Per Ben Smith's blog at The Politico I see that Team Obama is alerting reporters to earlier incidents of Hillarity mis-speaking about her Excellent Adventure in Bosnia.
But the Obama crowd has not found her December tale-telling, as reported in Newsday and busted by various member of the Right Wing Noise Machine.
And these are the people that are going to track down out-of-control Federal spending?
Google it. Clueseekers will find that this from Dec 31 is currently at the bottom of page 1.
MORE: MAYBE IF HILLARY HAD CLAIMED THAT THE SNIPER FIRE WAS "SEARED" IN HER MEMORY...
I deplore the sexist double standard being applied to Hillary on her Bosnia fantasy. John Kerry just made stuff up about his wartime heroics to promote himself, as for example with his Christmas mission to Cambodia or his first Purple Heart, and did loyal Dems denounce him bitterly? Did the media pry under every rock in a relentless quest for the truth, or even new evidence?
Of course not! Instead of looking for the truth, Dems and their media enablers looked for new words, coining "swiftboating".
So why are they "swiftboating" Hillary?
ERRATA: Here is a good definition of "swiftboating":
"exposing the lies, deceit and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds."
SEE YOU IN DECEMBER: Newsweek dredges up a WSJ story set in Dubuque, Iowa:
On the campaign trail the Bosnian tarmac anecdote has grown more dramatic. In Dubuque, Iowa, in December, Clinton reportedly asserted that the area was considered too dangerous for her husband to visit. "I was the first high-profile American to go," Clinton told Iowan voters, according to a Wall Street Journal account.
But where is the sniper fire? Glenn Thrush of Newsday had this account from Dubuque, with a Dec 31 date:
VINTON, Iowa - Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton's eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she's looked for an opening to strike back.
On Saturday night in Dubuque she pounced, arguing she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.
Same event? One would think so; where is the video?
Here is the WSJ blog coverage, dated Dec 30:
At an event on Saturday in Dubuque, Clinton, who has been carefully avoiding questions about tea, gently approached the topic. “I was so honored to be able to travel around the world, representing our country, going to places that oftentimes were not necessarily a place the president could go,” Clinton said. She told the audience about a trip to Bosnia in 1996 when the war-torn country was still deemed too dangerous for the president to personally visit. “I was the first high-profile American to go,” Clinton said.
She went on to explain a precarious corkscrew landing and how she had to run out of the airplane because there might have been sniper fire. “I don’t remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac when that was happening,” she said sparking laughter and applause from the audience.
The WaPo blog has a slightly different take, with a Dec 29 date from Dubuque:
She said she saved Kosovar refugees by persuading Macedonia to reopen its border. And in a direct jab back at Obama, she recalled visiting Bosnia on a plane that made a tight corkscrew landing to avoid potential attacks. "Somebody said there might be sniper fire," she said, adding tartly, "I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac."
No explicit sprint on the tarmac here. Here is the Times Caucus blog from Dubuque, Dec 30:
Then, she recounted a trip to Bosnia in 1996 after the Dayton Peace Accords were signed, noting: “I was the first high-profile American to go.”
“We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire,” Mrs. Clinton recalled. “I don’t remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac when that was happening.”
Now she is getting a quick cardio workout again.
That is lots of coverage and broad agreement that she claimed to have been running on the tarmac.
KITCHEN SINK: Team Clinton reprises every Obama stretcher ever.
I think Google might be free.
Posted by: peter | March 25, 2008 at 07:36 PM
I understand its a lifetime subscription.
Not sure, though, whether it's your lifetime or Google's.
I guess if either expires, you're out of luck.
Posted by: SteveMG | March 25, 2008 at 07:39 PM
How many times in the past three months have these two candidates felt compelled to disavow something said by some close associate or staffer? How many times have they been caught in whoppers? From the manner in which they run their campaigns, can we infer anything about how they might run the executive branch of the federal government?
Posted by: Other Tom | March 25, 2008 at 07:42 PM
OT,
I thought it was a new way of selecting the Dem nominee... He/She with the most scalps from the opposing camp and biggest woppers wins.
Posted by: Ranger | March 25, 2008 at 07:46 PM
In that case it looks like it'll be a nail-biter right to the end.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 25, 2008 at 08:00 PM
"And these are the people that are going to track down out-of-control Federal spending?"
What? Whoaaa. Who said anything about tracking down out-of-control Federal spending?
Posted by: hitnrun | March 25, 2008 at 08:17 PM
Yeah, well, at least neither of them lied about WMD in Iraq*.
*Per standard usage in this context, 'lied' means 'agreed with views widely held in the intelligence communities of America and its allies'. 'Neither' means 'except Hillary'.
Posted by: bgates | March 25, 2008 at 08:19 PM
it must suck to me a democrat
Posted by: windansea | March 25, 2008 at 08:34 PM
These two have done what I would have said was impossible, namely, make me wistful for the Mondale-Hart "where's the beef" contest.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 25, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Of for Pete's sake, at least Hillary didn't claim to be in Cambodia with her Magic Hat. Give the gal a break!
Posted by: Sara | March 25, 2008 at 08:37 PM
I think Google might be free.
I'll get on Yahoo and double-check, but that email I got from Nigeria informing me that my subscription payment was late was quite insistent.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | March 25, 2008 at 08:59 PM
'Neither' means 'except Hillary'.
Hmm, here is Barack from 2002:
Why did he lie to us?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | March 25, 2008 at 09:02 PM
The Nation in their infinity wisdom has a a column up by 4 coauthors, Tom Hayden, Danny Glover are two and their leftwing politics are well known. One of the other two is author a highly controversial book "Nickled and Dimed" that UNC Chapel Hill compelled their freshmen to read a few years back and got a rasher full of grief for it.
The title of the piece "Progressives for Obama".
Soon enough Obama is going to be pretending like he cant even spell progressive. But its usefull for the Progs to lay it out for us, so we can show the Muddle when they begin to pay attention.
The Chicago 7, full throated BDS from Mr. Glover and on and on. I wonder if Bellafonte was too busy to take on this deserving project?
Posted by: GMax | March 25, 2008 at 09:08 PM
This is the most fun campaign season I have ever witnessed since I got interested in politics in 1960.
And the fact that Dems are working their "Magic" on each other with tactics normally reserved for Republicans. Priceless.
And we get new gifts from these "smarter than Republicans" almost daily.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 25, 2008 at 09:11 PM
The Nation in their infinity wisdom has a a column up by 4 coauthors, Tom Hayden, Danny Glover are two and their leftwing politics are well known. One of the other two is author a highly controversial book "Nickled and Dimed" that UNC Chapel Hill compelled their freshmen to read a few years back and got a rasher full of grief for it.
The title of the piece "Progressives for Obama".
Soon enough Obama is going to be pretending like he cant even spell progressive. But its usefull for the Progs to lay it out for us, so we can show the Muddle when they begin to pay attention.
The Chicago 7, full throated BDS from Mr. Glover and on and on. I wonder if Bellafonte was too busy to take on this deserving project?
Posted by: GMax | March 25, 2008 at 09:12 PM
Speaking of WMD in Iraq, did anyone watch "Bush's War" on PBS last night? I caught about an hour of the Cheney/Rumsfeld pile on and am tempted to conclude that winners write history, losers interview with Frontline.
To continue my cliche abuse: If you Hill the end, you must Hill the means.
Posted by: Elliott | March 25, 2008 at 09:20 PM
Swiftboating = an inconvenient truth.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 25, 2008 at 09:22 PM
That's a keeper, M. Simon.
Posted by: Elliott | March 25, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Thanks, TM. I suspected I might be misspeaking even as I wrote that. My definition of 'neither' is no longer operative.
Posted by: bgates | March 25, 2008 at 09:33 PM
TM:
Why did he lie to us?
It's racist granny's fault.
Posted by: hit and run | March 25, 2008 at 09:34 PM
Obama should promise to tell the truth about Wrights sermons if Hillary will stop lying about Bosnia. Hillary should promise to tell the truth about Bosnia, if Hillary will stop lying about being in church when Writght was ranting.
Posted by: Fat Man | March 25, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Obama should promise to tell the truth about Wrights sermons if Hillary will stop lying about Bosnia. Hillary should promise to tell the truth about Bosnia, if Obama will stop lying about being in church when Wright was ranting.
Corrected
Posted by: Fat Man | March 25, 2008 at 09:43 PM
Anybody catch "Spiky" Isikoff, trying to softpedal the revelations from Saddam's IIS
files, last week. He focuses on the Kuwaiti
assasination attempt on Bush; which interestingly occurred in the period that Clinton suggested that as a Baptist, he was
forgiving; supposedly they found nothing.
The other big story, is a supposed tape of
Saddam, complaining that the Iraqi, Hakim, that he let into the country,after being involved in the 1st WTC bombing, was part of
some 'Zionist' or other intelligence service. He trumpets the no operational ties
with AQ; although as Thomas Jocelyn points out:
"A clear pattern emerges from the available evidence: Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad were major influences on Osama bin Laden early on, long before their formal merger. There were, of course, tactical differences from time to time, but this never stopped the two groups from working hand-in-glove. In fact, as Wright, al-Zayyat, and other sources have reported, it was Zawahiri and his EIJ lieutenants who steered bin Laden towards the absolute jihadist approach that defines al Qaeda. They were, in fact, always as much a part of al Qaeda as bin Laden himself. It is highly significant, therefore, that the IIS document Pillar and Isikoff refer to says that the IIS and the EIJ had an agreement in place to collude against Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt. (Subsequent documents show that Saddam wanted the EIJ to focus on hunting Americans in Somalia. I’ll have more on this in the near future.)
The evidence is rather unambiguous in this regard. So, we are left with two options: (1) Pillar doesn’t know this, or (2) He is spinning this story to serve his own agenda. Either way, Isikoff’s blind reliance on Pillar to dismiss this important connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda does not inspire confidence.
That anyone could take seriously the Newsweek/Pillar/Democratic Party line: No, no, Saddam didn't support al Qaeda, he only supported Zawahiri--al Qaeda's number two leader and number one theorist--is pathetic."
Posted by: narciso | March 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM
This just in from Gloria Steinem: it was the USA's sexist patriarchy that kept Hillary from serving in Vietnam, denying her chance to be truly swiftboated.
Posted by: Greg Toombs | March 25, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I'm in hopes, narciso, that ongoing revelations from the translations can inform a continuing theme of McCain's campaign from now until November, released as needed.
Heh, I thought that four years ago too.
========================
Posted by: kim | March 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Narciso, If Pillar is not the biggest dumbbell in town he most certainly is working for some foreign agency. That he rose as far as he did in the Agency is as black a mark against it as its most well known intel blunders.
Posted by: clarice | March 25, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Obama should promise to tell the truth about Wrights sermons if Hillary will stop lying about Bosnia. Hillary should promise to tell the truth about Bosnia, if Hillary will stop lying about being in church when Writght was ranting.
No need for a correction.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | March 25, 2008 at 11:02 PM
narciso-
He focuses on the Kuwaiti
assasination attempt on Bush; which interestingly occurred in the period that Clinton suggested that as a Baptist, he was
forgiving; supposedly they found nothing.
Which is curious that Isikoff would write that down seeing as how the US launched a "bombing campaign" after both the CIA and the FBI determined that the IIS instigated the attempt...curious date as well
I'm begining to get that "thou dost protest too much" feel from those that continue to insist on the Iraq-al Qaeda "no operational links" narrative. Just what is in those files that has Pillar et al scared?
Posted by: RichatUF | March 25, 2008 at 11:25 PM
No tea on the tarmac. Will flowers from a little girl do?
Posted by: Other Tom | March 25, 2008 at 11:27 PM
A SILVER STAR FOR HILLARY
As a card carrying member of the VRRC, (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) may I suggest another reaction than simply bashing Hillary yet again. I propose instead that we loudly and publicly clamor for Hillary's deserved award of the U.S. Military's 3rd highest medal, The Silver Star.
World War 2 military buffs among you will recall that that was the medal awarded by General MacArthur to Democratic Congressman Lyndon Johnson for imaginary military combat in World War 2. (google Lyndon Johnson's War Record on Wikipedia ,etc.)
In 1942 Roosevelt sent the young Congressman, (a Reserve Naval Officer) on a 3 man fact finding trip to Australia. As an observer he boarded a B-26, flying with other planes to bomb a Japanese base in New Guinea. Launching from Australia, I now quote from Wikipedia:
"Reports vary on what happened to the B-26 Marauder carrying Johnson. Some accounts say it was also attacked by Japanese fighters but survived, while others, including other members of the flight crew, claimed it turned back due to generator trouble before reaching the objective and before encountering enemy aircraft and never came under fire, which is supported by official flight records. Other airplanes that continued to the target did come under fire near the target at about the same time that Johnson's plane was recorded as having landed back at the original airbase. MacArthur awarded LBJ The Silver Star, the military's third-highest medal, although it is notable that no other members of the flight crew were awarded medals, and it is unclear what Johnson could have done in his role purely as an "observer" to deserve the medal, even if it had seen combat.
Johnson's biographer, Robert Caro, stated "The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Star's in history. Because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star."
As Hillary has already told us 4 or 5 times now, she was personally sent by The President into an active combat zone , because that active combat zone was too poor, or too small, or too dangerous for the President himself to go. And if make believe bullets were enough for Democratic Congressman Johnson to merit America's third-highest military medal, surely Democratic First Lady Hillary's corkscrewing descent and death defying foot-race across the sniper riddled Bosnian Tarmac, with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow's guitar in tow, ought to be a scene of equal luster, well worthy of Military Laurels. Those who oppose this award surely must suffer the pangs of conscience, knowing they are naught but rank sexists, while on the positive side, who could not but applaud Senator Clinton as she could now lend her new won medal to John Kerry so that once again he could throw somebody else's medal over the fence. If there's a down side, I for one, fail to see it.
My reasons thus stated, I now officially nominate Hillary Clinton for The Silver Star. Do I hear a second?
Posted by: Daddy | March 26, 2008 at 12:57 AM
The representative from Nebraska seconds the motion...
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 26, 2008 at 01:04 AM
Team Obama - Someone Buy 'Em A Subscription To Google
Maybe they are afraid of Google-enabled gaffes. Remember what happened when people found the Kenyan constitution online? From Geraghty's post:
Geraghty then quotes the section on which his readers are relying:
Sounds open and shut, right? Well, not quite. Let's keep reading:
So he would have had to renounce his US citizenship to the Kenyan authorities in order to maintain Kenyan nationality. I am going to boldly predict that did not happen.
________________
* Subsection (7) states:
According to a discussion in the House of Lords, Obama may have lost Kenyan citizenship at age 23. Baldilocks says Kenyan law provides that an application can be made for dual citizenship, although one article I found suggests otherwise:
**Links omitted to appease the vengeful deity.
Posted by: Elliott | March 26, 2008 at 02:28 AM
Here's what Typepad was censoring, first in a series:
Kenyan Constitution; Geraghty.
Posted by: Elliott | March 26, 2008 at 02:38 AM
I am going to press my luck and try to link to Lord's Hansard as well as Baldilocks. In the hope that verbosity can aid my defeat of the filter, I will note the possibility that Obama could be a British overseas citizen provided his father's tribal marriage wouldn't cause the British authorities to take the view that he was an illegitimate child. Finally, here is the article I mentioned at the end.
And, yes, I did use Google to find most of them.
Posted by: Elliott | March 26, 2008 at 02:47 AM
I am going to press my luck and try to link to Lord's Hansard as well as Baldilocks. In the hope that verbosity can aid my defeat of the filter, I will note the possibility that Obama is a British overseas citizen. His status may hinge on whether the British authorities take the view that he was an illegitimate child because his father's tribal marriage to a woman in Kenya was valid and in effect when Obama was born. Finally, here is the article I mentioned at the end.
And, yes, I did use Google to find most of the links.
Posted by: Elliott | March 26, 2008 at 02:53 AM
Sorry. I am vanquished in the end.
Posted by: Elliott | March 26, 2008 at 02:55 AM
We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare
that their middle names are their first names for legal purposes.
And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein
for Imam--whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the
first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Welcome to a pork
free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop
to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money
and certainly not in the graveyard. No pork anywhere!
Posted by: zqz | March 26, 2008 at 06:34 AM
As a kid, I just eat up the factoid fillers in the newspaper. Then I graduated to Google later in life. I am amazed that politicians and the media seem to flub stories all of the time when information is at their finger tips. As I found out, even one’s blog comments can be found on Google.
So, my point is that with Youtube, Google and other even better search engines I will only accept misremembering as Mr. McCain did with the al Qaeda in Iran for training "gaffe"; which was by the way correct. (Oh, I Googled that to make sure it was a correct statement. One entry among many http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4099 9/11 Commission Report Page 61 )
Posted by: amr | March 26, 2008 at 08:26 AM
Did Barack Obama Violate the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act?
.. but on his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker" and on his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES."
There's some splain to do.
Posted by: Neo | March 26, 2008 at 08:43 AM
Obama is a dual national? Please look at his church, oprah, Chicago workers party, etc. he's not claiming Kenyan?
Start some blogs.
Posted by: Pegds | March 26, 2008 at 08:49 AM
Michael Isakoff has zero credibility (Mr. Koran flushed down the toilet). He is one of those writers, along with the plagiarist historian Doris Kearnes Goodwin, that had their reputations revived by MSNBC. David Shuster also belongs to that group. No longer can I take seriously anything that Michael Isakoff writes or says.
Posted by: bio mom | March 26, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Google isn't free. Google just takes the pound of flesh from dissidents in Communist China, because, hey, if they didn't somebody else would.
Posted by: PD Quig | March 26, 2008 at 09:23 AM
My I offer a slight deviation from the 24/7 focus on the Dems? Thank you.
Two interesting Polls out today. First the good news, which you've probably already read:
But there's some not so great news for McCain, detailed in Joel C. Rosenberg's McCain’s Evangelical Problem: How McCain can pull ahead of the Dems. The bad news is that McCain is doing poorly among religious voters, a demographic that should normally be a base of support for a GOP candidate. Here's the bad news in a nutshell:
To illustrate the depth of the problem, Rosenberg focuses on James Dobson's views on McCain. Dobson has a laundry list of grievances against McCain, some of them not inconsiderable:
But Rosenberg has a glimmer of hope for all you McCainiacs out there:
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 10:17 AM
May I take another slight detour? Thank you once again:
Per the WSJ:
"Demand for expensive goods fell 1.7% in February, an unexpected decline, while a barometer of capital spending by businesses tumbled 2.6%, a second straight drop. Meanwhile, new-home sales slid 1.8% in February to the lowest mark in 13 years, while the median price also declined to $244,100."
More reason to expect the economy to be a significant issue in the fall. And the economy is always a family issue--one that has a big impact on all those Christian families that are leaning Dem. McCain better have a plan, a message to address this stuff. If he can't offer them a plausible reason to vote for him on religious grounds, he better have some other reason ready.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 10:25 AM
One agrees the economy will be an important issue, anduril, living in South Florida one is particularly cognizant of that; but Hillary's idea is to put the subprime issue
back into the likes of Rubin, who's gambled with our money three times; once on Mexico,
with the devaluation; which showed the Mexicans there's no point to trade liberalization; Enron, another scam, and as
head of CitiGroup's overseas division, trading subprime into the securities deck.
What's Obama's plan, really. McCain has to come up with something, despite that throw
away comment, he's got experience with the
hard assets side of the economy. The real
problem is with the attendant demogoguery
likely to make things worse. The fact that this downturn, appears to be occurring so close to the election is the problem Back in 1988,when there was really was no sign of downturn; Gephardt was recommending a really Smootian package of trade sanctions on Korean & Japanese products "Make the Hyundai cost 15,000" was the slogan. Later as the S&L problem began to manifestitself, the Democrat's solution was to institute a 60 day plant closing notification; which did wonders for consumer confidence, The yacht tax was another brilliant idea. All things that shrunk up revenues making that
downturn, steeper than necessary. Some suggestions of more derivative & hedge fund
trades, don't actually inspire me, because most of the proponents, don't even know how Black Echols works, never mind how to
fix it.
Posted by: narciso | March 26, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Absolutely, narciso. It's not enough to say the Dems have no viable plan, because they've got demagogy, and that works in politics.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Well, there are the voters damned eyes which they can trust.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502298.html?hpid=opinionsbox1>Media Economic Hysteria
Rather like the qvetching that ours is a racist,sexist country, the claims that the economy is in the tank should be met with "Compared to whose?"
Posted by: clarice | March 26, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Good one, Daddy. I remember reading about LBJ's Silver Star during his presidency, and my blood truly boiled (I was in the Navy at the time).
Before anyone lapses into despair over the economy, I would recommend reading Robt. Samuelson's column today.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Great Scott, Clarice--you and I are telepathizing again. (New word.)
Posted by: Other Tom | March 26, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Yeah--well neither of us seems to have a great deal of patience with media ginned up hysteria,OT.
Posted by: clarice | March 26, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Clarice,
It's just a bull market for lemon sucking kvetchers. Perhaps they could sit next to the Warmerists and Peakers in order find a little happiness. Misery loves company and all that.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 26, 2008 at 11:08 AM
OT - hilarious "football" analogy from Ezra Klein:
I guess by "empires" he means "umpires." "Decided on points"? Is that like "winning"?
I do sort of understand what he's trying to say, but maybe he should stay away from talking about football in the future. Some funny comments in the thread.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Well apparently Rev Wright is out insulting Italians now. Seriously, does this guy not know of the concentration of Italians in Pa? He shoots off about Italians, uses a lame garlic slur which if someone called him a watermelon man he would take huge umbrage and gets a little kick in for Catholics at the same time. Is there anyone other than blacks that this guy wont insult?
Obama better extend the Virgin Island get away.
Posted by: GMax | March 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Other news on the logistics front.
Shipping/trucking/railroading/airlift
had a tough year last year. They are hanging on, but no sign of any relief in sight.
A lot of people believe that high fuel prices are starting to bite not just in America, but also the world economy. I believe American oil consumption is down 1 to 2% year over year.
Commodities are are at some of the highest levels ever. If you are in the market it would be wise to look for short selling plays. i.e. companies whose fortunes will rise as commodity prices fall.
Futures are probably unwise at this time due to volatility and margin calls. It is always tough playing that game in any case.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 26, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Watermelon Man
Posted by: M. Simon | March 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Robert Samuelson
Posted by: M. Simon | March 26, 2008 at 11:26 AM
hilarious "football" analogy from Ezra Klein
Ezra Klein explaining football is like Ezra Klein explaining politics. Who is that guy blackmailing to get work as a writer?
Posted by: bgates | March 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
who has a legendary temper and who often uses foul and obscene language.
I guess Dobson has never been in the Navy.
Rule of thumb - using the f word every third word - the sailors are happy. Every second word - the sailors are unhappy. They stop cursing - mutiny is at hand.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Here is Other Tom's recommended reading...
Samuelson...
***********
I'm I idiot, I see that I'm late to the party. Tom has been a posting machine ever since the Dark Lord Rove let the secret out of the bag.
The Samuelson piece is pretty good thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 26, 2008 at 11:46 AM
M.Simon:
First thing that popped into my mind when I read "watermelon Man" in Gmax's post was "Like the Miles Davis song?"
Great minds...
Anyway, WRT anduril's lament for the Christian Right, I wouldn't be too worried.
Most (but not all) are pretty pragmatic when it comes to voting. The vast array of issues on which Hillarity or Obamessiah would be demonstrably worse than McCain will be enough to make them hold their nose and vote the right way.
I haven't truly been satisfied with a candidate since Reagan. My 70-ish parents tell me it's more often like that than not.
And anything James Dobson says must be taken with an enormous grain of salt. A lot of moderate Christians think the guy is a kook, and his real base is only among the very hardcore fundie set. I consider myself pretty fundamentalist and I still want to kick him in the balls on a regular basis.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM
What a really dumbass series of comments, starting with clarice's. Suddenly the statement that there is "reason to expect the economy to be a significant issue in the fall" and the admonition that McCain needs to be prepared to counter demagogy becomes "economic hysteria," to be combated with quotes from Robert Samuelson--who is a normally a notable purveyor of hysteria.
Can I belabor the obvious for a moment? We're talking POLITICS here, not economics. In Clinton's first run, did we really have the worst economy in 50 years? NO. But the point is: WHO WON THE FREAKIN' ELECTION?
Narciso got it: "The real
problem is with the attendant demogoguery... The fact that this downturn, appears to be occurring so close to the election is the problem."
And I echoed: "It's not enough to say the Dems have no viable plan, because they've got demagogy, and that works in politics."
Anyone who thinks that US voters compare the US economy to that of other countries and say, hey, we're better off than they are, is dreaming. US voters ask, are we as well off as we were a few months ago and as we hope to be soon. US voters have high expectations and are not to be fobbed off with assurances that they're better off than people in China, or where ever.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Ouch, anduril. I do realize perception, not reality, is the thing, but did you notice Feb house sales were unexpectedly high? What I think is that while the papers are screaming and geshreiing about the [potenital]homeless and their pets, illegals on the borders are heading home, young couples and working people are finding suddenly affordable housing,and at some point people may think well that may be happening somewhere, but not where I am.And when that happens it loses its immediacy for them.
Posted by: clarice | March 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM
**potential***
Posted by: clarice | March 26, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Anduril, the risk of demagoguery is always there, but these days there are more ways to combat it.
Posted by: michaelt | March 26, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Dumbasses should not throw the first stone to mix a metaphor...
Posted by: GMax | March 26, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Read Samuelson. He says everyone agrees a recession has started--Samuelson LOVES bad news, but he thinks maybe this recession will be milder and shorter than average. That's ECONOMICS, not POLITICS. I was patently talking POLITICS. As narciso understood, the problem is not that we're going into The Great Depression #2 but that a mild, short recession within months of a national election is trouble for an incumbent party. What is so hard to understand about that???
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I throw ideas, dumbass.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 12:14 PM
You throw dumbass ideas and then want to call other posters dumbasses. Project much? Some of the most thoughtful posters on here, you insulted. A gracious individual would, once realizing what he had done, would apologize immediately. I have no such expectation based on watching your act but go ahead and prove me wrong.
Posted by: GMax | March 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Sour grapes. Every time you've tried to go up against me you end up looking foolish. Now all you can do is snipe at me with meaningless name calling.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM
While we wait for the lengthy cut and paste to prove to everyone who scrolls on by it that anduril really has made GMax look foolish...
...New Gallup poll shows large number of Democratic voters ready to support McCain if their candidate doesn't win.
Obama doesn't need google, he needs better PR.
Posted by: Sue | March 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Oh dear.
Did anyone see McCain's speech?
Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Make an ass of yourself if you want to. I was right, you are not even man enough to apologize to the others for insulting them.
You are on my manual ignor function and I just skip over, but I thought on this one I would see if I had you wrong and give you the opportunity to apologize.
Can you even see the irony of your name calling comment?
Posted by: GMax | March 26, 2008 at 12:53 PM
(The "oh dear" was aimed at the brewing cat fight, not the speech. If that Sue hadn't gotten in the way it would have been clearer.)
Meow
Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM
if that Sue hadn't gotten in the way
Sorry. I try to stay silent, mostly, but sometimes the inner me erupts...
Posted by: Sue | March 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM
"Can you even see the irony of your name calling comment?"
Ah, geez. Do you know what I paid for this Krupp Ironiedetektor? "See the irony" to someone who's shown resistance to a 2X4 smack to the forehead? Now I gotta check the warranty and start looking for a repair shop. I knew I should have stuck with Acme. Sure, they're cheap, but when they melt down you just buy another.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 26, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Jane-
Drop a link to McCain's comments-I need a more bad news for the day;) I heard that he gave a speech a few days ago, but haven't seen much about it.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 26, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Rick-
Here is the Durable Goods numbers. A quick glance shows a 10% defense decline and an inventory and backlog build up seems to explain the unexpected decline.
Also had a question and wonder if you could point me in the right direction. I was looking for trade figures from the 1870's to the 1940's and wondered if you knew of a good place where I could download them? (Looking for data on Europe, South America, North America, and whatever I can find on Asia)
Posted by: RichatUF | March 26, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Sorry. I try to stay silent, mostly, but sometimes the inner me erupts...
Thank goodness for that! (Just in case you thought I was serious. If a rumble is erupting, I want you on my side.)
Posted by: Jane | March 26, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Rich,
What you want is Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States - HF 105 .A2 but it's not online AFAICT. 1960 forward is available but not the historical data.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 26, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Rick-
Thanks, exactly what I needed.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 26, 2008 at 02:39 PM
"What a really dumbass series of comments, starting with clarice's. Suddenly the statement that there is 'reason to expect the economy to be a significant issue in the fall' and the admonition that McCain needs to be prepared to counter demagogy becomes 'economic hysteria,' to be combated [sic] with quotes from Robert Samuelson--who is a normally a notable purveyor of hysteria."
Apart from the tortured syntax (the subject is "statement"; what is the verb?), I think you're flattering yourself, Anduril. I can't speak for Clarice, but my post about Samuelson was not a response to your post at all. I didn't even bother to read your post, and was not "combatting" whatever it was you were trying to say.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 26, 2008 at 03:05 PM
"Many economists think a recession has already started."
--Robert Samuelson
"Read Samuelson. He says everyone agrees a recession has started."
--Anduril
Posted by: Other Tom | March 26, 2008 at 03:11 PM
OT, since you ask--and I really wasn't going to bother with this any further--I'll explain.
1. Syntax.
Think of the syntax as basically "the statement x when taken with y becomes z" where:
x = 'reason to expect the economy to be a significant issue in the fall,'
y = the admonition that McCain needs to be prepared to counter demagogy, and
z = 'economic hysteria;'
the verb, of course, is 'becomes.'
Thus, we get:
The statement ['reason to expect the economy to be a significant issue in the fall,'] + the admonition that McCain needs to be prepared to counter demagogy becomes 'economic hysteria.'
While readily comprehensible, I'll agree that the sentence isn't up to my usual standards: you'll grant, I hope, that I usually put some effort into trying to express myself clearly and succeed more often than not. My excuse on this occasion is that I was writing in a pissed off frame of mind. So let's rephrase that sentence:
"Suddenly, my statement that there is 'reason to expect the economy to be a significant issue in the fall' (coupled with the admonition that McCain needs to be prepared to counter demagogy regarding the state of the economy) has become 'economic hysteria,' to be combated [sic] by quoting the title of an article by Robert Samuelson--who is himself normally a notable purveyor of hysteria."
As for 'combated,' I did originally spell it 'combatted,' but the spell checker underlined that in red. Apparently like you, I object to certain modern trends in spelling, but I've given up fighting them, so I changed my original spelling to 'combated.'
2. So, why was I in a pissed off frame of mind?
Because I took clarice's post to be a direct response to the last line of my post (my emphasis in what follows):
I took that to mean that clarice was accusing me of purveying "economic hysteria"--the close connection of the title of the article expresses that quite clearly, and the asperity conveyed by the use of the word 'damned' strengthens the impression. As if that weren't bad (and unjustified) enough, clarice followed up by comparing people who claim that the economy is in the tank (not at all what I was saying) to people who "kvetch" (something I never do) "that ours is a racist, sexist country." Will you grant me that that is a wholly unwarranted comparison? The view that the economy is heading into a recession (the view of "many economists") is one that can be argued pro and con based on the numbers, and I'm willing to engage in that discussion if need be. But the view that the US is a racist and sexist country seems to me to be a very different sort of view from an evaluation of economic data. So, yes, I felt I had grounds for being pissed off. If I had misrepresented you as outrageously, I'd be willing to bet you'd by pissed off, too.
clarice's immediate response to me did not in any way deny that her post was directed at me (full disclosure: I did peak up the thread before posting to see whether anyone was discussing the economy, so I was pretty sure already). While clarice's second post was expressed in a more moderate tone, she expressed no comprehension of how objectionable I found her misrepresentation of my views: she had accused me by implication of spreading "economic hysteria," of claiming that the the economy is "in the tank," and lumped me in with people whose company she had to know I would find highly objectionable. In other words, the general tenor of clarice's remarks consigned me to the lunatic fringe. I could handle that if based on honest and justified analysis of my remarks, but not based on patent misrepresentation.
Adding to my irritation was the fact that what I was saying in my original post was quite readily comprehensible, despite its less than optimum syntax. narciso's response demonstrated that he easily understood the point that I was trying to make about the effect the economic situation could have on the political situation and that there was no reasonable basis for misinterpreting my meaning. An added element of irony is the fact that Samuelson's article is actually, if anything, supportive of my views. While Samuelson doesn't address the election in his article, I doubt that he would quarrel with my contention that a recession of the type he describes could certainly affect the outcome of the election. Anyone who actually read Samuelson and compared it with what I had written would easily see that.
3. Self flattery.
OT, I usually read your posts in threads in which I participate. However, this morning, in my pissed off frame of mind, I skipped over your very brief post--perhaps because it starts out addressing matters in which I have no interest--and instead read Rick's post after clarice's. His post was typically dumbass. It merely piggybacked on clarice's outrageous misrepresentations and was written with the obvious intention of irritating, rather than offering any legitimate comment.
So, my "dumbass" response was directed basically at clarice and Rick, and there was no intended suggestion that you were included--especially in that your brief remarks don't have any direct bearing on my post. You were caught in the crossfire, so to speak. I will add, however, that if you skip my posts, you're losing out. Do I flatter myself now?
4. Your comparison of my and Samuelson's statements.
If your comparison of the two statements--in which I say "everyone" and Samuelson says "many economists"--is intended as criticism, I'd say you're being rather picky. Yes, I indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but I think you knew that and I think you understood my point.
5. McCain's remarks on the economy--specifically the parts of the economy that are affected by the housing market--suggest that he and his advisers are thinking along the same lines as I was in my initial post. It seems apparent that McCain recognizes the risk a recession or even a sluggish economy could pose for his candidacy and is trying to stake out some sort of principled position.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 06:27 PM
anduril, I apologize if you thought I was accusing YOU of economic hysteria..indeed I believe I agreed that perception in politics counts more than actuality. It's been hours since the post but I actually think I just noticed it on Lucianne and posted it here without any particular attempt to attack you or refute what you said. I was simply struck by the fact that even Samuelson of all people thought the media economic reporting was someone hysteric..I know I've been making fun of it for months.
Posted by: clarice | March 26, 2008 at 06:37 PM
clarice, I just rechecked the time stamps and noticed that there's a 27 minute difference between the two posts--I was chasing around several things and assumed they were more closely connected in time. Perhaps I flew off the handle--I will admit that I had something rather specific in mind at the time, and was shocked that my post seemed to have been taken so far out of its intended spirit. If you'll accept my apology then everything will be cancelled out--woops, OT, canceled: see, no redlining.
Posted by: anduril | March 26, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Well, I was strapping on my sword and practicing my Inago Montoya speech promising revenge, but oh shucks, all right,anduril.(Hugs)
Posted by: clarice | March 26, 2008 at 09:55 PM