Allow me to expand on my notion that Obama is the Mirror of Desire (Mirror of Erised to you Harry Potter fans out there) in which people see what they most want to see.
Obama's basic message is that he is a smart and reasonable guy who will reach out to people representing a wide range of views and bring them together to bring about "change".
But what people actually hear is something somewhat different, namely, "Obama is smart and reasonable and he will listen to me; since my ideas are smart and reasonable, he will ultimately embrace them as his own".
This creates a very different dynamic from the typical political campaign. Rather than trying to convince a majority of voters (primary or general election) that his ideas are superior, Obama simply needs to convince a majority that their ideas are superior. Should be doable!
And how has Hillary been combating this? Not effectively. Her basic approach has followed the traditional campaigner's plan of marshaling programs tailored to appeal to 51% of voters. By and large, the upshot will be that folks who agree with her will figure they will get their way with either candidate; folks who disagree with her will favor Obama. Not helpful.
Ms. Clinton has also argued, in admirably straight-faced fashion, that Obama lacks the experience to actually deliver on his ethereal "agenda" but that she, as one of the most polarizing and hated politicians in America, is poised to deliver on a sweeping range of programs. As if.
What Hillarity needs to do, if Obama is foolish enough to oblige her, is trap Obama in a morass of specificity - "Where's the beef?" worked for Walter Mondale against Gary Hart in 1984; time has nearly run out for Ms. Clinton but it may yet work here.
To accomplish this work Ms. Clinton needs to enlist the press; she needs to emulate John McCain and talk their ears off, with the hope that the press will switch to fawning on the "New Hillary" and turn against Obama as lacking substance.
If the result is to goad Obama into delivering a briefcase (or boxcar) of details about a million programs, he may lose his central appeal as his supporters are forced to reconcile his vision with their own. If Hillary, allied with the press, can transform Obama into just another programmatic politician with ideas that attract some and alienate others, she will at least be playing a game she has a chance of winning.
MORE: If I were advising McCain, this tactic of Obama's wouldn't worry me much - McCain has a track record of actually doing what Obama is just talking bout.
Let's see, that just over 6 months away.
Just how on earth will anybody keep up the "rah rah" for 6 months ?
I have this feeling that the earlier-than-early front loading of primaries and caucii will lead to a "period of doldrums" for months before the conventions.
If Hiliary has managed to send $100 million for her uninspiring campaign, and Obama about the same for his slightly better campaign, just how much is it going to cost to re-kick start the campaign momentum ?
Posted by: Neo | February 17, 2008 at 02:27 PM
The heat and fury of the Swifties gathered during the doldrums last election, and burst with devastating effect on the shores of Kerryama.
=========
Posted by: kim | February 17, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Other Tom,
I have been enjoying your series of posts greatly. I suspect some of the stories to which you have gleefully directed our attention are premature, but to see such views of the Clintons expressed in major media outlets throughout the land is cause for celebration in itself.
Posted by: Elliott | February 17, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Not only expressed in major media outlets, but quoting Dem party sources. Oh, how wonderful it all is! Oh, how fervently I pray that they themselves are seeing what their "allies" are saying about them!
Apparently yesterday Bubba said that Saddam had had WMD, but that Bubba had destroyed them all in 1998 with his cruise missile strikes. Hey--way to go, Bubba! Too bad nobody in your crack intelligence services realized what a great job you'd done...
Posted by: Other Tom | February 17, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Bubba's claims about Saddam's WMD have rocketed to top of my list of favorite remarks from yesterday. By next month I'm sure we will learn that the Clinton administration was eager to make real the ultimate goals of the Iraq Liberation Act and would have done so by the end of the second term but for congressional Republicans playing politics with national security.
I would like to make sure that full credit accrues to the current runner-up in yesterday's incredible sound byte competition as Hillary's crack about Obama speeches was a worthy effort deserving of recognition:
I only heard it on the radio, but I suppose she said it with a straight face.
Posted by: Elliott | February 17, 2008 at 04:42 PM
""So her only option is to defeat Obama in the smoke-free rooms and risk plunging the Democratic Party into civil war."
I still think Hillary has a high Gotterdammerung quotient.Not easy to relinquish the exalted position for which she was ordained by the Almighty.Certainly Bubba will be suffering Intern withdrawal and is running on a short fuse.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 17, 2008 at 05:00 PM
Apparently yesterday Bubba said that Saddam had had WMD, but that Bubba had destroyed them all in 1998 with his cruise missile strikes.
You didn't know that? All the WMD were kept in an aspirin factory, which he bombed on his way home from Israel. (I think Air Force One actually detoured and dropped the big one with Bubba at the helm) thus switching the focus of members of his own party who were about to ask him to resign rather than be impeached. He's a multi-tasking wonder, having taken care of two huge problems in one flip of the switch.
Tomorrow he will tell us how he cured AIDS. We just haven't realized it yet.
Posted by: Jane | February 17, 2008 at 06:07 PM
"All the WMD were kept in an aspirin factory, which he bombed on his way home from Israel."
It is rumoured that Monica said "Not tonight Dear I have a headache".Bill retorted "Get the damned Aspirin factory". The rest is history.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 17, 2008 at 06:44 PM
PeterUK and Jane: Stop foisting Hillarity upon us!
Posted by: Elliott | February 17, 2008 at 07:01 PM
I kind of suspected Bubba would ultimately come out with something like this. A couple of years ago I heard him musing about his cruise missile strikes and the fact that we hadn't discovered any WMD in Iraq. "I dunno, maybe we got 'em all," he said.
I haven't heard anything in the media about his latest version, except for something on Fox News a couple of days ago.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 17, 2008 at 07:02 PM
Oops, just heard from VRWC head office. Hilarity is okay. Carry on.
Posted by: Elliott | February 17, 2008 at 07:02 PM
My one claim to fame is that I predicted that bombing. Mr. Right and I were on vacation in New Orleans. He was out running and I was watching CNN. When he got back I announced: "Clinton will bomb something today".
He just shook his head. See, I knew it because the democrats were about to tell Clinton he had to resign over the Lewinski scandal. So he needed something big to dissuade them. (It worked) Iraq wasn't even in the news.
We were out and about until about 3:00. Back at the B&B we turned on the news, and the bombing had occurred.
Mr. Right was impressed. (And if I've told the story before I apologize, but it really is my claim to fame.)
Posted by: Jane | February 17, 2008 at 07:51 PM
This is from a guy named Andrew Walden at Pajamas Media:
"Is racism the unforgivable crime finally ending Democrats’ 16-year love affair with Bill Clinton? No, it’s worse: from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Clinton’s carefully calculated and racially tinged attacks on Obama risked setting black America free from the Democrat Party."
He describes the Clintons as having a "Caucescu moment," which I find altogether delightful.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 17, 2008 at 07:51 PM
Other Tom,
Are you saying there is money in lamp post futures?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 17, 2008 at 08:01 PM
Jane, that is an awesome story. I was a total political neophyte at the time, so I'm curious - was the bombing generally viewed that way at the time? As a deliberate distraction from Lewinsky? Also, did the Dems really try initially to convince Clinton to resign? I honestly followed the story as best I could, but all I had was the NYT and my Dem friends to rely on.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 17, 2008 at 08:02 PM
If Jane was referring to the December Impeachment bombing of Iraq, it started a day or two before and ended the day after the I vote. I'll bet 90% of Repubs thought "Wag the Dog", and a few said so publically.
The August bombing of huts in Afghan. and the aspirin factory in Sudan was about 3 days after Clinton rudely "came-clean", to ruin a phrase. It was Lieberman's public chastising of him some days later, without calling for his resignation, that vented the Democrats' anti-Clinton steam.
When the midterm election went against the Repubs, the Democrats lined up behind Clinton with a handful of exceptions.
I think Clinton also kept the Kosovo pot cooking in case he needed a little war during the trial in January/February.
Posted by: Ralph L | February 17, 2008 at 08:18 PM
Sorry to go OT for a minute-
I'm watching the replay of Cavuto and he was interviewing Goolsbee, BHO's economic advisor. Don't normally watch Cavuto, but he seems to be a generally likable fellow. Man, Goolsbee warmed up to him like the RW bathed in holy water. Cavuto nailed him on how was Obama going to pay for everything and Goolsbee said letting the Bush tax cuts expire and ending the Iraq War. Cavuto said that won't come close to paying for everything-Goolsbee looked like he wanted to punch him (he also said "don't call me 'your friend'", cause Cavuto has caught that peculiar twitch from McCain). Goolsbee also said the carbon scheme [a carbon tax] would generate revenue for the green technology and jobs programs.
Thing that bothered me-"ending the Iraq War" will generate some saving in the military budget in the short term, eventually, but not much, about half the budget is salary and bonus pay to in-theater servicemembers-bonuses and hdp aren't a hugh percentage over base pay [I'd guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%-15%, with an elite skill set maybe getting to 30%]. The only way to reduce military spending is to make the military smaller and less technically advanced-maybe down to the Clinton low in 1997-98. It would also require killing off some big ticket items [JSF or F-22 seem unlikely, Ospery is possible, but doubtful]
I should look over that economic plan more carefully-I'm still stunned that having the IRS do your taxes for you as a "cost savings option" was even entertained, but maybe I missed some stuff.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Porchlight,
There was, as Ralph said some muted discussion of "wag the dog", but only as a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy". From my perspective there was obviously no other explanation. There was absolutely nothing on the radar at that point that would warrant even a discussion of bombing any where. My memory differs from Ralph's because I don't think the vote was until many months later - but I have no memory any more, and I haven't checked it. As I recall the democrats were at a tipping point about asking him to leave. I don't think they were ever at a tipping point during impeachment. At that point they were dug in.
What I do recall is that Clinton was on a plane when the bombing took place. Because nothing was on the radar everyone had to pretend it was serious since he was the commander in chief, and as such he would never abuse that power, particularly for his self interest.
Posted by: Jane | February 17, 2008 at 09:11 PM
I looked it up:
President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999.
I was thinking of the hearing and Ralph was right because it was just before the vote to impeach. That actually makes sense since the democrats were considering asking him to resign to avoid the vote.
Posted by: Jane | February 17, 2008 at 09:16 PM
Rich
Keep reading. He is hawking big time an average savings to workers of $2500 for their health care plan. What his plan is in a nutshell is this:
Offer to pay employers for their catastrophic coverage if they promise to pass the cost reduction along to their employees. No recognition of the fact that the money from the government comes ultimately from the exact same sources, those same employees.
Thus no savings at all, and if I know government bureaucracies, more red tape and ultimately higher costs not lower ones.
Posted by: GMax | February 17, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Ralph L, Jane-
The August bombing was a response to the August 7th East Africa Embassy bombings. That whole thing faded into background noise as his scandal took up more and more time and he left his "vacation" at Martha's Vineyard to "supervise the bombings". The December bombing was Operation Desert Fox, about 3 days of bombing in response to Iraq giving UNSCOM the heave-ho in Nov 1998. The bombing campaign [don't quote me on this] was orginally slated to start late Nov 98 but was called back because Annan, Aziz, and I think Carter were saying a new agreement was eminent. Late 1998 was Saddam's breakout period-he jerked the weapons inspectors around in Aug-Nov 98 and everytime Clinton officials would fall all over themselves to "keep the disarmerment process alive." I think they coined "deconflictualization" at the time. The summer 1998 crisis developed because the weapons inspectors found evidence that Iraq had unaccounted for VX for scud warheads and artillery shells which became public around May or June 98, which was defused with a bunch of doubletalk from the WDC, the UN, and Iraq.
I do remember some chatter during the Desert Fox campaign calling it the "Monica Lewinski Bombings"...
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 09:39 PM
I keep reading this stuff about the superdelegates. Now Obama thinks he is ahead so he wants the superdelegates to follow the will of the people. In other words put me over the top not on merit but because I am a few delegates ahead. but if you think about it, why would the process have any need for superdelegates then? Why wouldn't just have allocated the votes out proportionately and the indicate highest vote getter wins.
So if they set up Superdelegates, they should let them vote their conscience it would seem to me or else its another case of Democrats wanting to change the elections rules after the fact again.
But dont let my logic stop you folks from your internecine warfare! carry on.
Posted by: GMax | February 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Thanks, Jane, Ralph, Rich - that helps put it in perspective. I remember at the time being disgusted with the Lewinsky affair and Clinton in general, but the bombings add a layer of cynicism (at the Clinton level) that I didn't suspect at the time. I traveled to England in September 1998, and watched Clinton's videotaped deposition with my mother in a London hotel room. Yuck. Even my mom, a Democrat, was embarrassed and disgusted. But during the course of that trip I found myself defending, alternately, both Clinton and his critics, depending on who I was talking to. The whole country looked ridiculous during that period, thanks to Bill.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 17, 2008 at 10:16 PM
GMax-
No recognition of the fact that the money from the government comes ultimately from the exact same sources, those same employees.
IIRC, he has it phased out at around 75k. His various savings plans also call for a bunch of government mandates and spending. Most of the refundable credits seem to phase out below 50k, and the thing about seniors not filing seems to be a misprint-a retiree could have 50k in income half from social security and half from investment income-don't see how someone could get around not filing if that were the case. His carbon "cap-and-trade" scheme and his renewables target: "will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025" is wholly unrealistic unless the US uses much less electricity or expands nuclear and hydro power. This doesn't even touch on the transportation sector, out biggest source energy import demand. Its doubtful Obama would be for expansion of nuclear and hydro because government money [and regulation] will displace power projects and technology which works for pie-in-the-sky solar and wind. Most industry lobbyists, manufacturers, and employees will march on Washington if they have to idle factories and workers because of "green concerns", but the recent idling of gold mines in South Africa could easily become idling of assembly lines in Michigan.
If solar and wind is as promising as the MSM and the greens say it will be, do what DC did with the internet-don't tax it and provide tax breaks for the R&D-don't subsidise it like ethanol. Individuals and local power companies can then figure out the best ways to intergrate solar and wind into existing infrastructure or forego it altogether.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Rich, a transcript at your link says the bombing of Iraq stopped on the 19th, the day of Impeachment. Even some Republicans thought they'd delay the vote, but fortunately for Iraq, they didn't. I suspect some Democratic company has really padded Bill Cohen's wallet.
The August bombing was on the day Monica returned to the Grand Jury to refute Clinton's testimony. Cohen and CJCS Shelton were trotted out to say the timing wasn't politically motivated.
Posted by: Ralph L | February 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
oops...maybe I had one too many beers-
...out biggest source energy import demand...-> "...our biggest source of energy import demand..."
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Laugh fest...Scary Larry took his Sidney Blumenthal smear machine special to Huff Po and just gets ripped in the comments...
here's a funny one
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 17, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Ralph L-
Thinking back on that whole episode gives me that yuck feeling all over again. One almost wonders if Hussein had his goons watching CNN and anytime another Clinton scandal broke he was ready to act the fool.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I think it was the broadcast of Clinton's testimony that ultimately saved him. Americans don't like to see their president cornered and publically humiliated, even when he deserves it (pre-BDS, that is). That and the gory details of the Starr's report, which he was flabbergasted were made public, allowed Clinton to play the victim, instead of the perp.
Posted by: Ralph L | February 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Americans don't like to see their president cornered and publically humiliated, even when he deserves it (pre-BDS, that is).
Exactly, Ralph. Defending him (and by extension, the country) was a gut reaction, even though I knew he was lying with every breath he took. That may have been what saved him, but it was also what left a permanent bad taste in my mouth and ultimately helped me realize I never should have been voting Democrat in the first place.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
If Obama loses to an "old white guy who is an extension of McChimphaliburtonoilneoconnazi and the evil rethuglian regime" the last seven years of crazy hate towards Bush will be child's play compared to what the Left will do to McCain if their Messiah is not Selected.
Yep.
Welcome to JOM!
Posted by: centralcal
Thanks! All this love...I need to get out more. :-)
Posted by: baldilocks | February 17, 2008 at 10:40 PM
TSK9-
from you HuffPo link-
No one ever seemed to take up my Pinhead->HellRaiser=Red Witch->HillRaiser spin. The Red Witch dressed in black, with bad teeth, saying her economic plan calls "for pain" and that cackle is perfect. Funny that Scary would be hitting the gas for RW when even Soros consigliere Paul Volker has endorsed BHO.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 10:47 PM
TSK9-
I can't stop:
William Ayres...I'll raise him SusanL. Rosenberg
BHO consorts with former terrorists, Billary pardons and frees them.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Rich
HEH
If the Clinton campaign is anything it's projection on steroids. You can be sure whatever they are accusing or whispering about someone it's because they are a millions times more guilty of said accusation.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 17, 2008 at 10:58 PM
TSK9-
The comments over at the thread are great too. I'm curious what sort of dirt is going to be coming out-these "I won't say this about my opponent, but the Republicans will" is building up to something way out in left field. I'd be disappointed if all they got is Rezko, Ayers, and Khalidi-hell, they both sent some bootlickers to Assad to console him after the recent loss of his friends. There aren't any 527's that are going to put together ads pointing this out.
What would deflate a movement, but not cripple her chances after it is done? Bill Clinton has pretty much taken sex scandals off the table and its ridiculious that a Clinton would even squwak about a money scandal. Obama has defused the drugs issue fairly well for his faithful and the DNC at large. Focusing on his "race" is trivial, but not really beneath the Clinton's either. Doesn't leave much to rummage through.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Tops,
Your link to Scary Larry was delightful to read. Dems going after Dems for corruption and terrorism is a moment I thought I would never see in my lifetime.
Baldilocks,
You should visit JOM daily. You will find lots of love, knowledge, humor and a sincere optimism for this country that we all love.
Anti-Americans don't thrive hear and are completely thwacked (even when they don't know it!) ;)
Posted by: Ann | February 17, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Thanks, pooch, for the link to Huffpo. I like 'Obamaton' and that two people called Larry's tactic 'Rovian'. Larry's apparently taken the lead lining out of his tinfoil hat and is now susceptible to the 'Mindrays'.
=============================
Posted by: kim | February 17, 2008 at 11:30 PM
***Here***
thwack!!
Posted by: Ann | February 17, 2008 at 11:51 PM
I know, isn't it hilarious?
I especially love the irony of Scary, Joe and Val who crybaby they were smeared are the ones lobbing the most off the wall sleazy smears imaginable. I mean Obama's "ties to terrorists" aren't even on par as Wilson@RockCreek.com Mohammed Al Amoudi & Co's "ties".
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 18, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Speaking of all the love, where's boris hiding these days? Haven't had a roaring good argument in awhile....
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 18, 2008 at 01:55 AM
TSK9:
I have a feeling a lot of folks who hitched their wagons to BDS will find themselves nursing a real void in their lives before too long. Obama tried out the "McCain-Bush" tenure the other day, but since he didn't (couldn't really!) follow it up with specifics, it sounded like a pretty pro forma designation without much guilt-by-association oomph. Being a Maverick does have some political perks.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 18, 2008 at 02:03 AM
I think there is a distinct connection between BDS and Obamamania. The same delusion that Bush/Cheney are a failed administration segues to a fairy-tale belief in the powers of Obama to heal it all. The common malevolence is the press.
===================
Posted by: kim | February 18, 2008 at 06:01 AM
I'm coming in at the tail end here. I saw a reference somewhere last week to a Youtube video of a guy who claims he and Obama had a sex/crack encounter not that long ago. Or maybe crack-fueled sex encounter is the way to put it. Maybe that's what they're talking about re smearing Obama?
Posted by: anduril | February 18, 2008 at 09:47 AM
And now for a break from my McCain bashing. Here's an article on The Opportunistic Rise of Barack Obama.
We've all heard about his "not present" votes, but he had other voting problems as a state senator in Illinois:
Posted by: anduril | February 18, 2008 at 09:51 AM
He won because the Chicago Trib brought suit to unseal Ryan's divoce papers and because over the objections of both Ryan and his former wife and all reasonable precedent a California jusdge unealed the divorce papers. Do not tell me Obama's hands are clean on that shenanigan.
Posted by: clarice | February 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
He won because the Chicago Trib brought suit to unseal Ryan's divoce papers and because over the objections of both Ryan and his former wife and all reasonable precedent a California judge unealed the divorce papers. Do not tell me Obama's hands are clean on that shenanigan.
Posted by: clarice | February 18, 2008 at 10:30 AM
That was the 2nd opponent whose divorce was unsealed. First up was a primary opponent who got accused of wife beating in a divorce. It was fatal ( maybe it should have been if true but I do understand that allegations are not the same as proven ) to his campaign and he withdrew. But the fact that sealed court records became available twice, is pretty large on a coincidence scale for Obama.
Posted by: GMax | February 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM
To be honest, I think the Clinton's jumped the shark in attacking Obama. The NH Chairs 'we know he did drugs, but did he deal them too? We don't know." was the beginning of the exodus. People are much more savvy and that innuendo smear was about as subtle as neon lights strapped on the front of a mack truck.
So when Bill followed up with his perpetual foot in mouth disease and Hillary - a woman so in control of her emotions that she doesn't emote - cried! people see right through it.
Now, when there might be a legitimate gotcha it is seen as just another Clinton smear. Period. Obama's pulling a Joe Biden is just viewed as a "Clinton smear" no matter that it may not be.
I say that's what you get when you ensemble the same slimy team as last election and expect the press to ignore the slime messengers motives and play nice again.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM
See?
Obama Adviser Responds: Obama and Patrick are friends who 'share thoughts on ideas and language'; Clinton's campaign 'grasping at straws'... Developing...
Clinton's jumped the attack shark.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 18, 2008 at 12:23 PM
anduril, somewhere in the discussion of Obama's six "errors" I saw the total number of votes cast, and it was a lot. Having no knowledge of the user interface in the voting system, or of other legislators' error rates, it is not at all clear whether six erroneous votes is plausible or not.
People aren't robots, and there are lots of clumsy user interfaces out there that make errors virtually inevitable. (Like the airbus that crashed on one of its initial flights because they put the engine cut-off switch in a spot where every other airplane had some other control which the pilot needed to flip during takeoff. So, as was (in hindsight) inevitable, the pilot reached down and shut off the engines during takeoff and crashed the plane and killed everyone on board. This is why I hate flying on airbusses...)
Posted by: cathyf | February 18, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Here is what Deval Patrick said on the anniversary of 9-11.
"It was a mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other and to learn to love each other. It seems to me that lesson at that morning is something that we must carry with us every day."
Fox is now talking about plagiarismgate. If it brought down Biden in '88...
Those Clintons are so clever.
Posted by: Jane | February 18, 2008 at 01:50 PM
CNN's headline reads: Ticker. Obama camp. Clinton copied too. I'm finding myself agreeing with Bill. The MSM is working for Obama.
Posted by: Sue | February 18, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Well shoot. I didn't notice the colon. It reads Obama camp: Clinton copied too.
Nevermind.
Posted by: Sue | February 18, 2008 at 02:19 PM
I'll crib from Kathryn Jean Lopez here... "There are only so many ways to say nothing, after all."
Posted by: cathyf | February 18, 2008 at 02:49 PM
That's my favorite comment of the day cathy.
Well, so far.
Posted by: Jane | February 18, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Well shoot. If the plagiarism charge a,int nothing, can Hillary pivot to "so you wanna tie yourself to Deval"?
Press conference:
Like Deval, you sound nice but offer little in the way of concrete positions.
Looking at Deval's first year in office would you say that it might reasonably be concluded that a year of Obama in the WH would produce similar results?
Senator Obama, we have here a resident of Deval's state that has a few questions for you in this regard.
Jane, the floor is yours. Please proceed when ready.
Posted by: hit and run | February 18, 2008 at 03:57 PM
The problem is, no one knows anything about Deval. And they probably care less. But yeah, I think Obama is quite reminiscent of Deval - which means huge tax raises, rampant cronyism and bucking his own legislators if they don't agree. Have I mentioned my monthly bills have gone up $400 since January - all fees for things like transporting electricity. (Must be due to rising gas prices for all those electricity trucks.)
Patrick's latest is to propose casinos in MA to raise revenue. The legislature is apparently opposed but he's gone around them. So far we have no approvals and no groundbreaking. Yet Patrick has included the proposed fees as income to be charged to the casinos when and if they arrive,in his 2008 budget.
And then there are the stories of drapes and Cadillacs and the hiring of a secretary for his wife (a partner in a huge law firm) for $75,000 a year at the taxpayers expense. He also regularly deploys the air guard to take him home, because he can't face the commute made .05 seconds shorter by the Big Dig. Now MA is tiny to begin to, I live near CT and could be all the way across the state to NH in less than 90 minutes, but our governor can't commute to a suburb of Boston in his taxpayer subsidized cadillac.
It's a bloody travesty and I expect Obama is cut from the same cloth.
It's interesting that they both grew up in Chicago, were pushed along by affirmative action and both went to Harvard LAw school. I wonder how far back their friendship goes.
Posted by: Jane | February 18, 2008 at 04:25 PM
"I wonder how far back their friendship goes."
Back to whoever indoctrinated them with Alinskyism would be my bet. RW finished her indoctrination by interning with a Commmie lawyer in Berkely. Deval clerked for Reversible Reinhard in the 9th Circuit but I haven't found a reference to an internship.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 18, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Some more Patrick dirt - his aide was just arraigned for having sex with a 15 year old boy in Fl. Patrick voiced his concern for his aide. The Boston Globe (owned by the NY Times) declined to include the mug shot in the coverage, preferring a smiling shot in a suit and tie.
Geez Hit, why did you get me started?
Posted by: Jane | February 18, 2008 at 05:01 PM
And from last April (link under my name)
Of all the things Deval Patrick's Republican opponent threw at him in last year's governor's race, one charge that stuck in his craw was that his speeches were more fluff than substance -- that they were, in Patrick's telling, "just words." So he devised an artful response.
A
" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' -- just words," Patrick said at a rally in Roxbury right before Election Day. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words. . . . 'I have a dream' -- just words. They're all just words."
The crowd erupted as it got Patrick's point about the power of language. But perhaps no one at the rally understood the point better than Barack Obama, who had joined him on stage that night.
Not five months later, Obama, his presidential campaign gaining steam, had this to say about legendary Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky in The New Republic: "Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.' Those are just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."
In the midst of his improbable run for office, Obama and his advisers have evidently studied Patrick's up-from-nowhere victory in Massachusetts and are borrowing themes, messages, and even specific lines for the presidential campaign.
It's the latest chapter in a symbiotic friendship between Obama and Patrick that continues to shape their political careers, according to admirers, observers, and associates of the two men.
The similarities between Patrick and Obama, who have known each other for more than a decade, are obvious: Both are idealistic African-American leaders who came of age after the Civil Rights movement. Both have Chicago roots, a Harvard Law degree, and a gift for appealing to both blacks and whites.
Their political likeness runs deeper. Both believe that people long for a new dawn of postpartisan, hopeful, and optimistic public leadership. Both staked their fates on grass-roots activism and fund-raising. Both campaign on supplanting cynicism with citizenship.
And here is the origin of their friendship:
"I see them as similar kinds of fresh voices," said Abner J. Mikva, a former US representative from Illinois and US Appeals Court judge who is credited with introducing Patrick and Obama.
Posted by: Jane | February 18, 2008 at 05:08 PM
Jane:
Geez Hit, why did you get me started?
The Deval made me do it.
Posted by: hit and run | February 18, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Of course I shouldn't pass up the opportunity to pass along the best plagiarism comment ever.
Posted by: cathyf | February 18, 2008 at 05:29 PM
J M Hanes
"Haven't had a roaring good argument in awhile...."
Yes you have!
Posted by: PeterUK | February 18, 2008 at 05:39 PM
Two notes on Obama via American Thinker...
Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is stepping down from the pulpit.
Obama's website appears to have scrubbed a page called "Escalation is not the answer".
Um, because the surge actually was the answer?
Posted by: hit and run | February 18, 2008 at 06:03 PM
where's boris hiding these days?
Trying to keep up.
Posted by: boris | February 18, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Now in light of Obama's controversial pastor resigning, one might ask -- is there any connection between Obama and Deval Patrick when it comes to churches?
Well, in MA, it appears Deval attends (in a Fred kinda way) Harvard's Memorial Church. The article also mentions that Patrick was a member of Presbyterian Cosmopolitan Community Church when he lived in Chicago, though at a glance I don't find that church on google..
Oh wait, take out "Presbyterian" and there is a Cosmopolitan Community Church in Chicago...
But I don't see the church's actual website...
But this did turn up:
A Catalog of Speeches by the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan:
The Fabric of Faith - Cosmopolitan Community Church, Chicago, IL. 11/21/2004
Eeeeenteresting.
Posted by: hit and run | February 18, 2008 at 06:33 PM
----Since I practice law in Illinois, I have some idea of what goes on in Springfield and Chicago. No one gets anywhere in Illinois politics without being dirty. It doesn't matter if you are a Dem or a Republican. They all go to jail regardless of party affiliation.
Wow!!! A democratic lawyer that I can respect!! That's amazing. Hope there are a lot more of them -- democrats not lawyers.
Posted by: red | February 18, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Just saw Matt Lauer interview Obama. He asked if Obama though the Republicans would "Swift Boat" him in the fall.
What do these idiots thing the Swift Boat Vets did?
Yep, they released information the candidate didn't want released that the candidate couldn't refute.
Bias or idiocy?
You pick.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 19, 2008 at 09:00 AM
"Obama has played dirty in the past (ever wonder why Jack Ryan's divorce papers were unsealed?)and he will continue to do it."
Is anybody ever gonna ask anybody about that?
I didn't think so.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 19, 2008 at 09:22 AM
http://www.batteryfast.com/toshiba/pa3384u-1bas.htm>toshiba pa3384u-1bas battery
Posted by: laptop battery | October 15, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Surely Bart had the credentials to top them all. Consider some of his achievements: In a first- class career spanning nineteen years (1893- 1912) he took 413 wickets at 15. 65 and scored 2134 runs at 20. 51- achievements no other American has matched; He topped the bowling averages in the 1908 English season whilst on tour with the Philadelphia side, taking 87 wickets at 11. 01; He took 10- 53 in the first innings of Philadelphia's crushing innings victory over Ireland in September 1909; He scored 98 and 113...
Posted by: monroe shocks | January 06, 2009 at 01:02 PM