The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[LeslieAGD]

Did anyone watch ABC World News tonight?

Clinton's people outted Obama for basically plagiarizing a speech by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Obama's defense...? That Hilary has used his campaign slogans, too. Umm, sorry buddy but saying "Let's Get Fired Up" at a rally is not the same as stealing someone else's speech; it doesn't matter whether or not he's a friend of yours.

[Drolefille]

Yeah, except Deval Patrick has also come out and said that he and Obama share words and ideas. This was Obama's first response, but the campaign has continued.

But from ABC:

In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.

I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.

They would not.

In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.

"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.

So if she does it, and she probably has, every politician has, it's ok because she's not known for her speechmaking?

On the lighter side, found this on Youtube: Hillary vs. Obama

[DaemonSeid]

This little tidbit from the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...hp&oref=slogin

[shinerbock]

McCain is being represented by Bob Bennett which I find to be very interesting (considering ole Robert is a huge lib).

Having read the article now, I think the timing is extremely questionable. If anyone has read my posts about McCain, they know I'm not overly fond of him, but there doesn't seem to be much new information here.

I think with MSNBC cowering to the Democratic candidates and with this NYT stir, media outlets are beginning to show their hand. Granted, we all knew where these entities stood, but even the "independent" Chris Matthews is visibly giddy about anything Obama, which is a nice compliment to Keith "Bush is a murderer" Olbermann. Should be an interesting summer.

[DaemonSeid]

....this is getting like a soap opera so we may need to get a bigger bag of popcorn....

Ok..let's see what we got so far this week

Obama and McCain wins
Clinton accuses Obama of plagiarism
Chelsea still funny looking
Michelle verbally gaffes
Hardball doesn't know an Osama from an Obama
O'Reilly gaffes defending Obama's alleged militancy
Olberman and MSNBC like hungry sharks go after O'Reilly
The Wiseguys endorse Obama
John attacks Barack on finance pledging
Cindy tells how proud she is of her country and her husband.
NY Times goes ito tabloid mode on John alleging that he had an affair
John accuses Times of smearing
Today John will have a press conference in which he will ask the press and his wife..."Who are you gonna believe....me or your lying eyes?"

o yeah...there is a full moon out this week...

Sooooooooo........

Will Michelle put a muzzle on it?
Will Hillary pay for an extreme make over on Chelsea?
Will Barack put a hit out on Hillary?
Will we find out that secretly Farrakahn was cooking grits and playing calypso in Obama's kitchen?
Will Cindy believe John over her lying eyes?
Will we find John's Weapons of Impotent Destruction?
Will Bill and Keith just shut the hell up?
Will we all die from poisoning of feul from a shot down sattelite or Sick Cow disease?

Stay tuned for more oooooooooooooonnnnnn.....


As the Poll Turns......

[nittanyalum]

What's everyone's deal with Chelsea's looks? I think she blossomed in college and is now an attractive, put-together young lady. If you've seen pictures of young Bill and young Hillary, they weren't the MOST attractive 20-somethings, they actually grew into their looks as they aged and became more attractive as they got older. I think Chelsea's doing ok considering the "looks" gene pool she had no control over. Give her a break on that point. She went to a fantastic school and has a killer job, she'll buy and sell all of us one day and seems like a nice person overall, despite everything she probably has to deal with every single day of her life because of who her parents are (also out of her control).

[MysticCat]

Of course, I like just about anything Christopher Buckley writes (I may not always agree with him, but I love the way he says it), but I though this piece in the NY Times the other day was quite good:

The Manchurian Conservative.

(You have to be registered with the NY Times to read it, I imagine.)

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course, I like just about anything Christopher Buckley writes (I may not always agree with him, but I love the way he says it), but I though this piece in the NY Times the other day was quite good:

The Manchurian Conservative.

(You have to be registered with the NY Times to read it, I imagine.)

I LOLed at the line about Thompson. And I love the imagery in the last paragraph. I also hope it's true, I saw parts of that speech and disliked that he was pandering so hard to that faction (I don't agree with a lot of McCain's views, but I know he's not on the extreme right). I would much prefer to know that he may instead have been thinking to himself he'd rather be tossing back shots with Hillary.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

What's everyone's deal with Chelsea's looks? I think she blossomed in college and is now an attractive, put-together young lady. If you've seen pictures of young Bill and young Hillary, they weren't the MOST attractive 20-somethings, they actually grew into their looks as they aged and became more attractive as they got older. I think Chelsea's doing ok considering the "looks" gene pool she had no control over. Give her a break on that point. She went to a fantastic school and has a killer job, she'll buy and sell all of us one day and seems like a nice person overall, despite everything she probably has to deal with every single day of her life because of who her parents are (also out of her control).

I actually used to wonder about her and how she could do such an outstanding job of staying out of bad press (aside from unnecessary criticisms about her looks). I think that as we saw how other politicians' offspring couldn't keep a lid on their shenanigans, it became more apparant that Chelsea was very wise, indeed. I agree with nittanyalum that Chelsea, along with most normal people, had an awkward phase but grew into her looks and now is the full package. I used to wonder if perhaps she was shy and insecure and that was why she didn't speak to the press, but from how I've seen her speak lately on behalf of her mother, I'm really very impressed. She is poised and insightful and I certainly hope she finds that even after her parents have left political life, she might still have a place in politics.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

McCain is being represented by Bob Bennett which I find to be very interesting (considering ole Robert is a huge lib).

Having read the article now, I think the timing is extremely questionable. If anyone has read my posts about McCain, they know I'm not overly fond of him, but there doesn't seem to be much new information here.

I think with MSNBC cowering to the Democratic candidates and with this NYT stir, media outlets are beginning to show their hand. Granted, we all knew where these entities stood, but even the "independent" Chris Matthews is visibly giddy about anything Obama, which is a nice compliment to Keith "Bush is a murderer" Olbermann. Should be an interesting summer.

I saw CNN coverage this morning and all they covered was the first three paragraphs of the story.
And Mac's denial of what was in those three paragraphs

Nothing was said about the rest of it....
Story goes much deeper than that.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by jon1856

I saw CNN coverage this morning and all they covered was the first three paragraphs of the story.
And Mac's denial of what was in those three paragraphs

Nothing was said about the rest of it....
Story goes much deeper than that.

Deeper how? This has all been out since December, and there is almost no substantive information in the Times article. Woodward claims that he personally gave the NYT numerous examples of McCain acting against the interest of the firm's clients.

I think the real depth is that the Times waited to release this until McCain won the nomination (basically), and the possible battle with the New Republic.

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, but isn't it better for McCain that they hit this stuff relative early? It can't really stay alive until the general election, do you think? And as long as he's been in politics, most of the skeletons have to be out of his closet, right?

The NY Times piece was entertaining, and I think that McCain will certainly be the most conservative person in the general election.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yeah, but isn't it better for McCain that they hit this stuff relative early? It can't really stay alive until the general election, do you think? And as long as he's been in politics, most of the skeletons have to be out of his closet, right?

The NY Times piece was entertaining, and I think that McCain will certainly be the most conservative person in the general election.

The saving and loan matter may still come back to bit him.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jon1856

The saving and loan matter may still come back to bit him.

Yeah, but it's not new. I suppose it may be back beyond some voters political memory.

Do you think it has new life? Are we more interested in financial corruption than we used to be? Or is it just that if Obama is the DNC nominee that he doesn't have any baggage, which it the upside of having relatively little experience, so his campaign can trot McCain's past out there with little fear?

Clinton, if she somehow manages to pull out the nomination, probably won't be as interested in playing the "who is more associated with sketchy dealings" game.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yeah, but it's not new. I suppose it may be back beyond some voters political memory.

Do you think it has new life? Are we more interested in financial corruption than we used to be? Or is it just that if Obama is the DNC nominee that he doesn't have any baggage, which it the upside of having relatively little experience, so his campaign can trot McCain's past out there with little fear?

Clinton, if she somehow manages to pull out the nomination, probably won't be as interested in playing the "who is more associated with sketchy dealings" game.

Time will only tell.
What ever happens, most likely will be from "swift-boat" type groups rather than the parties themselves.