  I really don't see how he plans on bringing people together.  I haven't seen any sign of his ability to bring people together.  In fact, when he starts working I see more division then before, think Donnie McClurkin.  That's where I really started worrying about him being our candidate.  He mishandled that incident completely.  I haven't seen where he's managed anything any better.  

    I'm not really thrilled with Hillary either but at least with her I know she'll hit back when attacked.  Think about the attempt Obama made on her with the Walmart remark.  He ended up with a worse attack back.  How about when McCain came after him he backed down.  Show me where he's managed to change anything.  All he's done is talk I haven't seen his action.  I'll take experience over his hope any day.  

    Parent

    Rebecca (none / 0) (#144)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:40:23 PM EST
    Will you agree with me that after Hillary joined the armed services committee and visiting troops in Iraq, etc. the actual military people didn't "hate" her as much?  John McCain certainly doesn't.  If you do agree, then the Obama campaign has been carefully mapped out from the 2004 convention speech to follow this same pattern with voters across the country.  Of course, it'll take more than 1 person to infiltrate this way, hence we have our "cult" or movement...

    Parent
    Will you agree that the Republicans have (none / 0) (#148)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:54:33 PM EST
    decided to not allow any significant legislation favoring the Democrats to go through?  How will this movement work?  Unless we get 60 senators that don't include Sen. Lieberman how will he stop the automatic filibuster for any significant Democratic legislation?  

    Hillary is definitely hated by a significant percentage of our populace in the military or not.  The problem for Obama is that he will be subject to the same smears and sleaze that led to Hillary becoming so hated.  The idea that your movement can keep him and his wife from becoming just as radioactive as the Clintons is naive.  Until the media stops looking to Drudge as the go to guy for real news we're going to suffer with this problem.  

    I don't believe that Obama's plan is well mapped out since it's ignoring a huge part of the political problems we have in our politics today.

    Parent

    It's fair (none / 0) (#152)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    if you think Hillary's approach will work better.  I'm willing to extrapolate Obama's results from the current status.  I hope that there is some point, where you'll see enough progress that you can extrapolate also.

    We totally agree on the legislation issue.  You need to convince 60%+ of the Senate (and the House and voters in general)to get your issues passed.

    Parent

    I guess it's something we'll disagree about (none / 0) (#154)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    I don't see where you extrapolate Obama's results from though.  Our politicians have been trying to use his methods for years now with no results.  So when I hear about how these methods will suddenly work I'm skeptical.  Well I guess we'll see how this election works out and one way or another we'll see what happens.  As long as McCain isn't the winner we'll have won a huge victory.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    No worries, I'll definitely be voting for Hillary if she is the nominee.  

    Parent
    PS. 1 more point (none / 0) (#158)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    Many of my extrapolations of the candidates positions come from comparing Dreams of my Father & Living History.  I grant you these are not quantifiable into numbers, but to me they give a good insight into how both of the them think.

    Parent
    Response to your comments (none / 0) (#150)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    Sure, he mishandled the McLurkin incident, then he went into Ebenezer Baptist on MLK Jr Day and said we need to be more accepting of our gay brothers and sisters.  That's a good platform to discuss inclusiveness.

    In terms of bringing people together, he's already had 9 million vote for him, which is kinda an accomplishment considering that his only name recognition in 2004 was that he had 80% of his last name with in common with enemy #1 and 100% of his middle name with enemy #2.

    After the Walmart remark, Hillary came back with Rezko and the race-baiting "South Side" code language and ratcheted her overall race-baiting strategy so that it's imploding her campaign.  (That's my opinion only.)  But, assuming that her campaign recovers, I doubt her hard hitting style will have better results for health care than in 1993.

    McCain came after him and he backed down in his first year as a Senator.  His response to the current plagiarism criticism was great...  You admitted you don't even know economics well enough to know if it was plagiarized.  I'm now the frontrunner.

    Parent

    You're mixing me up with someone else (none / 0) (#156)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    I haven't discussed the economic plan.  I admit I haven't discussed it just because I don't know enough about it to comment.  

    I look at actions over talk.  Obama can do all the talking he wants.  When it came to action he threw the LGBT constituency under the bus.  Talking is easy but when a politician is put on the spot his/her actions are the ones that tell you how much they really believe the talk they give you.  

    As for hard hitting talk.  I think that Obama's version of soft talk will lead us down the same road such talk has gotten us so far which is no where.  It's time we took a different stance.  Read up on BTD's politics of contrast.  It isn't all about attack.  Obama's blurring the distinctions is troublesome for me.  His habit of using Republican memes is also troubling.  You can't change things when you accept the frame of the other side.  I'm not really thrilled with Hillary on standing up either.  Neither of these two have shown leadership.  I have come to Hillary's camp more due to the fact that I see Obama as a worse choice than that I'm thrilled with Hillary.  I have my problems with her it's just that I have more with Obama.  

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#160)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    That was a paraphrase of Obama's attack response to McCain (who has admitted to not knowing about economics in a Republican debate)  

    No attack on you.

    Parent

    HA!!!! (none / 0) (#173)
    by joc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh!

    Here is a direct quote from Bill Burton, Obama spokesperson, dismissing the National Journal's ranking Obama as the most liberal senator.

    "The tendency of Washington to apply a misleading label to every person and idea is just one of the many things we need to change about how things operate inside the beltway."

    Yeah, Obama's really taking ownership of that liberal label!

    Parent

    Oh they hate Hillary and Bush (none / 0) (#108)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    and McCain and Obama etc.  They are Haters and professionals at it.

    Parent
    True enough (none / 0) (#115)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    and they'll try their best to slime Obama as well. We are in complete agreement there.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    Read yesterday, don't remember where, that the McCain manager said he would quit rather than attack Obama. I guess they could not wait to get started.

    The Obama-is-cocky meme (none / 0) (#6)
    by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    plays on racial stereotypes.  Handle with care.

    Baloney (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    don't try this here. Cocky means boastful and sure of oneself and has no racial overtones. Further comments along this line will be deleted.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:23:13 PM EST

    regarding racial overtones, but its gender based to begin with.

    Parent
    cocky? (none / 0) (#10)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    Disagree with the "cocky" comment.

    Obama is correct.  If McCain is attacking him it IS because he believes that Obama will be the nominee.

    this is really ridiculous (none / 0) (#90)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    If you like person "X", then s/he is acting "confidently."

    If you dislike person "X", then  s/he is acting "cocky."

    Sheesh . . . after Hillary getting slammed in just this manner by the media for months, I would have thought that Hillary supporters wouldn't then go out and do the same thing at Obama.

    Parent

    I must agree (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:37:23 PM EST
    And note my disagreement with Jeralyn's take on this.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#113)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    ... I for one don't think that Obama is being cocky, but I also wouldn't think Hillary was acting cocky if she said the same thing.

    Parent
    kinda ironic to criticize Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    for being cocky - for acting as if he is going to be the nominee...
    when "hillary the inevitable" was the conscious framing of the Clinton campaign right from the beginning, up to Iowa.

    she never said that she was inevitable (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    this is Obama in his own words.

    Parent
    Now that she is losing (none / 0) (#85)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    she seems to act like it was owed to her. How else can you explain her campaign desire to win by wrangling superdelegates.

    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#174)
    by joc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:30:01 PM EST
    If someone wants superdelegates to support them, it's proof that they feel the election is owed to them?

    Does the Obama campaign know about this?

    Parent

    no, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#92)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    it was the attitude that suffused the campaign from the beginning - the argument they used in their approach to all their donors, and all the endorsers that they cultivated. It is evident in their entire strategy - its why they never developed that instinct to go out and fight for every delegate, fight for every vote.

    Parent
    No, Tano (none / 0) (#167)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    Clinton  never  said  or  acted like  she  was  "inevitable."  

    It  was   the  media  who pushed  that  meme,   and Obama   played  on it,  by  claiming  to  be  the  "underdog."  

    He  had  Kennedy's  machine,   Kerry's mailing list,  and  Moveon.Org's  fundraising.  

    That's  no   "underdog."  

    Parent

    I keep wondering (none / 0) (#181)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    just how big is the ego of a guy (Obama) who thinks he can be president, while only serving the minimum of time as a junior Senator?

    Blows my mind.

    Parent

    Read before you judge (none / 0) (#47)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    LINK

    Haven't found a outline like this from Hillary, I'll post if I do.

    Looking over McCain's plan I found it interesting his idea of a middle class tax cut is to repeal the AMT.

    Nothing cohesive but here's a start (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    How about... (none / 0) (#55)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:52:58 PM EST

    ...arrogant and egotistical?  Are those words less offensive?

    i like them! (none / 0) (#86)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    if you can get lewd and lascivious in there too, i'm with you!

    the "hillary the inevitable" meme was the media's invention, not her campaign's, try not to confuse them.

    how about this for a theory:

    mccain sees sen. obama as an easy mark in the GE, vs sen. clinton, who's already been put through the bum's rush for years, and emerged stronger, wiser and more able to defeat him in nov.?

    sen. obama, being the essential neophyte, easily falls into this trap and gets (should he be the dem nominee) savaged by the republicans in the fall.

    just a theory.

    Parent

    There's also the conspiracy theorists (none / 0) (#127)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    who think Obama is a neocon shill.

    But personally, the more I read about Obama the more I'm leaning towards such a theory.  There is no reasonable explanation why conservative Republicons (sic) have given so much money to his campaign and/ or voted for him or publically come out to say "I'm supporting Obama!" (when they turn around and rip McCain a new one for being "too moderate").  Aside from the evangelicalism in his speeches and religious beliefs, he is nothing like them, though he's sure tried to wear the Reagan mask to get their approval.  He is "the most liberal" Senator.  And we're supposed to believe there's nothing fishy going on here?  It's like they're doing this right in the open as an experiment to test just how stupid the American public is.

    Parent

    you forgot to put the little (none / 0) (#133)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    /snark

    at the end of your post. That can get you in trouble - lots of folks he scan through comments quickly and might actually think you are writing a straight post.

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#157)
    by allimom99 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    my theory as well. I have been an Edwards supporter. I'm really distressed about the amount of Kool Aid being consumed around this guy. But I'm also starting to hear folks looking for substance instead of speeches. I'd never vote for McCain, but I do think the the "platitudes" clip was pretty effective.

    Parent
    cpinva (none / 0) (#168)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    A  very  good  theory.    Sure explains  why  Peggy  Noonan,  Bill Kristol,  and  many   wingers  have  been cheering him on,  doesn't it?

    Parent
    If Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#182)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:16:02 PM EST
    he will be sliced , diced, and packaged by the Repubs.  

    And he is such a whiner.........it won't be pretty.

    Parent

    Or maybe it was J? (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:18:17 PM EST


    I think Obama is shoring up a potential weakness (none / 0) (#118)
    by my opinion on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    in his platform on economic recovery. It is good that he followed Clinton's plan on this. Clinton had in turn taken some ideas from Edwards. Is this for the public or to gain Edward's support?

    Yah, but (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by dk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    the problem is that Obama ran to the right for so long, that McCain has more ammunition to say that Obama either 1) flip-flops on his positions, and who trusts a flip-flopper; or 2) was always secretly a Hillary Clinton in disguise.  I think these attacks will play well with many independents, and there goes a large chunk of Obama's base of support.

    Parent
    Since you bring that up, yes McCain will use (none / 0) (#138)
    by my opinion on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    what he can to undermine either candidate. However, just as Edwards influenced Clinton's and Obama's positions in the primaries once we get to the general election how much of a turn to the right will Obama or Clinton make? This goes with my original question asking what was Obama's motivation for this move.

    Parent
    Obama and Clinton push each other left (none / 0) (#119)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    (as Edwards pushed before -maybe still does). If the contest has come down to who appeals more to working class people in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, then isn't it a good thing (for the left - not just for the Democratic party) if this race goes deep into April and beyond?

    McCain's goading confirms that the battle to go leftward has very serious implications. And so it should be.  Broad-based consensus on the urgent need for universal healthcare, for example, has to be built town by town. That's how people will demand of their representatives to get it done. Regardless of whether it's Obama or Clinton who is president.

    I must be getting old (none / 0) (#121)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    I remember when being a LIBERAL was a batch of honor.  Now people call themselves Progressives so they won't be branded as LIBERALS.

    Yeah, too bad... (none / 0) (#130)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    ...Obama is not as progressive as he wants everyone to believe.

    Parent
    Don't let the secret out (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    as a person who thinks the environment is important I feel uncomfortable with people who claim Nuclear or "Clean Coal?" are the solution to pollution in energy.  That is definitely not a Liberal position.  Now I have never seen Hillary or Obama as  Liberals but then who is in this race except maybe Kucinich.

    Parent
    Framing (none / 0) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    Progressives are reframed liberals with a libertarian streak.  Sort of the liberal sanitized for our protection.    

    Parent
    Progressives (none / 0) (#169)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    I  like  to think of progressives  as  "practical  liberals,"   moving  away from  the    failures  of  the likes  of  Teddy  Kennedy.    More   success-oriented.  

    Parent
    Yeah and I guess it has really been successful (none / 0) (#172)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    Even after winning in 2006 we have no real progressive legislation passed.

    Parent
    Cocky: (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:02:13 PM EST
    Overly self-assertive or self-confident. (American Heritage, 4th ed.)

    I think the definition in your prior comment was from dictionary.com, no?  

    TalkLeft is into credentialism!

    Standing on the steps of the old state (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    capitol in Springfield as he announced his candidacy.  I found this, shall we say, brash?

    So did I. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    Made me  laugh out  loud  when  he  did it.

    Does  that  mean  he  respects   Lincoln  more  than    Martin Luther  King?  

    Should  we  call   the media  and  tell them  he's   dissing  MLK?    :)

    Parent

    Kenya is a good example (none / 0) (#132)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:10:55 PM EST

    of what we have to look forward to if he gets in.

    On the latter note, 'giving up' is what I'm really afraid will happen to the Clinton campaign.  It seems the way that most Dems go, though...instead of getting in there and fighting until the last breath, Dems (like Kerry, Gore) give up.

    I will not give up...just hope Clinton won't give up on us.

    I deleted the comment you are responding to (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    it was borderline a personal attack on Obama. Unnecessary, unsourced and not appropriate here.

    Parent
    And Europe (none / 0) (#170)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    Here's  another  McCain  will use  against  Obama:  

    Obama  is  the   chairman of  the   Foreign  Relations   subcommittee   on  Europe.   He  has  yet  to  call  a   single meeting,   and  hasn't  traveled   anywhere  to meet  European  leaders.  The   foreign press  is  FULL of   articles   complaining  about  this.  

    McCain  will   use this  to  show  Obama   as   inexperienced    AND   irresponsible,  especially in  a  time of  war   when European  allies  are  crucial.  

    Parent

    She will not give up, as long as she has money (none / 0) (#183)
    by sas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:18:20 PM EST
    Consider donating if you have not already.

    She won't give up.

    Parent

    Let me be the feminist here (none / 0) (#142)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    and say: Another case of a junior, less experienced man stealing a woman's work and passing it off as his own--and getting credit for it.

    Why is that acceptable?  If this happened in the workplace, it would be a clear cut case of thievery.

    It's the new style of politics (none / 0) (#146)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    or is it the old style.  Amen to your words.

    Parent
    Horse-race clouds minds (none / 0) (#147)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    A president, no matter how noble, will not bring about radical social change unless there is broad consensus in its favor. Consensus has to be built, and it's hard work.

    It's a waste of energy to cane Obama or Clinton for each political move they make in their effort to get elected.

    Look at the big picture: after decades in which political discourse moved inevitably to the right --thanks to entrenched interests, millionaire "journalists," and despairing intellectuals--now people across the country, of diverse backgrounds, want to debate and just maybe embrace left-wing social policy. This is the direct by-product of the Clinton-Obama-Edwards appeals. These appeals are on-going!

    The time is ripe for persuasion, repress the short-sighted urge to purge!

    Obama's energy / environment plan was indeed first (none / 0) (#149)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    and the more visionary plan in terms of how it was sold. Clinton's plan is also great, but it came later and lacked some of the "big picture" elements in the packaging. Searching through grist.org's archives, reveals that Obama's was announced in October and Clinton's in November.

    That said, both plans are excellent. It's a matter of whose approach you think would be more successful. Based on what we know of Clinton, her plan would mostly likely get whittled down or shelved after backroom negotiations, while Obama is more likely to sell the public on the plan through his usual technique of soaring platitudes.

    In any case, it's clear that McCain is trying to help Clinton here. He's dying to run against her. Wonder why. :)

    And here are the cites (none / 0) (#151)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    Grist's analysis of Clinton's plan, just after it was announced in November 2007.

    Grist's analysis of Obama's plan, just after it was announced in October 2007.

    Like I always say, a good idea is a good idea, no matter who came up with it first. But the record should be set straight.

    Parent

    Actually when I read this (none / 0) (#153)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    there are, when discussing Obama's plan a few references to Hillary's plan.  I thought you said Obama made his proposal first.

    Parent
    Both candidates are Democrats :) (none / 0) (#159)
    by s5 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:47:22 PM EST
    So naturally they had bits and pieces of an energy and environment platform since day 1 of their campaigns. That said, neither announced a comprehensive plan until much later. Obama's in October, and Clinton's in November.

    Fans of Edwards would point out that his comprehensive energy / environment plan came first (by several months), and they'd be right.

    Parent

    Touche (none / 0) (#171)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Yglesias (none / 0) (#186)
    by bordenl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:25:03 PM EST
    When Hillary Clinton supported the National Infrastructure Bank, it was proposed by Dodd and Hagel. A pro-Hillary commenter quoted Hillary as cosponsoring Dodd and Hagel's legislation.

    Hillary's ideas good enough for Obama to steal. (none / 0) (#187)
    by john5750 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:15:34 AM EST
    I think people are seeing Obama is just an empty suit full of hot air.

    He talks a good show, but looks to Hillary to find out how to do it.

    Skip the middleman and vote for the smart one, Hillary.

    McCain's Eco. plan (none / 0) (#189)
    by Realist1450 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 03:03:35 AM EST
    Right on!!!
    It's about time someone on this blog talked some sense. All these Dems seem to be able to do is display their great party unity, What a joke!!!
    McCain Says Obama Ripped Off Hillary's Economic Plan | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment