home

Late Night: Candy Everybody Wants

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:15:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Natalie Merchant and Michael Stipe. You'll need to turn up the volume --I took this off an old VHS tape I had lying around of the 1993 MTV Inaugural Ball for Bill Clinton and Al Gore and put it on You Tube but I couldn't get it louder.

I always thought the song was called "Give them what they want." It's "Candy Everybody Wants."

This is an open thread, but new commenters, as always, are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

< Thursday Evening Open Thread | The "Fairy Tale" Comes Home To Roost >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: Candy Everybody Wants | 188 comments (188 topical)
    I have a confession (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    I hope Obama wins (this is not the confession part).  And I think he probably will win.  I respect, of course, those who disagree on either score.

    But IF Obama is going to lose, I want the reason to be that the American people simply get turned off by all these bogus accusations of racism, and decide they want nothing to do with that style of politics.  It would at least be a silver lining if we could put an end to those divisive tactics once and for all.

    It's not just about payback for the primary, although that wouldn't be the worst thing.  It's about killing off a type of politics that is absolutely toxic for everyone concerned.  And who knows, maybe liberals in general would learn along the way that there really is a downside to crying wolf constantly.

    Let me ask you this Steve (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:50:48 PM EST
    If Hillary were the Democratic nominee and the McCain made this exact same ad but with Hillary being the target, do you think that some people would find it sexist and rightfully so?

    Whether the McCain campaign willfully used white women as some sort of dog whistle, I have no idea. It doesn't really bother me one way or the other if they did.  

    However the add was demeaning.  It was inappropriate as well.  Comparing Obama to a pair of 20-something life wasters is completely uncalled for.  

    As for Obama's comment I simply don't understand how people here can on the one hand defend McCain against charges of dog whistle race-baiting and then accuse Obama of race-baiting simply because he said that the Republicans will try to use fear and the fact that he doesn't look like past presidents to defeat him.  The Republicans ALWAYS use fear.  It is their modus operandi.  

    Regardless why is one divisive but not the other?  

    And racial politics will disappear when racism is no longer pervasive throughout our society.

    [ Parent ]

    If the Republicans ALWAYS use fear (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:57:44 PM EST
    and thus use it against whites as well, then how is it racist when used against Obama?


    [ Parent ]
    Where did I say it was racism? (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    I don't play the outrage! game.  It is counter-productive.

    Even if it were racist it wouldn't make any difference to me, other than the political mileage Obama could get out of it.

    Personally I have a much bigger problem with McCain blatantly lying in his ads.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, I think I now have diagrammed (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    your long sentence to see what I think was really meant.  Or not.  Maybe it needs commas or something.  Or maybe I need to get new glasses.

    Anyway -- okay.

    [ Parent ]

    What is this "diagramming" of which (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:42 PM EST
    you speak?

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, you must be too young (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:28 PM EST
    to have had to diagram sentences.  That's to figure out long sentences as to which modifying phrase modifies which noun, or in this case, to figure out what is meant when a verb is far from an object, etc.

    Diagramming sentences is almost requisite in reading Faulkner.  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    But not Hemingway. (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:14:44 AM EST
    Or Scott Fitzgerald.

    [ Parent ]
    I forgot the snark label, as I certainly (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    struggled with the diagramming of sentences and didn't really get it until I took Latin.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, lordy, then you're as old as I am (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:40:39 PM EST
    in the last generation that, in any numbers, took Latin.  Yes, it certainly helps with writing -- in English, anyway.  I don't remember a lot of Latin, though.

    Except "Vero Possumus."  I never shall forget that!:-)

    [ Parent ]

    I Never Got It (none / 0) (#133)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:33:27 AM EST
    until my children came to me for help with their homework.  Then I really HAD to knuckle down and learn it :)

    [ Parent ]
    I was a star at diagramming sentences (none / 0) (#99)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:56:48 PM EST
    The nuns loved to do that and maybe because I was good at logic and math, it was a snap to walk up to the blackboard and slash, line up, slash, line down, etc. Wish I was as good on other subjects. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Ooo Ooo (none / 0) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:59:37 PM EST
    I was a big grammar & diagramming geek as well.  Sigh.  Such deep satisfaction once a sticky and complex sentence was conquered.

    [ Parent ]
    Try going back to college (none / 0) (#110)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:04:52 AM EST
    in your late 40s like I did. The kidz not only never learned to diagram sentences, they don't know Latin and Greek roots and they can't even identify parts of speech.

    I thought I would be at a disadvantage having been out of school for so long. Not so.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    try complaining on a blog that commenters don't know the difference between there, their and they're or when to use then vs than and see what kind of reaction you get.  Most people under 40 don't care about it.  They will just say that you knew what they meant, so what are you worrying about?

    [ Parent ]
    Here's one to diagram (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    This sentence no verb.

    [ Parent ]
    Sher, quit it with your sh*t here (3.66 / 3) (#121)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:19:14 AM EST
    Speak up and say what you don't like about a comment.  Jeesh, you remind me of the nasty little creeps in school who always ran to the teacher to tell on kids but never dealt with the kids herself.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't see the McCain ad as racist (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:59:45 PM EST
    It simply called BO a news item not because of content, like Spears, but because of media interest and hype.  It's politics and BO is not going against HRC anymore.  She couldn't use those kind of ads.

    [ Parent ]
    Saying that it's politics (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    doesn't make it appropriate.

    You guys can defend the ad if you like but I found it petty and demeaning and I wouldn't want Obama to make that sort of ad against McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    everyone who has defended the ad (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:37 PM EST
    has been defending it against the charges of racism that have been leveled against McCain.  Maybe not by you specifically, but by the Obama camp and his supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    How long have you been (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    following politics?  Serious question because this ad is incredibly mild by comparison to, oh, let's say the Willie Horton ad, and a whole lot of others over the years.

    If you're going to get outraged so easily, you're going to have a very, very long next three months.

    [ Parent ]

    Poor answer (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    Just because there was once a Willie Horton ad or a Daisy ad doesn't make this ad less inappropriate.

    I'm not outraged but I do want the campaign to hit McCain on this.  McCain promises to not engage in the politics of personal destruction and then says he is "proud" of this ad?  WTF?

    [ Parent ]

    "poor answer"? (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:29:32 AM EST
    It's not an answer, it's a comment.

    I repeat, this is a very mild ad compared to normal, so you would do well not to hyperventilate over it.


    [ Parent ]

    Demeaning? (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:22:35 PM EST
    This conversation is ridiculous.  He's a grown man running for President.  He and his campaign and his supporters need to grow a thicker skin and lay off the "demeaning" meme.  He's running for President, not Prom King.  Grow. Up.

    [ Parent ]
    Shouldn't you be writing (2.25 / 4) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:56 PM EST
    one of your hate screeds about Obama right now?

    Unlike you, I don't let emotions dictate my politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama the delicate little flower (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:00 PM EST
    who's demeaned every time somebody gets a little rough.  If Obama wins, you'll have plenty to do "protecting" him for the next four years.

    This stuff is just completely over the top.  When did Obama turn into spun glass?  Geez, let's see the guy mix it up a little bit instead of whining about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, yes, you do (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:32:55 AM EST
    You most certainly do.  So do all of us, for that matter, to one extent or another.  Your absurd overreaction to this ad shows it quite clearly.


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps the emotion dictates your (none / 0) (#169)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM EST
    fact-checking abilities, from time to time.

    [ Parent ]
    Duh.... (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:13:59 AM EST
    Of course it's petty and demeaning.

    That is the whole point.

    If you support Obama, no doubt you'd be offended at his being compared to publicity-seeking celebrities who are famous for being famous and not for any achievements for which you would reward them with employment as ... oh, say, Leader of the Free World.

    No way is it racist.  As someone pointed out in another thread, it might have been even better if the ad had featured someone like Fabio instead of two white girls, which seems to have raised that issue following the horrendous Harold Ford ad.

    The message was a simple one:

    So you're famous and the media loves you.  What else ya got?

    Yeah.  I think it's fair.  

    Mean.  But fair.

    [ Parent ]

    I think there's a bit misunderstanding about (4.83 / 6) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:37:59 PM EST
    what the word 'demeaning' means.

    There seems to be a riff floating around the internet (I've seen this other places, and I don't think it's a mistake but a deliberate conflation) that 'demeaning' is 'any critical statement.'

    Let's take, say, JFK as an example.  If JFK gave a bad speech -- poorly phrased or meandering or without substance -- and I said 'that was a bad speech', I am being critical.  My statement is criticism.  It is not demeaning.  I haven't degrades JFK, or asserted that he is inferior, or dehumanized him in any way, or taken away from his actual talents or accomplishments.

    Demeaning would be 'JFK can't give a good speech because he is a Kennedy and everyone knows Kennedy Sr. bought all his boys their political positions rather than they're being able to earn them on their talents.'

    The Paris ad is a criticism.  Like many political ads, it engages in some hyperbole.  (Even I acknowledge that Obama has more actual accomplishments than Paris Hilton).  It is saying he has no substance, as Paris does not.  Famous for being famous.

    The accusations of racism in response to criticism follow the same conflation, but are, as said above, much more toxic because of the existence of real racism.

    There were other words similarly manipulated during the campaign, eg 'attacks'.  Any criticism by Clinton of Obama was always, always headlined as an attack by the MSM.

    The expansion of straightforward words beyond their meanings such as with 'demean' or 'belittle' plays into the stereotype of Democrats as perpetual, whining victims.  Which could very result in some serious backfiring from undecideds and indies.

    [ Parent ]

    I completely disagree (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:44:03 PM EST
    when Wes Clark said that being able to get shot down does not qualify someone to be President he was crucified by the McCain campaign for "demeaning" his time in service.

    An add that attempts to equate a United States Senator, former University of Chicago ConLaw lecturer, and aspiring President with a 25 year old most well known for partying and making sex tapes and another 25 year most well know for being a white trash mother is most certainly demeaning.  

    I don't care what the point of the ad was.  The method used was demeaning.

    If McCain wants to say he is an empty suit or has no substance that's fine.  It is a pretty lame argument but that's fine.  

    But just because you agree with the point doesn't mean that means to make the point are legitimate.

    [ Parent ]

    Now, demeaning would have been (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:22 AM EST
    McCain saying Obama's name, and then brushing off his shoulder -- y'know, like the tune "Dirt Off My Shoulder" -- and then acting as if he had to wipe dogsh*t off his shoe, too.

    Oh, and scratching his face with the finger . . . or two, to keep it real kewl . . . now, that would be demeaning.

    But no decent man would do a thing like that.

    [ Parent ]

    I hear you (none / 0) (#125)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:25:23 AM EST
    but unfortunately these type of ads work

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:02:43 PM EST
    Well, let's take these things in order.

    First, your analogy doesn't make sense to me.  An ad that gratuitously compared Hillary to Paris and Britney would be like, I dunno, an ad that gratuitously compared Obama to Tupac and 50 Cent.  I mean, I don't think there would be much debate about that one.

    The dog whistle thing, I won't ask you to defend the argument if you don't believe in it yourself, but I'm honestly amazed so many people see no difference between this ad and the infamous Harold Ford ad.  Frankly, I think it's gotten to the point where people figure, if you can plausibly (or even implausibly) charge racism, just do it.  Why not?  There's no downside.

    Was the ad cheap and classless?  Absolutely so.  And I think sticking to that line of defense would work marvelously, because this ad is definitely beneath what people expect to see from Brand McCain.  But why anyone would choose to bring race into it and muddle the whole thing up, I have no idea.

    Finally, the comment about past presidents had nothing to do with race.  Robert Gibbs said so himself.  You must not have gotten the memo :)

    [ Parent ]

    My analogy was purposefully (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    over the top.  You agree that the imagery could be considered sexist.  You don't agree that it could be racist.   Certainly there are differences between this and the Harold Ford but also remember that the Republicans crossed their hearts and swore that there was no race baiting going on there either.

    The Obama campaign isn't bringing up race with regards to the ad.   Bloggers and pundits are.  And bloggers and pundits are always looking for the big story or the outrageous angle to a story.

    Well the Obama campaign is in a tough situation because they can't really bring up race without having a big hullabaloo being made about it.

    But his race certainly is a factor that he must deal with.  Seems like he is constantly required to apologize for the actions of all sorts of other black people, the most recent case being Ludacris.  

    [ Parent ]

    the Obama camp certainly is bringing up race (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:21 PM EST
    with regard to this ad.  They started accusing McCain of racism several weeks ago in Florida.  Another post on this thread has the quotes from the FL speech where Obama specifically said they will say "he's black".

    And where you say it is bloggers and pundits bringing up race...  who do you think the people here are defending the ad to?  BLOGGERS who are calling it racist.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM EST
    He did not accuse McCain of racism.  He said there are people that will attack him because he is black.  Do you think this is an untrue statement?  

    [ Parent ]
    Who are these "they" (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
    that he was speaking of?

    The campaign said that "they" are Washington insiders. But arguably, the candidate is, himself, a Washington insider.

    I've found, after spending a good deal of time listening to CT radio, that "they" is an amorphous group of people without any real defining features...except that you need to be wary of "them" and remember that "they" are out there...whoever "they" are.

    Generally, the "they" trope underscores a sense of paranoia and mistrust...possibly even fear as a rhetorical strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST
    the use of They is a common rhetorical sleight of hand intended to launch an attack without pointing at anyone specifically.

    Obama certainly didn't invent it although he seems pretty good at using it.

    [ Parent ]

    Not really... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:42:58 PM EST
    The problem with using it is that when you point out that "they" are gonna do X, Y, and Z, you start putting yourself into the role of attack victim before you're even attacked.

    Plus you set up an "old politics" form of us/them dichotomy that undermines your "new politics" aura.

    So not only have you made yourself the apparent victim in a "cry wolf" scenario...but you've undercut your own argument of a "New Form of Unity Politics."

    [ Parent ]

    and, (none / 0) (#74)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
    isn't attacking someone based on their race the very defintion of racism?

    [ Parent ]
    no, commenters are not bloggers (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:13 PM EST
    I have not called the ad racist. I haven't seen it. Please don't confuse commenters at blogs with bloggers.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry to lump (none / 0) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    bloggers and blog commenters together,  But, there are bloggers out there who are calling this racist.  I didn't mean to imply that you are one of them.  But, since I didn't actually  use your name specifically, I guess the Obama defense of "I never said that" works and you can't say  that I did.   LOL

    [ Parent ]
    I don't get it (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:23:08 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that I'm more sensitive to sexism than racism or something?  Comparing Hillary to two airheads would simply be... a different analogy than comparing Obama to them.  I think I offered a much more appropriate analogy, if you want to make that point.

    It's kinda like how it would be racist to call Obama lazy and shiftless, but it wouldn't be sexist to call Hillary lazy and shiftless.  See my point?

    As for Ludacris, you seriously cannot believe that the reason Obama was asked to comment on that song was because Ludacris is black.  Can you?  It's because it was a song that was directly about Obama, and trashed his rivals in highly inappropriate ways.

    Now, as for whether the Obama campaign is bringing up race in regards to the ad, well.  What they're doing is that at the exact same time they're responding to this ad from McCain, they're also making the old "he doesn't look like those other presidents" argument, the one that Robert Gibbs absurdly claims has nothing to do with race.  Is it a direct response, who knows, but it's clear the McCain campaign is not just going to sit there and let Obama accuse them of race-baiting even if it's a completely generic accusation, which I'm not sure it was in this case.

    I also think bloggers need to realize that they have a certain responsibility, and that if they want to make vicious accusations just because nobody minds within the confines of the echo chamber, those accusations do get reported on by the MSM and they do become part of the zeitgeist.  I really wish people, and this includes you, would just cool it on the racism accusations until something comes along that actually deserves them.  It was appalling enough to have to go through this in the primary.

    [ Parent ]

    fair enough (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    First off I wasn't suggesting you are more sensitive to sexism.  I was speaking generally. I can list at least 5 instances of sexism accusations that were taken as absolute fact here that were far more tenuous than this accusation.

    Singers have been politically involved for decades often saying all sorts of inappropriate things.  This is the first time that I can remember in which the politician is expected to apologize or even address that sort of thing.

    Let me ask you this, Steve.  Who do you think stands to gain more by making this election about race, Obama or McCain?  

    I don't think you will ever see me accuse someone of racism unless it is very clear.  There are people on this site that VERY questionable things.  Perhaps it is driven by bigotry and perhaps it is driven by simple hatred of all things Obama.  But either way their comments are not acceptable to me.  This really only applies to about 2 or 3 regular posters here.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    First of all, just like you're not really the guy who goes overboard with the racism accusations (although, uh, you kinda did go to town on Edgar08 in the last thread), I'm not necessarily a subscriber to every paragraph of the sexism narrative.  Let's just leave it at that.

    This Ludacris thing is an example of an issue where I end up feeling like we come from different planets or something.  I mean, a famous artist writes a song that is like "Obama is awesome, Hillary is a b*tch, and McCain is senile" (to loosely paraphrase) and you honestly believe the only reason Obama got asked what he thought about that song is that they're both black.  I mean, I just can't comprehend where that argument comes from.

    And somehow, over the course of this campaign, no matter how hard I've tried in my life to fight racism and all those other isms, I just feel this vast gulf opening up between myself and the sort of liberal who spots an example of racism every 5 minutes.  It's kinda weird for me.

    [ Parent ]

    You are right (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    that I went after Edgar.  But I don't care much for the "He's just a whiny black guy" meme.  I hear that from Conservatives I know an awful lot.  I find Edgar's comments on Obama to be mostly irrational and they have been for some time.  I'll leave it at that.

    The Ludacris thing taken on its own would be one thing.  But it seems to me that this is a common trend.  Bernie Mac, Ludacris, Obama having Kanye West on his Ipod.  It seems so petty to me.

    For some the Obama campaign is very emotional and they allow that emotion to cloud their views.  I think that bogus accusations of racism are counter-productive and help perpetuate real examples of racism by desensitizing people.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    When they asked Obama what he thought about Harry Belafonte's anti-Bush comments that was bizarre and quite obviously had something to do with race, because there's no other connection between Obama and Harry Belafonte.

    But the reason Obama got asked to apologize for Bernie Mac is that Bernie Mac made offensive comments right there at an Obama event!

    And the reason Obama got asked for a comment on Ludacris is because the offensive song Ludacris wrote was actually a song about Obama!

    This is similar to the logic where I point out that what was racist about the Harold Ford ad was not that it had an image of a white woman in it. Rather, what was racist is that it suggested Harold Ford was a playboy who liked to party with white women.  By the same token, what was racial about the Harry Belafonte episode was not simply that Belafonte is black, it's that Belafonte had made comments that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:04:42 AM EST
    Reasonable points.  As I said it is more than it seems to be a recurring theme for Obama than any specific episode.

    But you make some good points.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, me me me, I know the answer. (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:53:03 PM EST
    Who do you think stands to gain more by making this election about race, Obama or McCain?

    Obama. No question.

    What did I win?

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:57:23 PM EST
    Who are the voters that are currently not already certain to vote for Obama that would be convinced to vote for him based on a campaign about race?

    Those who would be bothered by racism are already voting for him, other than the Hillary supporters.  

    So the only people who may be influenced by a lot of racism talk are those who would get turned off by it.  I'll assume the actual racists were never voting for Obama in the first place.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama benefits (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    because it tends to stop a lot of future criticism against Obama.  People and/or the media are afraid to criticze him for fear of beingcalled racist.  Or at least it worked that way in the dem primary.  I'm not so sure it will have the desired effect on republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    As for the other charges from Obama (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:04:07 PM EST
    that the Republicans will use race-baiting, the problem is the future tense.

    It would be like me writing a comment here that you will use race-baiting.  Or that you will engage in BTD-baiting, which is a lot more fun. :-)

    It reminds me of a rather over-the-edge nun in grade school.  She gave rulers -- hard-edged rulers -- to the girls and assigned each one to a boy.  This was one of my brothers' classes, and he got assigned to a mean girl.  The girls were assigned to whup the boys if they sinned in -- this is the Catholic phraseology -- "thought, word, or deed."

    The mean girl decided that my brother was thinking lots of sinful thoughts and bruised him often.

    Or she was a bully.

    So is Obama thinking that McCain will, in the future, sin in thought, word, or deed?  

    Or is Obama being a bully?

    Or maybe just a mind-reader, with superpowers heretofore unseen?  Wow, that would be really helpful to have a president who could predict the future.  Kewl.

    [ Parent ]

    Whoa! I thought some of the nuns ... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by santarita on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:03:23 AM EST
    at my school were nasty.  

    [ Parent ]
    That ad with Hillary would make (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    no sense. Hillary isn't known for rockstar rallies and being a personality that hasn't accomplished much beyond being popular that goes on Access Hollywood.

    As for Obama's comment I simply don't understand how people here can on the one hand defend McCain against charges of dog whistle race-baiting and then accuse Obama of race-baiting simply because he said that the Republicans will try to use fear and the fact that he doesn't look like past presidents to defeat him.  The Republicans ALWAYS use fear.  It is their modus operandi
    .  

    The comments weren't just about "fear" Obama said they would make people be fearful because he has a "funny name" and because he doesn't look like any of the guys on our currency. Be honest with yourself.

    And this isn't the first time the campaign has gone there...

    The Kansas Democrat, often mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama, said those were all "code words" to try to make voters "uncomfortable."

    "I don't think anybody's going to go directly at the race issue, but that's going to be an underlying theme," she said in an interview this week.

    Obama said much the same thing to an audience in Florida last week.

    "They're going to try to make you afraid of me," the presumptive Democratic nominee said. `"He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?""

    Kansas governor, Obama ally, warns GOP will play race card

    [ Parent ]

    The ad was senseless (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:16:42 PM EST
    as it was.  Just because people use the term rock star to describe Obama doesn't make him an ACTUAL rock star.  When you go negative, accuracy is unimportant.

    The comments weren't just about "fear" Obama said they would make people be fearful because he has a "funny name" and because he doesn't look like any of the guys on our currency. Be honest with yourself.

    I still lots of people that like to call him B. Hussein Obama.  You telling me they do that because they love his name?  

    Or maybe it's because of people like this

    We recently discussed Obama, and while I did not expect her to be willing to vote Democratic, the reason she gave was a little surprising to me: she can't see supporting him because of his close association with Muslims. He went to school with Muslims, his step-father was a Muslim, and she just doesn't feel comfortable. She has no problem with a black President (again, her children wouldn't be god-parents to mine if she had racial issues). But the Muslim thing worries her

    So tell me again that his look and name aren't used against him.

    [ Parent ]

    which of your examples (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:21:00 PM EST
    is McCain responsible for?  NONE.  So, why does Obama keep going out there and saying the McCain campaign is or will be doing this?

    [ Parent ]
    Please provide (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:23:40 PM EST
    a quote from the Obama campaign accusing the McCain campaign of doing this?

    No implied quotes where Obama speaks in generalities and you assume he is referring to the McCain campaign.  Specific quotes please.

    [ Parent ]

    Read Jake Tapper today (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:25:45 PM EST
    (linked in previous thread).  He parses it perfectly.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not sure (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:37:35 PM EST
    which blog entry you are referring to.  Perhaps this Tapper entry that has a quote from the Obama campaign...

    This is a race about big challenges--a slumping economy, a broken foreign policy, and an energy crisis for everyone but the oil companies.  Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they're using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign, and those are the issues he'll continue to talk about.

    I don't think he can be any clearer than that.

    [ Parent ]

    It's in post #21 (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:49:11 PM EST
    "They're going to try to make you afraid of me.....and he's black"

    Who do you they "They" are?  Obama's opponents, the McCain campaign and McCain supporters and surrogates.

    [ Parent ]

    You just covered (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:54:06 PM EST
    tens of millions of people.  

    I asked for an example of the Obama campaign accusing the McCain campaign of racism and you provide a quote referencing a vague "they" and then admit that the "they" could cover Obama's opponents, the McCain campaign and those who support McCain?

    Not very compelling.

    [ Parent ]

    like i said in an earlier post (none / 0) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:05:37 AM EST
    Obama supporters are very wiling to accuse non Obama suporters by "implication" when NOTHING is said directly, but are completely unwilling of ever seeing the "implications" of what Obama says.  But, it doesn't surprise me.  It's the defense that Obama supporters have been using sinse the start of the primary campaign.  His campaign "implies" things and the supporters defend with "he didn't say that".  Or, his campaign sends out a surrogate to say something and then the supporters say "Obama didn't say it, he can't be held responsible for what someone else says".

    [ Parent ]
    So we have now moved on to (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:06:48 AM EST
    Obama supporters.  That's always an easy target.  Much easier than defending your original point I might add.

    [ Parent ]
    15+ To 1 (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    Quite a pileup. Not much support for Obama here.

    [ Parent ]
    well i would have said you (none / 0) (#129)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:30:01 AM EST
    specifically, but you have claimed you never charged racism.  Although if you look in another one of your posts you also make the claim that you never charge racism unless it is clear.  And, in that same post you charge this ad is easier to defend as racism than 5 examples of sexism charges you could think of.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeh, that's all you got out of Tapper? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:48:50 AM EST
    You're simply not worth discussion.  I'm done with you.

    [ Parent ]
    the Florida speech is already posted here (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    where Obama says they'll say I'm black in order to scare you.

    But, the more curious part of your post is that you deny me the opportunity to use implications made by Obama or his campaign.  Because, those implications are ALL that Obama supporters EVER use when they charge others with race-baiting.  It's always "code words" etc.  Tonight we have seen the perfect example when the claims are made that arrogant actually means "uppity n-word".

    [ Parent ]

    you have answered your own question (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    by saying the ad was demeaning.  Maybe it was demeaning.  But, it wasn't racist.  And, Obama accused McCain of race-baiting.  No one would have had any complaint at all if the comapliners had said the ad was stupid, or silly or demeaning.  Bu, they have been claiming the ad is racist and it clearly is NOT.  That is waht this is all about.  The Obama camp's constant complaints of racism where there isn't.  The last thread was full of commenters who now claim the word arrogant is racist.  Black men can be arrogant and it isn't racist to call a black man racist.  It is a matter of opinion.  Some people think he is arrogant and they are entitled to their opinion without be called racists.

    In the previous thread I said the ad used against Harold Ford was race-baiting because the blond bimbo in that ad actually asked Ford to call her.  The implication was actually in that ad.  The next commenter after that still insisted that the Paris Hilton ad somehow implied that Paris and Britney were "romantically" interested inObama.  The ad has NO SUCH implication in it.  The ad only means to equate the undeserved fame and adulation of Paris and Britney with what Obama's opponents feel is the undeserved FAME and adulation of Obama.

    You don't agree that Obama's fame is undeserving.  And, your opinon is that itis demeaning.  But, there is nothing racist about it at all.

    Now to your Hillary question.  When Obama campaigned against Hillary by calling her Annie Oakley, brushing her off his shoulder, scraping her off his shoes, he was acting in a demeaning manner towards her.  But, it wasn't sexist IMO.  It was just demeaning to another senator.

    So, if you call McCain's ad demeaning, you won't get an argument from me.  But, you can't seriously call it racist.

    [ Parent ]

    Inappropriate and demeaning... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:38 PM EST
    Agreed.  But this is what Republicans do (and sometimes Democrats).  And in this election, they don't have much in the way of positive to brag about.  So they say nasty, untrue, mudslinging things and hope some of it sticks in people's minds.  They are not interested in discussing points of view on issues.  

    I'd like to see all of the negative, personal attacks go away.  It's wrong to be racist, sexist, ageist, classist, bigoted, etc.  It's wrong to appeal to people's fears instead of their rational side.  

    But this is what you get in modern American campaigns.  And candidates know it and better be prepared to deal effectively with it.  Calling attention to examples of the negativity is good but dwelling on the examples is probably not effective as a tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    here's an option (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    If Obama feels McCain has no issues to talk about, then why is he afraid to agree to McCain's request to have some town hall meetings to discuss the issues that real people want to talk about?

    [ Parent ]
    Nice McCain talking points (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:18:05 AM EST
    Do you guys really want McCain to win that badly?  

    [ Parent ]
    Do you guys really want a president (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:25:52 AM EST
    who likes to talk and talk but not listen?  To talk and talk but not debate issues?  Do you really?  Why?

    [ Parent ]
    I want Obama to win (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:32:18 AM EST
    You apparently do not....and seek to undermine at every turn.

    So, if you get your wish, I'll be a lot more comfortable under another 4 years of Republican rule than many here, who are more liberal than I.....

    [ Parent ]

    I will point out to you (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    They were depicting her in a dominatrix outfit on the cover of spy magazine as far back as 1993 and never once did she ever whine about sexism the way Obama has whined about racism.  The first time I actually ever remember her bringing it up is during this primary.  And everyone pointed out it was a restrained moment.

    Now you know.  Racism isn't something to whine about.  It actually exists.  But the outrage we see from his campaign, and in the media has no real impact an AA trying to find a job.  Just so you know.  It only exists to help Obama be president.

    In the end, I'm sorry, Obama is using fear, too.

    He has the entire nation afraid they'll be called racist.

    And I'm not being hyperbolic.   Everyone has to be on egg shells around the guy.

    One false move.  One wrong word.  One moment of criticism.  

    And we know what's going to happen.

    I think it's pathetic and despicable.

    [ Parent ]

    And I will also point out (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:49:55 PM EST
    The second someone depicts him on a magazine in a bright floppy hat and bell bottom trousers (which is the equivalent of Clinton being depicting as a dominatrix), THEN the campaign can hit back as hard as they want.  

    That would be real.

    But now Jeralyn will have to delete my comment because someone's going to play their little game and pretend I was serious about depicting Obama in a floppy hat and bell bottom trousers.

    I'm not.  I'm talking about what it would be like if Obama actually was treated the same way Clinton was treated.

    And I really think you really have no idea.  You don't see it.

    So I have to ILLUSTRATE for you what it would be like if Obama was treated the same way Clinton was treated.

    Any chance you get that?

    [ Parent ]

    I have to disagree with you on this: (none / 0) (#208)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:07:08 AM EST
    Comparing Obama to a pair of 20-something life wasters is completely uncalled for.  

    If Britney and Paris are such "life wasters," why are they worth far more money than the Obamas are?  

    Say what you like about Paris Hilton, but she didn't inherit a ton of money.  She has taken what she has (good looks, intelligence, etc.) and she has actually turned herself into a brand.  That's really hard to do.  Yeah, she had a famous name to start off with but look at how many "famous names" actually have turned into "life wasters."  I don't begrudge her a dime that she's made because she's actually been pretty savvy about it.  (And she does work hard.  Don't fool yourself.  She's got a clothing line, a perfume, she makes money for appearances.  She's really not the "shallowness" she makes herself out to be.  You'll never catch her out with no makeup wearing ugly clothes because that would hurt her brand.)  

    Britney made her money on vapid music.  So do a lot of musicians.  She's been very successful with this music thing so she's earned her money.  It's not like she's out robbing banks to get it.  

    I find it very demeaning how you look at Paris and Britney -- two girls who have never said a thing about you.  

    Obama has been compared to two hard working celebrities and he's complaining about it.  I think he's a whiner.  Seriously.  What does race have to do with it?  He could make "Barack Obama" a brand just like Paris Hilton but he's chosen to play in the mud with politicians instead.  That's not anyone's fault but his own.      

    [ Parent ]

    This and other reasons (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    The other reasons I have are connected to the primary, but not as revenge (although that'd be cool with me too).

    I don't hope Obama wins.  It's really very little to do with him -- the rock star stuff and empty suitedness bothers me a lot but it's not decisive -- but with the direction of the DNC and the actions they were willing to take to achieve it.

    This big, exciting, competitive primary was a clash of the Titans.  The Titans are not Obama or Clinton as people, but rather what each represents as to the fundamental principles upon which the party rests.  If the Democratic Party is not the party that champions the rights and interests of those not powerful enough to stand up for themselves, if it's not the party of FDR in which government's role is to advances the economic security and well-being of all people, but instead it's the party that exploits the very people and things they should be championing, then it's not my party.  

    The Dems no longer want the burden of fighting for people, or the hard work that goes with leadership in creating a cohesive party of common interests, they just want the power that goes with winning.

    Race-baiting is just a part of the overall strategic direction.  It goes beyond just 'anything-to-win'.  It exploits the better selves of the millions of genuinely well-intentioned people who sadly buy into it as well as destroys the chances of those who have truly suffered from racism (or sexism, or any kind of bigotry) for attaining real redress for themselves and others like them.

    So many of the strategems in the DNC's campaign this year were other attempts to shed the inconvenient and pesky responsibilities they would have to a real Democratic Party.  If the sexism and misogyny had succeeded in shutting up women and their pesky demands for choice, for equal pay, for better family leave, for equal treatment, etc., then all to the good.  If they can win without the old base, esp the working class, then they never have to concern themselves with working for the economic interests of anyone but themselves.

    If they can win the election with vague speeches on change and hope and race-baiting, then they never need to actually live up to a mandate or do the work to respond to their legitimate critics on the issues.

    I see the 'grievance campaign' strategy (catfish!) as the most recent in a long line of tactics fitting in with that overall strategy.  The risks of gamble playing the crying wolf game is one they are willing to take, because the payoff is potentially huge.


    [ Parent ]

    Bravo! (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There are of course many (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:08:12 AM EST
    who will not vote for Obama because they wrongly believe he is Muslim and because his middle name is Hussein.  That is a significant hurdle....

    [ Parent ]
    Wonderful memory-Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM EST
    10,000 Maniacs. I have a tear in my eye just remembering this performance 15 years ago. I remember when Bill got elected, everything started turning around with people really having confidence in him that all would be ok. It was a wonderful time. He was a good President. Do you have Hillary and Tipper holding their arms and swinging their bobs back and forth? What a team Bill and Al made.

    Here's a clip (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    of Bill and Hillary coming out to greet the crowd. Wow, do they look different.

    Yes, I have Al Gore and the whole concert. I'll see if I can find Hillary and Tipper together when I have some time to watch it. If I do, I'll post it on you tube.

    [ Parent ]

    That was great!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    I was wishing it was right now again. The one with Hillary and Tipper I believe is on the final night at the convention when they were up on stage together. It was not at the January events.

    [ Parent ]
    What a great night that was! (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:30:21 PM EST
    So much excitement, and (dare I say it) hope.  I thought it was just thrilling.

    I had a friend at the time who was a photog for one of the major newsmagazines, and at one point, Hillary caught sight of him, lit up with a huge smile and bent over to talk to him.  He wasn't a particularly friendly guy to politicians, had that pro journalist cynicism and wasn't fond of any of the pols he covered regularly, including the Clintons, so I knew her reaction wasn't because of any particular warmth from my friend, just her total exuberance and feeling for that moment pretty much in love with the world.  It was really nice to watch.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. The Clintons really (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    aged nicely. Like a fine wine. It's kinda funny looking at Pres Clinton on that night and reflecting on where he is now with his Global Initiatives. Sen Clinton was a strong example back then and look at her now. And Chelsea, the future is hers. Kudos to them. May we have more :)

    [ Parent ]
    I could not find the video on YouTube. (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:13:03 PM EST
    I did find this Google image and this might have been the night. They sure were happy here. I could not post the too long link. She is wearing blue and Tipper is wearing pink. It is worth a look. Under Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore. 3rd row down on the right.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain charges Obama is playing the race card (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    from the bottom deck.  I guess the Republicans are not afraid to call Obama's play the way they see it.  it will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds.

    I say the campaign is about to devolve into (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:34:12 PM EST
    a bunch of bizarre 'racism' accusations just like it did in January.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it cost Obama votes after February 19 (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    when his campaign peaked, and I think it will be even more unwise to try it now against McCain.  For many reasons, but for one thing, he has a daughter of color.  Try to convince voters he's a racist.

    But it looks like that's just what the Obama campaign is doing.  And so I think that's panicking about the polls.  And panic is a step toward disaster.

    [ Parent ]

    I was very surprised (none / 0) (#123)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:20:15 AM EST
    to read Obama made the remarks he did in Springfield, Rolla and Union Missouri.  These are pretty conservative areas that probably won't appreciate the suggestion that McCain's ad was racist.  In fact, I'd say these are the very sort of people who might be turned off by it instead.    

    [ Parent ]
    Remember when Josh Marshall was all (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    sensitive about Bill Clinton trying to make Obama into the "black candidate" (whatever the f*xk that  means). Seems like Obama is not letting anyone forget he is the "black candidate" now.

    [ Parent ]
    No they weren't. They were a few weeks back. (none / 0) (#131)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    They were made Wednesday (none / 0) (#150)
    by standingup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:08:05 AM EST
    July 30 and they were in response to the recent attacks from McCain, including the ad.  See the WaPo or Jake Tapper.

    [ Parent ]
    And Obama said the same things (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:39:30 AM EST
    weeks back, too.  There were complaints from the McCain camp then, but that got little traction then.

    So Obama goes and says it again, and says it several times.  But this time, the McCain camp's complaint is getting major media traction.

    That might suggest a shift in the media, growing since the criticisms of the trip to Europe.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, but if the first day's (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    commentary holds true, they will defend Obama vigorously against McCain and insist that the ad is racist.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know about that (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST
    on Campbell brown's show Roland Martin was hosting with a repub AA woman named Tara who really dislikes Obama. Gloria Borger was there as well as some Obama apologist.

    My partner and I sat there with our mouths open as Roland Martin said that Obama implying McCain's ad was racist was a mistake and they needed to back off on it. I was stunned.

    [ Parent ]

    she was a former Republican Strategist (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    not a journalist. She and Roland were co-hosting because Campbell wasn't there. I just happened to see that part and after she made her first two ridiculously anti-Obama statements I shut it down. One example, she asked why he couldn't "show leadership" and agree to off shore drilling. She was pitiful.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    she was ridiculous but we were watching during dinner so I didn't change it. At least there was someone on there who was not carrying Obama's water.

    Either way I found Roland taking Obama to task surprising. They all agreed the ad was not racists and neither is McCain. Roland simply said that Obama made a mistake in implying otherwise, that if he meant bloggers he should have said bloggers.

    it was something I never expected to hear come out of Roland's mouth.

    [ Parent ]

    forgot to add (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:33:01 PM EST
    she introduced herself as a former Republican strategist.

    [ Parent ]
    Later Roland Martin AND (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:50:35 PM EST
    David Gergen both said it was a big mistake for Obama to tie the racial comments "out there" directly to McCain and his campaign because it was NOT true.

    Stumble.

    Small crack in the universal Obamafest on CNN.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm glad I didn't see the part with (none / 0) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 11:53:07 PM EST
    Gergen and Martin. I might have fainted.

    This can'tbe good for Obama if the people who have fawned over him the most lately have no problem pointing out the mistake when his own campaign won't.

    [ Parent ]