This is damn funny - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 12-12-2007, 11:16 AM

This MIGHT belong in humor, but here goes.

Hillary attacks Obama as unelectable, wait for it, for wanting to ban all handguns.

http://www.nysun.com/article/67905

Quote:

Ah, what a wonderful thing is democracy. It may have its flaws, but there's nothing better, particularly the pleasures of a national election with early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. What else to make of the latest press release from Senator Clinton's campaign, touting Senator Obama's one-time support of "banning all handguns" as evidence that calls Mr. Obama's "electability" into question?

Well, it's a pleasure to welcome Mrs. Clinton to the Second Amendment side of the debate. It's a new development; back in 2000, when Mrs. Clinton was running for Senate, she backed the "Million Mom March" for gun control, and, according to CNN, told the Newspaper Association of America, "We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference." When she ran for re-election in 2006, she earned a rating of "F" from the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund.

For some the gun issue is about the Constitution; for Mrs. Clinton, it's apparently about "electability." We're less concerned about her motive than amused to see our senator attacking Mr. Obama from the right over the right-to-keep-and-bear-arms — and in a year that has seen high-profile deadly shooting sprees at Virginia Tech, Colorado churches, and a Nebraska shopping mall. To those who say this is no way to elect a president, here's an example of the way in which the prospect of confronting voters in an election pulls a politician closer to a mainstream policy position.

Ok, do we call this flip floppin, vote whoring, or some other term?

Plan9 · 12-12-2007, 11:34 AM

Douche-baggin'.

They're stuffed-shirt, plastic-face government people. They like guns as much as they like bad hair days.

Who gives a damn about guns, anyway? I want a President who will work on our country instead of force-feeding our lifestyle on and giving our tax dollars to ungrateful fucks who'll probably end up attacking us in 100 years. All the firearms I have sitting in the safe? Furniture. Hobby. Lust vice.

Ustwo · 12-12-2007, 11:41 AM

Hilary Clinton has been pretending to be a good little moderate since she got elected.

Saying the right things, following the polls, only doing fluff interviews where they won't call her out on any questions she doesn't want to answer.

This is just a symptom of that, nothing more.

host · 12-12-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This MIGHT belong in humor, but here goes.

Hillary attacks Obama as unelectable, wait for it, for wanting to ban all handguns.

http://www.nysun.com/article/67905

Ok, do we call this flip floppin, vote whoring, or some other term?

IMO, nothing to see here folks, move along....

<h3>Why is it always reflexive discussion for discussion's sake? Why is it so rare for anyone here to research the background of a new thread presentation, before assembling it, reacting to it, and posting it all, followed by comments of those who have taken it all at face value?

I see very little concern for knowing about what we are about to post about. Why is that the norm?
</h3>

Right "leaning" politico.com "distorter", Mike Allen (I have enough citations of his flawed "reporting" to fill a few "too long"posts)....writes a "non-story", that he admits is a "non-story"....

Clinton's campaign STAFF turns it into a negative press release aimed at Obama, something that campaign staffs are paid to do....

Right "leaning" nysun.com editorializes on the hypocrisy of Clinton, while at the same time, using the incident to stress the extreme views of Obama.

All of it is sourced from decisions by campaign staff...Obama's campaign manager in 1996, and Clinton's campaign staff yesterday, and supplied to the "sleuth", politico's Mike Allen, and dksuddeth "serves it up", here.

So what is there to discuss?

Quote:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...7DE179B9A5D1D5
Liberal views could haunt Obama
By: Mike Allen and Ben Smith
December 12, 2007 06:43 AM EST

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns.

Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, Obama answered “yes” or “no” — without using the available space to calibrate his views — on some of the most emotional and politically potent issues that a public official can confront.

“Do you support … capital punishment?” one question asked.

“No,” the 1996 Obama campaign typed, without explaining his answer in the space provided.

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

Obama said he would support a single-payer health plan for Illinois “in principal” [sic], “although such a program will probably have to be instituted at a federal level; the long-term objective would be a universal care system that does not differentiate between the unemployed, the disabled, and so on.” The campaign says Obama has consistently supported single payer health care in principle.

Under single-payer health care, a government system would replace private health insurance. Obama’s campaign said he has always supported the idea in concept, but thinks it is not currently practical because of the existing health care infrastructure.

<h3>The questionnaire, which was provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign</h3>, raises questions of whether Obama can be painted as too liberal and whether he is insufficiently consistent.

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, <h3>an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”</h3>

The campaign said his views have been consistent, and points out that his positions have always been more nuanced than can be conveyed in yes-or-no answers.

Obama, who makes an issue of his opponents’ consistency in the presidential race, has tempered many of those 1996 views during his quick rise to the pinnacle of American politics. He now takes less dogmatic positions many of those hot-button issues — in the view of some Democrats, he abandoned the stands as he rose through the ranks. ....

Notice that politico admitted verifying whether Obama Barak had even filled out the "smoking gun" 1996 questionnaire, i.e., by contacting his "campaign manager at the time"....either Obama or his campaign manager, in 1996 could have truthfully written, "I have not previously been a candidate."

politico's reporters did not verify that Obama filled out the eleven years old questionnaire, admitted it, but posted the report anyway, slanted as if Obama had personally supplied the views that it goes on to criticize.

Clinton's campaign staff reacted to Mike Allen's misleading garbage very much as dksuddeth, Ustwo, and crompsin (so far.....) have reacted to it....as if it said something.....it doesn't !!!!!!!!!!!

The only basis to justify the intent of this thread as a vehicle to stress hypocrisy, would be if Obama and Clinton were both accurately quoted espousing the opinions that the NY Sun editorial credits each with. Otherwise, it seems that it was a slow day at the Clinton campaign opposition research department, and they "took the bait" from politico/Mike Allen:

Quote:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/r.../view/?id=4655
12/11/2007
Obama Forced to Defend Electability in Face of New Poll & Discovery of Questionnaire

Barack Obama’s campaign is on the defensive about his electability today in the face of a new CBS/New York Times poll showing voters find Hillary Clinton far more electable and a news report showing Sen. Obama previously held positions - such as banning all handguns - that he no longer claims to espouse.

The new CBS/NYT poll released yesterday reveals that voters -- by wide margins -- think Hillary Clinton is the Democrat with the best chance of winning the general election. Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent), more than four times the number chose Obama (14 percent), believe Hillary is the best bet for taking back the White House. The poll comes on the heels of others showing very similar findings: a CNN poll from last week shows Hillary more than doubling Obama (53-25) on who has the best chance to beat the Republican nominee, LA Times/Bloomberg has Hillary leading 54-17 on the same question, and a Time poll from mid-November shows Hillary is by far the most likely to win the general election (76-23 versus 61-38 for Obama).

And a revealing new report today in the Politico uncovers a 1996 voter questionnaire that then-state senate candidate Obama filled out that raises questions about "whether he is insufficiently consistent."

Specifically, the article says that while Obama was previously "flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns," he has since been criticized for "abandon[ing] the stands as he rose through the ranks." The article notes that "Obama, who makes an issue of his opponents’ consistency in the presidential race, has tempered many of those 1996 views during his quick rise to the pinnacle of American politics."

In response, the Obama campaign has found itself on the defensive about its candidate’s general election viability.

roachboy · 12-12-2007, 12:14 PM

there has been a series of analytic articles in the ny times and elsewhere lately that talk about the lack of traction that republicans are getting for their pet issues, espoused by the range of potential candidates in the bizarre-o horserace that primary season has turned into. so i would expect to see alot of this kind of stuff--the fabrication that was repeated in the op, the gearing of the non-story around freaking out the gun people, constituency maintenance stuff.

keep the conservatives in line in a kind of pavlovian way while the party stumbles about trying to find an embodied message that will change its fortunes.
insofar as this kind of infotainment seems directed at conservatives, it seems to work.

two broader questions:

why are we paying attention to these campaigns this early? what is the function of the continual coverage of the primary primary?

doesn't it make sense to assume that every candidate is altering position, jockeying to find the memes that will enable them to generate an illusion of promise for real change while not freaking out folk by actually appearing to mean it. it seems to me that the republicans are doing the same thing--but there it's "adjustment" and amongst the democrats, its "flip flopping" or "vote whoring"

like i said, conservatives apparently really respond to negative stimulation.

host · 12-12-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

keep the conservatives in line in a kind of pavlovian way while the party stumbles about trying to find an embodied message that will change its fortunes.
insofar as this kind of infotainment seems directed at conservatives, it seems to work.

rb, do you think that it will be the taxpayers footing the bill for mopping up the pavlovian saliva flowing as a result of this process?

Sheesh.....campaign staff get paid to be this reflexively partisan....we "the people", don't.

roachboy · 12-12-2007, 12:26 PM

this is the up and down side of pitching a political ideology around a sense of identity---us/them, classic evangelical protestant stuff---anyway, you generate positive and negative reinforcement points--negative in that the center of being-conservative is a sense of self-as-conservative and so moving too much in a political direction that'd run counter to this is a problem--positive in the sense that particular arguments from particular candidates give a content to this identity, help it line up.

i think this is really quite different from the way in which the democratic party works--it benefits from the reversal of this (i am sure that many folk modulate their politics by not wanting to drift into conservativeland)--but it (identity) is not at the center of the official party ideology.

at the same time, this identity politics is only central to a particular region of the republican coalition--it just happens to be a region over-represented here.

Ustwo · 12-12-2007, 12:26 PM

You know, if you made 1/2 the excuses for republicans, you would have nothing to post about.

He/his campaign filled out the form, ok fine, maybe its not his 'real' position. Of course if its not than what the hell were they doing filling out said form.

DEMOCRATS are attacking him for it, directly off the Hilary web site.

You have made excuses for Obama AND Hilary. Its their staffs fault, not theirs.

So when a democrat is president, the buck will no longer stop HERE eh?

roachboy · 12-12-2007, 12:33 PM

your post presupposes that there's something to take seriously from the op that is not locked entirely into the private world of the american far right.

there isn't.

you can try to argue that the story in the op is not problematic, but that'd require you actually engage with information that you don't like--i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

but if you don't engage with it, it seems to me that you simply rule yourself out of a meaningful conversation.
so it goes.

host · 12-12-2007, 12:50 PM

Ustwo, the excerpt of the NY Sun editorial in the OP, asks this question:

Quote:

What else to make of the latest press release from Senator Clinton's campaign, touting Senator Obama's one-time support of "banning all handguns" as evidence that calls Mr. Obama's "electability" into question?

I think that I did "make something else out of it. Something closer to what actually happened, than Mike Allen at politico, the Clinton campaign staff, the NY Sun editorial board, dksuddeth, or you have made out of it.

My main point is that there was no basis for Mike Allen's article, since he couldn't confirm that Obama ever knew of the questionnaire of 11 years ago.

There is no basis for belief that Clinton read or approved the press release about Obama's campaign being "put on the defensive" by the politico article.

So, again, what is there to discuss? Last night, I posted a report of Bush denying knowing of the existence of the destroyed CIA tapes, until last thursday, and whether his denial conflicted with reports of Harriet Meiers, the asst. white house chief of staff, knowing about the tapes, and admonishing the CIA not to destroy them, back in 2003.

Can you see why there is something to discuss about that, but not enough, here? There are no reports that Obama knew about the questionnaire or that he filled it out himself. There are no reports that Clinton knew about the campaign PR related to the politico article.

How do you decide what, and what not...to discuss. Is it all a visceral process, with you?

dksuddeth · 12-12-2007, 01:53 PM

Well, first off I was mainly making the post because I thought the complete hypocrisy of hillary clintons campaign, specifically to this issue, was damn funny as it ties to attacking a rival in the democrat race.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I think that I did "make something else out of it. Something closer to what actually happened, than Mike Allen at politico, the Clinton campaign staff, the NY Sun editorial board, dksuddeth, or you have made out of it.

My main point is that there was no basis for Mike Allen's article, since he couldn't confirm that Obama ever knew of the questionnaire of 11 years ago.

There is no basis for belief that Clinton read or approved the press release about Obama's campaign being "put on the defensive" by the politico article.

So, again, what is there to discuss? Last night, I posted a report of Bush denying knowing of the existence of the destroyed CIA tapes, until last thursday, and whether his denial conflicted with reports of Harriet Meiers, the asst. white house chief of staff, knowing about the tapes, and admonishing the CIA not to destroy them, back in 2003.

Can you see why there is something to discuss about that, but not enough, here? There are no reports that Obama knew about the questionnaire or that he filled it out himself. There are no reports that Clinton knew about the campaign PR related to the politico article.

How do you decide what, and what not...to discuss. Is it all a visceral process, with you?

Secondly, Obama was an Illinois state senator out of the chicago area. This alone tells me he's an anti-gun nut. That and the following,

Quote:

'Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.'

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Now, knowing these little tidbits about Obama is not what I found funny.

THIS is what I found funny, that she would attack Obama for nothing more than she, herself, supported.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hill...un_Control.htm

Now, host, if it is YOUR contention that all of these clinton or obama views were put out by their campaign, without their knowledge or approval, You've taken a serious credibility hit.

Of course, if you're also trying to state that because there is no official acknowledgement by the clinton campaign that she wrote, endorsed, published, circulated, and held a press conference about the electability of Obama because he wanted to ban handguns, then she really didn't know a thing about it......maybe you'd be right. But that would be so clintonesque, say?

Willravel · 12-12-2007, 02:00 PM

Hilary Clinton isn't a Democrat any more than Bush is conservative. If Obama isn't president it'll be because he wasn't sleeping with Bill or enough campaign contributors and lobbyists.

I'm pretty sure RP is pro guns and I know Kucinich is for some gun control.

People should pay attention to voting records, not public BS like this.
This has all you need to know about Barak Obama and gun control. Hilary probably owns a gun, but he never inhaled.

loquitur · 12-13-2007, 10:24 AM

Under the heading of stuff I thought was funny, this is top of today's list. Of course, a picture of myself from back in those days would be pretty hilarious too.

Shauk · 12-13-2007, 10:46 AM

Hillary would make a horrible president. She's so anti gaming media it's sick. To her I say http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/joysti...on-keynote.mp3

listen to the whole thing, he will get to hillary

Willravel · 12-13-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Under the heading of stuff I thought was funny, this is top of today's list. Of course, a picture of myself from back in those days would be pretty hilarious too.

Loquitur wins the internet. Thanks for playing everyone.

12-12-2007, 11:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Douche-baggin'. They're stuffed-shirt, plastic-face government people. They like guns as much as they like bad hair days. Who gives a damn about guns, anyway? I want a President who will work on our country instead of force-feeding our lifestyle on and giving our tax dollars to ungrateful fucks who'll probably end up attacking us in 100 years. All the firearms I have sitting in the safe? Furniture. Hobby. Lust vice. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 12-12-2007 at 11:37 AM..

12-12-2007, 11:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Hilary Clinton has been pretending to be a good little moderate since she got elected. Saying the right things, following the polls, only doing fluff interviews where they won't call her out on any questions she doesn't want to answer. This is just a symptom of that, nothing more. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-12-2007, 12:14 PM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there has been a series of analytic articles in the ny times and elsewhere lately that talk about the lack of traction that republicans are getting for their pet issues, espoused by the range of potential candidates in the bizarre-o horserace that primary season has turned into. so i would expect to see alot of this kind of stuff--the fabrication that was repeated in the op, the gearing of the non-story around freaking out the gun people, constituency maintenance stuff. keep the conservatives in line in a kind of pavlovian way while the party stumbles about trying to find an embodied message that will change its fortunes. insofar as this kind of infotainment seems directed at conservatives, it seems to work. two broader questions: why are we paying attention to these campaigns this early? what is the function of the continual coverage of the primary primary? doesn't it make sense to assume that every candidate is altering position, jockeying to find the memes that will enable them to generate an illusion of promise for real change while not freaking out folk by actually appearing to mean it. it seems to me that the republicans are doing the same thing--but there it's "adjustment" and amongst the democrats, its "flip flopping" or "vote whoring" like i said, conservatives apparently really respond to negative stimulation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-12-2007, 12:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this is the up and down side of pitching a political ideology around a sense of identity---us/them, classic evangelical protestant stuff---anyway, you generate positive and negative reinforcement points--negative in that the center of being-conservative is a sense of self-as-conservative and so moving too much in a political direction that'd run counter to this is a problem--positive in the sense that particular arguments from particular candidates give a content to this identity, help it line up. i think this is really quite different from the way in which the democratic party works--it benefits from the reversal of this (i am sure that many folk modulate their politics by not wanting to drift into conservativeland)--but it (identity) is not at the center of the official party ideology. at the same time, this identity politics is only central to a particular region of the republican coalition--it just happens to be a region over-represented here. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-12-2007, 12:26 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You know, if you made 1/2 the excuses for republicans, you would have nothing to post about. He/his campaign filled out the form, ok fine, maybe its not his 'real' position. Of course if its not than what the hell were they doing filling out said form. DEMOCRATS are attacking him for it, directly off the Hilary web site. You have made excuses for Obama AND Hilary. Its their staffs fault, not theirs. So when a democrat is president, the buck will no longer stop HERE eh? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-12-2007, 12:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	your post presupposes that there's something to take seriously from the op that is not locked entirely into the private world of the american far right. there isn't. you can try to argue that the story in the op is not problematic, but that'd require you actually engage with information that you don't like--i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. but if you don't engage with it, it seems to me that you simply rule yourself out of a meaningful conversation. so it goes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-12-2007, 02:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hilary Clinton isn't a Democrat any more than Bush is conservative. If Obama isn't president it'll be because he wasn't sleeping with Bill or enough campaign contributors and lobbyists. I'm pretty sure RP is pro guns and I know Kucinich is for some gun control. People should pay attention to voting records, not public BS like this. This has all you need to know about Barak Obama and gun control. Hilary probably owns a gun, but he never inhaled.

12-13-2007, 10:24 AM	#13 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Under the heading of stuff I thought was funny, this is top of today's list. Of course, a picture of myself from back in those days would be pretty hilarious too.

12-13-2007, 10:46 AM	#14 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	Hillary would make a horrible president. She's so anti gaming media it's sick. To her I say http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/joysti...on-keynote.mp3 listen to the whole thing, he will get to hillary