Was the Hillary Clinton 3 AM White House "Red Phone" Ad "Xeroxed" from You Tube and a 1984 Mondale Ad?

In your dreams, rj. The only way Clinton can get the nomination is to steal it from the Party's leading candidate - who is ahead of her in votes, in delegates, and in number of contests won. Obama has won TWICE as many primaries and caucuses as Clinton.

The reason peace and prosperity have become a distant memory is that we let the political thugs steal the election in 2000 and again in 2004.

Not this time, bud.

This ad is widely being called the red phone ad because it's a remake of the original "red phone" fear-mongering ad that Roy Spence put together for Walter Mondale in 1984.

Hilliary Clinton liked it so much, she had Spence make one for her (even though John McCain ran his own "red phone" rip off ad just a few months ago!)

Outstanding point, Askolnick! If Howard Kurtz says that this ad is classic fear-mongering, then it must be so! I can't believe that Hillary Clinton would stoop so low as to engage in this kind of .........

Oh .................................................... wait, ..........

Did you just quote Howard Kurtz? As in, Howard Kurtz, the WP media critic? You mean the same Howard Kurtz who is cited in over 250 Media Matters articles due to his innaccuracies and conservative bias? You mean the same Howard Kurtz who has made numerous unsupported and just downright demonstrably false claims about Barack Obama, such as:

Misrepresenting Obama's 2004 statement about his Iraq War stance
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002?f=s_search

Misquoting the FEC counsel to assert that Obama's fundraising and PAC received far less attention than Hillary Clinton's
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712200001?f=s_search

Who claimed he "didn't see anyone reporting that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200708080009?f=s_search

Who uncritically repeated a false fuel efficiency accusation against Obama
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705150006?f=s_search

Who asserted that Obama receives fawning press coverage, ignoring Giuliani's fawning coverage
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703120007?f=s_search

... just to name a few of the dozens of misleading and outright false claims made by Howard Kurtz - and these are just the ones about Obama (There's a much longer list of his false statements about Hillary Clinton and other democrats).

Wow ... I guess it's not such a good idea to use Howard Kurtz' opinion as support for an argument, huh? Ooooooh! - Did you check with Matt Drudge to see what he has to say about it?

Yman, do you want to dispute what Kurtz wrote about Clinton's fear-mongering ad, or are you just telling us how much you dislike him?

Do you have any dispute with the message or do you just want to piss on the messenger?

Guess that's what we can expect from Hillary's "Centrist" views - and dittoheads, eh?

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww .......................... Good one!

Well - it's not possible to dispute the message itself, because it is an opinion, not a factual statement. For example, you can't disprove someone's opinion that "Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream", because it's only their opinion. Furthermore, to dispute the message that the Clinton ad is "classic fear-mongering," you would have to prove a negative (i.e. that the ad is not classic fear-mongering). In logical terms, trying to prove the negative of an opinion can't be done, so there's no point in disputing Howard Kurtz's opinion.

I will, however, explain my point in simple terms for you:

1) You're citing Howard Kurtz's statement that the Clinton ad was "classic fear-mongering" as support for your argument that the ad is fear-mongering.
2) Howard Kurtz's statement is called an "opinion."
3) Opinions are not evidence. They are personal conclusions based on facts.
4) Howard Kurtz has a long history of making innaccurate, biased conclusions based upon facts that are misleading or simply false, particularly when it comes to democrats.
5) Therefore, citing the opinion of Howard Kurtz as evidence that the Clinton ad is "fear-mongering" is just sort of, well .... pathetic. It's like citing George Bush as support for the proposition that the Iraq War was a good idea. GB also has a history making innaccurate, biased conclusions based upon false or misleading facts. Ergo, I wouldn't give much credence to anyone citing his opinion.

See? Simple.

As for "pissing on the messenger," you're being a little vague. I'd have to know which messenger you were referring to. :)

Yman, you were asked to dispute Kurtz' comments, but all you did was piss some more on Kurtz, without addressing any of his points.

Of course, categorizing a political ad as fear-mongering is an opinion. Opinions are not facts. But some opinions are easy to refute (like the claim women are intellectually inferior to men) while others are terribly hard to refute -- like the assertion that Dick Cheney is a war monger.

Your claim that one cannot dispute an opinion is nonsense. Opinions are disputed all the time. Something must be done to stop global warming is a widely disputed opinion (widely, but not very convincingly). We're winning the war in Iraq is a far more successfully disputed opinion.

Your assertion that one cannot prove a negative is a red herring as well as a sign of ignorance: Every formal debate involves a resolution that one side must try to disprove while the other side attempts to prove. (And if you want to persist with this silly claim, I'd be happy to prove to you that this comment is not written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.)

Kurtz did not just cite his opinion. He provided a clear historical basis for it. He compared Clinton's ad to other noted fear-mongering ads. You made no effort to show how Kurtz is wrong in this analysis. You just lifted your leg and pissed some more.

Considering how well founded his points are, I understand why you prefer to hide behind an ad hominem argument.

Nevertheless, zip it Yman and address his points.

Many people in these comments have said that Hillary Clinton has not had foreign policy experience but here are the views of someone who knows. Larry Johnson was the CIA agent who briefed Clinton. From No Quarter.net - "Hillary is quite ready to answer the 3am phone call. As someone who has been directly involved with such calls during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, I do know what I am talking about. As I have said before, I have had the opportunity to brief Senator Clinton on terrorism and Iraq during the last three years. During the course of my career at the CIA, State Department, and as a consultant, I have briefed in one form or fashion more than 60 members of Congress, a Vice President, and a President. I have participated in briefings for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military commanders. I entered my first meeting with Hillary with strong reservations about her competence (based entirely on what I had heard and read in the media). I walked out of that meeting very impressed. Hands down, I found her to be the most impressive person I had had the privilege to brief. Why was I impressed? First and foremost, she listened. I have briefed folks who get the 1000-yard stare–they drift off and start thinking about something else. I also have briefed folks who get the panicked look from not understanding what I am talking about. Hillary was different. She listened intently, but she also grasped the substance and nuance of the issues we were discussing. Second, she asked tough questions that showed me she was genuinely searching for viable policy options. I had a similar experience with Senator Joe Biden, only that was during a hearing. But unlike many members of Congress who rely on some aide sitting at their side to pump them with questions and information, Hillary could think on her own. She did not need “Foreign Policy for Dummies.” Hillary also is one of the few members of Congress who understood the difference between Special Forces and and Special Operations Forces. You would be shocked at the number of Senators and Representatives who are supposed to exercise oversight of the military and do not understand this basic point. When we talk about the “3 a.m.” call we are talking about crisis response operations. Back in July of 1990, the United States was involved in a covert effort to resolve peacefully a coup that involved Libyan-backed terrorists. We had quietly inserted U.S. personnel into the country, the situation was settled without further loss of life, and we were trying to figure out how to withdraw our personnel without exposing them publicly. Our concern about how to cover their withdrawal was made moot when word came that Saddam had just invaded Kuwait. We were taking down one crisis communications task force in the State Department Ops Center as a new one, dedicated to Iraq/Kuwait, was being formed. What is not well known is that President Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and James Baker had been briefed two days earlier in the White House situation room on the impending invasion of Iraq. They were warned that Saddam would likely invade unless the United States made a public declaration to warn him away. The President and his advisors declined at the time to issue such a warning because they believed that if they did so and Saddam invaded, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond militarily. With hindsight we now know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Baker screwed up that phone call. When the phone rings and the President is alerted to the problem, you will want a President whose first instinct is to understand the implication of the threat for U.S. national interests. I know that Hillary understands that point. Barack, by contrast, did not even understand the importance of holding a hearing on NATO’s role in Afghanistan even though he had the full authority to do so. Once you hang up the phone you need a leader who understands the bureaucratic tools and resources that are available to be brought to bear on the problem. On this point in particular Hillary is light years ahead of Barack. Barack would be hard pressed to explain the difference between DIA, CIA, and NSA. Hillary knows that Washington machinery intimately. And finally there is the issue of advisors. Let me state again for the record: I am not trying out for a spot on Hillary’s foreign policy team. I am not seeking a job in her administration. I do not want to make the personal sacrifice required to go back into government service–I would have to take a pay cut and work too many long hours. But Hillary is surrounded with a better group of foreign policy advisors. Barack has the likes of Susan Rice and Tony Lake–two of the key folks who failed to respond in a timely matter to the disaster in Rwanda. Hillary, by contrast, has Dick Holbrooke, who helped bring an end to the killing in the Balkans." Larry Johnson

I wasn't disputing the substance of Howard Kurtz's opinion, Askolnick, for several, simple reasons. First and foremost, there is no substance to his opinion, it's just his opinion. My point is that citing Howard Kurtz as proof that the ad is fear-mongering is just foolish. You argue that Kurtz points to some similarities between the Clinton ad and these other fear-mongering ads, and that he thereby proves his (and your) point i.e. Clinton is a fear-monger. To refute it, all one would have to do is point out the myriad differences between those ads. Or, in the alternative, use the opinion of another hack "journalist" who disagrees with Kurtz. For example, Mike Barnicle on MSNBC opined that the ad was a legitimate ad making a legitimate point. Would I cite Mike Barnicle as proof that the ad is not fear-mongering? No ... that would be pathetic. Mike Barnicle is another conservative hack who has about the same credibility as Kurtz.

I will, however, address some of your misstatements:

1) You stated, "Your claim that one cannot dispute an opinion is nonsense" - That's too easy. I never said it. I stated that "you can't DISPROVE someone's opinion." See the difference there? (I put it in caps to make it easier for you).

2) You stated, "Your assertion that one cannot prove a negative is a red herring as well as a sign of ignorance." - Again ... never said it. I stated that "trying to prove the negative of an OPINION can't be done." (Again - the difference is in caps for you.). Your example that you could prove that your comment "is not written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics" is called a statement of fact. If the difference between fact and opinion remains unclear, I'm not sure how to help you. Maybe check with a 3rd grader?

3) You want me to "zip it and address his points." Not quite sure how to address that one, except ...... Oh yeah ...... remind me again why I would care what you want me to do?

In short, Askolnick, I wasn't pissing on Howard Kurtz ..... I was pissing on your sad attempt to use his opinion as evidence to prove your opinion. Got it?

"You stated, 'Your assertion that one cannot prove a negative is a red herring as well as a sign of ignorance.' - Again ... never said it."

Oh yes you did:

"Furthermore, to dispute the message that the Clinton ad is "classic fear-mongering," you would have to prove a negative (i.e. that the ad is not classic fear-mongering). In logical terms, trying to prove the negative of an opinion can't be done, so there's no point in disputing Howard Kurtz's opinion."

Furthermore, your claim is utter nonsense. Some people still hold the opinion that the earth is at the motionless center of the universe. That opinion was disproved long ago beyond any reasonable doubt.

In my opinion, you're a troll. I think your last few comments have proven my opinion beyond reasonable doubt.

Sorry, Askolnick. I was being facetious (and a little sarcastic) when I questioned your ability to differentiate between facts and opinions. I honestly assumed that you knew the difference, but were playing dumb. Just so you're clear ... saying that "the earth is at the motionless center of the universe" is a statement of fact, NOT an opinion. It's a false statement of fact, but a statement of fact nonetheless. As an aside, it's kinda funny, too, because my daughter had an extremely similar statement on a fact/opinion quiz last year (third grade) - i.e. "The earth is the center of the universe," or something to that effect. Several kids got it wrong because they knew it was false and figured that it must therefore be an opinion rather than a (false) fact. Wow ... now I feel a little bad.

As for your opinion that I'm a troll and my "last few posts prove it beyond a reasonable doubt," well ....... I think we've already established the value of your opinion.

"the earth is at the motionless center of the universe" is a statement of fact, NOT an opinion."

No, this view is not a fact, it is a theory -- and a disproved one at that. It's called the "geocentric theory of the universe," (as opposed to the "heliocentric theory of the universe"). It is still held to be true by many religious fundamentalists and others -- despite having been thoroughly disproved.

(Although clearly, not everyone agrees with that opinion:

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/)

And you just provided more evidence to support my theory that you are a troll.

It's really quite sad. In your post immediately above, you said it was an opinion - now you say it's a theory. You seem to be confusing yourself. I'll simplify it for you.

In general terms, a fact is simply an statement that can be proven or disproven. Scientific theories rely on facts, observation and replication of data to be proven, disproven, or modified. In your heliocentric vs. geocentric example, the geocentrists are choosing to disbelieve a statement of fact. Nonetheless, because their conclusion that the earth is at the motionless center of the universe can be proven/disproven, it is a statement of fact - it's just a false statement of fact. They may have identical opinions or (more accurately) beliefs based on their false statement of fact (or vice-versa), but it's a statement of fact.

Your conclusion (and Kurtz's - although, not surprisingly, you mischaracterize Kurtz - he never uses the word "mongering") that the Clinton ad is "fear-mongering" is an opinion, which cannot be disproven because it's a subjective conclusion. Let me use a closer analogy and maybe you'll understand. If instead of categorizing the ad as "fear mongering" I said that the ad was "the best political ad of all time," that would similarly be a statement of opinion, which cannot be disproven. If Howard Kurtz wrote a piece with an identical opinion (i.e. that it was the best political ad of all time), it does nothing to prove or disprove my subjective opinion. It's still just a conclusory, subjective statement of opinion. Of course, I would never resort to quoting Howard Kurtz to try to support my own opinion. (BTW - This example is just to show consistency of argument. I don't believe that it's the "best political ad of all time" - I don't even think it's a good ad. I just disagree that it's "fear-mongering"). "Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream," "Dinosaurs are nice," "The Clinton ad is "fear-mongering," "Yman is a troll," etc. are all just unsupported opinions.

Statements of fact can be proven or disproven with facts and data. "Vanilla is the most-consumed ice cream," "Dinosaurs never lived alongside humans," "The Clinton ad is 31 seconds long," "Yman has blue eyes," "George Bush received fewer votes than Al Gore," etc - all can be proven/disproven. They may be disputed by others, but they are still statements of fact.

All clear, now? Glad to help you out with that :)

Don't let the door hit you on your pro-Iraq War Hillary-luvvin' ass on the way out!

"Hey Kettle! You're black!"
                 - Pot

for this blog, you sure spend a lot of time reading and posting here.

It only seems fair that if you're going to use this blog to publish your views, you should be asked from time to time to help support it.

Actually, Mark has shown leadership in standing up for progressive democratic values. That's what recently drew me to this blog.

I doubt that you really can't figure out how to remove yourself from BuzzFlash's email list: The directions are easily accessible. I think you're just displaying a little chest thumping. Hopefully, this will end such silly displays:

http://www.buzzflash.com/about/faq.html#04

"How do I unsubscribe from the email alerts?

"The fastest way to unsubscribe is to use the link at the bottom of any email alert.

"If you still choose to have us remove you manually, you can always email BuzzFlash at alerts@buzzflash.com with the words 'Unsubscribe from Alerts' in your subject line."

Donors are contaced in different ways, and not always en masse.

I'll assume you aren't a donor, at least not a substantial one. Otherwise, you'd know what I'm talking about.

MP

As Editor of BuzzFlash.com, I or my staff do not delete comments on BuzzFlash.com unless they are racist, sexist, excessively ad hominem, spam, grossly offensive or displaying a clear troll pattern. That is why the comment sections and our mailbag are filled with letters highly critical of BuzzFlash and, often, of the editor, me, by name. That is fine, but whoever is the Midwest Progressive has crossed into the troll category. We don't selectively ask any "high donor" -- or any donor separately from our e-mail list or site notices -- for money, and by standards like media matters or moveon.org we don't really have any high donors. (As noted by another reader, Midwest Progressive can remove him/herself from the BuzzFlash e-mail list with one click at anytime.) Midwest Progressive has been playing the mind games employed by trolls for sometime now, vowing to leave the site, but coming back all the time to muck it up with misinformation. It has been quite sometime since I had to personally intervene in the BuzzFlash.com comments section -- although we were under a 9/11 truth attack on buzzflash.net sometime back -- but if Midwest Progressive continues to disrupt the comments section, he or she will be deleted as we come across his/her posts. As we mentioned, we can't recall taking such an action in quite sometime, but it is unfair to other readers and to to the flow of back and forth of opinion. We are taking the time to write this comment -- as rare as it is -- so that people will understand why Midwest Progressive may be deleted in the future. Anyone is welcome to disagree with our writings, and they do one after the other, but Midwest Progressive has entered into what blogs have to deal with from time to time -- a disruptive and misleading presence known as a troll.

Bye Jay. We'll just make the best of it without you.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

then their time will last less than the amount of time of Gingrich's Republican Revolution.

It certainly looks like the "progressives" are becoming the religious right of the Democratic Party.

You do have much to learn.

A bot fly is a nasty parasitic fly. They buzz around looking for a sore spot to infect with their eggs. The eggs hatch and the larvae cause a lot of damage, which draws more flies to the spot until the poor weakened victim finally succumbs.

More importantly, you need to learn that progressive democrats don't want either Hilliary Clinton or John McCain for President, because they voted to give Bush permission to illegally invade and occupy Iraq.

And to learn that progressive democrats don't want to elect either Clinton or McCain, because they voted to allow the U.S. military to continue dropping thousands of child-attracting bomblets on civilian populations. According to the U.N., 40 percent of victims killed and maimed by these bomblets are children. Obama and most Democrats voted to end this war crime. But Clinton voted with McCain to continue allowing these devices to be dropped on civilian populations.

You also need to learn that progressive democrats don't want either Hilliary Clinton or John McCain President, because they voted in favor of labeling the Iranian military a "terrorist" group, giving Bush and Cheney a pretext to start another illegal war.

You need to learn that progressive democrats are opposed to replacing George Bush with a Bush-lite from either party, and allow them to continue pouring America's prestige, blood, and treasure down the crapper of illegal and endless war.

What progressive democrats want is the end of the hypocrisy, lies, fear mongering, mud throwing, and corruption that has been tearing our nation apart for the last 7 years.

That's why progressive democrats are supporting Sen. Obama.

From:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/
266/266_barack_end_racism_santos_guest.html

Barack and the "End" of Racism By Juan Santos, Guest Commentator

Obama knows the rules of the game, after all - he is the rules of the new race game - his candidacy itself is a manifestation of the new system of racism.

He knows how to make white Amerikkka feel good about the status quo, here and abroad.

There’s a reason for that.

If he told the truth, if he stood up for justice, and on that basis, authentic healing, he couldn’t be president. Under those circumstances, if he’d attracted any measurable attention, much less the global attention he’s gained today, he'd more likely be dead.

Like King.

Like Malcolm.

Dead, like Steven Biko of the Black Consciousness Movement of Azania / South Africa, or Fred Hampton from Chicago.

Or imprisoned for decades, as Nelson Mandela was.

But Barack Obama doesn’t have that kind of vision and courage.

And he’s not, in the end, even a street activist. He’s been bought. What kind of “street activist” or “community organizer,” after all, ends up a millionaire?

One who won’t say what white people don’t want to hear.

"He [Obama]knows how to make white Amerikkka feel good about the status quo, here and abroad."

What humbug! As part of white America, through no fault of my own, Obama has NOT made me feel good about the status quo, here or abroad.

Rather, he has inspired me and millions of other Americans of all colors to finally fight to change the status quo we all have long suffered.

As for your ridiculous argument that Obama can't "stand for justice" because he is financially successful, that too is transparent nonsense.

According to Obama's tax returns (neither McCain or Clinton will release theirs), he and his successful attorney wife had $991,296 of income in 1996. That includes the Senator's salary of $157,084.

By far, the biggest chunk of that income was $506,618 in royalties from Obama's two best-seller books.

In essence, what you're preaching is the gospel of failure, division, and racism, and that those who denounce failure, division, and racism are not qualified to lead our country.

I prefer to stand with Sen. Obama in opposition to that creed.

with the way you say you progressives don't need people who support clinton then your saying ,we should vote for MACCIAN in the general then, RIGHT ASKOLNICK

I said nothing of the sort. Unlike the anti-Obama bot flies who keep buzzing this blog, I don't demonize voters who support other candidates. There's nothing bad about voters who support Clinton, even though I don't share their view of Clinton.

Vilifying voters who support another candidate is just more of the same politics of division and hate that we've had to put up with over the past 7 years. The time for change is long overdue.

Like many other progressives, I'm disgusted with Clinton's and McCain's support of Bush's war mongering. We're disgusted with her hypocrisy, her deceit, and her divisive politics. But we criticize her, we don't attack voters who support her.

That's a big difference. Unfortunately, the anti-Obama bot flies here deny the difference. They insist on attacking the people who support Obama as "mindless" "cult members" and "deluded" "Kool-Aid drinkers."

The reason so many progressive democrats are supporting Barack Obama is that we're sick of fear and hate politics. We're voting for a change.

And we invite all Americans to join us.

turns out the great obama's a liar on nafta,while he's telling everyone he's against nafta and will get out of nafta,he's telling canadians officals,he's just letting off steam so his progessives get their red meat,so seeing obama is a lair too you'll be a man of your word and talk and vote along with the rest of us clintonites when she losses for maccain,RIGHT and don't come back and say it's a lie.it's all over the 24 hr news stations with the memo with the proof,how obama is willing to throw the blue collar workers to the wolfs. SO MUCH FOR HONESTY

Just when you thought you knew everything about hypocrisy there was to know, you get blind-sided by a Clintonista. It's not that Bill and Hillary have "borrowed" from the political playbook of anyone they ever met. They did it before this campaign, during this campaign and probably will continue after this campaign. If that is a sin, probably every politician has been guilty of it at one time or another. The issue IS NOT their capacity to plagiarize. What is entirely characteristic of them is the bold-faced accusations they make when others innocently do precisely what they themselves are famous for. They are the Eddie Haskell of politics. The pig in the sty who pretends to use deodorant. Their final act seems to be a reminder to all other little pigs that it's the sausage factory unless they get their way. Those of us who have children should be afraid, very afraid that these political marauders are wandering the land looking for their next victims.

Let me get this straight. You imply that the Clintons have" "borrowed" from the political playbook of anyone they ever met." But then you say, " if that is a sin, probably every politician has been guilty of it at one time or another." Isn't that a little like rationalizing, making excuses? Everybody else does it. We're not talking about everybody else. We're talking about Obama. He is the self-declared change-agent of Washington. He set himself up on that pedestal, with a lot of help from all of you. Who asked him to turn this campaign into inspiration and hope? I didn't ask for a new messiah. I didn't even ask for a perfect candidate. I just wanted someone to fix the mess Bush will leave behind. He or she doesn't need to ride into Washington on a carpet of palm fronds while the worshippers sing Hossaneh. Like Elmer Gantry, Obama found a gimmick that worked for him. But now that he has set that standard, he needs to live up to it, and his loyal following need to make him accountable for it. The rest of the candidates didn't paint themselves into the corner of their own messianic greatness. He wanted that standard, and you have to wonder what kind of judgment he has if he is going to set himself up like that; and how will that translate into the rest of the judgment he will use as president. He can't just be good. He has to be miraculous. Only a fool gets himself into that kind of corner. And his mistake is not innocent. He was a university professor. If a student got up in class and gave that speech as his own, Obama would need to say, "Gee, Billy, some of the most inspirational concepts and irredescent phrases,and the oratorical delivery of your speech sound just like the one Jimmy gave last year." The student can't say, " Jimmy let me borrow it. I had his permission, so it's not plagiarism." It is cheating, though, especially if you don't attribute. What kind of grade would Obama give him? I work in higher education. I know what he would get at my university. I know the Clintons aren't perfect. I know all politicians have various degrees of corruption and/or ethical issues. But Barak is not any old politician. Fourteen year old kids are believing him and they think he walks on water. And he is loving it. I am not judging him the way I would judge the Clintons. I'm judging him by his own standards. If he doesn't like that, so be it.

Hillary's mouth. I hate to disappoint you (not!), but I never placed Obama on a pedestal - you did. I never used the term "messianic greatness" - you did. In fact, he has never positioned himself that way, you did and the Clinton campaign has and the press has. Hillary is pea green with envy that she cannot borrow the mantle of Mother Teresa but that is no one's fault but her own. She and her husband are about as effective representatives of the venal status quo as you can get. That some women see her as the great feminist hope is a leap of imagination as wide as the Canyon is Grand. It makes anyone's seeing Obama in the light you paint him seem as sensible as a dictionary. We are all caught up in ascribing virtues to our candidates that they may or may nor possess. At least I do not kid myself. Your concession that the "Clintons aren't perfect" wins out for understatement of the day. Congratulations.

Joyce, you're erecting a straw man and then pretending to knock it down. Sen. Obama is not claiming to be the "messiah," that's an invention of hack "pundits" and his slime-slinging detractors.

It's utterly moronic for you to attack Obama for using a couple of lines from a campaign co-chair in a speech, by comparing it with a college student cheating in class.

Students are not allowed to use the words of others without attribution in their assignments. Nor are they permitted to hire someone to write their papers for them. But politicians routinely (let me repeat that for emphasis - routinely) use unattributed words of speech writers.

What an utterly moronic argument to make, that Barak Obama alone of all politicians must not be allowed to use the words of speech writers without attribution.

Hilliary Clinton does that all the time. In fact, she put her name on the covers of books she hired others to write!

But that's o.k. According to you and the anti-Obama bot flies, Obama is the "messiah," who must be held to much higher standards than Clinton or McCain.

What I find so disturbing is that so many of Clinton's supporters and Republicans attack Sen. Obama largely by attacking his supporters. Their principal argument is that we are all "Kool-aid drinking," messiah-seeking, deluded "cult members," who can't think for ourselves.

When Sen. Obama and his spokespersons criticize Clinton, they criticize her or her campaign. They don't criticize those who vote for or support her.

Because that's the kind of sleazy, divisive politics that progressive democrats - and most other Americans - are sick and tired of. That's why we're backing a man who is offering our nation a more inclusive and stronger kind of leadership.

And that's what is scaring a lot of people who have become so dependent on rule by fear and hate mongering.

That fear and hate shows through in their nasty attacks on the growing number of people who are voting for and supporting Sen. Obama.

I never put Sen. Obama on a pedestal. That occured as a natural result of his supporters demonizing the Clintons and demeaning her supporters on this blog months ago, starting long before I ever contributed anything. What do you think you've been doing all this time by your words and your actions? Your vicious attacks on the Clintons don't serve to elevate Obama?

And for those of you who think there is no comparison between a student in class using another person's work as their own; and the hyperbolic rhetoric of heated political exchange:

Well, where do you start learning your values before you start getting to the vitriolic abuse on the world stage of politics? And why shouldn't Hillary use a ghost writer? Writers on this blog just said everyone does it. Except Obama who used his own words. Ok. He loves to point that out. And Obama is for change too, isn't he, so why shouldn't we expect something different from him? Of course he should use his own words. And there is nothing wrong with holding him to a higher standard if he sets that standard for himself and brags about it. When he got caught he made excuses just like you are, and he belittled Hillary. Like you're doing now. But Obama is the one who is supposed to be changing everything. And you evidently have selected to miss one of my points. Yes, he had the guy's permission, but he didn't have your permission to mislead you. And that should matter to you. That should count. And something new to think about. I don't know the answer to this, so I will ask you to enlighten me with your superior knowledge: the internet (including Buzzflash) have eluded to stories that superdelegates have been under pressure from Obama's people to change their votes; Maybe intimated with potential primary challenges if they don't give up their votes for Hillary; and African American delegates have been called Uncle Toms - by Obama's people! Is that true, Or is that Hillary's fault,too? I'm not saying this happened, I'm asking you to tell me. And by the way, I didn't imply your opinion was moronic or that your are a slime-slinging detractor.

And some of this post applies to "Commonsense" as well.

"I never put Sen. Obama on a pedestal. That occured as a natural result of his supporters demonizing the Clintons and demeaning her supporters on this blog months ago..."

Huh?! I really don't know how to respond to this non sequitur or to almost any of your other incoherent comments.

I pointed out that every successful politician uses the words of speech writers without attribution. Since everybody knows that, nobody was "misled."

And nobody ever accused a political leader of "plagiarism" for using words prepared for him by members of his campaign - until Clinton ran out of everything else to throw at Obama.

And it's not true that "African American delegates have been called Uncle Toms - by Obama's people!" None of the people involved in that report said Obama or his campaign staff were doing any of that.

but you certainly are the butterfly that escaped the net. You want me to deny something that you are not certain is true because it emerged from your imagination but if true would be something that the Obama campaign would be ashamed of. You may not be saying that "this" happened, but we can all see the manner in which you have expressed this tidbit of flamingly false innuendo. How can something that hasn't happened be "Hillary's fault"? We all have enough trouble keeping up with those things that did happen which are Hillary's (or Bill's) fault. It seems to me that you are simply exasperated with your candidate who can't generate the support that Obama can. Hillary's negatives were always a large part of the problem and they pre-existed Obama even coming on the scene. It was never clear that Hillary was the inevitable presidential choice even if she won the nomination. The rest of us didn't invent her. She managed that all on her lonesome. I do feel sorry for you because you have the difficult job of making excuses for the inexcusable. Let me add this parting shot - feminists beware: push Hillary, get McCain and -oops - there goes the show.

The above two comments appear to be from people who have a slight problem in posing their own arguments. In previous responses to me, their points were all over the place. It is wrong for Hillary to do something because everybody does it, but it's ok for Obama because everybody does it. It is really hard to respond conhesively to such disjointed thinking.

As for the non sequitor. No body says the words "I will place Obama on a pedestal." And of course, Obama would never say "I am on a pedestal." He will be elevated by actions, which are occuring everyday, by the people who faint at his feet, and then by those who defend everything he does in blogs like this one. I think my logic is quite consistent.

As for the ad, it appears the person responsible for a similar ad for Mondale in 1984 now works for Hillary. So, since Obama's borrowed words were used by permission, perhaps these were, too. Ok for Obama, but not Hillary, once again. SHE's the hypocrite..., except for the fact that he is the one that is claiming he'll be different. And when he makes that promise, he must live up to it. Don't cry foul when he gets caught doing the opposite of what he promises. This is what happens when you promise things you can't possibly deliver , and that comes back to the question of judgment, what he promises and what is actually realistic to provide. He may make this nomination by pomising everyone a reason to hope, but he doesn't define what that hope is. And the people who swoon over it can't explain it, either, when they are asked. But you can bet four years from now, if their lives are not significantly different, they'll know then that they didn't get what they expected. And maybe he won't get reelected. None of your responses ever adequately address that problem, and when you can't explain, you just get personal and call me names.

As for his workers' denials about the pressure on superdelegates, I'm glad you brought that up. See, if Hillary was being accused of that, Buzzflash would have placed it in a headline on the top of the page in huge type, and all of you would call her denials "lies". It would be intended to place her in the worst possible light and set up a string of unsupported accusations by the readers such as yourselves. Doesn't feel so good now, does it? You just illustrated the difference. And yes, my question was posed with the intent to generate debate, and it worked. But that's what Buzzflash's accusations and selective choice of headlines against Hillary do all the time. Since they slipped that aritcle in a less obvious place without their slanted commentary, few people noticed it. But now , I helped you notice. And you responded just the way one would expect.

As for all of Hillary's negatives, I know what they are, but they still don't bother me as much as being promised the light and the way by someone who can't give it to me. I only want someone to clean up George Bush's mess. And Obama has not yet been dissected the way Hillary has. It would be prudent not to hyperventilate over Hillary's negatives until you know what Obama's are. It is not good to be caught off guard.

What is the point about "feminists"? Is that what all of this is really about? After enough challenges to your way of thinking, you start pulling out the other "f" word? What agitates you the most, that I may be a woman, or that Hillary is? Is that what all of this is really all about?

and You're No Woman. Feminists - "f" word? What is that about? I thought that Hillary was attracting feminist support, but I'll go with your interpretation. What is sad is that for all her faults she deserves someone who can muster a better argument in her support. As far as Buzzflash's headlines are concerned, they are always grounded in some reality, whereas your episode of "Fantastic Voyage" never gets off the ground. One more thing - Hillary is NOT putting pressure on superdelegates? Now I know you haven't been following this contest very well. Let's see if we can keep our eyes on the ball. Hillary has done everything except attempt to intercept the U.S. mails and I suppose it's only a matter of time. NOT attempt to pressure the superdelegates? That's a good one. She has done everything from threatening to sue the state of Texas over its primary and caucus system to reneging on her agreement concerning the Florida and Michigan delegates. The woman has no shame, no game, and is entirely lame. But, heck, go with it. You need someone to look up to.

You said it:

"It is really hard to respond conhesively to such disjointed thinking."

Only, the word is cohesively.

"And when he makes that promise, he must live up to it. Don't cry foul when he gets caught doing the opposite of what he promises."

Only in your mind did Sen. Obama promise not to use speech writers.

It really is hard to respond cohesively to such disjointed thinking.

One of you says I'm not a woman and the other frets over a typo. I guess when they lower the debate down to this level, they have little more to say that's worthwhile. The debate must be over.

Once again, tonight Buzzflash splashes a large-scale headlight about instructions Hillary is giving to her precinct leaders. As if this is something illegal. They all do this. In Denver, one of my friends, a Hillary captain, outnumbered at her caucus by Obama supporters, was not allowed to even read a letter from Hillary. Obama's people are getting their directions, too, and Buzzflash is vile when it portrays a fairly average direction as a sinister plot. Shame on them.

Lots of news tonight. Obama and Canada, Obama and Rezko, a big story in the Washington Post about superdelegates being pressured by Obama supporters. Where are the big headlines Buzzflash? If this was Hillary, you'd be splashing "Hillary surrogates pressure superdelegates to drop Obama!" Instead they come up with a lame story about innocuous directions given to precinct captains. Is this an attempt to draw attention away from the real Obama news? You are doing Obama more harm that good. He'll never learn how to deal with the hard stuff if you keep covering up for him. See his nervous press conference over the Canada thing? The pundits are saying he has a lot more questions to answer.

Here's what you claim is "a lame story about innocuous directions given to" Hilliary Clinton's supporters in Texas is all about. Readers should decide for themselves how lame this story is and how innocuous Clinton's instructions are:

"In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.

The materials say in part, 'DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles.'

It goes on to say, 'If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

'The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions.'"

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html

So? There's nothing wrong with that. They aren't being told to cheat. But when Obama people won't even let Hillary supporters read a letter, then that is why Hillary wants more fairness. The friend I knew of above was the chair at her caucus, and Obama's people still pushed everyone around. I advised her to file a complaint, but she was afraid to. There were reports of bad vote counts in Iowa, that the news didn't report. Hillary just wants a fair count, and there is nothing wrong with those instructions. It's just a vicious spin by Hillary haters.

Still no word on the real news is there?

The red phone ad worked. Obama 's sad response did not. Canada problem will pop up again. Obama's response to Hillary's victories have not been gracious. He's too arrogant to think of anything bigger than himself.

My detractors have moved. I guess this debate is over.