Obama accuses Bill Clinton of "making statements that are not factually accurate" on a Good Morning America segment that will air tomorrow.
« Giants Win | Main | Personnel Speculation »
Pants on Fire
21 Jan 2008 12:07 am
Comments (55)
Attacking Bill Clinton like that won't take him very far, though. It really is a problem when the highly popular two-term former president is acting on a shameless attack dog on your opponent's behalf.
Bill has already been addressed by party elders to contain himself. Good for Obama bringing it to a head...let's do elevate the conversation lest we sink to the level of the rabid right.
There are many of us who have believed for a long time that our ex Presidents still represent us and need to maintain a level of decorum befitting.
Bill can advocate for his wife without all the hysteria, I hope. Perhaps he could use his pal GHW Bush as a fine example.
Besides, with his heart he won't live through another year of this hysterical behavior. He'll blow.
Praising Reagan. Calling Bill Clinton a liar.
Hey, this Obama guy sounds like me.
Clinton comes in office with 43% of the vote in 1992. He promptly fumbles on health care. We lose control of Congress for the first time in decades in 1994. From then on Clinton can't triangulate against his own base fast enough. Clinton's own VP decides not to use Clinton in the 2000 election because he's such damaged goods; Ralph Nader points to the Clinton record to convince a whole lot of people that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Clinton didn't just betray the left, his incompetence as a leader for the party made the improbable reign of George W. Bush possible.
Obama is going to lose this thing if he doesn't attack the Clintons at the heart of their perceived strength, the nostalgia for the Clinton years. That style of politics helped destroy the Democratic party; it's utterly insane to consider going back to it now.
Attacking Bill Clinton like that won't take him very far, though.
It almost makes me think that the Clinton strategy was to bait Obama into attacking Bill by getting Bill to make a bunch of seething, rather unfair attacks on Obama. When Obama fires back, it makes Obama look like he's firing salvos on a revered party saint out of desperation.
I'm just glad that Guiliani's support is cratering. His nomination would have been the only reason that I would have considered voting for that horrible creature Hillary Clinton. Now I can happily vote for a third party candidate.
LarryM,
I'm with you. If Hillary is the nominee, I would absolutely vote for Bloomberg.
In addition to GMA interview, Sen. Obama gets another endorsement tomorrow. This will be from a female senator.
The two Clintons are going to be very upset.
Tired of Clintons,
One thing that has puzzled me (or continues to) is that no one has itemized HRC's supposed 35+ years of experience.
What if an Asian, African-American, or even someone's spouse (a white female), had said that they had 35+ years of experience in any office they were planning to run. Even if they were running for a city council job, their records would be examined.
With HRC, going back 35 years, we come to the failed bar exam. We the move to AK where her husband appoints her. We get to White House where she fails in many things (health care being one). She gets a free pass to become a senator. Now with one false-judgement after another (war, credit/bank, etc. votes), she is able to spin 35+ years of caring for American people.
Most people on this blog are born here. Many on this blog may be white or minorities.
But, for an immigrant, this sort of free pass is incredibly shameful. I cannot imagine under any circumstances I would get a free pass if I said that I have 10-years of govt. experience and thus am qualified to run for a city council any where in america.
If you put yourself in shoes of a minority, underserved individuals, immigrants, you will realize how much painful this HRC candidacy.
No other spouse in America has ever gotten such benefits. It just sounds so painfully wrong.
The worse is that they are cheat, baiting. It is not only that this is unfair, it is must morally wrong in what Clintons are doing to my adopted country. I see no difference between the Clintons and the Bushes.
If calling Clinton out for distorting his record is an attack, we need to get a new word for attack. Seems to me this is more about setting the record straight and demonstrating that Clinton is no longer a honest broker, at least not within this campaign. Until he does that, everything that comes out of Clintons mouth about Obama, however false, will be considered truthful, at least in the minds of low information voters.
Remember February 5th is all about low information voters. He (Obama) has to change that narrative now, or he'll be just collecting a bunch of 2nd places.
I will vote for whomever I think is most honorable in the general. Hopefully I'll get a chance to vote for the future positively, but if not I will vote to make a pointed statement that I will not accept the same crap the Reps have fed me for so long from my own party.
Such a shame, too. The Clintons could have run a very positive campaign and done well in the process. They might have even beat Obama on experience alone.
Instead they may win the primary, but lose to both McCain and Romney especially as the economy dives. Romney will run rings around anyone else when debating the economy.
BTW...bad link eorse. Is that McCaskill?
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
I do think there will be a significant number of people voting 3rd party if Clinton is the nominee. Not just for Bloomberg, but also for Cynthia McKinney. People tend to not take her seriously, but I think her candidacy would be a big problem to Clinton if she continues to alienate black voters.
It almost makes me think that the Clinton strategy was to bait Obama into attacking Bill by getting Bill to make a bunch of seething, rather unfair attacks on Obama. When Obama fires back, it makes Obama look like he's firing salvos on a revered party saint out of desperation.
That may be the strategy, but Bill ain't no saint.
Sorry G Davis. Try again (it is the former senator Jean Carnahan)
Here's what Obama said:
You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate.
Please allow me to paraphrase:
Bill Clinton is a big liar. He lies habitually. However, I'm not going to bother to tell you what any of the lies actually are. I'm just going to call him a big habitual liar.
There are a lot of different ways to do wrong in this world; a lot of sins, a lot of crimes, a lot of torts, a lot of violations waiting out there to be committed. In the civil law, among torts (latin for "wrongs"), it has been noted that there is one particular tort that it is both particularly damaging to one's character to be accused of and at the same time particularly easy to bring vague accusations of against another. That is the tort of fraud.
Over the centuries, a doctrine developed in the common law based on the fact that it is particularly easy to damage another's character by bringing baseless accusations of l ying. That doctrine holds that a person accusing another of fraud should bear a higher burden of initial proof, that is, of proof not just at the trial stage, but at the initial stage of accusation. This rule survives into modern practice in most states and exists in federal courts. For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) specifies as follows:
In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.
This requirement exists in federal court for no other tort. (Generally, suits may be based on relatively vague accusations brought in good faith, and plaintiffs are allowed to fill in the blanks during the discovery process.)
Passing now beyond the law, the same requirement exists in the realm of etiquette and manners. Accusing a human being of lying, or even moreso of being a habitual liar, is one of the most personal and damning accusations that can be made. It is not only unfair but uncouth to vaguely accuse another of lying, because when you don't specify the lie then the accused has no grounds for defense. Vaguely accusing a person of being a habitual liar is no more or no less than a direct statement to the effect that
I am a superior moral being to the person I accuse, and you are to take my word that it is so.
Perhaps in the days to come Obama will supply substance to back up his remarks. Perhaps that substance will enable us to determine whether anything backs up these charges or whether it does not. As for now, all we know is that Obama has crossed a line that is set in the law and in manners--and did it in attacking a fellow Democrat who has provided long years of service to the Party, even one who, it might be said, spent several years carrying the Party on his back.
Maybe that doesn't mean all that much to you indy-types who are talking about voting for Bloomberg, etc., (and thus, of course, letting the Republican win), but I think it probably means plenty to a lot of yellow dog Democrats like me. I sure hope I don't wind up having to hold my nose and vote for this guy in the fall.
Given where Obama needs to find support attacking Bill back is probably his worst move. That will only drive more Democrats to Clinton. It might help him with Republicans and anti-Clinton independents, but we are heading into largely closed primaries. He can't rely on those voters anymore.
After losing a hotly contested election the loser is expected to offer a gracious concession speach with high praise for his supporters and an admission, however grudging, of his opponents ability to attrack votes. In other words the loser has to tell his supporters that the voters have spoken and let's move on to the next venue. Hillary Clinton was a model of this in Iowa and John Edwards showed his class in NH.
But Obama, chosing divisiveness over unity, not only refused to give a concession speach after his loss in Nevada but starts whining it in order to stir up resentment and ugly reactions among his supporters.
Barack you lost. Show the people some respect. Stop complaining. Have some class and move on.
Thanks for the screed, Trickster, but anyone following the campaign knows what Bill has been saying about Obama. And if wanted more specificity, well, Obama specified it for you:
He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.
In addition, Obama was talking to ABC News, so I don't think the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are exactly applicable.
Better Clinton shills, please.
Keep in mind that Obama's remarks come at the same time as Ted Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel, neither of whom are affiliated with a candidate, have told Bill to back off.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385
This was discussed on MTP this morning and they also came down on Obama's side. So as hard as the Clintonites try to spin this as Obama attacking Clinton, it doesn't look like that will work.
If you think Democratic primary voters weren't pissed at Bill for lying to them, you're wrong. There's a reason that of the two heirs to the Clinton Presidency, Gore could win this thing in a walk while Hillary is fighting for her life.
And if you think they're not worried that electing Hillary means bringing back all the scandals from the lying, you're also wrong.
And, I'm sorry, it's VERY good for Obama among primary voters if this ends with an examination of who did and who didn't support the war. Because there were only two positions then--for and against. It never really was clear to me where she was, beyond being with the polls.
Tricker - did you actually read what you quoted in your post? Obama mentioned two things in particular, Clinton's distortion of Obama's Iraq war voting record and Obama's campaign strategy in Nevada - I'd imagine this encompases Clinton's charges about voter intimidation as well as those ridiculous 5 votes for 1 statements Cliton made in Oakland.
By the way, Obama's campaign actually produced a Clinton caucus manual which fibbed on the closing time of caucus. Compare this to Clinton's insistence in the media that Obama supporters were suppressing votes in plain view of Clinton and his media entourage. Maye he should have done something about it rather than making accusations after the fact?
Southpaw and writersclog, naming the subjects about which someone allegedly lied is not the same thing as naming the lie. Not by a long shot.
I don't see how you could make that argument if you had taken my point seriously. The point is that when one is vaguely accused, one is unable to defend oneself. In this case, how could Clinton possibly defend himself when the lie is not named, but only the subject?
I'll answer. He can't. He would have to systematically defend every statement he has made on those subjects, which reaches the stage of practical impossibility very quickly once the number of statements gets into a range higher than, say, one.
Trickster, I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.
Bill Clinton made very specific and widely reported statements about Obama's record of opposition to the Iraq war; they're quoted in the ABC piece. And he made very widely-reported accusations that Obama supporters were engaging in voter suppression in the run up to the Nevada caucuses. In each case, I'd note, Bill Clinton accused Obama and his campaign of dishonesty without meeting the burden of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
But leave that aside, the ABC piece is teasing an interview that will air Monday morning. It is not a complete transcript or anything like it. So even if we adopt your standards of conduct, judging Obama by them seems a bit premature. Why not watch the interview, see if you're still so upset, and get back to me?
LOL, when the schills are reduced to saying "I'm not disputing he lied, but they are totally in the wrong because they didn't properly cite the lie," then the argument is really over.
In addition, it's kind of shocking to see Obama as candidate for President looking way more presidential than the actual ex-President.
I know Clinton made specific statements. I have no idea which of them is being considered to be a lie. None of them seemed like lies to me.
Nor am I aware of Clinton accusing Obama of having a "habit" of "mak[ing] statements that are not supported by the facts" or even anything in the ballpark of that.
In regard to the Iraq vote, Clinton has claimed that Obama has exaggeratted the depth and consistency of his opposition to the war, not that Obama has told untruths. (Every politican exaggerates while campaigning; lying is a different abd nire seruiys story.)
As for voter suppression, I know it has been widely reported that Clinton made remarks about voter suppression at a rally Friday night, but I'm unaware that he has made any statement or even inference linking that to the Obama campaign.
But really, the defender isn't supposed to be engaging in guesswork about what he's supposed to defend. Again, that's the point. If you have ever been accused of lying, in public, you should be able to understand that this point is not just theoretical.
I was against the Iraq War from the start. Read my lips.
This whole business is making me recall just how pissed I was at Bill ten years ago for giving the Republicans the gift of the Monica mess. The man doesn't know when to zip it, either pants or mouth.
Hey, wasn't one of the raps against Obama that he wouldn't be confrontational enough? Looks like he'll lay down some punches given enough provocation.
Trickster's problem is he doesn't know what the meaning of "is" is...
First of all, if you read the frickin' quote, he never said Bill was lying. That is the INFERENCE YOU are supposed to make. What he SAID, LEGALLY, was that Bill makes statements which are not factually correct - meaning Bill might be stupid or ignorant or anything else - but not necessarily a liar if Bill doesn't understand that his statements are factually incorrect.
You may now take your entire argument to the corner and leave it there where it belongs.
Go Richard Steven - um, Hack. (Name, right, not profession?) That's a real reverse triple salchow of an argument. Beautiful.
So you're saying Obama didn't really accuse Clinton of lying, even though 99.99% of the people who hear his words will interpret them that way, because Obama can shimmy out on the technicality that he might possibly have meant that Bill Clinton is too stupid to understand whether what he is saying is a lie or not? And because of that it wasn't really unfair, or ungentlemanly, for Obama to cast vague aspersions of lying that can't be defended against?
Do I have that right?
(And I'm the one who doesn't know what is means?)
Thomas, (a) however charming you find him Clinton has a long, documented history of lying (b) Obama's praise for Reagan was carefully qualified. As Tired says, Clinton was successful at getting himself elected twice and not much else.
If Obama is facing a campaign for a Clinton Restoration spearheaded by the Big Dog himself, going after him may not be a bad move. Plus Bill C has apparently lost the ability to keep the anger in check (it was always there but carefully hidden until a few years ago) so you get the self-possessed Senator versus the red-faced liar. Might work.
Trickster, yes, you have that right.
And, yes, as a result, you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama made the observation that Clinton was wrong in his statements. He never said Clinton was lying. Not once in the quoted statements. He is quite aware of the difference between saying someone is wrong and saying someone is deliberately wrong.
Until you can establish that he did say that WITHOUT MAKING AN INFERENCE ON YOUR PART, your argument isn't worth spit. Obama doesn't have to do anything.
You were the one citing a bunch of legal crap. Try to take Obama's statements AS MADE into a court and accuse him of libel, you won't even get an attorney to take the case. They'll laugh you out of their office.
Richard, I don't think I cited "a bunch of legal crap." I think I pulled some support for my thesis from the profession that has dealt for centuries with the question of how best to deal with the specific situation of accusations of lying.
If you'll re-read my initial post, I think it's fair for me to say that the "legal crap" I mentioned was set-up for the meat of what I wrote, which was:
Accusing a human being of lying, or even moreso of being a habitual liar, is one of the most personal and damning accusations that can be made. It is not only unfair but uncouth to vaguely accuse another of lying, because when you don't specify the lie then the accused has no grounds for defense. Vaguely accusing a person of being a habitual liar is no more or no less than a direct statement to the effect thatI am a superior moral being to the person I accuse, and you are to take my word that it is so.
I know I have been vaguely accused of lying before, and there's not much that makes me angrier, because my word is much of my value as a human being. If you're going to publicly accuse somebody of lying, it's only moral to give them the opportunity to defend themselves by specifying the statement you claim to be a lie. Sophistic dodging about possible meanings that we all know weren't actually meant doesn't get around the morality of it.
Bill Clinton has never been much good at controlling his anger, nor any of his other appetites, and his relationship with the truth has always been tenuous and instrumental. Better to bring this out now, before the looming disaster of a Hillary nomination gives the GOP nine months to remind voters why he shouldn't be let back into the White House.
Kudos to Obama for standing up. But now he'll be tagged an angry black man, and we can't have that, can we?
If the Clinton campaign's strategy for countering this move against the Big Dog is to feign outrage that anyone could think that Bill would lie to the American people...
I should be headed over to Intrade right now to take advantage of some seriously overvalued Clinton stock.
Two additional lies from Bill Clinton:
"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas ... It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary. I'm not making this up, folks."
1) Obama did not say anything remotely like what Bill claimed, that "since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas"; he said that Reagan succeeded in changing the trajectory of the country in a way that Nixon and Clinton did not.
2) There were reports of a radio ad inviting Republicans to caucus for Obama, not to "become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary", which would actually be impossible since the Republican caucus was on the same day and earlier.
These are two more lies, in one paragraph. Add that to the constant distortions of Obama's war record, the "their votes will count five times as much", and unsubstantiated claims that the union was trying to suppress the vote, and that spells L-I-A-R.
For a former President this is all really disgraceful.
Bill Clinton has been caught lying many, many times. This is a documented fact. No one, even morons like Trickster, can deny that. He was even disbarred by his peers for lying. What's the debate again?
Guys: Let's all thank Tricker for his "concern" and then move on. There's nothing to be won in engaging a troll.
Plus Bill C has apparently lost the ability to keep the anger in check (it was always there but carefully hidden until a few years ago)
That's the post-heart surgery Bill; you tend not to give a shit what people think once you've been through that.
Maybe that doesn't mean all that much to you indy-types who are talking about voting for Bloomberg, etc., (and thus, of course, letting the Republican win), but I think it probably means plenty to a lot of yellow dog Democrats like me.
My first presidential vote was cast for Walter Mondale and every Dem since. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. The Hillary as LBJ bullshit was bad enough but the Cuomo comments finally through me over the edge. But, I image for most voters all will be forgotten by November; not me.
Plus Bill C has apparently lost the ability to keep the anger in check (it was always there but carefully hidden until a few years ago)
That's the post-heart surgery Bill; you tend not to give a shit what people think once you've been through that.
Maybe that doesn't mean all that much to you indy-types who are talking about voting for Bloomberg, etc., (and thus, of course, letting the Republican win), but I think it probably means plenty to a lot of yellow dog Democrats like me.
My first presidential vote was cast for Walter Mondale and every Dem since. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. The Hillary as LBJ bullshit was bad enough but the Cuomo comments finally through me over the edge. But, I image for most voters all will be forgotten by November; not me.
Am I the only one who was really amused to see a post about Bill Clinton titled "Pants on Fire"? Because that really cracked me up.
Does anyone know what Mr. Obama stands for? What kind of change? When is he bringing our troops home from Iraq? What is his plan for the mortgage meltdown, how long before we see some kind of universal healthcare? Haven't we had enough of the inexperienced president giving lip service, only screwing things up, then unable to solve real problems and making things worse? We need to look at their resumes and elect the best person for the job, the most experienced. This guy is a neophyte, who delivers great speeches, but still needs a telepromter!
Obama should take pride in the fact that he is more than holding his own in a race against two candidates, Hilary and former President, Bill Clinton, the Democratic establishment and the so-called African-American leaders who hope to benefit, probably personally, if the Clinton's are reinstalled in the White House.
The worse thing Senator Obama can do is get into a battle of words with Bill Clinton. If Clinton wants to continue playing the "attack dog", let him.
The best thing Obama can do is stay on message. His compelling and powerful theme of bringing Blue, Red and Independent Americans together in a coalition to effect the kind fundamental change that can redirect investment from destruction and war to education, jobs, safe cities and neighborhoods, universal health care, and hope, is the only thing that can save this country.
Win or lose, he needs to stay on message. To do otherwise would be politics-as-usual.
That, Obama, has to leave to the Clintons!!!
From RR18:
Two additional lies from Bill Clinton:
"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas ... It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary. I'm not making this up, folks."
1) Obama did not say anything remotely like what Bill claimed, that "since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas"; he said that Reagan succeeded in changing the trajectory of the country in a way that Nixon and Clinton did not.
2) There were reports of a radio ad inviting Republicans to caucus for Obama, not to "become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary", which would actually be impossible since the Republican caucus was on the same day and earlier.
These are two more lies, in one paragraph.
Here's a "Democrats for a Day" ad from Florida:
But this is not about some "hard sell" to recruit voters to become permanent Democrats. Not at all. After the primary, you may re-register back to the Republican or Libertarian parties, or revert to your previous status as an Independent! There will be plenty of time before the general election in November 2008.
Here's the Nevada "Democrat for a Day" flier:
VOTE FOR OBAMA AND THEN RETURN TO YOUR VOTING STATUS AS YOU CHOSE
Here's a "Democrat for a Day" video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUE4Kp0YERs
And while it's true that Clinton exaggerated when he accused Obama of saying that Republicans had "all the ideas" since 1992, it was scarcely an outright lie, as Obama did say
“I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time, the last 10 or 15 years.
I guess that's probably true if you're talking about ideas on how to subvert the Constitution, embarrass the nation abroad, and put a partisan nutlock on the national government so as to turn it into a personal money-making machine. . . .
To All the Clinton Haters
Hillary and Bill Clinton can handle this crisis. They've been through this before. The people voting for Hillary know President Clinton has faults, and they don't care. Hillary is winning the votes of women, voters over 65, Hispanics, and so on. She's speaking to the real problems of the country.
I have no idea if she will win. However, none of the angels posting on this website would have voted for her anyway. You are all too perfect.
At least the Clintons go out everyday in public and put their record on the line. It is really easy to hide behind these anonymous blogs and insult the Clintons. Fortunately, some of the public can filter through this hate and vote for their candidate, even if it is Hillary.
EWard,
While I will never vote for her, my fondest hope for the country, assuming Clinton gets the nomination, is that she makes a decent pick for VP, wins the election, and then, through an act of God or man, doesn't make it to inauguration day.
my fondest hope for the country, assuming Clinton gets the nomination, is that she makes a decent pick for VP, wins the election, and then, through an act of God or man, doesn't make it to inauguration day.
Posted by patriot
Sad to say, it's not even particularly surprising to see this comment on this site. The anti-Clinton vitriol here has gone well beyond the point of dispassioned thought and commentary and into a feedback loop of escalating hatred.
LOL @ Trickster. Love your hilarious take on things. We must be just a bunch of misogynist freaks, huh?
All these good democrats and progressives who would vote for bloomberg over hrc - I have some nader 2000 buttons for you. I believe his supporters were also as shortsighted.
I would also point out that democrats gained seats in the house and senate in 92, 96, 98, and 2000. We would have gotten congress back in02 (and did have the senate back) if it hadn't been for 9/11 (and a bunch of postpartisan dems who actually thought they could work with the insane branch of the gop).
And obama repeated lied by using the discredited "20 year plan" claim. So boo hoo. But as actual functioning government matters more to me, I would still vote for any dem in november rather that a republican or plutocrat
I don't know marc - when someone calls for someone's death (patriot) I doubt their commitment to sanity.
LOL @ Trickster. Love your hilarious take on things. We must be just a bunch of misogynist freaks, huh?
First, notice that you're rising in defense of a post that was so much as calling on Hillary to be killed--it hoped she wouldn't make it to election day, whether by "act of God or man."
Despite seeing things like that here, though, I actually don't think what you said at all. I have been a semi-regular reader and occasional commentator on this site for the last 2 or 3 years. Matt is a smart guy; I enjoy his writing, and there is an energetic and intelligent commenting community going here. Yglesias, the site, and the community are all worthy of a lot of respect for a lot of reasons.
What I'm saying, specifically, is that there is a feedback loop going on here regarding Hillary Clinton, her candidacy, her history, and her husband's history. It results in some extreme ideas and also, I must say, in some pretty rude commenting in this thread.
The basic idea I'm putting forward here, that it is only polite to extend to your fellow human the courtesy of specificity when accusing him/her of being a habitual liar, is not an extraordinary idea, or made up for the occasion. Yet I have received nothing but scorn for putting it out, and that is literally true: nothing but scorn. Not one single person has shown any sign at all of taking me seriously, even though I feel I'm on safe ground in saying that I have generally been quite polite in this thread.
Think about that, in light of your values.
Fans of the Clintons and Democrats too young to remember may want to visit this transcript from Frontline, regarding two key Clinton apparatchiks, Ron Brown and Mac McLarty.
Change? Not really - just a lot of crony capitalism.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fixers/etc/script.html
So, blacks should just always vote how their Democratic masters tell them to, even if they're abused and disrespected?
I guess it fits in well with second wavers' defense of Bill Clinton.
No ones takes you seriously, Trickster, because you're a concern troll.
What part of that don't you understand?
You came in babbling about how the law says you have to be specific when you accuse someone of lying.
I pointed out that, as quoted, Obama never accused Clinton of lying. That was everyone's inference - and may well have been the inference Obama intended - but he never said that explicitly. Therefore there is no legal case that Obama accused Clinton of lying. Period.
You ignored that simple fact and went on and on about the "morality" of it all. Discussing Bill Clinton and morality in the same sentence is almost laughable.
Not to mention that, obviously, everybody knows precisely what Clinton is accused of lying about - his recent statements about Obama - therefore any demand for "specificity" is simply irrelevant and a red herring intended to cast a moral aspersions on Obama without providing any real evidence.
In essence, you are accusing Obama of lying - and more, of being generally immoral - when he accuses Clinton of lying (which, again, he never did).
As Don Rickles would say, "Let me put it to you another way..." - you're a troll.
No ones takes you seriously, Trickster, because you're a concern troll.
To start with, I'm not at all a "concern troll" according to the original definition of that. I'm not "concerned" that you're "off of our common message," I'm asking questions and making a point, which I stand behind.
This "concern troll" message is obviously susceptible of being used as a paraphrase for "neener neener I just won't listen to you, go away my ears are plugged" which is what I seem to be encountering here.
Discussing Bill Clinton and morality in the same sentence is almost laughable.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Nothing specific at all. Just the old vague "Clinton is a bad person" thing. I see that a lot from people who never had the intellectual curiosity to actually dig into the tons of slanderous falsehoods that have been dumped on him.
Not to mention that, obviously, everybody knows precisely what Clinton is accused of lying about - his recent statements about Obama - therefore any demand for "specificity" is simply irrelevant
So what you're saying then, is that, specifically, every single thing Clinton has said about Obama recently has been a lie, right? I'm reading you correctly?
I didn't hear Obama identifying any specific lie at the debate last night, either. It was just more "you're big liars and I can't quite say why, even when pressed."
Comments closed February 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Not hard hitting enough. Obama should be saying that he doesn't like being criticized by someone who put getting serviced over serving his country.
And if Blowjob Bill doesn't like it, too bad.
.
Posted by sunsin | January 21, 2008 12:14 AM