Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 21, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Western U.S. Faces Worsening Wildfires




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Inside WikiLeaks

Inside WikiLeaks

By Daniel Domscheit-Berg
$15.64

more items

 
A/V Booth

Clinton Caught Xeroxing

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 22, 2008
Obama and Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been stirring up the Internet and more than a few journalists with accusations of word borrowing, a charge she pressed (to the dismay of the audience) at Thursday’s Democratic debate with Barack Obama. But in that same venue, it appears she may have borrowed a few words of her own.

Obama has used a few lines almost verbatim from friend and adviser Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, a practice Clinton described in the debate as “change you can Xerox.”

But the Obama campaign and Talking Points Memo each found a different line in Clinton’s remarks that bore a resemblance to the words of others.

Hillary Clinton scored with “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.” In 1992, Bill Clinton told The New York Times: “The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

Another popular line closely resembled something John Edwards once said, and is captured through the magic of video below.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cyrena, February 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

•  “You are living in a cyberspace bubble.  When I talk to Obama supporters and others who are not supporting Hillary, her vote for the Iraq War resolution is not nearly as critical to them as it seems to be to many here: they are more interested in what she plans to do NOW, to end the war. “

Humm, another example of the power of rhetorical lies and the twisting of words, to accuse the ‘other’ (whomever it might be) of exactly the same behavior upon which one’s OWN perfidy is situated.

Maani has ‘talked to PEOPLE’. What/who,(people) when, where, how many, AND WHAT WERE THE EXACT QUESTIONS THAT WERE PUT FORTH? He’ll never say.

Now he’s been forced to admit that it was NOT Hillary’s “original plan” to begin a draw down of troops in Iraq, but rather Obama’s plan, to which Hillary switched her own campaign to suit what she has never gone on the record as accepting as the most critical issue for Americans. Rather, she’s never admitted her continuing blunders or tried to make a dent in her warmongering position/policy, because she and people like Maani have refused to listen to the people when they make that point. They’d rather lie and deny, and ‘blame’ it on ‘the media’ or anyone else. And of course in so doing, they continue to INSULT the ‘majority’ of the people.

Maani et al continues to deny that is the WAR that Hillary not only originally authorized, and has CONTINUED TO SUPPORT through her Congressional record until recently, he then blames Hillary’s continued sinking in the numbers, on people just being ‘visceral’ in their ‘dislike’ of Hillary, instead of accepting that people are positive in the support of Obama, based on his positions, policies, and stand on these most critical issues. Anyone who doesn’t see or acknowledge that, is well like…, LIVING IN A CYBERSPACE BUBBLE, or indulging in major denial or just plain perfidy and deceit.

At the end of the day, the REAL ‘majority’ see it as an insult from the likes of people like Maani and DC, and the tactic backfires. Because, it isn’t just Barack Obama who is insulted when his supporters are referenced as a “Cult” or engaging in mindless support without having examined the issues. That pisses everybody off, because…It’s like I’ve said dozens of times before…we’re smarter than we look.

Too bad Hillary and her supporters haven’t figured that out, and changed their tactics. Or, maybe it’s only too bad for her and her ‘win at any/all costs’ policy/theme/ideology.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-
picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/

Report this

By Maani, February 26, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

mtw:

I stand (actually, sit) corrected.  The date on my source was incorrect.  Obama put forth that idea in September 2007; Hilary in December 2007.  The source I found was misdated December “2006.”

Sorry.

Peace.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 26, 2008 at 3:07 am Link to this comment

#By Maani, February 25: ”...the underlying, ingrained sexism and misogyny in this country (and, indeed, most of the world) that has helped… to undermine her candidacy…”

Nice to know that it is really Obama doing the attacking and smearing in public, though - “Obama: Clinton “periodically (monthly, that is)... attacks to boost appeal” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNpeGPdhEw

#By Paracelsus, February 25: ”..the slanderer is said to clean the target of karma by taking on the the target’s karmas. In Judaism, the slanderer is compared to a murderer for he causes the victim to whiten in the face from the heart losing its beat…”

Thus we injure and kill each other, Paracelsus. Call it slander or black magic, the effect is about the same. It is aimed intentionally and it disrupts the person’s emotions, and in turn, their endocrine system. And then others fear as a result.

But jealousy and envy and hatred and contempt also have their barbs. They are like the poison of snakes and scorpions…....and everything that crawls, uhh. People are ‘struck’ by the malicious thoughts and feelings of others.

Report this

By mtw, February 25, 2008 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maani:

I’m afraid you’ve mixed up who first suggested a one to two brigades at a time draw down rate. Obama published his Iraq plan with this language last September. For a long time Clinton was vague about what would be an appropriate rate of draw down. Only recently has she adopted Obama’s “one to two brigades” language.

Peace to you as well.

Report this

By Maani, February 25, 2008 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

Joe:

There is a vast difference between “name-calling” (which I’m sure Hillary couldn’t care less about) and the underlying, ingrained sexism and misogyny in this country (and, indeed, most of the world) that has helped (non-exclusively) to undermine her candidacy.  It is that endemic, systemic sexism that I am talking about, as expressed by the comment I cited.

Peace.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 25, 2008 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

I have only repeated what you, yourself, had said. Now people may know your character or lack of it. In some religions, the slanderer is said to clean the target of karma by taking on the the target’s karmas. In Judaism, the slanderer is compared to a murderer for he causes the victim to whiten in the face from the heart losing its beat for the loss of reputation.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 25, 2008 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

http://www.spp.gov/pdf/spp_reg_coop_final.pdf

If you would read the above document you will find that the SPP is working on cooperative framework on regulations and laws regarding trade, products, and other standards. This would mean the three NA nations would be standardizing their laws so that from the southern border of Mexico to the northern reaches of Canada, businesses can expect to conform to the same laws. This a merger of three nations by fait accompli. This harmonization process can occur with plausible deniablilty. The Trans Texas Corridor can be plausibly denied as a NAU transit system, and yet through condemnations and “Christmas Day” legislations it will proceed until it is too late for opposition to build up. To many Europeans the Treaty of Rome was just a trade treaty, but they woke up finding all of a sudden that they had no natioanl currency and were ruled by a supra national parlaiment that they play no part in electing. It was all done through a “harmonization” process. Remember lying is a military tactic.

Report this

By Joe, February 25, 2008 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maani objects:

“What a sexist comment!  I doubt seriously that you would use the word “shrill” if Hillary were a man.

Maani-  I’ve made this point elsewhere but will repeat it here. If Hillary and her activist daughter cannot handle semi-tough campaign language, how will their proposed Administration handle a phased or staggered nuclear attack on this country or its allies? Phased in this context meaning that one or two fission detonations take place over a day or two, followed by a cruise missile strike of unknown origin, followed by a low-level multiple ballistic missile strikes from scattered sites near, say, the Urals or the offshore Korean/Chinese border region. Such a series of strikes, known by some as a shell-game, are almost impossible to respond to in a logical or morally useful fashion. Communications would be disrupted, commerce halted, panicked citizens creating internal havoc, hospitals rendered useless. China and Japan call in all their chips, cashing-in two or three trillion dollars of their US Treasury Bonds…demanding hard payment rather than nosediving paper dollars.

So Hillary’s having a hard time with name-calling, is she?

Report this

By Maani, February 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

Aegrus:

That’s the best you can do?  LOL.  Besides, you are one of the ones here who has consistently touted Obama NOT so much for “the issues” as for his ability to “inspire” - i.e., his rhetoric and character.  So don’t get all “issue-y” on me NOW…LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By Aegrus, February 25, 2008 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Stick to the issues!

Report this

By Maani, February 25, 2008 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Although I’m sure everyone here will think I’ve TRULY gone off the deep end (if they do not think so already…LOL), I cannot help but agree with all but the very last paragraph of this NYT Op-Ed by…Bill Kristol.  (And no, I am not a neocon, and never have been.  But that doesn’t mean I cannot agree with one on occasion…LOL).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Report this

By Hammo, February 25, 2008 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

Voters may be focusing on the stark contrast of Obama and Clinton on the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush administration ... which is sinking Clinton in the polls and primary voting.

And, voters may be getting past a candidate like Obama whose dad was African.

Food for thought in the article ...

“Obama’s Iraq position, mixed ethnicity are key factors”

By Steve Hammons
AmericanChronicle.com
February 22, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53128

Report this

By Maani, February 25, 2008 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“The war, the simple fact that Hillary with all the experience, all the kings men voted to go to a war for opportunists.  Hillary should never have voted for the war, and she should be totally against it now.”

And she is, as much as Obama.  It was HER original plan to start withdrawing “one to two brigades at a time” - a plan that Obama copied.  It was SHE who (at no little politic risk) basically called Gen. Petraeus a liar during his testimony on the surge.  Amd it is SHE who was vehement and vocal against Bush’s attempt to create permanent military bases in Iraq.  So, yes, she is “totally against it now,” as much or moreso than Obama.

“I do feel Hillary knows the people and obviously she does not know how bad her vote for the war makes her look or she would be trying to end it and bring the troops home.”

You are living in a cyberspace bubble.  When I talk to Obama supporters and others who are not supporting Hillary, her vote for the Iraq War resolution is not nearly as critical to them as it seems to be to many here: they are more interested in what she plans to do NOW, to end the war.  Rather, the majority of people I have spoken with are more “visceral” in their dislike of Hillary; i.e., it has little to do with substance or policy, and much to do with feelings that have been generated by a combination of SOME legitimate gripes about her and ALOT of stuff that can be squarely blamed on the PERCEPTION of her that has been created over time by the right wing and the media.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 25, 2008 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Kim:

“She is not being well served by her campaign, they are making her look shrill and unlikable.”

What a sexist comment!  I doubt seriously that you would use the word “shrill” if Hillary were a man who was expressing his anger at being misrepresented.  Yes, Hillary (and Bill) have made errors in the campaign, and they can be faulted for those errors.  However, your comment is just another example of the ingrained, underlying sexism that has been an unconscious part of both the media and general public negativity toward her.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 25, 2008 at 6:33 am Link to this comment

The war, the simple fact that Hillary with all the experience, all the kings men voted to go to a war for opportunists.  Hillary should never have voted for the war, and she should be totally against it now. 

We the people are responsible for the deaths of millions of people, while we eat our cheesecake, I find that irresistible.  In fact I would vote out any politician that voted to let Bush have his war.

You feel Hillary has the experience edge on world policy, being on the committee of emerging Threats, seems to have missed the threats all the way around, I see nothing but a cluster F. 

I do not hate Hillary, but I do feel Hillary knows the people and obviously she does not know how bad her vote for the war makes her look or she would be trying to end it and bring the troops home.

Report this

By bc41, February 24, 2008 at 11:33 pm Link to this comment

Don’t think the eloquence is of any high level anyway. Means something to the people who thought it up, often that isn’t the politician.  Still Obama leans too much on its use and should stop before facing republicans.  He has a very quick mind and is a natural with logic, those things will win him the job.  I’d go with the public financing too when his first line in a TV ad is, “I’m going to end the war and bring our troops home.”  That’s what the country has waited for, that’s what Maine voted for, and South Dakota to name a few.

Report this

By Maani, February 24, 2008 at 9:13 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“Obama offers the some old crap but with less joining at the hip to my favorite neighborhood lobbyist’s.”

Hillary took around $800,000 from lobbyists - out of a total raised of over $125 million.  Is that REALLY cause for concern?  And if we are talking about the past, Obama took MORE lobbyist money during his 2005 campaign for U.S. Senate than Hillary did for her re-eletion campaign.


“Less experience means Obama has not worked for Wall Mart, would that qualify as substance?”

Why does working for Wal-Mart disqualify someone for higher office?  Because she was unable to do anything about their anti-union and labor practices?  Did it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe (and, yes, I’m being sarcastic) - she COULDN’T do anything?  That she was (i) the newest member of the board, (ii) the only woman, (iii) disliked by Sam Walton, and (iv) on a board packed with Walton loyalists?  So she “chose her battle” and instead moved Wal-Mart toward greater eco-friendliness and sustainability - something of a triumph, given the above.

“Obama is not married to Bill Clinton, that may be substance for some people not wanting to vote for Hillary.”

Can’t argue with that.  But Michelle Obama is not likely to be any picnic, either.  Remember how they had to shut her up at the beginning of the campaign when she dissed Obama (twice) in public, making it sound like it was she who “wore the pants in the family,” and all but emasculating him?  Trust me, we have barely seen the “hard side” of Michelle Obama.

As for living in NY, I don’t see what they has to do with anything.  Yes, I’m a NYer, and have been quite happy with Hillary as my representative.  (Happier than I am with Chuck Shumer, who almost single-handedly forced Mukasey on the country; I will NEVER vote for Schumer again!)  But I would be supporting Hillary even were she not my representative.

As for the meaning of “substance,” one answer would be knowledge and experience in foreign affairs.  And there is NO WAY you could convince me that Obama even comes CLOSE to Hillary here.  Obama has had two (now three) years in the U.S. Senate, against Hillary’s six (now seven).  And being a STATE senator does NOT give one foreign affairs knowledge or experience.  Hillary has six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including the subcommittees on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and Readiness and Management Support; Obama has two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  And Hillary also has the foreign relations experience she gained during her eight years as First Lady - which was NOT just tea and cookies with foreign leaders.

Subtance?  Hillary has it all over Obama.  Always has.  Always will.  That people cannot see this is because they are blinded by their Barack-tinted spectacles.

Peace.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 24, 2008 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

That so many of the supporters of a man who calls for inclusion, tolerance and non-demonization have become increasingly intolerant and demonizing of both Clinton and her supporters, even to the point of “aggressiveness.”

Then you call Obama a “cult of personality”

It is the war for starters, the soft tolerant persona of Hillary Mrs inclusion has been hurt by her action, voting and saying she did not want it to pass is not a very good answer.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 24, 2008 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

Now that you agree with me, Hillary offers only the same old crap, meaning experience.  Obama offers the some old crap but with less joining at the hip to my favorite neighborhood lobbyist’s.

Less experience means Obama has not worked for Wall Mart, would that qualify as substance?

Obama is not married to Bill Clinton, that may be substance for some people not wanting to vote for Hillary.

If by substance you mean facts?  The fact that I do not live in New York and really do not want to see Hillary as my president for the next four, is substance enough for me?

Guess it depends on what you mean by substance?

Report this

By Maani, February 24, 2008 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

Re the NAU, I have read through the SPP documents, but do not see an actual “union” occurring any time in the future, especially not one like the European Union.  There are so many reasons why it would not work (economically, politically, etc.) that I believe it to be pretty much what the SPP docs claim.

That said, it might interest you to know that, during a town hall meeting in Missouri two weeks ago, someone asked Hillary about the NAU.  Her response was, “Well, there’s not a lot of truth to it.”  When pressed on what she would do if it took serious form, she said, “I would kill it in a bird-dog minute.”  As far as I know, Obama has not addressed this issue.

Re Goolsbee, I agree; he’s got some strange ideas, some of which I would not want to see become policy during an Obama presidency.  As well, while it is not exactly earth-shattering, he was a very strong critic of Moore’s “Sicko” documentary, calling it “dishonest” and “sensationalist.”  Although it is true that it was somewhat “slanted,” it was by no means “dishonest,” and certainly not “sensationalist.”

Obama’s other two major economic advisors are perhaps even more questionable than Goolsbee.

David Cutler believes that high health care costs are “good for the economy” (as he wrote in a paper in a major health journal), as they serve as an “engine” for the economy.

And Jeffrey Liebman believes in the (at least partial) privatization of social security.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 24, 2008 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:

“Hillary offers nothing but the same old crap…”

Hmmm…

Given that their positions on most of the major issues are either identical or differ only in details - i.e., if they are “offering” virtually the same thing - can you explain how Hillary “offers nothing but the same old crap” while Obama does not?  What exactly is Obama offering that Hillary is not?  And don’t regurgitate ephemeral concepts like “hope” and “change” because that is simply rhetoric, not substance.  What SUBSTANCE does Obama offer that Hillary does not?

Peace.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 24, 2008 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

http://www.spp.gov/

The above will speak on the North American Union. The SPP’s own documents will talk about the union, but then they will have a document speaking on the myths which are either strawmen arguments or directly contradict their own plans.

As to Goolsbee, it is well known that he believes in “free trade” policies. Sad to say, no one seems to want to educate poiticians on comparative advantage versus absolute advantage, so we have a brain dead economic policy that kills domestic manufacturing and white collar service sectors.
Please refer to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070032762393.htm

Curiously, Mr. Goolsbee says that we do not have enough college educated American citizens as we have been slipping in that area. So he would like the government to fund more college education for students. I say that the marketplace for college educations is acting in an absolutely sane maner in accordence to rational economic expectations. It is precisely because we Americans are competing in at absolute economic disadvantage with the rest of the world that young people are making the sane rational decision based on the expected NPV of an education that they would be better off being waiters and waitresses. (I encourage the uninformed reader to research comparative advantage. I only have so much breath.)
So by Goolsbee’s own measuring stick of free markets, where absolute advantage predominates, it is best to get a job in kichen prep as that job cannot be outsourced, except by an open borders immigration policy! For most of this nation’s history we have had 50% trade tarriffs. It was not until trade liberalization took off that we have so many Ph.D.‘s driving taxis. And no this perfumed, and besilked fool thinks the problem is we don’t have enough unemployed college grads.
A thousand curses on this relgion of free trade. And Cyrena believes this Obama with his Chicago School poppinjay is going wave the fairy dust of liberal trade policies on the economy, and make everything all better. What cowpies!

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, February 24, 2008 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Thank you GrammaConcept for pointing out that the Khalil Gibran words of 1925 have been for so long plagiarized and wrongly attributed to Kennedy and others. All those so-called president’s speech writers copied it from Khalil Gibran, one of my favorite writers.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, February 24, 2008 at 9:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The politically hyper-driven US media raises suspicions. Never has the voter been so pressed to accept the two-party system and their extra-ordinary candidates as celebrity. The DEMS and GOP are siamese twins joined at the K-Street wallet. So just who is running this show? I want to believe someone/anyone will affect real change. But it’s not likely to happen without changing the system first. And only the people can do that.

Change You Can’t Believe In
By Gabor Steingart in Washington
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,536232,00.html

When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps To Revolution
By Sara Robinson
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/when-change-not-enough-seven-steps-revolution

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 24, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

Hillary supporters, your politeness and arguments are so overwhelming, knowing that you have the cake and are eating it too, I want some!  I am thinking about changing my vote to Hillary, especially now that your opinions of measured reason have surfaced and conclude that voting for Obama means voting for a cult.  You may not know this but I do not like cults. 

Hello!  Hillary offers nothing but the same old crap, we are tired of the same old crap, her use of Xerxoing is nothing but a subconsciouses message about herself, however I agree the same old crap is better than voting fro a cult. 

Just to let you clowns feel better, Hillary may pull this off by leading a last ditch offensive, (She has never been offensive before)  My picture is of her finger nails on on a huge chalk board Charging up the Sam Hell Hill.  Bully, Bully.

Good Luck, and if you win we may never see peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 24, 2008 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“I also don’t entertain the same conspiracy theories that you indulge it. I have no fear of the CFR, though I don’t agree with all of their policies, or share the ideologies of all of their staff, which has obviously changed over the years. Still, just like all of the other organizations that you look for under your bed like boogeyman, they don’t particularly bother me.”

You are being disingenuous if not blatantly hypocritical here.  After all, you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that Bush & Co. were complicit in its planning and/or execution.  THAT is also called a “conspiracy theory.”

So where does your “acceptable” conspiracy theory end and Paracelsus’ “unacceptable” conspiracy theory begin?  Isn’t this a perfect example of “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones?”

Indeed, I find it odd in the extreme that you should believe as you do about 9/11 (with which I agree), yet so ferociously dismiss other, almost certainly related conspiracy theories - some of which have far more solid evidence and substance to support them than the 9/11 theory does.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 24, 2008 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

MMC:

“Far scarier then a cult like following of a charismatic candidate who people turn to for change would be a candidate who cold bloodily and with callused forethought to this election voted to give the dimmest and dumbest of Presidents the authority to start an immoral and preemptive war of aggression.”

The second part of this comment may be true, but the first part - “cold-bloodedly and with malice aforethought” (which is clearly the phrase you were looking for) - is not.  You need only read Hillary’s speech on the Senate floor before the vote to know that your claim here is patently absurd.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, February 24, 2008 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

•  Why does Obama have a Skull and Bonesman for his economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee? What is the longterm economic goal?

I don’t know why Paracelsus. I didn’t know that Obama’s economic advisor, (hopefully he has more than one) was a Skull and Bonesman, nor can I really much claim to care.

I also don’t entertain the same conspiracy theories that you indulge it. I have no fear of the CFR, though I don’t agree with all of their policies, or share the ideologies of all of their staff, which has obviously changed over the years.

Still, just like all of the other organizations that you look for under your bed like boogeyman, they don’t particularly bother me.

Of course if you are in the Alex Jones rabbit hole, and playing on that imaginary Yellow Brick Road of the NAFTA Superhighway, then hey…who am I to question it? Unless of course I had those same boogeymen under my bed. I don’t.

If you really want to know the long term economic plan though, (at least to the extent that it can be ‘long term’ because I do deal in realities) then you might try something as simple as checking his website. It’s something equally simple like, http://www.barackobama.com


Where’s the Substance?
  By Scott Galindez
  t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021808Z.shtml

Or, you can go back to your conspiracy theories, and keep chatting with DC about the “Ring”. (whatever the hell that is). I haven’t figured out if you guys are just really bored, or just really deranged.

Report this

By Kim, February 23, 2008 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The whole thing is silly, and that Hillary has to stoop to calling Obama a plagiarist makes her look desperate and not presidential.  Then she accuses Obama of being “Rovian” in questioning her health care plan instead of just telling us how her health care plan works and why his depiction of it is wrong, that make people think maybe he wasn’t wrong.  She is not being well served by her campaign, they are making her look shrill and unlikable.  Obama stays calm when she attacks him and he comes off much better.  Both candidate have passed some really good legislation, which is commendable for junior senators, and both might be effective presidents… much better than the current one, anyway.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Eggzacleee! De nada.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 23, 2008 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

The New Man should be rebirthed at the top. We have a network of criminals in government trying to bring about a New World Order which is the same Old World Order. The old nobility from the 19th century realized that they could not re-establish the old feudal order so they had to push for syncretic movements with elements of liberalism and conservativism blended in to fool the mass man. Many of the elements of socialism, communism, and communitarism sound enlightened and laudable, but they are incompatible with the principles of natural rights, individualism and limited government. A system that endeavors to level wealth, insure fairness, and fraternity is going to be in some measure despotic and intrusive.

The goals of the 19th century feudal order was to prevent their overthrow, and replacement by upstarts, innovators, and mavericks. Entreprenneurial capitalism would eventually by replaced with monopolistic capitalism, where change could be controlled and manitpulated to the beneift of the established elites.

If you look at our bloated military budget you will see that much of the technology is control and surveillance technology. The super high taxes after WWII went into military Keynesianism. With the money spent on research we could have eliminated disease, and energy shortages. We could have had the human life span extended for the masses to well over 100 years old.

Much of this spending is to maintain the privileges and perogatives of the elites. In time these elites with their control agenda will figure ways to reduce the global population as the “future does not need us”. This theme is very popular in Hollywood, and frequently what is portrayed in Hollywood frequently comes to pass.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 23, 2008 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Maani, even “the Bhagwan” (shri Rajneesh/Osho) couldn’t control his 1,000’s of so-called sannyasins in the ‘70’s. That was the Vietnam war era when meany young people wanted “change”, too.

“...as many as 50,000 Westerners spent time seeking enlightenment ...in Pune, India… with the guru. In 1979, he saw his movement as the route to the preservation of the human race. He said: If we cannot create the ‘new man’ in the coming 20 years, then humanity has no future. The holocaust of a global suicide can only be avoided if a new kind of man can be created…”

Although he taught religious tolerance, he ran his ashram in strage ways and had 93 Rolls-Royces to ferry himself and girlfriend, Ma Sheela, around in. Thus wisdom is corrupted by the actions of “the wise one”. It is easy to fall from the true path once seduced by adoring followers.

He must have known this but perhaps was unable to control them anyway. The price of popularity is to forever pander to the wants and desires of one’s admirers. That is not the path of Truth. It is also why democracies always morph into dictatorships and eventually fail.

Waco County, Oregon, previously known as “The Big Muddy Ranch” http://www.cultsoncampus.com/shree.html

Report this

By Maani, February 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

Doug:

“Thus The Ring has become the Bhagwan Rajneesh phenomena of the 21st century and with as little intelligent input from Obama supporters. It has already become as permissive in its aggressiveness.”

This is the part that concerns me the most.  That so many of the supporters of a man who calls for inclusion, tolerance and non-demonization have become increasingly intolerant and demonizing of both Clinton and her supporters, even to the point of “aggressiveness.”  This is one of the dangers of “cult of personality”-type movements: that at some point the leader(s) of the movement find that they can no longer control all of their supporters - even when the words and actions of those supporters run counter to the movement’s own positions.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 23, 2008 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

There is a saying: “There is a point at which the statistical improbability of a series of coincidences negates that possibility that they are in fact coincidences.”

The breitbart video is a perfect example.  Whether the series of faintings was caused by “Obamamania” or were staged (since each one was handled by Obama with virtually the exact same phrases, and the offering of HIS water - a truly “human” touch, were it not so staged), there is no coincidence in these incidences.

Thank you for this video as well.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 23, 2008 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus:

I watched the video.  And except for the short Real ID section at the end (which didn’t seem to have anything to do with Obama), I agree with you that it much of is how I have been feeling as well.

I’m sure Cyrena and others will make LOTS of hay over my agreement with you…LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 23, 2008 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

Dunno how that got separated - it was supposed to be a “reply” to Anti-Globalism’s Osama ‘08 - bin Laden for President comments (also 23rd)......

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, February 23, 2008 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment

Interesting that the obsession with Barack Obama and The Ring has come about after the USA’s years of obsession with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeada. Thus the effects of 9/11 are still being seen.

There was never any conclusive proof that Bin Laden was ever involved yet people bought the story hook, line and sinker. They have done the same again with BO because that is what they have learnt.

Whatever he says must lead to the change they imagine even if it is not the change he imagines, uhh. All BO wants is to be president. The rest doesn’t matter. ‘Do what thou wilt’ shall be the whole of the law.

Peace - “the crucible of the sword”; get troops out of Iraq - “I don’t oppose all wars”. Its all good, take whichever you like?!?! And fuck Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, it doesn’t support our troops.

Thus The Ring has become the Bhagwan Rajneesh phenomena of the 21st century and with as little intelligent input from Obama supporters. It has already become as permissive in its aggressiveness.

Soon they’ll be carrying machine guns and organizing their own security force (private army) just as the Bhagwan’s followers did in running their own cult town. All that is needed is for someone to threaten or attack BO and it will start.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 23, 2008 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

“Meantime, you can ‘question’ Obama all you want. let me know if he answers you.”

That would be a straw man argument. Why does Obama have a Skull and Bonesman for his economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee? What is the longterm economic goal?

http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm

Report this

By GrammaConcept, February 23, 2008 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

“Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you, or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if you are the second, then you are an oasis in a desert.”

- Khalil Gibran..(1925)
(paragraph 7)

Report this

By GrammaConcept, February 23, 2008 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.
Now you must go back and tell the people that this is The Hour.

Here are the things that must be considered:

Where are you living?
What are you doing?
What are your relationships?
Are you in right relation?
Where is your water?
Know our garden.
It is time to speak your Truth.
Create your community.
Be good to each other.
And do not look outside yourself for the leader.

This could be a good time!

There is a river flowing now very fast.
It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid.
They will try to hold on to the shore.
They will feel like they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.

Know the river has its destination.
The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off toward the middle of
the river,
keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water.

See who is there with you and celebrate.

At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally, least of all
ourselves!
For the moment we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lonely wolf is over.
Gather yourselves!

Banish the word struggle from your attitude and vocabulary.

All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.

We are the ones we have been waiting for.

The Elders,
Oraibi, Arizona
Hopi Nation

Report this

By cyrena, February 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus, for the last time..YOU wrote this stuff…not ME!!

I thought it was very bizarre, but it wouldn’t be the first time. So, YOU slander and defame YOURSELF, and then blame it on me.

And, you wonder why people like me are inclined to agree with your own assessment of yourself.

I’m relived that you’re an individual paracelsus. If there were more of you, the damage might be beyond assessment.

So, I’ll remain grateful for small favors.

Report this

By cyrena, February 23, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

Fadel, On this…

“Therefore, plagiarism needs to be redefined as being that of “copying large amounts of texts verbatim in a written work without acknowledging the original author.”..


As you and I both know, this IS how plagiarism is defined. The attack on Obama is just more desperate tactics. If he said something from any one of the books or papers that he’s WRITTEN HIMSELF…(you know academics and scholars have to publish stuff routinely and he writes most of his own speeches as well) then they’d accuse him of plagiarizing HIMSELF!!

That’s why the people in this audience knew how totally silly it was. (This was in Austin -  the one place in that backward state that actually has thinking people.) It’s like an oasis in a slime pit, of ignorance.

Don’t forget, George adopted this state as his own, and they actually made him the Governor there. I rest my case.

Report this

By cyrena, February 23, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

Well, he’d need to be alive. Osama is dead. No good for Presidents.

Then again….

Report this

By cyrena, February 23, 2008 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Paracelsus, YOU verbally ‘abused’ yourself, fairly or unfairly. I wouldn’t know. I did repeat what you had written, ABOUT YOURSELF. It certainly seemed odd.

Then again, maybe it was par for your course. Still, how many rational people would admit to be called all of those things, (on a public forum) and then expect anybody to take them at all seriously, or look at a video that they’ve posted, that allegedly encapsulates their thoughts?

Seriously. If a 5’4” woman weighing 287 lbs approached you with must have and must follow advice on losing weight and keeping it off forever, would you pay much attention?

Now, what’s up with the fainting women? Were they in the video?

Nevermind…I don’t need to watch fainting women anymore than I need weight loss advise from a 5’4” woman weighing 287 pounds.

I think I’ve ‘fainted’ once in my life. It wasn’t over a man. If I was gonna do that, I’d pick like Denzel Washington, who is a lot sexier and better looking than Barack Obama. On the other hand,
I’d never vote for Denzel as President. For one thing, he’s a greedy capitalist repug. (which made him a lot less handsome when I found that out).

Meantime, you can ‘question’ Obama all you want. let me know if he answers you.

Report this

By odlid, February 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Leefeller discerns:

“I am starting to believe Hillary is more out of touch than I thought.”

Just saw Hillary on CNN shrieking like a raped canary about Obama’s policy flyer in Ohio, a promo which is said to characterize Hillary’s longtime affinity for NAFTA, etc.

Hill and Bill seem to be dipping their water from the McCain well. Huckabee and Obama and my guy, Ron Paul, seem to be the only standing candidates who haven’t gone totally bugfuck.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

Yes, we are great at putting dangerous people into power. I am trying to convince people that they are not getting any choices, just preselected routes akin to a labyrinthe for lab rats. McCain and Obama are very similar in their imperialistic outlooks. You will get more war with either Clinton, McCain, or Obama. A large number of Democratic legislators chose to give Bush that power to wage war. I am not sure what your exact point is.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 23, 2008 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/48404.html

As you can see from Cyrena’s posts, she seems to have an over reactive need to unfarily verbally abuse questioners of Obama. I do not think it unusual now as I see many women seem to be overwhelmed by the presence of Obama. I don’t it is normal for otherwise sane women to faint at an Obama happening. I think it is dangerous for crowds of people to have some sort religious fervor for a potential leader. Many tyrants and dictators started with the same charismatic sway over crowds. I think it is a distinctive mark of a demagogue overwhelm the emotion of women. If this were RFK I would not be so worried, but this is a man with deep connections to an establishment enamored with control and power over the population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9P15YZrnv0

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 23, 2008 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

Again with the slander, and defamation. Cyrena. I am not what people think I am. I am an individual. You use the tactics of a slimy Stalinist. Of course you have no principles. Remember that in the Soviet system people with contrary ideas were called crazy. You fit the mold of a defamer very well. I am individual unlike you, Cyrena, who must enforce some sort of collective code as to what reality is. Your very viciousness indicts your credibility.

Report this

By DennisD, February 23, 2008 at 10:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillbilly only sits on the “Xerox” machine when she’s drunk during the Senate Christmas parties. Everybody in Congress knows that. I seriously doubt that she hasn’t had a thought she didn’t steal.

Obama’s staff is busy going through every episode of “West Wing” for more indefinable catch phrases that mean something different to everyone and can’t be quantified or realized. Brilliant strategy with as much substance as cotton candy.

Since when is meaningless bullsh*t “word borrowing”. It’s the life blood of a political system that never seems to improve the lives of the people it was created to serve. Since “we the people” have allowed it to happen - we are to blame.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 23, 2008 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

Yes a change to the dark ages.  As for the Messenger of Peace, he and Bush seem to have the same definitions and terms.

Report this

By dammit, February 23, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

The complaint about Clinton is hypocrisy.  Nobody gives a shit that she’s never had an original idea in her life.

Report this

By Anti-Globalism, February 23, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

Osama bin Laden ‘08:
Messenger of Peace,
Prophet of Change

Osama is a man of change, yet he seeks to preserve family, tradition, and religious values. He wants to stop the collapse of society, putting the individual into context. He visions setting the family forth as the basis of society. He seeks to put the legal system where it belongs: in local communities. And he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and re-create the gold standard.

Osama ‘08 - bin Laden for President: http://www.osama08.com

—-

Osama would make a finer candidate than either of them!

Report this

By cyrena, February 23, 2008 at 2:51 am Link to this comment

Well paracelsus, I didn’t look at the video that ‘encapsulates your thoughts’ and I’m curious as to why you would think anyone else might, having already admitted to being called a drug abuser, a crack smoker, and ignored crackpot, a propagandist, and mentally ill on top of all of that.

well, I guess that part sort of makes sense, since you begin with that, (the mentally ill part) so the rest could be considered as EXAMPLES or symptoms of the mental illness, (propagandist, ignored crack pot) or reasons for how/why you came to BE mentally ill, (drug abusing crack smoker.)

Still, I don’t get why you would admit to all of these things, and then actually post a link that you claim well encapsulates your thoughts. Why would you really expect anybody to actually look at it?

Geeze…are you mentally ill or something?

And why do you keep wanting to ‘wake people up’? Maybe YOU should get some sleep dude!

Put that crack pipe down, and get some rest!!

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 22, 2008 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9P15YZrnv0

The above video encapulates well my thoughts on the system. I had previously been called mentally ill, a drug abuser, a propagandist, an ignored crackpot and a crack smoker for trying to bring the truth to Truthdig posters. I hope I can wake some people up.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 22, 2008 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment

Do we still call it Xeroxing?  I am starting to believe Hillary is more out of touch than I thought.  This reminds me of the time when Bush Daddy had never seen a cash register.  The real world and the Hillary world.

You are in the twilight zone!

Report this

By crat3, February 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Clinton caught Xeroxing is a very silly stretch by pro-Obama biased media.

Obama lifted rhetoric and passed it off as his own.  He perpetuated a fraud on his audience.  He owes them an apology.  Obama’s glib dismissal of his plagiarism shows his slickness and a fundamental character flaw of dishonesty.

Report this

By Maani, February 22, 2008 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

The plagiarism by Obama that rankles me most is his lifting of the phrase “we are the ones we have been waiting for.”  He has used it so many times now that people actually think it is his.  (The way some younger people actually believe that Guns ‘n’ Roses wrote Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door…)

Yet he took this “whole” from Rev. Jim Wallis’ book, “God’s Politics,” in which Wallis is himself citing (WITH attribution) a community organizer who used it.  And I KNOW that this is where Obama got the line because, if you remember, he appeared on the CNN forum, “Faith and Politics” (sponsored by Wallis’ group, Sojourners), during which he SPECIFICALLY cited this line from the book.

As an aside, it is also apparently true that he “lifted” some lines directly from (of all places) episodes of The West Wing.

Peace.

Report this

By The Guy, February 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

It’s entirely fair for the media to pick up on Senator Clinton’s re-tread.  She did made a big deal about a rather innocuous case of copying. 

However, Obama’s campaign (which appeared to lead on this “story”) is guilty of both hypocrisy and silliness.

His response last night to the question from Ms. Brown regarding the plagiarism accusation was;

“Now, the notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who’s one of my national co-chairs — (laughter) — who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly. (Cheers, applause.)

And — you know, but — but — but this is where we start getting into silly season in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it. (Cheers, applause.)”

Silly is as silly does.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, February 22, 2008 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

I do not understand all this fuss about the so-called “Plagiarism” now also being called “xeroxing.” We all know that all American presidents have a group of servants who are called “speech writers.” In fact, they write every single word of a president’s speech, and yet the speech will go down in history as the president’s speech on such and such occasion,while the actual writer of these speeches will remain anonymous for ever. This is, in fact, the greatest institutionalized plagiarism that should be fought and frowned upon, not just borrowing few words from here and there to make a point in a verbal setting. Furthermore, it is difficult to copyright common language and human speech used universally to make statements about common issues. Therefore, plagiarism needs to be redefined as being that of “copying large amounts of texts verbatim in a written work without acknowledging the original author.”

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.