onegoodmove

In his latest round of ad feminam slurs, Senator Barack Obama has denigrated Senator Hillary Clinton and her position on gun regulation by likening her to Annie Oakley

Have all Hillary supporters lost their minds?

Obama just likened Hillary to perhaps the most famous cowgirl. He didn't imply Annie Oakley was a "wild shoot-'em-up desperado". That sentiment is inserted solely by the author of this article. His remarks reflected that Annie Oakley took part in Wild West shows.

It's a pure work of fiction that this was an ad feminam slur.

I would be the first to admit that his remarks were juvenile, and perhaps a little over the top. I think that is just a result of exhaustion and a real frustration with what he no doubt sees as Clinton attacking him on trivial crap, which he spends all his time addressing. Lucky for him the general public seems to agree Hillary's attacks seem trivial and her numbers are sinking rather then his.

Senator Obama once again demonstrated how out of touch he actually is. One does not take a six-shooter to a duck blind. Mrs. Clinton's comments were indeed prefaced by the words "I am not a hunter" but that as a "little girl" her father had taking her hunting and that she once shot a duck. That hardly makes her Annie Oakley unless by that he means that Mrs. Clinton is a confident self-assured woman.

For Clinton fans, let's revisit Irving Berlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY7Hh5PzELo

Senator Obama once again demonstrated how out of touch he actually is.

Try reading this Charles, it might help you understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasim

His remarks were intended to point out the absurdity of Clinton's intention to frame herself as a "gun person". Which given her record of voting for gun control was pretty disingenuous. Then again, she was around all that gunfire in Bosnia.

What sort of gun do you take to your duck blind?

I find this criticism of Obama mis-placed. Not the bes word choice to point up Clinton walking both sides of the duck blind on the gun issue, but he wasn't denigrating women by saying HRC was an Annie Oakley wannabe.

Guess it depends which side you're on:

Clinton heard a few boos Monday as she continued to criticize Obama. "I understand my opponent came this morning and spent a lot of his time attacking me," she said at the same forum where Obama launched his assault. The crowd responded with audible grumbles, and a few in the hall shouted, "No!" Clinton continued, "I know that many of you, like me, were disappointed by the recent remarks he made." Video Watch as CNN's Candy Crowley offers a recap of the 'bitter' dispute » This time, a louder, sustained chorus of "No!" emanated from the audience. advertisement "I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive," she said. Again, she was met with jeers, which the Clinton campaign said came from Obama supporters.

from cnn

Is that you Hill?

Fed(eral Building*) up:

"Senator Obama, trying to sneer his way out of his latest mess, shows, once again, that he just doesn't get it -- whether courage, decency, ordinary workin' people, proud heritage, American women...."

I am the one who doesn't get it. The nitpicking micro-minded attacks against solemn Lemos, Obama, et alia, ad hominem, ad nauseum, et cetera, I don't get it, I can guess at it though: it is the psycho-illogical phenomenon, "displacement". The warnings/birdies in the Platonic coal mine of Paul Ehrlich* and Thomas Malthus are, at long last (reckoned in geological time), coming home to roost, and like Gastornis redux. The Cato institute Right and the All-men(sic)-are-brothers Left alike are impotent and powerless in the face of this mega-fact. The Unobamas are trying to blow everything up (metaphorically), Oy, (Mc)Vey, expect a Murrah-cle.

Me? I'm just going to, ummmm, aummmmm, Om.....

.

.

.

*Building up to what? Ehrlich (German):

*aboveboard 
 *candid 
 *fair-minded 
 *frank 
 *frankly 
* honest 
* honestly I
* impartial 
* on the up and up 
* on the up-and-up 
* outspoken  
* plain 
* sincere 
* sincerely 
* straight  
* straightforward  
* truly 
* truthfully 
* unreserved 
* up-front 
* upfront
* add "ad feminam"

I've been reading this blog for a very, very long time. Not anymore.

He wasn't comparing her to Annie Oakley, he was pointing out how ridiculous it was for her to suddenly present herself as a gun-toting champion of the Second Amendment. He was ridiculing her for suddenly acting like she's been a life-long gun enthusiast. The Annie Oakley comment was an effective and appropriate way to do that, even if it all seems a little petty for Obama. But that's where Clinton is taking this debate, so that's where he has to go, I guess.

Seems to me people have to try awfully hard, and employ some awfully contorted logic, to find reasons to be offended by Barack Obama.

I've been reading this blog for a very, very long time. Not anymore.

If this little back and forth drives you away, then you must not have been reading that closely for the last few months.

What Hillary was trying to convey: Gun Lovers = Me

What Obama was trying to convey: Gun Lover =/= Hillary

What Hillary Said: I've been around, used and have had a relationship with guns.

What Obama Said: Anne Oakley used and had a relationship with guns, and you mama are no Anne Oakley

What the Media is saying: ZOMG@!!@ Ded u hearz wat hE sEd? Kan wee link it 2 1 of Ourz publik buttonz? Race, Sex, Gender, Death? YeS it doze!! LOOP IT< LOOP IT!!!! MORe NEwS pornz for dem mASSes!!!!

I like this guy's comment on the Annie Oakley link:

Re: Obama on Hillary Clintona and Annie Oakley (#122052) by Benjamin Alpers (Guest Blogger) on April 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM

...However Obama's meaning was entirely clear.

By joking that Clinton "is talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama was clearly contrasting Clinton and Oakley. Obama's was suggesting that Clinton is pretending that she is a woman with a deep personal involvement with firearms. In the context of a speech in which Obama was touting his devotion to Second Amendment rights, Oakley (whose role in the speech was pretty simple: a woman who actually uses guns) is an entirely positive character.

It's entirely possible to argue that Obama was pandering to gun enthusiasts as much as Clinton (though he was doing a more convincing job of it). But to say, as Sean Wilentz does, that Obama was attempting to damn Clinton by suggesting that she was like Annie Oakley to entirely misread what he said.

I respect the fact that you favor Clinton. But it's really starting to seem like you're now posting anti-Obama stuff compulsively; not because what you're posting raises interesting issues, but to fill a daily anti-Obama quota. Can anyone seriously claim that this Annie Oakley thing matters? When did the left go from concern about war and poverty to slavishly following cable news talking heads? Raise the bar, a little, man.

I used to come to this blog just to watch Daily Show clips. At some point, I found the content began to improve. Lately it's been seriously sliding. That guy's response to Olbermann on Ferarro was one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet, bar none. You can keep pulling for Clinton, just increase the issue to noise ratio.

that Obama was attempting to damn Clinton by suggesting that she was like Annie Oakley to entirely misread what he said.

So, assuming Sean Wilentz isn't an idiot, Why the heck is he attacking Obama with a premise that is clearly wrong?

Between this and the flap about the bitter remark I am having trouble understanding what Clinton supporters are doing?

Are the so emotional that they are now acting on without reason?

Do they just think deception is part of a well run campaign?

I think the anti-Obama stench in this blog is beginning to stink.

I will never ever say anything to besmirch Norm, who I hold in the highest regard, but as an ardent supporter of both Senators Obama and Clinton, I can only say that, with the differences between these two excellent candidates being so miniscule compared to their differences with the evil assholes in the Republican party, that I am both perplexed and saddened by the juvenile chicanery that has gripped the Democratic nomination process.

The only partisanship I feel is to kick those motherfucking Republicans out of office, so please excuse me when I refrain from this pointlessly juvenile Hillary vs. Obama war that has turned into the theater of the absurd lately. This "Annie Oakley" horseshit is further proof of the puerile distraction it has become. This election has far too much at stake for our fellow citizens to see this kind of childish crap consume this election cycle

I am voting for Senator Obama next week in Philly, and it was not an easy decision by any accord. However, if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, you will not find a more fanatical supporter than I. I refuse to besmirch either of them because I respect them both and hold them in the highest esteem. Their differences politically are not enough to stir any kind of reasonable dislike of either. In fact, I love them both. I would vote for both if I could in next week's primary, but I can't. I just look at the other side and see that preening, evil, unctuous, disingenuous, lying, capitalist tool of a warmonger, John McCain, and all I can feel is great love for Obama and Clinton. I feel safe knowing one of them will win the nomination and the presidency. All their differences wash away with that happy thought.

Just my 2 cents, for what it is worth. Due to the declining value of the dollar, the 2 cents is not much!

American(s) media stopped making sense to me a long time ago. Evolution, legislation, war on e'thing, 'bitterness' and general alienation from the rest of the world...and now 'bitterness' and other bs, but they couldn't care less about torture.

I don't care if the US dollar hits 0.01 Euro cents, I (and a lot of my friends) won't travel there anymore. I've seen too many 'terrorists watch list' screwups of my own to risk my hide any/even more.

I am both perplexed and saddened by the juvenile chicanery that has gripped the Democratic nomination process.

Amen.

With all of the important issues that we should be discussing, a professor from Princeton is blathering on about this non-issue internecine dog fight? How sad.

No wonder our country's so fucked up.

So who is Sean Wilentz?

For the most part, the Democratic case was well presented. Only a gratuitously patronizing presentation by Sean Wilentz, a Princeton historian, marred the Democratic experts' argument that Mr. Clinton's misconduct did not meet the constitutional tests for impeachment

Sean Wilentz has also written articles about Obama playing the "race-baiter" card, while Wilentz himself is playing the "gender-baiter" card with this post.

It's clear that Wilentz is an avid Hillary Clinton supporter and will say anything to get her elected.

In the meantime, John McCain is sitting pretty while the Dems duke it out. In the meantime, no one is discussing the continuing war in Iraq, torture, our out-of-control deficit and all of the other important issues.

Is Sean Wilentz Playing History or Politics?

Sean Wilentz is Being Silly

One neat thing about the Democratic primary race is that some rank opportunists who’ve curried favor as ferociously partisan Democrats, Mark Penn among them, are now seen as the flim-flam artists they really are, all because they bet on the wrong, which is to say the unfashionable, horse.

Don't worry folks. Norm has already explained that he doesn't intend to vote for Hillary or Obama. He just enjoys pissing on your dreams.

No? Then Norm, riddle me this: why do we through this every day? Troll bait? Boredom? Lack of better material?

Only a gratuitously patronizing presentation by Sean Wilentz, ...

Exactly. We don't need more gratuitously patronizing presentations from Sean Wilentz on this blog, after all, we have calligraph for that kind of chickenshit.

Tsk, tsk. I pointed this out months ago. Finally USA Today catches up with my reporting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

Ditto The Hill: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

He has raised over $300,000 dollars through 3 bundlers at Sidley-Austin LLP, his wife's former firm, a registered lobbyist. He is simply deceitful.

Obama also likes to claim that he doesn't take money from oil companies. True, he doesn't. Neither does Clinton nor McCain because it is illegal and has been since Teddy Roosevelt's Administration. More deceit from the man who would be Saint Barack.

Saint Barack did vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill. Saint Barack has received contributions from coal and nuclear energy firms and from the employees of every major oil company.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamasoilspill.html

Obama also likes to claim that he doesn't take money from oil companies. True, he doesn't. Neither does Clinton nor McCain because it is illegal and has been since Teddy Roosevelt's Administration.

If Oil Lobbyists are illegal then who writes Cheney's energy policy for him?

Your argument is another Clinton Deception. Companies run money through PAC's, so yes no corporate money goes directly to candidates, but their lobby does distribute checks.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

Saint Barack has received contributions from coal and nuclear energy firms and from the employees of every major oil company.

You repeat the same vague statement, but with even less true implications. His contributions were from employees, which includes every employee from CEO down to the guy at the gas station.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/145339/267

He's only a saint in your fantasy world, Charles, he is just the better candidate in ours.

It's clear that JoAnn is an avid Barack Obama supporter and will say anything to get him elected.

When it is said about you, how does it feel? You don't even know Sean Wiletz. I do.

It is typical of Obama supporters to villify people with whom they don't agree. Kill the messengers must be your motto. Mayhill Fowler, I hope is getting police protection. Paul Krugman, now an asshole, a year ago a god. Funny I don't think Bill Richardson one. Geraldine Ferraro, once a liberal icon, now a KKK member. Funny I still think Ted Kennedy a liberal icon.

You realize that the Hillary sign on my garage has been vandalized. Not once. Not twice. Not thrice . . . 6 times. I had to get a $75 lucite covering for it. You realize that I get hate mail from the lovely folks that support Obama for writing my columns. I have been called a moron, a racist, a cocksucker, an ignorant fuck, an elist scum eating prick. The creative class ain't that creative apparently. Thankfully, I also get more appreciative mail. Some think I am fabulous.

I tell people I wasn't really pulled into the Hillary camp, I was pushed into it by Obama's supporters.

I tell people that my biggest worry about an Obama Presidency his inexperience and that the fact that neither Obama nor his supporters take criticism well. They attempt to silence dissent and free speech through vicious personal attacks.

On the Daily Kos, after Elizabeth Edwards is told to just shut up and die already after she made favourable comments on Hillary's health care plans. That's one way to win friends and influence people. Do you honestly expect Hillary's supporters to support Obama should he win the nomination? My guess is that anywhere between 20% and 30% won't. Now ask yourselves why.

When it is said about you, how does it feel? You don't even know Sean Wiletz. I do. Untrue and not surprising. Do his clear misinterpretations of Obama's remarks suddenly make sense after you have shared a coffee and a chat?

My guess is that anywhere between 20% and 30% won't. Now ask yourselves why.

because they are cultists? (wink wink);)

Because they don't understand the complete the pure hypocrisy of a statement like this?

it is typical of Obama supporters to villify people with whom they don't agree. Kill the messengers must be your motto.

Since apparently some cannot read:

Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, because he can't but he implies that others are.

No Presidential, House or Senate candidate does. Teddy Roosevelt made it illegal and Obama's campaign is engaging in sheer deception. His meant to be private but weren't comments in San Francisco were not just wrong, they are represent another level of the hypocrisy of Obamas. He rails against free trade on the campaign trail but tells Gordon Getty not to worry, it's only a campaign tactic. Now where have I heard that before?

He tells Gordon Getty in gun shy San Francisco that he will tighten the loopholes on gun sales at gun shows and ban some types of guns but told the good people of Boise on February 2, 2008:

Appealing to the Idaho crowd, Obama threw in one extra line for his western audience, addressing gun rights, "There are people who say he doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment," Obama told the crowd, "We got a lot hunters in the state of Illinois and I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."

Pander much?

It is typical of Obama supporters

Here we go again...

Since apparently some cannot read:

Attaching the same lies to insults does not make them more true. Companies can indeed make contributions through sponsored PAC's. Obama does not take contributions from said PAC's. He is saying something very true. His point would be lost if he explained the legal hoop0 jumping the companies did to accomplish said activity

Try reading this.

Contribution Limits $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC. This limit applies to a PAC (political action committee) that supports Federal candidates. (PACs are neither party committees nor candidate committees. Some PACs are sponsored by corporations and unions--trade, industry and labor PACs. Other PACs, often ideological, do not have a corporate or labor sponsor and are therefore called nonconnected PACs.) PACs use your contributions to make their own contributions to Federal candidates and to fund other election-related activities.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#how_much

It's clear that JoAnn is an avid Barack Obama supporter and will say anything to get him elected.

It is typical of Obama supporters to villify people with whom they don't agree. Kill the messengers must be your motto.

snort

Welcome back from Africa, Chuck!

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

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

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

(Just doing my bit to raise the level of political discourse.)

Drom the evolution article:

Florida lawmakers are frustrating the winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for chemistry. They want to change the way evolution is taught so that teachers are allowed to challenge Darwin's theory... students feel too frightened to even discuss intelligent design. Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, said the theory of evolution "had flaws."

This shit just made my head hurt. When I lived in Florida back in the 80's, I could see that the public school system was already hurting, and sports already had WAY too much importance over academia. To see this disbelief over evolution gaining respect at the university level is a shame.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's an abuse of position not to teach science correctly to children," Kroto said.

Amen

fingers crossed...has the topic changed to science now?

(away from the media bullshit)

This reminds me of the daily show, when did being elitist become a bad thing? It's not as if obamas whole life was laid out for him and he couldnt screw it up no matter how hard he tried, like a certain president, but I wont name names. He became elite through personality and hard work.

Charles:

Of all the policies and actions and hoopla that surround Hillary Clinton, please tell me which best represents the reason(s) why you support her.

I'm not troll-baiting you here, I'm just damn curious. I'd like a soundbite.

"Hillary voted X on issue Y and that helps to show why she is the superior candidate."

students feel too frightened to even discuss intelligent design.

When I was in high school, in Texas, my biology teacher was too frightened to teach us evolution. School administrators had made it plain to her that evolution was to be presented as a "theory" (she read this and other statements like it from a prepared script provided to her) and that we could skip any lecture on the subject that was in conflict with our own "theories" on the subject. At some point one of the students told her that none of her students were creationists and that she could teach without fear. She was visibly relieved.

The HNN piece is the worst kind of pedantic historian's pointmaking (e.g. the Declaration wasn't actually signed on July 4th, ha ha! The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free all the slaves, ha ha! Annie Oakley really didn't shoot guns at people, therefore Obama is a sexist!

The whole point is that Hillary is a regular person who pretends to be a gunslinger. Annie Oakley seems to be a pretty nice comparison.

"Senator Obama once again demonstrated how out of touch he actually is..."

Yes, he's totally out of touch with what Hillary supprters think references to 19th century entertainers must mean. The talking points are getting pretty cheesy. I think Norm has a policy against posting spam on the comments thread.

"That hardly makes her Annie Oakley unless by that he means that Mrs. Clinton is a confident self-assured woman."

Ho-ho. And that hardly makes Obama an elitist, unless by that she means he is a highly educated, accomplished professional!! Yes, score!

Give me a break.

"Do you honestly expect Hillary's supporters to support Obama should he win the nomination? My guess is that anywhere between 20% and 30% won't. Now ask yourself why?"

HRC supporters wearing pins saying "I'm not bitter" has got to be the ultimate irony of the campaign. Some Obama supporters are incredibly shrill (whomever got the Kos endorsement was going to be pinned with that prize), but HRC's losing is viewed as an incredible injustice because she was the frontrunner for so long. It's obvious she has basically lost, but she apparently still has millions 100% emotionally invested in her miniscule chances, bashing the clear-path nominee as hard as ever before.

Or I could imagine that 20-30% of Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain because of what Kos people said about Elizabeth Edwards. Nah, that would be just too idiotic.

Do you honestly expect Hillary's supporters to support Obama should he win the nomination? My guess is that anywhere between 20% and 30% won't. Now ask yourselves why?

Because they're cultists?

Hey, Lemos, every time you write something on this blog it adds to the already malodorous pile you've already dumped here.

You're the shrillest shill I have encountered from the Obama or Clinton camps. Your tedious and overly verbose rants on here are starting to turn me off to One Good Move, a blog for which I have been an ardent a fan for over six years.

I am not sure what your relationship to Norm is, but you're stinking up this blog to high holy hell with your piffle. I am not the most partisan Obama supporter out there, but I deeply resent the broad brush you use to tar Obama supporters, and your acrimony and divisive rhetoric seems overly excessive, considering in the end we Democrats—if you are, in fact, a Democrat and not some Republican concern troll just stirring up shit—should only reserve our worst criticism and negative fervor for the asshole Republicans who have gotten this country into the present mess, not for our own.

I have mostly ignored you because I find your arguments boring and excessive. But now you are stooping to cheap insults and petty sneering, and since Norm seems to give you space on this blog to publish your tedious rants, I can only assume he bears some responsibility for your actions, while I can forgive the garden variety trolls on here as just creeps and assholes.

Because they're cultists?

I already said that one, JoAnn.

Maybe its because they are bitter.

"It is typical of Obama supporters to villify people with whom they don't agree. Kill the messengers must be your motto."

And so once again Lemos' hypocrisy emerges. I will give you at least this, Charles: sometimes the fine line between vociferous disagreement and contempt/vilification is crossed, and arguably JoAnn and others MAY have crossed that line (not sure I agree, but I'll put it out there).

I will agree with the tenor of several comments here: Willentz's position on Obama's "Annie Oakley" comments are absurd on their face, at least if you take them to mean how Obama intended their meaning, derived from the context in which he said them. Ultimately they are of course meaningless comments, a quip about an ultimately meaningless issue: both of them pander like crazy, both of them support stricter gun control than gun owners would like, etc.

Charles, I agree with you completely that many Obamaphiles are completely out of control, and they're in full force over on Kos. However the reaction you've received from Obama supporters on this blog is not usually the same (nor is it as crass): it's in direct proportion to the stunningly witless, condescending "analyses" that you've been providing. Of course my own and others' disagreement is then met with more condescension and witlessness, with a heavy dose of aggrieved "You're all mean and nasty brainwashed fools!" crapola. Delivered with some of the trademark tools of a fragile ego, no less.

I think it's deplorable that your Clinton sign has been defaced. Of course, I assume as you clearly do that it's the work of dastardly Obama supporters, and not the work of, say, any one of the millions of conservatives out there who would gleefully give the Clintons the same treatment as the Mussolinis (I wish I were kidding, but I have conservative family members who openly talk this way).

Lastly, Norm: it's your blog, post what you like, invite whom you like, kick out folks as you see fit, etc. etc. I will continue to come here because the science/philosophy posts are top notch. But frankly my opinion of your politics has gone down somewhat, because while I completely respect your support of Clinton (I think you stated your case very well), your often bizarre denigration of Obama seems tantamount to sour grapes and/or trawling for hits.

Of course, I assume as you clearly do that it's the work of dastardly Obama supporters, and not the work of, say, any one of the millions of conservatives out there who would gleefully give the Clintons the same treatment as the Mussolinis

Or high school kids, or drunk people walking home.

Norm, that Orou story (from the Hoffman piece) was hilarious!

I found another beauty in today's news: the kiss-up-kick-down Pope.

Oh my lord, the snarking has begun.

Damn it all of you, read that book that Norm is giving away about Monkey behaviour and look at yourselves. The democratic party is blessed with some fabulous candidates but no, we are all like a bunch of testosterone fueled football/ hockey/ pick your sport louts (my apologizes to all louts with testosterone.. i am really fond of louts with testosterone).... anyway we are acting like people routing for the home team. Attacking the morality of the goalie, blaming the referee. All of you, even Samantha Power (famous now for her monster remark) stated that the democrats have the privilege of two incredibly talented candidates and all of us are whining and going on about absolute crap. Who the hell cares about an Annie Oakley statement, who the hell cares about a silly exaggeration on Bosnia, who the hell cares all this crap that the 24 hours useless news stations we all are wanking on about. My god who cares if Cindy Mccain's recipes are from the food network.

Now we should care that all of our candidates are dirty to a degree, all of them, and yes Lemos most of us Obama supporters here know that Obama is also not fully clean, he is a successful politician, none of them are. We could talk about how to make politics clean and try and make it a campaign issue with the two democrats. But this petty attacking is awfully stupid. ... And all you Obama supporters you are sounding a wee bit childish here... Our hero is attacked and we have to lash back?

I challenge all of you Obama supporters to stop making silly little arguments against Hillary. The women has served the democratic party for years. But i also challenge Lemos, please please stop telling us well how much more educated you are and how you personally know so and so, and how you work for the poor and so and so. It makes you sound "elitist and bitter" . That or I think we should all list our years of post graduate schooling and number of years working with the homeless and disenfranchised. You won't win the contest.

sorry for double posting i am watching some of todays debate, what a bunch of stupid questions. Why is no one asking them about changing the power that lobbyist have, why is no one talking about corruption and earmarks and things like that. Why is no one talking about the patriot act, and wiretapping and torture, why is no one really talking about the middle east and how to restore americas image, no we have to hear about Bosnia, reverend wright, and a bunch of misquotes against both candidates, these supposed journalists should be ashamed, it really is the decline of the american empire.... we are rome burning in excess and reality TV.

i am watching some of todays debate, what a bunch of stupid questions.

Huffpo and Kos all already calling one of the worst debates ever televised.

I tend to agree.

This blog is becoming as trivial and juvenile as our political system. Perhaps you've forgotten that there are real issues out there? I get it that you hate anybody with even a slightly spiritual bent, I get it that you dislike Obama.

I used to get real and thoughtful news here, and now only receive atheist dogma and pro-Clinton stories. This was once my homepage, now I only visit once a week, usually to be disappointed.

I know my opinion doesn't matter to you. Unfortunately, the feelings are now mutual.

Now I remember why I hated my university days so much; I had to endure tiresome old bores like the guy who wrote the tedious rebuttal to Obama´s remark about Annie Oakley. Obama was obviously poking fun at Hilary´s attempt to jump on the gun nut bandwagon and pander to the creeps at the NRA. Obama was being sarcastic, professor, so a thumbnail history of Annie Oakley isn´t necessary or even welcome, you humorless sack of parchment stamped with abbreviations. Thanks professor, but I already know how to look shit up on Wikipedia.

Senator Obama, in trying to sneer his way out of his latest mess, merely shows, once again, that he just doesn't get it -- whether it's the courage and decency of ordinary working people or the proud heritage of American women.

If only this idiot were kidding! I wish that I could reach through the virtual sewer of the internet and give professor Wilentz a good kick in the teeth.

Senator Obama once again demonstrated how out of touch he actually is. One does not take a six-shooter to a duck blind.

But we don´t even need to follow an outside link to find OGM´s own variety of humorless pedantry. If Hilary is going to use tactics from the Karl Rove playbook, she needs to expect Obama to defend himself against these petty attacks. The only thing this issue proves is how out-of-touch our press is in America. They have reported on Obama´s “offensive” comment without ever talkig to the people who were supposedly offended. All I read were comments from the camps of his two rivals. This issue is not worthy of one line of newsprint.

I am always so surprised when I go to so-called liberal or progressive sites and there is all this bickering over Senators Obama and Clinton.

There are no candidates running on the Democratic Platform. Once the media killed off John Edwards' campaign we ceased to have a Democrat in the running.

Because Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama are all running on the Republican party platform, I stopped paying any attention. The US will have a GOP operative as president no matter which of the three the voting companies select for us.

Each of the candidates have all said very clearly that they will not significantly undo the damage Bush has done to this once-great nation. Obama has stated he will not stop the mercenary armies from slaughtering civilians, Clinton happily voted to authorize Bush's illegal war and has vowed not to stop it, and McCain is polling so well solely because he will be exactly like Bush.

You have all been fooled by the conservative-controlled "MSM" into thinking that Sens Clinton and Obama are Democrats, when they are so clearly NOT, as evidenced by their voting record and public comments.

Why is everyone all excited about this election? What's the point? Since there is no Democrat running, why bother? Why do any of you care? This country will not recover from Bush no matter which one gets in.

RedSeven said:

I already said that one, JoAnn.

Maybe its because they are bitter.

lol. Yes, RedSeven. You and Thaddeusphoenix and others had already nailed this. I just threw in my two cents. ;)

Also, I just have to say that I could not believe that whether or not Obama wears a flag pin is an important issue to discuss. Do Americans really give a shit about this? Really? With all of our problems, we're discussing wearing flag pins?!

Shit.

This debate sucked. And the questions that were asked demonstrate to me just how right-wing the U.S. has become.

oops.. sorry, posted on the wrong thread. I'm so upset and disgusted by this stupid so-called "debate".

oops.. sorry, posted on the wrong thread. I'm so upset and disgusted by this stupid so-called "debate".

Be calm, lets see what happens first. If ABC just went too far and the public starts killing these Shock stories then maybe we will see an uptick in actual issue coverage.

I see it as possible that the continued primary will be nothing but destructive and start picking a freaking candidate already.

I know they have been, but a candidate winning 70-80% in a few states would make it clear this thing is over.

JoAnn, Nick Kristof had a terrific op-ed that'll connect the debate to this thread. He hits the nail on the head

If you’re a Democrat, your candidate won in Wednesday night’s presidential debate — that was obvious, and most neutral observers would recognize that. But the other candidate issued appalling distortions, and the news commentary afterward was shamefully biased. So you’re madder than ever at the other candidate. You may even be more likely to vote for John McCain if your candidate loses.

It's almost as if he's been reading 1gm, but apparently this Democratic bickering is all over the boards. The rest of the Op-Ed discusses some psychological studies that are born out by this year's primary season.

RedSeven writes: "If this little back and forth drives you away, then you must not have been reading that closely for the last few months."

That's true. I've been reading this (and C&L) for perhaps two years but it dropped off my radar a few months back, since reminded by a link a friend sent me.

You can call it "back and forth" but the "ad feminam slurs" claim is ridiculous on its face. If you want to have a blog that peddles that kind of "back and forth" then you're now aware that it's costing you readers.

Sorry. Live and learn. Or just live. Whether or not you learn isn't my concern.

Jason

You can call it "back and forth" but the "ad feminam slurs" claim is ridiculous on its face. If you want to have a blog that peddles that kind of "back and forth" then you're now aware that it's costing you readers.

Ain't my blog. I just comment here.

I completely agree that that argument was BS, and about 80% of 1GM readers seemed to agree. If Norm wants to piss off Obama supporters occasionally, I am happy to tell him the arguments are bull. Not the most enjoyable discussion, but I do enjoy a fight.

On the other hand, the links about atheism, daily show, Colbert, real time, science and literature are as good as they have ever been.

Charles Lemos makes me want to leave just about every time he contributes, but he is so unstable I just think of him as a charity case.

Every minute he is ranting here, someone in the real world is spared his attention.

Stay, go. Do whatever, but if you are looking for a place on the internet that never subjects you to irrational beliefs, you are going to be looking for a while. Let me know when you find paradise.

Thank you Gypsy Sister. That was a good article.

I'll be delighted when this primary season is over.

Charles Lemos makes me want to leave just about every time he contributes, but he is so unstable I just think of him as a charity case.

Same here. I stay because I have so much respect for Norm.