All Nancy Pelosi had to do was keep her big mouth shut on this issue, instead of repeating, exactly, the Obama line.

Obviously, playing the role of an honest broker was just too damned hard for her, even though she is by her role as leader of the House Democrats expected to show real impartiality on such matters.

I should think that a donor might notice Pelosi's utter disrespect for their side in the issue.

Posted at March 26, 2008 3:19 PM in response to In Letter, Top Clinton Donors Chastise Pelosi For Statements About Super-Delegates

And is it "repeating right wing talking points" to call your Democratic opponent a liar?

Somehow, that doesn't seem to bother you, does it?

Look, non-children understand that in politics, there are attacks. The real issue is, is the criticism of Obama for choosing Wright as his pastor of 20 years a legitimate one?

Answer: absolutely.

Posted at March 25, 2008 3:27 PM in response to Hillary: Wright "Would Not Have Been My Pastor"

So I guess what you're saying is that if a Republican were to attend a white supremacist church, it would be nobody's business, right?

Posted at March 25, 2008 3:23 PM in response to Hillary: Wright "Would Not Have Been My Pastor"

What's kind of amusing in reading over all these comments is how much outrage people seem to have that Hillary dared to answer a question about Wright, yet how little they can point to that was genuinely outrageous in her response.

I hear you all sputtering, but I'm not hearing any actual argument, people!

All of which implies that Hillary did a great job: she scored good points on offense while playing good defense as well.

Posted at March 25, 2008 2:40 PM in response to Hillary: Wright "Would Not Have Been My Pastor"

Hillary handled the question perfectly.

She dealt with the issue presented by Wright squarely without saying a single thing that would not resonate with virtually every voter who is outside the actually quite small moonbat wing of the Democratic Party (so well represented here on TPM, though!).

Posted at March 25, 2008 1:58 PM in response to Hillary: Wright "Would Not Have Been My Pastor"

Here's a quote from the wiki entry:

The term jumping the shark alludes to a specific scene in a 1977 episode of the TV series Happy Days when the popular character Arthur "Fonzie" Fonzarelli literally jumps over a shark while water skiing. The scene was so preposterous that many believed it to be an ill-conceived attempt at reviving the declining ratings of the flagging show. Since then, the phrase has become a colloquialism used by U.S. TV critics and fans to denote the point at which the characters or plot of a TV series veer into a ridiculous, out-of-the-ordinary storyline. Such a show is typically deemed to have passed its peak. Once a show has "jumped the shark" fans sense a noticeable decline in quality or feel the show has undergone too many changes to retain its original charm.

Application to Obama campaign's cry of McCarthyism:

1. An ill-conceived attempt at reviving the declining ratings of the flagging show
2. Deemed to have passed its peak
3. Noticeable decline in quality or feel
4. Has undergone too many changes to retain its original charm

Posted at March 24, 2008 6:52 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Raising Money Off Of Bill Clinton-Joe McCarthy Comparison

The Obama campaign, with its manufactured charge of McCarthyism, has finally and definitively jumped the shark, and the Clinton campaign knows it.

Posted at March 24, 2008 6:12 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Raising Money Off Of Bill Clinton-Joe McCarthy Comparison

I think it's a smart move to advance Bill's profile on this particular issue.

No fair minded person, looking at the entire context of Bill's remarks, would conclude that the clear interpretation of Bill's statement was that he was questioning Obama's patriotism. Even in the tank media types will get this point, for the most part.

And the problem is you don't start calling someone McCarthy like, least of all a fellow Democrat and a former President, unless you've got him dead to rights on questioning someone's patriotism. What you absolutely can't do is act as if some interpretation you happen to impose on those remarks, even though a perfectly benign interpretation exists, is sufficient cause to make such an accusation, laden as it is with great ugliness.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the Obama campaign has finally jumped the shark. While its many false accusations of racism were given a pass by the pillow fetchers in the media ("fairy tale", anyone?), because in our PC world oppressed groups are essentially given free rein to make such accusations with effective impunity, however absurd on their face they may be (why does Donna Brazile even have a job after making the absurd and vile accusation of racism based on the "fairy tale" remark?), it's quite another to make an accusation of McCarthyism when there is nothing remotely resembling a sufficient ground. Such an accusation can't be explained away or excused on the basis of some perceived prejudice against an oppressed group. It has no possible explanation, except a desire to engage in slime-ball tactics.

And it's remarkable in what shambles Obama's own campaign has left his supposed core message of "hope" and "new politics". When's the last time we heard about those "values"? When do you think we might hear of them again -- possibly never, now that his campaign so obviously taken the low road? Haven't heard a lot lately about people fainting while listening to his incredible oratory, have we?

I think it's pretty obvious that we can say goodbye to all that. The real Obama campaign has now come to the fore, and it's not so pretty.

Posted at March 24, 2008 5:52 PM in response to Bill Clinton Re-Emerges As Major Issue In Campaign

You really are desperate to avoid the issue in question, aren't you?

No, if you want all evidence you need to know that you don't have an honest bone in your body, look to the fact that you can't address the very point I just made, that when Clinton said "That is my argument for her," he clearly was referring to other things he had been uttering, because he immediately REPEATED the things he had in mind, in three quick summary points (the same ones as at the very of the clip) which did NOT include any supposed reference even to Hillary's patriotism, not to mention Obama's.

An honest person would concede that point. A dishonest person would pretend that something else was at issue, and try to throw up smoke screens, and that person would be you.

Posted at March 24, 2008 3:07 PM in response to Hillary Spokesperson: Obama Campaign's Attacks Are "Based On Lies"

Oh please.

Immediately after he utters the words "That's my argument for her", he then proceeds to reiterate the points that he had uttered earlier on, to summarize that argument once more. He most definitely does NOT reiterate a single word that even a desperate Obama supporter could take as suggesting Obama's lack of patriotism.

Sometimes I think some of you people don't have an honest bone in your body.

Posted at March 24, 2008 1:38 PM in response to Hillary Spokesperson: Obama Campaign's Attacks Are "Based On Lies"