Prosecute the torture.

April 19, 2008

In his own words

Regarding the debates earlier this week, I'm really glad that after so many BS questions, they finally let Obama speak to the issues (1:36 minutes in on this video):



Yeah, I'm really glad!

26 comments:

Chad said...

One of the great leaders and speakers of our generation on full display. You know, once they got past the distractions.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Yeah, and they only needed to chop him up into five infinitesimal clips, arranged back-to-back, in order to make him look clueless for the purposes of a little comedy.

So the man thinks before he finishes his thoughts, and he's not as glib as he's made out to be. Hillary is a habitual liar with no political ability of her own and no political spine. You make the call.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Maria.

From a TWO HOUR LONG debate the Daily Show strings together 30 seconds (or so) of different verbal "ums" and "uhs" for fun and that's evidence of what, exactly?

Is there anyone out there who, after watching that bit, smacks the table with an open palm and cries out, "That settles it - Hillary IS the better candidate! They just proved it on the Daily Show!"

Anyone?

Maria said...

Q. How many Obama supporters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A. THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

Bram Reichbaum said...

Q: How many Hillary Clinton supporters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: YOU'RE BEING SEXIST!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa6Q3bWYG04
It's a little too late, I'm a little too gone, I'm a little too tired of this hangin' on...

Anonymous said...

Interesting take on "The Cask of Amontillado."

Didn't know Toby Keith was such an ironic Poe fan.

Anonymous said...

Maria,

Did not you just love Hillary's new foreign policy revelations, which she was so prepared to give?

For Christ's sake, are you listening anymore? A military umbrella encompassing an area far wider than Israel? Did you get the rest of the details?

I did not know you too were a neocon in sheepskin

You sadden me more and more every day. Wake up!

Infinonymous said...

How many Hillary supporters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

We'll never know -- in Hillary's world, one guy does enough screwing for everyone.

Anonymous said...

Hillary CAN still win! This is not over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg

elme said...

WELL .... since Obama wants us to abide by the golden rule .... do unto others as you would have them do unto you ... it's time for ALL of US to
Flip HIM OFF:
Obama ("Middle-Finger-Gate")....& WHY the MEDIA isn't covering it:
Originally posted on: The Swamp website:

Just watch the videos. He did it twice, in the same day, at two separate events. He made the gesture at the same point in his speeches - the crowd understood what he meant. Actions speak louder than words. This man is not fit to be a US Senator.
First speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DygBj4Zw6No
Second speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhkq11UExcw
Posted by: james | April 18, 2008 3:47 PM
If Obama gets the nod it will be due solely to Black hypocrisy and White guilt. Great way to get a president! You think the last 8 years were a mess...just wait!
Posted by: Sandee Enriquez | April 18, 2008 5:30 PM
MSNBC & NBC are owned by GE. CBS is owned by Westinghouse. They have lots of AD $$$money to spread around to all forms of media.
GE & Westinghouse are planning to Reap $BILLIONS Risk-Free from building 29 new nuclear power plants - thanks to the Cheney Energy Bill (Cheney's NEXT Big Energy Monopoly RIPOFF) .... just waiting in the wings for either --- Obama, or McCain to win the presidency --- they're both pro-nuclear.
Clinton voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill & says her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.
That is WHY the MEDIA puts out Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA - Anti-Clinton Slime & Smear ... all day everyday.

(Who Knew --- Obama's "New Kind of Politics" = DIRTIER than the Republicans)

Anonymous said...

elme,

You must be crying hysterically. I feel for you. I am not the most gracious loser either.

Anonymous said...

elme

Those videos are a joke.

I am sure you will be happier and do even better with the Richard Mellon Scaife endorsement tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

John K. says; Will you Hillary people relax. She will pull it out on Tuesday. Republican crossovers will make sure of that. Operation Chaos and Limbaugh rule!

Anonymous said...

Jon Stewart is as usual very funny, even if he is funny this time at the expense of the candidate I prefer.

Personally, I find the fact that Senator Obama responds to every question (instead of using the question to turn it into an opportunity to give his latest campaign spin) very refreshing.

But this is the eternal mystery isn't it? Senator Obama's supporters want the new kind of politics offered by Senator Obama and the possibilities that entails-- we believe (again, or for the
1st time) in our ability to change Washington and in his. And Senator Clinton's supporters don't and think that we listened to long to Senator Obama and were somehow mesmerized.

I assure you, as you can see from the clip Jon Stewart put together, Senator Obama is not Dr. Mesmer. He is simply a highly inspirational speaker who is trying to change the way our politics work and trying to get all of us politically awake and involved in the process.

Really, I can see why you might still prefer someone else, but why the need to tear him down? Isn't there a part of everyone that would like to believe again? Why not at least support his ideas of building up the grassroots to work together to achieve change at the local level -- as simple as cleaning the parks like folks organized using Obama Works does?
You can support some of his ideas, and still support a different candidate.
--Kim

jaywillie said...

This is precisely why this needs to come to a close.

What a cheap shot. And no surprise the Clinton camp wants it both ways - first his an empty suit that talks sweet and now he can't talk at all.

As Bram mentioned, it's pretty easy to edit something together that looks however the editor wants it to look. It wasn't a good performance for Obama, but why is it okay to dismiss Hillary's blatant lies for misspeaking, because she's 60 and it was late and she was tired(that was hubbie Bill's excuse, not mine), but she doesn't afford that same consideration to others or, at least, only when she and her campaign and supporters can't score cheap political points?

Let's face the facts - even if Hillary won all the remaining states we suspect with 70%, she'd still trail in the delegate count. Since February 5, Superdelegates have endorsed Obama at rate of nearly 6 to 1. And if the last few weeks are any indication, it's more likely that trend continues rather than Hillary turning it around.

That being the case, after the last primary in June, Barack Obama will be the leader in delegates. Say what you want about MI and FL, but if the Clinton camp was truly concerned about voter's rights, then they would have taken on the issue a lot sooner than they did. Last Fall, she joined all the other major Dems in a pledge to recognize and follow the Democratic Party's sanction of MI and FL for moving their primaries up despite repeated warnings from the DNC. There was a time and a process by which the Clinton camp could have challenged that - now she can wait until the convention and the Rules and Credentials committees, where she will lose because those committees will reflect the results and the seating will favor Obama.

If she didn't agree with the party's rules, then she shouldn't have agreed to them. And she and her supporters should have made an issue of it when there was still time to do something about it.

Obama might not have the necessary 2024, but whether he leads by 1 or 150 when it's over, he has won the Democratic nomination. It's basic principles of democracy.

There are reasons that she is losing and will likely lose - Mark Penn is a terrible strategist, running as an "inevitable" candidate was a mistake, not planning for after February 5th was catastrophic.

In December, Hillary predicted that the race would be over on February 5th. Even before the race began, her campaign and her supporters were extremely confident that she would be the nominee. It was their's.

And then John Edwards and Barack Obama decided enough was enough and started to challenge her. Despite all of the Clinton camp's assurances that Hillary is vetted, that she's faced the worst Republicans can throw at her and can weather the storm, in her first competitive political race, the first time as a political candidate that her back's been against the wall, she is losing and doing so poorly. There is not much disagreement that her campaign has been poorly managed.

The time has come for Democrats to unite behind a nominee. Bitterness and pettiness must be set aside by everyone on both sides, and that is a message that applies to myself as much as anyone. But like the Rolling Stones sang, "You can't always get what you want." That's a bitter pill to swallow, however, I don't think any of us really want to see John McCain elected, do we?

Democrats have a unique opportunity to build an electoral powerhouse that will dominate for a generation. The majority of Democrats, at this point and likely still in June, believe Barack Obama is the person to lead our ticket this year. We must each decide what is more important - loyalty to our progressive Democratic values or loyalty to an individual.

Someone once said that you don't need to ask the weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and we don't need June to tell us who the Democratic nominee will be. It has been a hard fought campaign, but for all intents and purposes, this race is over.

It is time for Hillary Clinton to concede the Democratic race and take advantage of the new opportunity afforded to her, which may prove to be the most pivotal moment of the entire campaign season - bringing the party together.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Super delegates for the Clinton's are not a problem. Bubba has not even begun to arm twist yet. And Frau Hillary will not be the VP. As VP Bill does have the cover he needs to pursue his activities.

Maria said...

"Really, I can see why you might still prefer someone else, but why the need to tear him down?"

Really, I can see why you might still prefer someone else, but why the need to tear her down? Which has been done relentlessly on this blog.

"Isn't there a part of everyone that would like to believe again?"

And, nearly half of all primary voters and a majority of Democratic primary voters believe in Hillary.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Since the PA primary first got underway, Maria, I've kept posing this question in your comments and I'm still curious to hear a response.

Given what we knew about George W. Bush in the Fall of 2002, given what we knew about the state of the intelligence coming out of Iraq, and given what we knew about the complexity of regime change in that part of the world -- why did Hillary Clinton vote to give George W. Bush the broad authority to go to war in Iraq? And why does her decision not trouble you?

Anonymous said...

Retired Millhunk says:
I'll take a stab at Maria's possible answer. Well since I didn't have to go to Iraq I could care less about anyone else. I just want a female to be elected President. By the way Hilliary even lied when she said due to the best intelligence available she voted to authorize war with Iraq. Hilliary never read the NIE. It was a lot easier sending soldiers over to die than read that NIE, hell it was over 15 pages long.

Maria said...

Hillary as well as others on the Senate Armed Services Committee got many private briefings on Iraq prior to the war.

Do I like her Iraq vote? No. Do you HATE Edwards and others for their Iraq vote? No.

Considering Obama's silence on Iraq for years after his one early anti Iraq war speech and his voting record do I believe his hypothetical no vote on Iraq? Not particularly.

Bram Reichbaum said...

"Do you HATE Edwards and others for their Iraq vote? No."

My dear, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I LOVE Hillary Clinton. I may not want her to be president, but I love her nonetheless.

I'm trying to find the names of the Sen. Armed Services Committee in 2002. Not a lot of luck, though I noticed the two senior members of that committee, Levin and Kennedy, who no doubt received the same secret briefings, voted NO on the war.

To me, this vote of hers does blow her experience / 3:00 AM / "I know how to stand up to Republicans" theory out of the water. More to my point, I'm not sure *she's* ever answered the question to anyone's satisfaction.

And I wouldn't call Obama "quiet" on the war since that vote, though understandably once soldiers were committed and in the field, he didn't vote to yank them precipitously.

Maria said...

Didn't mean he was quiet now.

I wish he would call for pulling out private contractors as Hillary has and had taken on the Pentagon as Hillary did.

Maria said...

Bram,

I thought Kerry voted yes, as did Biden. Weren't you kind of plugging for him for a minute or two?

Maria said...

Sorry -- Biden link here.

Anonymous said...

In- phoney -must said: How many Hillary supporters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

We'll never know -- in Hillary's world, one guy does enough screwing for everyone.
At 4:25 PM, Anonymous said...

See Maria, others never recognize their own meanness. You took my really unkind post off (as you should) and I think Daevoe should monitor his the same.

These guys knock Chelsey around and hold Hillary responsible for Bill, but let's not have any "below the belt stuff". Obama is too pure to want this kind of dirty politics. Oh they don't call it that when he does it, they call it "more aggresive" or "defensive".

Words do matter and the words this post allows against Hilliary are harsher than any she has leveled against Obama.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Yeah, I was plugging for Biden. Still am, though it appears he's not interested in Veep.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure he is counted among the many who has said he was either "wrong" or "deceived" ... now I gotta look it up ... but I know I've never heard Hill's line on this. Where was this tough question during the debates?