Interesting Article

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/stop_bagging_hillary/

I'm not agreeing with everything he says, but there's some valid points being made.

[Gabu]

"Vindictiveness"?

I'm finding it kind of hard to take seriously an article that calls Obama vindictive.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Like I said, I don't agree with everything.

[Verily]

Errr... no. Let's put it another way... no. This guy could vie with Mitty.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry, but there's some truth to this.

Maybe not a lot, but a nugget.

[Verily]

Sorry, but there's some truth to this.

Maybe not a lot, but a nugget.

I had written up a long response to this earlier, but I got too worked up to finish it, so I'm not bothering. Suffice to say that the grains of truth are very small and do not stack up with what is not being talked about in the article.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I was actually referring to some of the issues relating to the MLK/Johnson thing.

I agreed with Hillary that the Civil Rights movement would have had a MUCH harder time politically without Johnson as an ally - roughing up his own party.

Plus... (I didn't mention this too much at the time - heaven FORBID you criticise Obama) I noticed a lot of annoyed looks from Obama during the NH debate... the best one was the death glance he gave Richardson when he said he was pleased Gore wasn't in the race.

[Verily]

I was actually referring to some of the issues relating to the MLK/Johnson thing.

I agreed with Hillary that the Civil Rights movement would have had a MUCH harder time politically without Johnson as an ally - roughing up his own party.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think, once the ground movement got underway, someone would have taken it up. In fact, there were other champions within both parties, and Johnson actually did not believe in Civil Rights until he spoke with Kennedy about it (Kennedy having pushed Civil Rights legislation prior to his assassination, so it wasn't even Johnson's "idea"). The only sense in which Johnson specifically benefited anyone politically was that he gave the Democrats a lock on the emergent black vote, but, if you're referring strictly to electoral success, it came at the expense of the Solid South.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Frankly, I don't know how you can read so deeply into any of these, and everyone's eyes deceive them. I saw a lot of annoyed sighing from Clinton last night; clearly she is being vain and vindictive.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I was actually referring to some of the issues relating to the MLK/Johnson thing.

I agreed with Hillary that the Civil Rights movement would have had a MUCH harder time politically without Johnson as an ally - roughing up his own party.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think, once the ground movement got underway, someone would have taken it up. In fact, there were other champions within both parties, and Johnson actually did not believe in Civil Rights until he spoke with Kennedy about it (Kennedy having pushed Civil Rights legislation prior to his assassination, so it wasn't even Johnson's "idea"). The only sense in which Johnson specifically benefited anyone politically was that he gave the Democrats a lock on the emergent black vote, but, if you're referring strictly to electoral success, it came at the expense of the Solid South.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Frankly, I don't know how you can read so deeply into any of these, and everyone's eyes deceive them. I saw a lot of annoyed sighing from Clinton last night; clearly she is being vain and vindictive.

I suppose we could say that the Civil Rights movement should thank whoever shot Kennedy, since that was the key thing that gave Johnson the coat-tails to do whatever he wanted. Johnson did BECOME a civil rights supporter, plus the Great Society programs were far far more ambitious than what Kennedy was planning.

I analyse all of them during debates, since the general opinion of Clinton around here verges on the hysterical I didn't feel the need to point here weaknesses out here. Body language is always fun to read. Whenever Clinton wants let rip at someone she starts to scribble, when Obama gets annoyed he does two things he either sends sharp quick glances or he remains a little too calm - his body almost compacts a little.

[Person Man]

Well, apparently some people aren't ready for Obama yet. They are being naturally skeptic and are trying to dismiss him.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

I do think Obama has occasionally has shown little bouts of arrogance, however from what I understand pretty much everyone who's come in contact with him sees him as an unfailingly polite person, so I don't think that's a problem.

Regarding the Hillary MLK/Johnson quote, I'm sure everyone's had their say on it. It wasn't racist, but it was terribly condescending. Obviously MLK could never have become President, but even if he had does Hillary really not think he would have worked with every ounce he had for civil rights reform. Her comment had an air of 'Hey, we've got the power, if anyone's going to be changing things around here, it'll be us, if we feel like it.' It was very off-putting, and deserved to get the attention it did.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Couple of quotes from the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, because polls since SC have really shown him becoming marginalized. Is this guy even following the coverage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What makes Obama's speeches 'aimless' that makes JFK's speeches not? If he's looking for wonkish policy detail in a stump speech, he might be disappointed.

Plus, it's funny he's so snarky about calls for 'change'. I seem to recall that Bill Clinton mentioned 'change' about every 2 minutes in his 1992 campaign speeches. Was this guy criticizing him for that?