Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
It’s 3am, I must be tired
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, March 26, 2008

It's 3:00 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone? If your answer is Hillary Clinton, then who do you want answering the phone the next day when Hillary Clinton is tired?
Clinton said she was "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke" when she said last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady.
I'm not sure I see the connection between "tired" and 'there were snipers shooting at me!' but then Obama blamed tiredness for claiming 10,000 people had died in a Kansas tornado (the actual number was 12).

Of course, politicians - like all of us - make verbal mistakes, especially when speaking publicly and extemporaneously for the umpteenth time in a week. Of course, most of them don't involve the insertion of oneself into Saving Private Ryan.

Movie stars and musicians tend to claim "the flu" or "stomach problems" so they don't have to say "I have to go to rehab for awhile." Apparently, "I was tired" is the politicians all-purpose "it doesn't count" card to excuse pretty much anything they've ever said. They should find something a bit more plausible.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ve occasionally used "I’m tired" as a poor excuse for biting off someone’s head when I might have taken more time to better select my wording so as to be less acerbic.

I don’t think "I’m tired" has ever been involved in my inventing history for a listening audience.

And, since she told the story multiple times, how many times was she tired?
What other stories did she invent and tell while she was tired?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You guys might have noticed, she looks tired an awful lot of the time.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
I’m not overly confident about this prediction, but I think this gaffe will mark the moment when even Hillary supporters realize they need to end the campaign, and party insiders start creating a graceful end (as graceful as possible). Interesting when she decided to bring up Wright after all, the news stories weren’t about Obama and Wright’s relationship, but about "why is she suddenly bringing this up after that story had died down...must be trying to distract from her Bosnia fib." That actually amplified and extended the story of her "forgetfulness." So it wasn’t enough to move voters away from Obama, but probably was enough to further anger party activists who argued almost unanimously that Obama was brilliant to make the issue that of race rather than personal attacks like the right wing...and now Hillary.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’m going to predict there’s going to be an SNL parody of this come Saturday.

She get’s the 3am call...

H: Yes, what is it?
pause (listening to phone)
H: We’re not going to take this any more, bomb them.

...

Next morning at the press conference:

Reporter: Madame President, why did you have the Air Force bomb (fill in the country) last night?

H: What?

H: (speaks off camera to JCS general)

H: Uh, I was sleep deprived and I misheard what was said.

(I’m sure a better writer could come up with a sufficiently funny joke involving the transliteration of words.)
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
It must suck when, after years of the media covering your back, they abruptly stop. It must suck more when they’ve started covering your competition’s back on top of it.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Of course, politicians - like all of us - make verbal mistakes, especially when speaking publicly and extemporaneously for the umpteenth time in a week.
True, but this…

I’m not sure I see the connection between "tired" and ’there were snipers shooting at me!’ but then Obama blamed tiredness for claiming 10,000 people had died in a Kansas tornado (the actual number was 12).
Is not really an apt comparison, dontcha’ think?
I mean, it’s not like Obama was in Kansas during the tornado.

I find it hilarious that one could confuse being given a poem by a little girl to ducking sniper fire. Whatever your opinion of Obama is, it’s completely reasonable that Obama’s mistake was purely an honest one, and Clinton’s fish story was an outright lie.

Dontcha’ think?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
So it wasn’t enough to move voters away from Obama, but probably was enough to further anger party activists who argued almost unanimously that Obama was brilliant to make the issue that of race rather than personal attacks like the right wing...and now Hillary.
Huh? I can’t parse that clearly enough to discern the point Prof Erb is making, but that bit in the middle that Obama was brilliant to make race the issue is pretty suspect. That move was a Hail Mary pass because he was trapped by Rev. Wright’s anti-American, racist, and nasty comments and couldn’t continue pretending he was unaware of them.

The shift to race—solely because of his desperation—has some big downsides. Most Americans, I suspect, don’t want to reopen the race discussion (not like it’s ever really closed while Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are around). Now Obama, instead of sailing blissfully along as Obamamessiah of the New Politics, is the black candidate who insists that America confront the issue of race anew, while Obama is linked to this crazy "God damn America", "U.S. of KKK.A" preacher.

Not surprisingly, Obama’s unfavorable ratings have shot up past 50% into Hillary country.

 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I find it hilarious that one could confuse being given a poem by a little girl to ducking sniper fire.
This has already been addressed. If your definition of "ducking sniper fire" is "being given a poem by a little girl", there’s no problem. Seriously, how did she think she would not be checked on such a statement?
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
Huxley, I know you want to believe the Wright case is a huge issue (it’s already fading) and perhaps Americans want to pretend race doesn’t matter in our society (I suspect you’re reading too many of the right wing pundits though — ignore the Kristols and Goldberg’s, they’re like lawyers, simply trying to find a rhetoric to support their biases — modern day sophists), but I’ve not seen any evidence that Obama’s shot up in terms of disapproval. Can you back that up? Obama seems to have moved back up above Hillary in the two main tracking polls, has inched a bit higher in Penn, and at least one poll shows major movement to Obama in North Carolina. CNN reported a poll where Hillary had 19% approval from Republicans and 35% GOP approval for Obama. I tried to look, but I just can’t find anything supporting your claim. This article (about polls concerning the Wright issue and the speech) seems to contradict your claim. Of course, with the Democratic campaign getting so heated, Democrats are starting to see the other candidate as unfavorable simply due to the negativity in the campaign, and that will help McCain against either of them.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You guys might have noticed, she looks tired an awful lot of the time.
Yes, I talked about that a while back.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — What I read or don’t read and your opinions on that are beside the point. I’ve mentioned and linked Obama’s unfavorables ratings twice already. As I said in a different thread:
Meanwhile, whatever allowances Prof. Erb and Sarcastic believe Americans should make for Rev. Wright and however appreciative they believe Americans should be for Obama’s historic speech, Obama’s favorable/unfavorable ratings have moved from 48%/47% the day after the speech to 46%/52% almost a week later.
See Rasmussen
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Movie stars and musicians tend to claim "the flu" or "stomach problems" so they don’t have to say "I have to go to rehab for awhile."
Politicians, on the other hand, claim "I have to go to rehab for awhile" as a way of deflecting criticism of their personal misconduct.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Always seemed that in UK politics the term of art "over-tired" meant "visibly drunk", like certain red-faced folk in the U.S.

I’d forgotten about the weary tornado of the apocolypse, though. Egads, that was a funny one.
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
Huxley, on February 28th his unfavorables at that site were 48%, the most recent is 51%. That’s all within the margin of error, statistically insignificant. But, let’s assume it is real, I wonder if it’s really anything to do with this fading Wright controversy, or the increasing bitterness in the Democratic bid? Hillary’s unfavorables are up too.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Evidently, the Clintons have been tired for years. Unfortunately, it also appears that tiredness is hereditary.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — And on Feb. 21 Obama’s unfavorable was 42%. Anyone can do a moving average for the past two months and see the unfavorables significantly increased as the Wright controversy took hold.

Before Obama had never been over 50%. Hillary’s unfavorables have been in the low 50s for years now.


 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — The effects of Wright’s scandal on Obama can be seen even better at McCain vs Obama. Their race was essentially tied, trading the lead back and forth, but once Pastorgate took hold, Obama’s numbers steadily deflated and today McCain leads 51%-41%. The speech appears to have no effect, unless one supposes Obama would have dropped even further behind without it.

Hillary’s numbers dropped too, though now are recovering. (We’ll see how the Bosnia gaffe does.)

I can imagine some general revulsion towards the craziness, bitterness, and instability of the Democrat primary.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Mr. Erb,
Good news, the Democratic political spin machine is about to chew up and spit Hillary out... why - they think that it’s the race that is causing Obama to have such problems. Fact is as long as they felt that Obama was still strong they didn’t care - but now... well Obama is dropping so they’ll kick her to the curb... the bad news - it’s too late (always was since Obama’s problems are his own)

I’ve said it before the Democrats picked the wrong "Not Hillary" contender. They didn’t vet Obama well enough to know that he was fatally flawed... similar to Rudy (who some liked but whom was fatally flawed and was positioned by Republicans to disappear politely) Truth: Obama and Hillary are both fatally flawed - Democrats realized this in Hillary.

The race thing will fade but you see it won’t go out - it’s a smoldering ember - one which people will discuss in private (because it’s racist to discuss it publicly and say you can’t believe he threw his Grandma under the bus but claimed his minister was from an older generation...) So when voters close the curtain - they will privately vote on it - and while Democrats are holding their heads in the sand on the damage - well people don’t buy what he’s selling. You can throw a ton of water on this issue - it’s like an electrical fire it isn’t going out - the Democrats are going to be burned this fall and no one can do much because those that still see it as a problem won’t bring it up and Obama can’t exactly go back for a redo or call mulligan on his first attempt to clear the air.

The funny part is Hillaries "stop, drop and roll" gaff in Bosnia has actually shot her credibility to hell so the Democrats might as well kick her to the curb... the credibility sniper has now gotten in direct hits on both remaining Democratic contenders... (McCain’s messing up on Syria/Iran was only a glancing blow because he corrected himself at the time, similarly he’s made other gaffs but none of the type that I would consider a bullet to the head... he’s a weak candidate but he can beat a mortally wounded one such as the ones the Democrats are fated to field this November.)
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
BitsBlog "Snark of the day"
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Here’s another bit about the lack of impact of the Wright thing. Now it may be that the GOP will somehow appeal to racial fears by using soundbites from Wright, but Obama has months to plan a strategy to counter that — and while I think McCain will win, Obama will bring more long term to the Democrats, breaking a barrier and bringing a lot of young people to the party, and politicizing blacks who now have low voting turnout. And you may find he’s like a Democratic Reagan, easy to underestimate, but such a good communicator that he comes out on top. We’ll see. But he’ll be better for the Democrats than any of the alternatives out there, he’s going to bring a lot of energy to the Democratic effort this fall. This may change the dynamic in a lot of races in places where Republicans have had a rather small majority.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Actually, Erb, the unfavorable rating for Obama went from 47% to 52%...that’s outside the margin of error. Nice try, though.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
It seems our "Get over this left and right" thing boy, has purely partisan interests, after all.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I don’t think "I’m tired" has ever been involved in my inventing history for a listening audience.
On reading this again this morning, I was suddenly facing a vision of Hillary Clinton as Lili Von Shtupp.
I’m tired
Sick and tired of love
I’ve had my fill of love
From below and above
Tired, tired of being admired
Tired of love uninspired
Let’s face it
I’m tired
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Erb,

You like to claim that the Wright problem has faded, it has but only from media attention. Obama has been seriously damaged in the minds of many Americans of all races. Just because its no longer the major story of the day does not mean that it is now discarded as an issue for him.

It has only been put on the back burner if/until he has the nomination. Expect to see Rev Wright back in the news after conventions are done.

Try to talk to normal people about it, and not your echo chamber. Real people as in car mechanics, grocery store clerks, bus drivers, church goers... etc ad naseum. Stop reading polls and ask the average Joe yourself.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Perhaps it is fibromyalgia, which would explain the constant "I feel your pain" refrain. Pain and fatigue are two of the symptoms.

" I was suddenly facing a vision of Hillary Clinton as Lili Von Shtupp"

Please don’t do that again.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Boris:
Huxley, I know you want to believe the Wright case is a huge issue (it’s already fading):


Boris, Reverend Wright invites you to read James Cone to understand his church and the pathway by which he led Barack Obama to Christ.

Let us savor James Cone, per the instructions of Reverend Wright, and let’s do it before the second wave of Wright and his racist church hit the beach, so that we, you and I together, can understand what American voters will soon enough learn about Barack Obama and his church cult:
[I]f [white people] are going to be in a relationship with God, they must enter by means of their black brothers, who are a manifestation of God’s presence on earth. The assumption that one can know God without knowing blackness is the basic heresy of the white churches. They want God without blackness, Christ without obedience, love without death. What they fail to realize is that in America, God’s revelation on earth has always been black, red, or some other shocking shade, but never white. Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity. God cannot be white, even though white churches have portrayed him as white. When we look at what whiteness has done to the minds of men in this country, we can see clearly what the New Testament meant when it spoke of the principalities and powers. To speak of Satan and his powers becomes not just a way of speaking but a fact of reality. When we can see a people who are being controlled by an ideology of whiteness, then we know what reconciliation must mean. The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto).
From "Black Theology and Black Power," by James Cone, p. 150.

From Jeremiah Wright’s and James Cone’s lips to the voter’s ear.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
huxley:
Prof. Erb — And on Feb. 21 Obama’s unfavorable was 42%. Anyone can do a moving average for the past two months and see the unfavorables significantly increased as the Wright controversy took hold.
Hillary and Obama are running neck and neck toward a 60% unfavorable.

Because I like them both so much, and can’t bear to see either one lose, I’m rooting for a tie.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Prof. Erb — Here’s Michael Barone reaching the same conclusions I did about Obama: Polls Show Obama Damaged by Reverend Wright. He is using the same Rasmussen data. Other polls, as you note, show other things. So I’d say that our disagreement isn’t settled as yet, though it would seem that if Obama’s speech were a home run, as you’ve said, that the issue of Obama’s unfavorables would be settled in your favor.

I don’t understand what your confidence in Obama is based on. He has little or no record, experience or accomplishments. He comes from a hard left background and has a strongly liberal and partisan voting record. His ideas are the usual Democratic buffet with the little guy and gal getting beat up by big bad corporations, lobbyists and conservative talk radio. What’s special here?

Obama is half-black and he gives a good speech. That seems to be about it.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
huxley:
Obama is half-black and he gives a good speech. That seems to be about it.
Yes, aside from his bizarre and disqualifying membership in a religious cult, Obama doesn’t offer much in the way of "change" or "hope," just the usual liberal technocratic nostrums alongside his messianic spiel.

Back in my misspent youth I worked in a restaurant where one of the cooks used to describe the daily "specials" as "the nothing special special with cheese."

That’s a pretty good description of Obama.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Please don’t do that again.
Hey, FWIW, it didn’t do much for ME, either, particularly first thing in the morning, ya know? (grin)

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Prof. Erb — Here’s Michael Barone reaching the same conclusions I did
I would expect it from him, people of his mindset want it to hurt him and in fact are the ones still talking about this, not wanting the issue to fade. In many ways, this is an inevitable part of taking seriously the possibility of a black man as President, it forces us to confront issues where there are real different perspectives. Obama has time to plan and the communication skills to potentially turn this into a positive. We’ll see — absent a crystal ball, it’s just guess work.
I don’t understand what your confidence in Obama is based on. He has little or no record, experience or accomplishments. He comes from a hard left background and has a strongly liberal and partisan voting record. His ideas are the usual Democratic buffet with the little guy and gal getting beat up by big bad corporations, lobbyists and conservative talk radio. What’s special here?
Your other criticisms of Obama remind me of what was said about Clinton in ’92, the derision heaped on Bush in ’00 (just a failure in the oil business who was given a baseball team and then won governship in the state where the governor has the least power and responsibility), Reagan in 80, etc. I think those who are predisposed to dislike Obama will see it that way, but in a campaign a lot of people will want someone who is not an insider, who brings in new ideas, has good advisers and may bring about a new way of thinking. After all, he’s gotten to where he is, that wasn’t easy.

I think his speech was a homerun because it wasn’t a campaign speech. He didn’t go the safe way and focus on the voting blocs and trying to do damage control. He went into the issue head on, honestly, and really inspired almost everyone who listened to it. It really did remind me of how Ronald Reagan could communicate himself out of almost any bind, that’s a very powerful skill for a politician to have. And for him it’s really good this came out in March. It will be forgotten until the GOP digs it up again in the fall, and if Obama is skilled, he’ll have a response and execute it well, we’ll see.

All that said, it seems to me the real reason to criticize Obama rests with his policies. Despite my defense of him on this issue, I find a lot to criticize about Obama’s policies, especially given the economic conditions we face. I’m defending him on the Rev. Wright issue out of ethical principle. When it comes to pragmatic politics, though, neither Obama nor Clinton offer anything congruent with the economic realities we face. And, as Iraq goes into yet another violent cycle, McCain’s foreign policy views seem as dated as he is. So at this point, in terms of policy, there are real flaws in all candidates.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
I think [Obama’s] speech was a homerun because it wasn’t a campaign speech.
Then you didn’t see the speech. He swung right into the campaign talking points at the back end. In fact, that was one of the things most noteworthy about the speech, that he did in fact turn it into a pro forma campaign speech.
He didn’t go the safe way and focus on the voting blocs and trying to do damage control.
The whole thing was damage control.
He went into the issue head on, honestly, and really inspired almost everyone who listened to it.
No, in fact he evaded the issue, tried to use his own grandmother as a comparative to Wright spewing hatred, and you clearly haven’t paid any attention to the criticism of the speech. But then you rarely pay attention to anything much beyond the end of your nose, which, in your defense, gets farther away from your face with each passing day.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris:
I’m defending [Obama] on the Rev. Wright issue out of ethical principle.
That’s just more proof that you don’t know anything about ethics or principles.

One more time, slowly, for you Boris: Obama has been running for president as a racial reconciliationist, but he’s a 20-year and counting member of a racist, black supremacist church.

Now, how to reconcile that odd contradiction? Well, if you had bothered yourself with the "black theology" that the church is based in you would know that it is perfectly reconciled in that very same "black theology," because it teaches that "white people" are alone responsible for racial reconciliation. How? By submitting to blacks and blackness and ridding themselves of whiteness. I’m not making that up, Boris. That is the teaching behind Obama’s church.

So, you see, there is no contradiction between Obama running as a racial reconciliationist while belonging to this racist, black supremacist church, no contradiction according to the church’s "black theology," at least.

Now, I know you’re a college professor and all, so you are existentially and probably congenitally incapable of assaying black racism (its existence is denied by the academy), but that’s just an FYI for you, on the Q.T.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The Maine Mosquito:
"I’m defending him on the Rev. Wright issue out of ethical principle."
(Watch this, kids.)

State that principle, Erb.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Humans should be treated as subjects, rather than objects to be used to achieve ones’ desired ends.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris, stating the principle on which he defends Obama on the Wright issue:
Humans should be treated as subjects, rather than objects to be used to achieve ones’ desired ends.
That is precisely the principle that Obama is violating by not telling his supporters the truth about the church he belongs to. Obama wants power and is actively deceiving voters about the meaning of the "black theology" taught by his black supremacist church and about the pastor (now referred to exclusively as "my former pastor") who "led me to Christ."

This is a very formidable level of deceit, much like the deceit employed by a con man, who by necessity sees his marks as objects.

So Obama fails your on your own stated principle, Boris.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Prof. Erb — Wow! What a naked display of intellectual dishonesty. I point you to Michael Barone’s piece looking at the Rasmussen poll data, and instead of criticizing the data or Barone’s arguments about the data you dismiss his article because:
I would expect it from him, people of his mindset want it to hurt him and in fact are the ones still talking about this, not wanting the issue to fade.
When you looked at that data, you refused to notice the upward trends of unfavorables in that data based on your typical strategy of finding one data point that sort of fit your point and ignoring everything else that didn’t fit.

In answering my question about your confidence in Obama, you dismiss my facts about Obama and again dismiss people who criticize Obama.

As to Obama’s speech — my point is that if it had been a home run it would have convinced more people of Obama’s favorability/unfavorability.

According to the WSJ poll you linked, 41% of voters who saw/heard the speech said rather than reassuring them, it "left uncertainties and doubts about his thinking and beliefs." 37% said that Obama "Needs to address [his thinking and beliefs about the issue of race] further."

That speech may have given you and the pundits you like great tingles, but it wasn’t clear enough to reassure ~40% of Americans that they know where Obama stands. I.e. not a home run.

I thought it was a weaselly speech designed to get Obama off the Wright hook. I agree that it will be historic, but much more like the Checkers speech, not "I have a dream."
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Huxley, I just think your analysis is wrong. You don’t convince me, Barone doesn’t convince me. I don’t convince you. We could argue on and on about this, but about two days ago we started repeating ourselves so in my view we can let this play itself out a bit and see who was right. It’s OK to have different perspectives on this. Mark these discussions and we can revisit this in the fall when there is more distance and we can have perspective on the actual impact.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
Huxley, I just think your analysis is wrong. You don’t convince me, Barone doesn’t convince me. I don’t convince you.
It’s not your immunity to sound argument that frames you, Boris. That, after all, is as common as dirt.

It’s your immunity to fact.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"Humans should be treated as subjects,..."

More meaningless blather. He is already being treated as a subject. Look it up.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — More intellectual dishonesty. You weren’t making an argument based on data or logic; you didn’t say you were unconvinced or give reasons that you were unconvinced, you simply dismissed everything because you didn’t like the "mindset" of those making the arguments or the facts that didn’t fit your point.

Sure, I don’t mind putting off the reckoning on this. I’ve already conceded that the polls are mixed and that the jury is out on the greatness of Obama’s speech.

It was you that came into the discussion, huffing and puffing exaggerated claims that the speech was a home run, that the effects of Pastorgate had already faded, and that those who disagreed were blinded by their biases.

The final accusation is a pair of shoes that fit you well.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
You weren’t making an argument based on data or logic;
I made my argument, it’s also detailed in blog entries on March 21st and 24th on my blog. I also cited others who come to a different conclusion than you, and there is Pew polling data out now that seems to contradict you.

The fact is, we are interpreting the same data differently, and we have different assumptions. You seem very upset that I dare disagree with you — you seem a tad defensive. I do think that the tactics of trying to tie Obama to Wright are immoral, dishonest, and disgusting. I am absolutely convinced the speech was a home run, and I’ve explained why. I also think the reaction of some shows a lack of understanding of the racial division. So what you call "exaggerated claims" are just my interpretation of the situation. I’m totally fine with you interpreting it differently, but you certainly are in no position to demand I see it as you do.

But I said days ago I was done arguing with that, put my final ideas in a blog entry and said I’d agree to disagree.

This next issue — a political one ’will it help or hurt Obama’ is speculative, and I’ve given my reasons and logic for thinking he could very well turn it into a positive, and it probably won’t hurt him except with people already not voting against him. We’ll see. But you seem to be very short tempered here, calling names, making accusations. Get it in your head: not everyone thinks like you, and that’s OK!!!!! And given the accusations and insults you make, you really should learn not to be thin skinned. Have fun, enjoy disagreement!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
I made my argument,
Well, you made up an argument.
it’s also detailed in blog entries on March 21st and 24th on my blog.
Yes, it’s good to keep those sorts of details where they’ll never be seen. (Except when some stoical sould feels a transcendent call to duty.)
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Hey, look at it this way, Martin; It’ll come in handy when in his ever changing perception of reality, he’ll argue 180 degrees out of whack with the posts he cites.

Useful for something after all.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider