The senator is upset because the GOP has used his wife’s comment about being proud of America “for the first time” as fodder for a commercial. He said attacks on his wife should be out of bounds.
On the one hand, I can sympathize. On this board, attacks on my family is the one boundary I ask participants not to cross.
On the other hand, he’s basically asking for a free pass for Mrs. Obama who is out stumping for her husband, on the road and on TV talk shows. This is presidential politics, and it is frankly naive of him to think that that can, or even should, happen. Her phrasing was monumentally dumb when she said it, and even though she endeavored to clarify (i.e, regret and rephrase) her remarks, that doesn’t make them any less a legit target for critics. It isn’t as if, for instance, the GOP dug into her background and discovered she was on antidepressants or something and was saying, “Do you want a medicated woman in the White House?” These were public statements made in a public forum, and that makes them fair game. If Obama wants his wife off limits, then keep her out of the spotlight. But if she’s willingly in the spotlight, then sorry, Senator, but she’s just going to have to endure the glare.
PAD
• 
Each remaining democratic candidate got in the Texas primary returns exceeding the entire republican turnout. They each got returns in Indiana larger than their candidate in the 2004 general election. John McCain wishes he had those kinds of problems. Why should the democrats turn themselves inside out for getting an A?
Nova Land—
Several points:
You vote for one part of a bill, you vote for all of it. You can’t claim you were voting only for one part of a bill. And you’d better not claim you didn’t realize what the rest of the bill was going to do. That means you are admitting to your constituents that you don’t know what you are doing. So even if they were voting for the ‘paper trail’ part of the bill, they also knew they were voting to move the primary to an earlier date. At a state level, it is much easier to change a bill to limit the number of things being voted on. They could have had separate bills for the moving of the primary and the ‘paper trail’.
Even if the citing I used is no longer there, it does not change the fact that the vote was so lopsided. There are other sources showing the same vote tally.
Quote: “…and to say that it was passed with bipartisan support, is misleading to the point of being dishonest.”
I’d say 2 no votes versus 155 yes votes is definitely bipartisan.
It’s interesting that you used the word ‘dishonest’ so many times in your attempted rebuttal, including making it in bold. Try using plainer language. If you want to call me a liar, do so. But I wasn’t lying, I was passing on information germane to the discussion.
Using the word factoid is quite cute of you, knowing that a factoid is indeed not a fact; it is merely something presented as a fact.
Yeah, if 155 to 2 isn’t bipartisan what is?
“Bill Mulligan”
Well, I have 4 children, does that count?
Oh yeah, that would definitely prepare you.
“Yeah, if 155 to 2 isn’t bipartisan what is?”
Unanimous? 155 to 2 is a majority, not unanimous.
Just stirring.
Unanimous? Good luck, that hardly ever happens. It usually has to be some really useless thing, like declaring March 8th National Spay and Neuter Your Dog Day or the issuance of a stamp commemorating the mining of tin. Heck, there was even one congresswoman who voted against the USA going to war after Pearl Harbor.
Hmmm, it looks like the 50/50 split idea is somewhat popular among some democrats: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10651.html
(From roger Simon)
Here is a sampling of comments from rules committee members I interviewed Tuesday.
DON FOWLER, South Carolina, committed to Clinton: “A solution I think acceptable to both states is to seat the full delegations, with each delegate getting a half-vote.
“I would be inclined to go for it. I would listen very carefully to what the Clinton campaign wants, but I do not turn over my heart and soul to them. I observe some limitations.
RALPH C. DAWSON, New York, uncommitted: “We’ve got to try to fashion a solution that takes into account not only the people who voted in Florida and Michigan but the people in the states that followed the rules.
“By and large, the Clinton people say they are for seating all the delegates based on the beauty contests that were held in Florida and Michigan. The people representing Sen. Obama have indicated they believe the fair way to do this under the circumstances is to split the delegations 50-50, since those weren’t real races.
ALLAN KATZ, Florida, committed to Obama: “I think there will be some kind of compromise that seats Florida and Michigan in the 50 percent range. Florida and Michigan both violated the rules; that is a fact, and because of that, there has to be some kind of penalty.
“I think a 50-50 split of the delegates would be fair. The contests were beauty contests and not about selecting delegates. However, having said that, the reality is that we live in a political world, and so there may be some apportionment of delegates that favors Clinton over Obama, but not one that changes the outcome of the race.
Obama’s people are pushing for a 50/50 split??? Why, don’t they realize that “The only virtue of splitting the votes seems to be making the democrats look indecisive”???
Bill, nothing you’ve cited invalidates the notion that a 50/50 split only expedites an Obama victory already won. Ergo, all it demonstrates is a democratic leadership backtracking from its own ruling, accomplishing nothing else in particular.
I’ve been taking the answer to this for granted, but now I gotta ask: they actually pay you a salary to make children stupid?
Heh. Too, too easy.
I guess this must be the first big mistake in Obama’s masterful campaign. Will it be serious enough to stop the ovulation?
All I hear are politicians commenting on this situation, and those who either made the choice or approved the choice to make the changes to MI and FL.
Frankly, if I was a resident of either state, I’d be pretty PO’d about the whole situation.
The only fair resolution (to the voters) that I can think of is to redo the election. Of course, that would never happen…
They had a chance to do that but it died on the vine.
I wonder how that vote would have turned out. On the one hand with Obama so far ahead many people might decide to go with a winner. On the other hand they might have rewarded Hillary for fighting for them (however craven the motives for that fight).
If Obama wins the election all this will be blip. If he loses it will be credited with being a major factor.
barring any scandals or outside events it seems to me that the debates will be the biggest factor. Obama has not always been the winner in the Democratic debates but he’s never had an out and out bad performance either. I don’t think it will be enough for McCain to win a debate, he has to make Obama do very badly. That won’t be easy.
Bill, how does your stupidity demonstrate anyone is wrong except you? How does your inability to invalidate plain observations of your stupidity in any way mean that you aren’t stupid?
Much too easy.
Before I reply to Alan Coil’s comment regarding bipartisan support for moving the Florida primary forward, I’d like to provide some additional information about the bill cited, in order to make it clearer just what it is we are talking about.
I did a Google search using Florida 2007 “House Bill 537”. Here are some excerpts of what came up on the first page of hits.
1. Common Cause, Florida’s Sierra Club, and several other Democratic-leaning public interest groups wrote a letter to Governor Crist concerning the bill:
2. Broward’s Blog, the site of a prominent Democratic activist, said this about the bill:
3. Texas Technology reported the story this way on their site:
As these items make clear, the point of HB 537 was election reform — especially concerning the use of electronic voting machines in Florida elections, which a lot of Democrats were upset about.
These items also make clear that a number of other provisions were loaded onto the bill — provisions the Democrats were not happy about. Nonetheless, the two Democratic-oriented sites I quoted make the same point: support this important legislation! And it isn’t moving the primary forward that they’re talking about.
With that lengthy bit of prologue out of the way, I’d like to reply to Alan Coil.
Alan, my point earlier was that you presented the vote outcome for HB 537 without saying what was being voted on. I feel that was misleading. Since the topic of discussion in this thread was the moving of the primary forward, your post seemed to imply this was primarily a vote on moving the primary forward. And that isn’t true. This was, in fact, primarily a bill about electronic voting.
It included other stuff — as bills often do. in order to know where people stood on those other matters, we would need to examine the votes that were held on adding those amendments to the bill and the legislators’ statements on why they were voting as they did.
But the main purpose of the bill — and the reason Democrats were being heavily lobbied to support its passage — was to require verifiable paper trails for Florida elections. That’s an important fact, necessary to understanding the issue. To omit that fact in presenting the vote count is wrong.
If you were aware that this was a bill to require paper trails but chose to omit that information, that would have been dishonest on your part. I don’t think that’s the case. I think you were honestly unaware of that fact, and were simply passing on what you had seen without bothering to check it out for yourself. You relied on a source which had presented the matter dishonestly, and you got burned.
That’s what I was objecting to about your post: passing along as fact something which you had heard or read but haven’t bothered to verify. It’s something people do much too often. It would be good if the media were to set a high standard, as a good example for the rest of us to aspire to. Since they don’t, it looks like it’s up to the rest of us need to set a high standard as an example to the media.
Yes, you most certainly can. Legislators do that all the time.
I voted for this bill to raise teachers salaries, even though it includes a provision I don’t like to proclaim June 30th as “Take your daughter to Dunkin Donuts Day”, because I felt the overall purpose of the bill was worthwhile and that getting that done was more important than showing my support for Krispy Kreme over Dunkin Donuts.
Or, conversely, Yes, I support the troops and think they deserve to be supplied with the equipment they need to do their jobs; but I voted against this measure which provides money for that because it also includes a statement encouraging setting a timetable for withdrawal, and we certainly can’t have that.
The bill in question — HB 537 — was put forward as a bill to establish paper trails for voting. Legislators could reasonably have:
(a) voted for the bill because they supported the paper trail measure AND they liked the additional stuff the bill got loaded up with (such as moving the primary forward).
(b) voted for the bill because they supported the paper trail measure EVEN THOUGH they disliked the additional stuff the bill got loaded up (with such as moving the primary forward).
(c) voted against the bill because they opposed the paper trail measure AND disliked the additional stuff (such as moving the primary forward).
(d) voted against the bill because they opposed the paper trail measure EVEN THOUGH they liked the additional stuff (such as moving the primary forward).
All we know from the outcome of the vote is that a majority voted for a bill to require paper trail in Florida elections. Without looking at the legislative history of the bill — who supported adding on the additional provisions, such as the one moving forward the primary, and who opposed doing this — it is impossible to know whether there was bipartisan support for that provision or not.
There may well have been. I don’t know. What I do know is that to present the result of a vote on a bill whose primary purpose was to rectify a problem with electronic voting machines without mentioning that was the purpose of the bill, and to offer this as proof that there was bipartisan support for moving the primary date forward, is misleading and deceptive.
You’re better than that.
My apologies for the length of these two posts. I think you and others here already know the gist of what I’m trying to say — and generally do a good job of adhering to the standard I’m talking about. In this case, you didn’t. I think it’s worth pointing that out when it happens, so that we all can remember to try better in the future.
Nuff said?
oops, no, not quite Nuff said. I see one more thing which I should try to address clearly.
Alan wrote: “It’s interesting that you used the word ‘dishonest’ so many times in your attempted rebuttal, including making it in bold. Try using plainer language. If you want to call me a liar, do so. But I wasn’t lying, I was passing on information germane to the discussion.
I agree you weren’t lying. I tried to say so in my original post. I’m sorry that, probably due to the length of that post, my point wasn’t clear. Let me repeat what I said there, in this shorter post where (I hope) it won’t be as easily drowned out by my other words:
I think you are an honest and generally reliable person. My apologies for over-using the word dishonest so often that it appeared I was referring to you. It was the information you presented, not you personally, that I intended to refer to.
electronics voting, eh?
We still do the old fashioned on-paper stuff here – a real physical paper trail.
Bill, if your nonsensical responses are an attempt to establish some kind of taboo against calling you on your stupidity, I have no reservation against disregarding it. If the card I play is backed by even the thinnest fidelity to observable events, then your calling me out for playing it — in and of itself — only makes sense as an attempt to establish a quota for basic accuracy.
How can you justify trying to establish a quota for basic accuracy to whatever guardian angels the universe provides you? Why throw away your soul?
2ez
2ez indeed
Thank you for portraying yourself as benefiting from my continued analysis of your behavior, which you refuse to deny. It means my pursuit of your contrition is justified not by my account, but yours. And now Alan’s as well.
So I guess the answer is 3.
Hey, I thought the answer was 42?
“So I guess the answer is 3.”
#3: You can’t spell slaughter without laughter?
That can’t be the right answer.
The answer is easy. Now the question, there’s the sticking point…
I’m in the middle of the third season into Battlestar Galactica DVDs. If one storyline could most distinguish the show from all other sci-fi, I think it might be 6 & Baltar’s, the chick-fantasy of nurturing someone to his full potential where his narcissism would otherwise shelter the decay of his soul. It took the destruction of human civilization to force Baltar to hit bottom, which is what any addict needs to recover, and, even then, his changing privileges continue to shelter his relapses.
You see, it’s the kind of narcissism and hypocrisy that requires the collapse of civilization to hit bottom and begin healing — just like Bill demonstrates — that worries me. It’s why I believe the existential war-game of trying to coerce Bill’s contrition is the most important activity going on in Peter’s forum. And if Bill portrays himself as benefiting from me doing this? It just means I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything.
mulberries
It’s interesting to note that Bill issues replies when he has them:
So the disintegration of reason in his responses demonstrates his impotent rage.
You know, the more this goes on, the more I feel like I’m refereeing between my 23 year old and my 21 year old. 🙂 . Feeling right at home.
Ma’am, you are a true stud.
“Ma’am, you are a true stud.”
Unless that has a different meaning over there than it does here, I’m the wrong gender for that. 🙂 A beaut old battleaxe on the other hand…
No, stud means pretty much the same thing here but, well, some folks are easily confused.
Based on how you’ve handled yourself I was obviously mistaken to worry that Mike Leung’s rudeness was making you feel unwelcome here. Should have known an Aussie would be of stronger stock.
Not that Bill is in any position to qualify stronger stock.
Cudrania tricuspidata
You know, the more this goes on, the more I feel like I’m refereeing between my 23 year old and my 21 year old. 🙂
I’ve always viewed the exchanges as tennis matches. 🙂
Megan, don’t start an online romance with Mike.
From experience, I can only tell you that it will end in heartbreak and disillusionment. 😉
“I’ve always viewed the exchanges as tennis matches. :-)”
In this case it’s more like squash 🙂
It’s nice to see that some things don’t change.
Homina-hanh? I don’t know you; that’s my purse.
The votes are in…
(Comments pulled from several sections of the write up.)
“WASHINGTON – Democratic Party officials agreed Saturday to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes, ruling on a long-running dispute that has threatened the party’s chances in November and maintaining Barack Obama’s front-runner status as he moves closer to the nomination.”
“Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.
Obama’s total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5, in The Associated Press count. NBC News shows Obama with 2,048 and Clinton with 1,872.”
And Hill’s camp is still being the problem child in the sandbox.
“The decision was a blow to Hillary Rodham Clinton as she was on the verge of watching Obama make history as the first black Democratic presidential nominee. It prompted an irate reaction from boisterous Clinton supporters in the audience and her chief delegate counter, Harold Ickes.
Ickes angrily informed the party’s Rules Committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats’ credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party’s convention in August.”
“The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama’s name was not on the ballot.
Clinton’s camp insisted Obama shouldn’t get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama’s team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24905193/>1=43001
Clinton’s camp insisted Obama shouldn’t get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot
EVERYONE agreed not to put their names on the ballot, you idiots. The fact that your boss decided to bend the rules in her favor does not make her smarter or a stronger candidate: it makes her conniving and underhanded, and a LESS suitable candidate.
Give. It. The. F**K. Up.
(And obviously this isn’t directed at Jerry, in case anybody missed it!)
TWL
On a less frustrated note, the big question is now “what happens next?”
The primaries end on Tuesday, and it’s all but guaranteed that at some point in the near future Obama will have enough delegates to be the nominee.
What will Clinton do?
If at some point she acknowledges that reality and gracefully bows out, telling her supporters that Obama is the better choice in the fall vs. McCain, then things might be salvaged.
If, on the other hand, she persists in holding out for an August floor fight, and encourages those supporters who yelled “Let’s go McCain” after yesterday’s decision, she can’t possibly think that the Democratic Party regulars will ever support her again.
In either case, at this point it seems clear (if it wasn’t before) that the Clintons’ primary interest is what’s best for THEM, not for the party or the country.
TWL
She’ll take it to the Supreme Court. They’ll give it to her.
Alan, why don’t I think think you’re making a joke rather than seeing the future?
Jerry,
The best rumors get started when there is at least a possibility that the truth is involved, or that such a thing has happened before in a slightly different fashion. I was lucky enough to have such a thing in the recent past to make me write such a sarcastic post.
Sarcasm is my friend.
And so are puns. Puns are generally only worth groaning about, or they are hilariously funny to the room that hears them. At the LCS this week, there were 4 of us in the room, and a guy mentioned that he was taking a class on thermal dynamics. My buddy looked at me and asked, “Well, you got anything?” I said, “Not really. I’m sorta hot and cold on the subject.” The 4 of us, aged about 25 through old (me) sat there giggling like a bunch of kids laughing at fart jokes.
The Battle is over. Now he fights the war. The next few steps he makes should be interesting to watch.
McCain is going back and forth from being the candidate of experience to being the maverick and trying to wrest the mantle of change from Obama. He’s not on top of his campaign, he doesn’t have a clue, and Obama is not the candidate to face unprepared. We will all know McCain has lost when Obama provokes a tantrum on his terms.
Tim wrote: In either case, at this point it seems clear (if it wasn’t before) that the Clintons’ primary interest is what’s best for THEM, not for the party or the country.
Please keep in mind that not all democrats think Obama is what is best for the country. That is why he didn’t win the nomination by a landslide.
(Just for the record, I don’t think McCain is much better. I don’t vote by party, I vote by person.)
I think the real key to these campaigns at this point is the running mates. Between McCain’s age and the crazies who (heaven forbid) might go after Obama, the VP choice could be very important.
Jerry, Obama now has the single most important decision yet–and, predictably, Hillary has made one last knife twist to make the choice more difficult but apparently opening the door to taking the vice president spot.
The real tragedy is that the person he would really like is the one that is absolutely off limits 😉
IF I ONLY HAD MCCAIN
By Barak Obama
I’m aspiring to greatness, but somehow I feel weightless
A freshman’s sad refrain
I could be a great uniter, making ethics rules much tighter
If I only had McCain
I could bring us all together, no storm we couldn’t weather,
We’d feel each other’s pain
Red and blue wouldn’t matter, party differences would shatter
If I only had McCain
Oh why is it so hard, for honest men of good will to agree,
If we ever found a way to strike a deal, would we survive… politically?
When a wide-eyed young idealist, confronts a seasoned realist
There’s bound to be some strain
With the game barely started, I’d be feeling less downhearted
If I only had McCain
Please keep in mind that not all democrats think Obama is what is best for the country. That is why he didn’t win the nomination by a landslide.
I’m aware of that, Christine. It doesn’t change my opinion of the Clintons — their approach seemed for a while to be a distinctly scorched-earth policy for the party if Hillary didn’t get the nod. That to me says that their interest is their own power and not who happens to be best for the party or the country.
I don’t think Clinton would have been good for the country as the nominee, but I would have urged Obama to support her were I in a position to do so. Whether Clinton urges her supporters to back Obama is something that’s clearly still to be determined.
TWL