Al Gore’s Great Prize

The great Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize today. With full hearts we congratulate him. Our “Al” joins greats such as the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Hooray for Al Gore.

We wrote in Clinton/Gore

President Bill Clinton’s first decision as the Democratic nominee in 1992 was to select Al Gore as his Vice President.

When Al Gore ran for president in 2000 a great many of the people that today lionize Al Gore attacked him.

The same people that attacked Al Gore in 2000, most disgustingly Big Media and Naderites, attack Hillary today.

These unrepentant Naderites (launching their attacks from Big Blogs) and Big Media employ the same untrue and twisted arguments against Hillary that they used against the wonderful Al Gore (see the Daily Howler and their archives for the full ugliness of the attacks against Al Gore).

Yesterday, Al Gore’s former room mate at Harvard, Bob Somersby (who deserves the yet non-existent Nobel Prize for loyalty and hardwork and truth telling under fire) wrote about the “Unstoppable Narratives“.

The power of press corps narrative is truly something to see. The notion that Gore was constantly “reinventing himself” was one of the punishing claims the press corps asserted, in every conceivable circumstance (and some that were not), during his twenty-month run for the White House. Baxter, of course, is being friendly to Gore. But this press corps narrative, devised to harm Gore, still trails Gore around in her head; indeed, it seems to have been power-blasted into every English-speaking journalist’s brain.

Somersby puts the blame exactly where it is deserved, on those who accept the scripts handed to us after manufacture by the right-wing machine:

In An Inconvenient Truth, and in later interviews, Gore often said how hard he’s had to work to convey the facts about global warming. I feel like I haven’t been very successful at telling this story, he has often said. Indeed, it’s exceptionally hard to convey information—but it’s astoundingly easy to convey brainless narratives. Even as she praises Gore, Baxter can’t resist the pull of her cohort’s sheer inanity. The word “reinventing” is stuck in her head in the compartment reserved for Gore. So is the concept of girth.

What complete, f*cking fools we mortals be! And here’s what the right-wing machine has long known: It’s very easy to put silly narratives inside our soft and brainless heads. It’s very easy to hand us scripts—scripts that just never leave us.

PINOs, Naderites, and the Big Blogs that dared to attack Al Bore Gore when he ran for president now clamor for Al Gore as Tribune of the People. Hypocrites. They have not learned a thing. The same lies they gleefully shouted to tear down a great man in 2000 they employ in their unreasoning attacks on a great woman today.

Again, Somersby:

Why is Clinton so “polarizing?” Not so much because of anything she did; she is “polarizing” because many Americans have (understandably) bought the remarkable packages of lies they have heard about her since 1992. Did you know that Clinton is a “murderer,” for example? In 1999, voters heard that for a half-hour on the egregious show Hardball, then for an hour on Hannity & Colmes. And they read all that sh*t about the Lincoln Bedroom—not realizing that the Clintons were being criticized, in part, for letting their teen-age daughter have slumber parties. [snip]

Of course, a Dem voter might prefer Obama or Edwards for perfectly valid reasons. But as we said yesterday, a question has now been joined: Do we believe the things that were said about the Clintons all through the 1990s? In their secret, inner souls, many staunch Democrats secretly do. Omigod! They believe the things that Limbaugh said. They’re searching about for someone else. As they do so, they’re riding with Limbaugh.

PINOs, Naderites and Big Blogs continue their attacks on Hillary. Today they recycle the same garbage about Hillary they recycled yesterday and the day before and the day before that. We will continue to fight them today, tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that.

Today is Al Gore’s day. Today is a day of gratitude for Al Gore’s great prize.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

In Taylor Branch’s great biographical trilogy on Martin Luther King he writes that after Dr. King won the Nobel Peace Prize Dr. King became like the biblical Pillar Of Fire. We expect Al Gore will accomplish the same. Burn ever brighter Al.

Share

98 thoughts on “Al Gore’s Great Prize

  1. Congratulations, Al! Hillary had the following to say yesterday:
    On Thursday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she was “so hoping that he wins the Nobel Prize.

    “There isn’t anybody who deserves it more, for the work he’s done for the last 20 years or more on behalf of sounding the alarms in the world concerning global warming,” she told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann when asked about the prospect of running against Gore.

  2. This is bad, bad news for Obama & Edwards. Netroots and the MSM will spend the next few days speculating whether Al will run or not, who he will endorse etc.

    You’ve already seen Obama/Edwards net supporters are coming out saying they’ll jump ship if Al is in.

    This is delusional. Al won’t run, even if he runs, he won’t win… LOL.

  3. Kostner, you are right on all points. Obama is approaching 10% levels soon and Edwards is already at 10% levels and dropping. Edwards and Obama supporters know they are backing losers. If Al Gore or Ben Affleck announces they will jump ship to the new campaigns. Anything, anytime, anyone to get out of the sunken ships called Obama and Edwards.

    You are also right – Al Gore is not running. And Al would have problems if he ran not least because it is so very late.

    BTW, we posted this at Hillary Headlines:

    The Hill: “Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the 1984 Democratic presidential nominee, is planning to endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), The Hill has learned. Mondale’s endorsement could prove especially valuable in Iowa, which borders his home state of Minnesota. Mondale won Iowa overwhelmingly in the ’84 primary. The endorsement is fitting given Mondale’s decision more than two decades ago to select Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate, the first time a woman was tapped to serve on a major party’s presidential ticket. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she would also make history.”

  4. congrats al gore. as a person who voted for him in 2000 in the primaries as well as the general, it was a bitter and crushing loss for me and the country. if it were not for gop funny buisness and the same naderites who trashed him then but praise him now he would have been completing his 2nd term.

  5. Is Al mania crushing dailykooks? lol

    terrondt,
    According to Rassmussen, Hillary increased her lead over Rudy and beat Thompson by doubt digit. Her favorables also improved to a new high of 54%. Do you know her unfavorables? They have not listed on their website.

  6. The good news keeps coming:

    Civil Rights Leader John Lewis Endorses Hillary!!

    Hillary has just won a key endorsement — that of Civil Rights icon and Georgia Rep. John Lewis. Here’s his statement:

    “I have looked at all the candidates, and I believe that Hillary Clinton is the best prepared to lead this country at a time when we are in desperate need of strong leadership. She will restore a greater sense of community in America, and reclaim our standing in the world.”
    The political context here is too obvious to sketch out. Suffice it to say that it’s a good get for Hillary and a blow to Barack Obama.

  7. Here’s a great Josh Marshall post about Gore’s Nobel Prize win:

    First, before any other yapping and commentary, a big congratulations to Al Gore.

    There are several layers of irony and poetic justice wrapped into this honor. The first is that the greatest step for world peace would simply have been for Gore not to have had the presidency stolen from him in November 2000. By every just measure, Gore won the presidency in 2000 only to have George W. Bush steal it from him with the critical assistance of the US Supreme Court. It’s worth taking a few moments today to consider where the country and world would be without that original sin of this corrupt presidency.

    And yet this is a fitting bookend, with Gore receiving this accolade while the sitting president grows daily an object of greater disapproval, disapprobation and collective shame. And let’s not discount another benefit: watching the rump of the American right detail the liberal bias of the Nobel Committee and at this point I guess the entire world. Fox News vs. the world.

    And not to forget what this award is about even more than Gore. If half of what we think we know about global warming is true, people will look back fifty years from now on the claims that “War on Terror” was the defining challenge of this century and see it as a very sick, sad joke — which rather sums up the Bush presidency.

  8. YEAH BABY, word had it that he was ever so close to endores obama months ago but backed off. this is huge, having the lewis endoresment. a great civil rights giant. obama wanted that endoresment bad. kostner, i will try to email those figures to u or write them here from my rassmussen premium.

  9. BTW, Charles Krauthammer has “endorsed” Hillary for the nomination in his latest column, but I wouldn’t recommend it because he also thinks she’s unprincipled, etc. He figures she’s better than the others because she isn’t an uber-lefty.

    Frankly, I suspect a lot of conservatives have bought the caricature of her for so long that they’re relieved she isn’t evil after all, lol.

    BTW, great news on the John Lewis endorsement!

  10. kostner, i emailed the rass internals to admin. hopefully they can display the link on the head to head and favorables numbers on the candidates. it might not open and may display a rassmussen premium log-in wich only myself can access.

  11. paula, we can take all the endoresments we can get but take krauthhammer’s endorsement with a big grain of salt. he is a rotten rightwinger to the core. he is just validating her big lead for the nomination. i bet he will work really hard against her in the general.

  12. terrondt, I agree with you on Krauthammer. That’s why I recommended not reading his column, lol. I just found it kind of funny that Hillary was endorsed by progressive giants lMondale and John Lewis at the same time wingnut Krauthammer damns her with faint praise.

    BTW, you guys have to read this item on washingtonmonthly.com:

    OBAMA AND IRAQ….After noting several difficult votes that Barack Obama has missed in his career — including the recent resolution declaring Iran’s armed forces a terrorist organization — Garance Franke-Ruta drops a tactical nuke into Obama’s lap:

    All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. It is a harsh thing to suggest, but his own campaign is now arguing that “we’re seeing history repeat itself” when it comes to the power of a vote he decided to skip, and his track record on missing controversial votes is increasingly disturbing….If Obama really thinks Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn’t be bothered to say no.

  13. the national race according to rass has exploded to 24 points for hillary over obama. lordy, no wonder obama is going nuclear. 48% hillary, 24% obama. SWEET!!!!!

  14. Go to the Web site and take a look at the some of the comments, lol. One Obama supporter says he needs to take the gloves off and go after Hillary (as if Garance Franke-Ruta has anything to do with Hillary). Another one brings up the old “it was a scheduling problem” excuse for his missed vote.

  15. guys, admin, kostner has been saying along her run is clicking on all cylinders. i knew her momentum would be good but my god hillary is running the table now. the state and national numbers are better than i dreamed a while back. iowa is still a little stubborn, but i feel she can smudge out a win there and clean up feb 5th. but i will not rest and off course support her as if she is 27 points behinf than ahead. 3 months is a long time in politics.

  16. terrondt, Iowa political writer David Yepsen had some advice for Hillary is a recent column. He’d like to see her interact with voters and activists more and take more questions from voters. I know she’s really buckling down in Iowa and expect to see her do what needs to be done to further improve her performance there.

  17. im heading towards the casinos in connecticuit with the guys from work saturday night. my rightwing supervisor joked on taking my hillary 2008 bumpersticker off while he drives in my car. NO WAY!!! it is going to be tough to leave my hillary button behind but i know they will chive me for it.

  18. paul, that’s all well and good but she had to be careful she not to get ambushed by her rival’s shrill supporters like last week. the media will twist it around.

  19. Y’all make so much sense as usual! And it’s all good. I am tickled pink at Hillary’s numbers and so happy to see the John Lewis endorsement on hillaryhub this mornin’. Yes, terrondt we got to keep workin’ like we are twenty points behind rather than ahead. That is a motto that I think Hillary must’ve lived her life by and all that hard work is payin’ off. Congrats to Al Gore. He deserves this award and yes it does make us remember how the election was stolen from all of us. I noticed the stark contrast between Hillary’s webpage this mornin’ and Obama’s. Hillary’s has a nice picture of Mr. Gore with a congratulations to him and Obama’s has the tired old ad about Iraq–the vote 2002 and “his speech” against the war and his GOOD JUDGEMENT then. I am glad to hear, as some of you are reporting, that the media is starting to finally learn about his absence of presence when a vote yea or nay is needed. Old story about people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. He’s missed a few too many important votes and it makes him look disengaged and self-absorbed, narcissistic as our basement angel put it yesterday.

    Keep up the good work folks. Our girl is one we can be so proud of and I am grateful to you all–mollyj

  20. hi mollyrichards, i have subscribed to obama’s emails to keep watch on what he has to say but i hardly check his site. i don’t want to look at him much if i don’t have to.lol.

  21. I’m wondering what will happen to netnuts if Hillary gets an unexpected endorsement from Al Gore?

    Watch Hillary’s website closely, they just put out a HUGE banner congratulating his Nobel win….

    Just a thought…

  22. i watched keith olberman’s countown on my dvr this morning and as usual hillary was a great and very pretty self.LOL. my wife will get jealous. it seems olberman really likes hillary. he is also a favorite with the nutroots too so they might turn on him for being really great towards hillary. watch them attack civil rights giant lewis now. i put nothing past those haters.

  23. I understand, Terrondt, I just had to go over and look today. But it was a very quick look. I try just to think about how well our girl is doing and ignore the negative stuff comin’ out of the other camps. –mollyj

  24. terrondt, I know what you’re saying about plants from other campaigns ambushing her, like that Rolph dude. I meant that she will continue to work hard in Iowa, so I’m optimistic about her chances there.

  25. It’s fun to watch netnuts explode… But let’s not rest, be ready for any bumps ahead.
    This dailykooks dairy is causing a near commotion among nuts…

    Source: Gore thinks Clinton unstoppable

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — A source involved in Gore’s past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

    But he will not run, because he won’t take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

    Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves “Draft Gore” took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind.

  26. Why do the MSM pundits keep saying that Al and Hillary have “bad blood”? What’s up with that. I hope he doesn’t endorse obama. That will make my life here in Iowa City (environmetalists and Obama-ists galore!) a living hell. I will never hear the end of it; It will be like Chris Dodd overusing the IAFF union endorsement.

  27. celiff, Because the MSM is full of bull___. BTW, if that CNN story can be believed, Gore won’t be endorsing Obama because it makes no sense to endorse someone who’s running against a frontrunner he perceives as unstoppable.

  28. Yeah, that too, Paula. But I don’t think Gore dislikes Hillary, and saying this stuff about the “machine” or her “stumbling”. That’s the sort of stuff the media has tried to drum up. I don’t think Gore had any intention of running with Hillary running.

  29. I hope he vows not to endorse until the primaries are over, as would be appropriate for a man of his stature. He does deserve that prize. ESPN was in the Iowa City office for this weekends game. I don’t know why they were in a political office, and our team sucks right now. It was interesting. He’s going to be speaking in 2 minutes.

  30. RE: John Lewis. Don’t forget he’s a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. That means Hillary is winning the endorsement war there as well. Poor Bwak. He can’t even win in his own organization.

    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha……

  31. RE: Gore, I do not think for one moment he has any intention of running for POTUS again. I also think Hillary savvy enough to have approached him or his people prior to her decsion to run so they would not run afoul of each other. If he had any intention to run, she probably would not be running now.

    He has his cause and his new prestige gives him greater power in bringing about change. He’ll use it and use it wisely.

    I also don’t buy the whole meme of the Hatfields and McCoys with the Clintons and Gores. Stories about friends don’t sell papers- stories about fights do.

  32. Levin says caucus, not primary, may carry real weight

    October 12, 2007

    By KATHLEEN GRAY

    FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

    Michigan’s presidential primary on Jan. 15 could end up being merely a “beauty contest” for the four Democratic candidates who have decided to stay in the race, said U.S. Sen. Carl Levin.

    The state Democratic Party could then hold a party caucus later in the nominating process to determine how the state’s delegates are divided between all the Democratic presidential candidates. Michigan Democrats have not formally told the National Democratic Party how it plans to choose its delegates — at the Jan. 15 primary or a caucus that earlier had been scheduled in February.

    “I want to keep the option open of Michigan moving its caucus after seeing what New Hampshire does,” Levin said Friday during a visit to the Free Press editorial board.

    Levin has led a fight for years to break the monopoly that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the presidential nominating process. The move to Jan. 15 was meant to advance that fight.

    “My priority is to end the hammer lock that New Hampshire has on this process,” Levin said. “It’s undemocratic.”

    As a result of the move to Jan. 15, which violates Democratic National Committee rules, the Democratic candidates have pledged not to campaign in Michigan and four of the Democrats — senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden, former Sen. John Edwards, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, have removed their names from the ballot. The front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, decided to stay on the ballot.

    Levin said there is a possibility that the state Legislature may act to add the four Democrats back on the ballot, perhaps for a caucus in February.

  33. mj and OkieAtty, I think you’re right about Gore. That CNN story is probably based on a source who wanted Gore to run but is left explaining why he isn’t. And the reason given may have absolutely no relation to the truth.

  34. Another big good news day for Hillary.

    New California poll with Hillary up from last month (Survey and Policy Research Institute) by 5 additional points to a 22 point lead. “Unless Clinton implodes, it’s hard to see how either Obama or Edwards can overcome her daunting lead in California,” said SPRI Director Philip J. Trounstine” Hillary 42%, Obama 20%, Edwards 14%

    Also the Mondale endorsement coming.

    We love all the Gore talk which diminishes whatever small degree of tarnished stature Obama and Edwards had ever managed to grab.

    But the sweetest good news of all was the endorsement by the great John Lewis. Lewis of course has a great civil rights history but our favorite story is of John Lewis “the chicken preacher’. When Lewis was young he practised his oratorical skills, because he had no congregation (no audience being so young), on the farm chickens. We thought Lewis would be for Hillary since this year’s Selma commemoration when he choose to march with Hillary over the bridge, not the other guy.

    If Levin does get something worked out for a vote that counts on Michigan that too will work out well for Hillary because the voters of Michigan will remember how quick Obama and Edwards abandoned them. If nothing works out Hillary has Michigan in the win column. That is a sign of a good chess player – you win no matter what move the opposition makes. Checkmate.

  35. We will be writing about the below tomorrow (originally we were going to do it today but the Gore Nobel announcement deserved a boatload of respect) with not quite so civil a keyboard.

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3691

    The Hillary campaign is responding to Obama’s new negative campaign in a memo. We have much to say about all this and we love, love, love this:

    This week Senator Obama criticized Senator Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

    Senator Obama was silent on the measure when it was considered on the floor. Despite serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he wasn’t involved in Senate negotiations or discussions over the bill’s language. (See: Huffington Post) He didn’t speak out against it before it was voted on – he didn’t even return from the campaign trail to vote. He didn’t speak out against it at a nationally televised debate that night or defend himself from an attack during the debate on his missed vote. In fact, he waited more than nine hours after the vote was over to issue a statement about it.

    If Senator Obama believed the measure was as dangerous as he says, wouldn’t he have had some obligation to stand up, speak out, and fight against it?

    So perhaps something else is at work: politics.

    As Senator Obama’s closest ally in the Senate, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, said, “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.”

    As Senator Obama abandons the politics of hope in favor of attack politics, Senator Clinton remains focused on her vision for America – the kind of vision that today is attracting the key endorsement of civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis.

  36. Hey- I read the Edwards affair story. Stuff like that is well-vetted before publication. Either they have something solid or they feel comfortable enough with having in an out by saying the story is about a woman who in her e-mails claimed to have an affair with JE. Not only is a POTUS candidate, but he and his wife are both lawyers.

    Personally, I think he just made a giant blunder by making a public statement. That story is now going mainstream and the campaign worker in question will be hounded by the press. $5 says she publicly admits the affair within the week and will be on morning TV. Another $10 says Bwak’s camp is behind it. Hillary didn’t need to do it at all bc the risk of discovery far out weighs any positives she’d pick up (which are nada from what I can tell). Only Bwak would benefit. This story smells and, frankly, I think where any candidate (or spouse) puts or doesn’t put their genitalia is no one’s business.

  37. Paula, she did, but the press will be hounding her. And the Enquirer will throw her under the bus. It makes what should have been a non-story a big story for them.

  38. Here’s a heads up. I haven’t found online video yet, but MSNBC ran video of Obama’s attack speech today at Drake University in Iowa. He attacked Clinton up one side and down the other in a speech he read from prepared remarks. Very “down” tired performance. But, here’s the killer. In front of a college audience, he didn’t get one single bit of applause until the end of his speech. The video clip had one of his big applause lines — the one about not giving this President a blank check an not expecting him to cash it. Nothing. Silence. Bombsville. In front of a college crowd.

  39. Wow, HWC, that’s very telling. I think Obama listens way too much to his handlers, and they are giving hims some really bad advice. That’s the difference with Axelrod in this campaign and Axelrod in the Patrick campaign. Patrick managed his campaign. You could tell he was in charge. I mean, this new line of attack isn’t what was drawing people to the speeches. His supporters seem angry when I suggest this won’t work, that it goes against the grain of his campaign. Honestly, he’s free to do this. I think it actually helps Hillary. What’s really funny to me is that Obama is in many ways a Clinton Democrat.

    Okie, I totally agree. I’d bet money the Edwards scandal comes from the Obama people. I heard the hair cut meme came from Obama’s camp.

  40. Barack: The audacity of desperation. I refer you to the undying words of the immortal Janice Joplin: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose!” Breathe deeply the gathering gloom.

  41. Here’s another little tidbit. During his daily Clinton bash-fest this afternoon on MSNBC, Chris Matthews inadvertently let slip why he is on an anti-Clinton jihad. The Clinton campaign has given him the shade, refusing to schedule any campaign representatives on his show. He’s pissed.

    Note that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have appeared for interviews with Keith Olbermann in the last two weeks. The best Matthews can manage is Elizabeth Edwards, spouse of the candidate at 10% in the polls.

  42. You’d think Matthews, of all people, would appreciate the Clintons’ muscle. After all his show is named, HARDBALL.

  43. hwc,

    Craig Crawford on Mudball today noted the silence of the Iowans to Obama’s attack speech. Hopefully the O-bomb-a speech will be online soon. We’ll even check the Obama website to see if they post the speech. We are sure Obama is very proud of himself with that speech so we expect to see it on his site. If it is not on the site then Obama is not so proud of the speech.

    As to how smart the Hillary Team is, more evidence: When Oprah announced she was for Obama, Hillary appeared on Ellen. With Matthews attacking Hillary (today he seemed crazed) Hillary appears on Olbermann.

    We love smart people.

  44. Wow, I ust noticed that Hillary has a nice picture of Gore on her website with a nice statement about his win. That’s nice.

  45. Thanks for posting, HWC. I got bored after the first couple minutes, so I’m not going to watch it, but did you hear the report early on? Some Nevada paper saying he has a good chance to win the caucuses and will have more offices there than any other candidate? Is this believable? She’s way ahead in the polls there.

  46. mj,

    Obama wins NV? That is pipe dream. NV has lots of hispanic voters, for historical reason, Obama is not necessarily popular among this demographic group.

  47. Ok, let’s not go there. But, it did seem weird to me because Hillary is so far ahead there. I just found it weird that anyone would write he has a “good chance” of winning there. I dislike these caucuses. They are not very representative. I wonder why Nevada went that way instead of a primary.

  48. I’m trying to figure out who’s going to be this cycle’s Howard Dean. Edwards or Obama? I have a feeling either one of them will explode on national stage…

  49. I don’t understand…does Obama deny that IRG are targeting americans in Iraq? I was under the impression this was common knowledge. How does labeling them a terrorist organization but not acknowledging they are targeting americans in Iraq make it any less possible that they must be considered as we leave Iraq? This is a rhetorical argument he’s building. But, either way, since he can’t actually point to a vote he cast it’s pretty weird to be casting stones. I don’t know, after watching this video I am actually comforted that his internals must be pretty bad.

  50. mj: Early states not named Iowa are horrified that “it’s all come down to IA” is the strategy. Same reason NH keeps threatening to move up to Dec — candidates aren’t spending sufficient time & money outside of IA. The downside to Hillary’s lead in NV is that the state is getting ignored, which kind of defeats the purpose of getting moved up to first four.

    kostner: I’d flag Obama as most likely implosion. That flag pin flap came pretty close. Sadly, it’s one of the few times I’ve 100% agreed with him, but it’s something I’d never say out loud on the trail — talk about a political tin ear.

  51. mj, what publication says that Obama has a chance in Nevada – High Times?

    The Pollster.com aggregate has Hillary at 51% and Obama at 12.4%, Edwards at 14.3%

    http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

    The last ARG Nevada poll has Obama barely in double digits with 11% (Hillary at 51%). The highest Obama has been in Nevada was back in April at 21% (Hillary at 35%). Moreover in caucuses, organization is what matters and Hillary has the entire state locked up already (including Harry Reid’s son). Also, the endorsement by former Mexico President Fox will help Hillary even more with the Latino community in Nevada.

  52. I didn’t 100% agree with him about the pin thing because I find it so cosmetic. It’s a pin. By basically saying he’s protesting it because of the way others are using it, I found a bit silly and not particularly believable. I mean, I’m not the flag pin wearing type. I suspect Obama is not either, so maybe he feels like if he’s doing it, he’s being as cynical as Republicans who use it to wrap themselves in the flag and score political points. But I think of my uncle who was a soldier in world war II and a firefighter, and very comfortably and very proudly wore a flag and eagle pendant on a chain with his cross. And, for him, it wasn’t cynical at all. It’s something he really believed in, and in my opinion Obama forgot about people like that.

  53. I read the same quote — mj, was in the one that said he could win with or without the Culinary Union?

    Speaking of which, the SEIU locals can endorse as of Monday. Any predictions for IA, NV? Candidates did a presentation in NV, where it’s esp important — Hill sent Rory Reid & some Clark Cty person, Obama sent an AA state senator, Edwards sent someone w/ a good working relationship w/ the local.

  54. mj: But I think of my uncle who was a soldier in world war II and a firefighter, and very comfortably and very proudly wore a flag and eagle pendant on a chain with his cross. And, for him, it wasn’t cynical at all. It’s something he really believed in, and in my opinion Obama forgot about people like that.

    Hence the political tin ear …

  55. HillaryLandRocks, as interesting as Monday being the day SEIU locals can begin to endorse we have another reason for anticipating Monday with bated breath: Monday is October 15 and the day FEC reports come in.

    and mj as to the Iraq/Iran connection, Obama gave a speech acknowledging that there was such a connection.

  56. admin, if you watch the second Obama video you posted, the one of just the Iran stuff, you can hear the CSPAN announcer mention it in the background.

  57. Ok, so he already co-sponsored labeling them terrorists earlier this year, now he’s given a prior speech about their interference and he didn’t vote or speak out on this “sense of the Senate”, so honestly what’s he talking about?

  58. Monday is October 15 and the day FEC reports come in.

    Who do you think has the crappy COH — Edwards, Obama, or both (Edwama)?

  59. admin,

    Gosh. I tortured myself to sit through his speech in order to accurately count the rounds of applause. HWC was exactly right. Except some applause at the beginning for totally irrelevant stuff, there is NO SINGLE applause during his speech.

    This is embarrasing to its extreme…

  60. The FEC reports will clue us in as to who is spending how much money where. Obama has thus far spent at least double what Hillary has in Iowa. Obama also has thus far had the most expenses related to staff and to polling. Obama donors are going to be looking at where their money has been spent and what the results have been.

    If there is as much waste as we suspect, much money spent with little results that will show up too and the donors will start to demand heads be lopped off. Donors to Obama might also start to donate to Hillary in the final quarter once they see how their money has been wasted.

    Also, unions such as SEIU will want to see these figures before they endorse anyone.

  61. thanks for the video:

    I’ve come to the conclusion, for the first time, that Obama is a bold-faced liar like George Bush. He doesn’t even bash an eye-lash about standing at a podium and lying about his opponents’ positions. He’s another Rudy.

  62. And Kostner, the applause at the end of the speech is tortured – it is not a rousing thunderous applause but rather “thank God this is over, where is the bathroom?” type applause.

    This was at Drake University, supposedly in front of energetic students, but with the dark blue curtains behind him and the sepulchral silence it looks and sounds more like a eulogy at a funeral home.

  63. Donors to Obama might also start to donate to Hillary in the final quarter once they see how their money has been wasted.

    Some gossip in the Sun Times just recently about how this has already started … in Chicago.

  64. hwc, it is lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation. Students are not dumb. They might be inexperienced and naive but they catch on quickly and will not respect so many mistruths, half-truths, misrepresentations and lies. Students also have access to the internet and will research this speech and realize Obama is not to be trusted.

  65. “If there is as much waste as we suspect, much money spent with little results that will show up too and the donors will start to demand heads be lopped off.”

    ——-

    I suspect that’s why a half dozen high-paid “strategists” from the home office were re-located to actual primary states his week. Somebody probably asked what all these people hanging around Chicago were actually doing, especially since most of them had “political strategist” somewhere in their title. And, lord knows, there hasn’t been a lot of political strategizing in the Obama campaign.

    MEMO TO CANDIDATE: We recommend saying that you stopped wearing your flag pin as a protest against American patriotism!

  66. admin,

    Even DesMoinesRegister noticed this, in the article they just filed…


    The crowd of about 200 people at Drake University’s Old Main did not applaud until the end of his 20 minute speech.”

  67. MEMO TO CANDIDATE 2: Winning Iowa is crucial. Therefore, we recommend not wasting your time at the Iowa AARP debate and, instead, focus on giving a series of really boring foreign policy speeches on universities campuses to energize the teenage caucus goers.

  68. New campaign strategy, from the Guardian:

    With the stakes so high in the three months before the first primary votes are cast, Ms Obama is unlikely to fall back on her comedic routines of this summer. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Ms Obama, 43 and an executive at the University of Chicago hospitals before she gave up her job earlier this year, would chide her husband for failing to pick up his dirty socks or put the butter back into the refrigerator.

    But the time for jokes about Mr Obama’s domestic foibles is long past, his campaign admits. It also acknowledges that Ms Obama’s grousing about her husband may have backfired, amplifying doubts that he has the experience or gravitas to lead the free world.

    Ms Obama’s mission now is to make her husband appear presidential. “She will be talking about her husband as the person who knows him best, from her personal perspective, on his judgment, his experience, and his strength as a leader. After all, she has known him for 20 years, and she is going to talk about that consistency,” her spokeswoman, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, said.

    She will also talk about the Obamas’ life at home with their two young daughters, fleshing out her husband’s political resume and drawing a sharp contrast with Ms Clinton’s famously troubled marriage.

  69. “She will also talk about the Obamas’ life at home with their two young daughters, fleshing out her husband’s political resume and drawing a sharp contrast with Ms Clinton’s famously troubled marriage.”

    Lovely. Well, that’s really going to women the ladies over, NOT. This is just insulting. Is this just a rumor or is this the official plan? Frankly, she and Elizabeth were doing this all summer.

  70. Hi y’all. I haven’t been able to bring myself to listen to Obama’s speech yet. I have been troubled by several things recently in his campaign, and one of them is the lack of truth-telling and distortion of facts–what somebody called downright lying a la George Bush. And I saw the very good memo on the Clinton campaign website about the “new season” of the campaign refuting some of his most recent lies. The other thing that troubles me is his appearance in front of that mega church this past weekend, with him talkin’ about creating a Kingdom on earth, basically. Obviously Hillary’s main task is to stay on message and just keep runnin’ the strong campaign that she’s been runnin’, but aside from this, what I wonder is how else does her campaign refute these lies and distortions? Does she take him on and publicly confront him or is it better just to release statements and use her public time to deliver her own message? Just wonderin’ what you all think. mollyj

  71. HillaryLandRocks,

    they read Big Pink but won’t listen to our advice. We stated almost as soon as it started happening that calling your presidential candidate husband a lunkhead was not a smart strategy.

    Now, in October, they finally figure out that the “lunkhead” strategy was dumb?

    The lunkhead strategy was/is part and parcel of the Obama narcissism. By that we mean that political campaigns will sometimes use self-deprecating humor, maybe a little joshing of the spouse, but only if the candidate is viewed as somehow “distant”. Candidates who are viewed as intellects and with long records of service sometimes appear intimidating and campaigns seek to soften the image.

    In Obama’s case there was never an impression of being an intellect (except for some of his dumb as rocks supporters looking for someone to deify) or of great accomplishment or having lofty friends and social circle. There was never a need to make him seem “normal”. He was a state senator of which there are thousands, not some erudite long-term policy maker or a statesman of long standing.

    The narcissism is that the Obama campaign and Michelle and Barack thought that somehow people were in any way intimidated by Obama. The lunkhead strategy was employed to get rid of a problem that did not exist and instead created another problem – making him indeed appear to be a lunkhead.

    As to the new strategy, we will again be helpful (hold the applause). The American people are electing a president, not Father of the Year. His family life might or might not be commendable but it is not going to be a vote getter. Our advice is: stop missing votes that are difficult to cast and start being honest.

  72. What bothers me the most about this cynical attack on Hillary’s marriage is we all know, 100%, she’s been a faithful wife. No one has had her personal life pried into more than this woman, and for another woman to attack her for her husband’s behavior I find reprehensible. I know many women who have had these sorts of problems in their marriage and kept their marriages together. We should hold Hillary keeping her marriage together against her? This is “family values”? I don’t understand this approach at all. This is how Bush ran against Gore, why the hell would Democrats be interested in that sort of campaign?

  73. You know, I just think this is so down right discouraging. I just listened to the speech and I have to say I agree with the assessmentss here–in his characterization of Hillary’s positions on Iran, in his characterizations of her Iraq vote–he is taking things out of context and it is hard to believe that this is done for any other reason than to deliberately distort the facts. And then this new “happy family” strategy. It’s so inappropriate. I can’t understand the motivation behind this candidacy. He’s not running on his own policies or platform anymore–it’s become all about him. Once again the narcissism of the campaign becomes so apparent. mollyj

  74. He’s so transparent, I expect him to start hammering Hillary for “wanting socialized medicine” and “not being able to get elected in France”.

    I loved Hillary’s polite euphemism for Obama’s lying on Olbermann: “deciding to misrepresent”.

    Speaking of lying. Why does Obama keep saying he was running for the US Senate at the time of his much-ballyhoo’d 2002 speech? In October 2002, he was running for re-election to his part-time job as a statehouse hack.

    Maybe he meant that he wanted to run for Senate and Penny Pritzker made him give an anti-war speech in exchange for her fundraising.

  75. The real flaw in that funereal speech at Drake University is that it didn’t contain even 30 seconds about the future. All elections are about the future.

  76. HWC, “He’s so transparent, I expect him to start hammering Hillary for “wanting socialized medicine” and “not being able to get elected in France”.” that’s funny, though I must agree.

    I think it also probably hurt that he gave that speech after Hillary’s college speech earlier this week where she actually focused on student issues.

  77. Just for the record: Wilmington News Journal reports on a Fairleigh Dickinston poll of Delaware. Hillary 41%, Biden second with 19%

  78. Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times gets punked. Someone should let him know.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/us/politics/12web-zeleny.html

    In Saturday’s edition Zeleny quotes Randall Rolph (after writing a glowing story about Rolph): “In an interview after the event, Mr. Rolph said he was impressed by Mr. Obama, but he had yet to decide who he would support. When would he make up his mind? “Probably the moment I walk into the caucuses,” he said with a smile.”

    The problem? Rolph endorsed Obama in a letter to the Globe Gazette this past Thursday.

    http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/10/11/opinion/doc470da32950f67037231415.txt

  79. HIYA HILL supporters!!!

    I was disturbed in reading and article at “THE NEW YORK TIMES -THE CAUCUS”. IT blatantly lies about what HILLARY said at the JULY debate..

    “At a Democratic presidential debate in July, Mrs. Clinton said she would not be willing to meet with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without conditions during her first year as president.”

    Hillary never said she would NOT BE WILLING…..She said she would not promise to meet with these leaders until she knew what the intentions were.

    The article makes it sound as if HILLARY has put negotiations during her “FIRST YEAR” off the table…..Which is 100 percent false.

    I will link the story below….The frustrating thing about the STORY, is that REAL CLEAR POLITICS has it linked to its site, and its very misleading.

  80. Interesting inside the Wilmington News Journal Poll. BO is 3rd
    with 17% and Edward has 7%. 4% rate Bidens chances as
    excellent and 50% poor.

    Hillary @ 41% has statewide support which includes lower Delaware which often reflects southern attitutes and concerns.
    If you were to draw a line from below the Delaware Chesapeake
    canal, through lower Delaware, the eastern shore of Maryland,
    down to the tidewater area of Virginia they often have similar
    voting paterns. I’m just musing aloud if Hillary is breaking into
    staunch conservative and yes, Republican strongholds.

  81. I don’t see this posted here, so I’ll add it to the mix. Spot-on analysis of the, “pronoun battle”, over Iran;

    http://www.slate.com/id/2175884/

    Did Clinton Flip-Flop?Dissecting Hillary’s comments about Iran.
    By John Dickerson
    Posted Friday, Oct. 12, 2007, at 5:43 PM ET
    Sen. Hillary Clinton
    I am having a debate with the Obama campaign about the first-person pronoun. On Thursday night, Sen. Hillary Clinton suggested she would negotiate with Iran without preconditions. ”I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading.”

    Sen. Barack Obama has seized on that statement, arguing that she has flip-flopped from her previous assertion that she would not negotiate with dictators. At one level, as I will explain in a second, this is a silly fight about pronouns. At another, it’s an incredibly important policy debate. The question of Iran negotiations is an argument about which of the two candidates has a better grasp of the threats that face the country and how to deal with them. Finding the right answer to that question may be the most important thing in the election. Also, which candidate can we trust to tell us the truth, or as close to the truth as a politician will offer? And which candidate will distort the facts to make a point?

    It’s also a revealing political squabble. One of Hillary’s exploitable weaknesses is that voters don’t trust her, so accusing her of flip-flopping plays on that vulnerability. That’s why John Edwards’ campaign, always one degree more aggressive than Obama’s, put out a release with this first sentence: “Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans.” Clinton’s biggest asset, according to polls, is her experience and leadership qualities. She doesn’t want to lose a single bit of advantage by looking unsure on foreign affairs. Obama wants to talk about Clinton’s missteps on Iran because it is a forward-looking national security issue. He’s been talking about how he was right about Iraq five years ago, but that’s a backward-looking argument.

    So, a lot is at stake in proving that Clinton has flip-flopped on the question of negotiating with Iran. How to interpret what she said? One reading suggests that Clinton is in fact going back on her word. When Barack Obama said he would negotiate with foreign leaders in late July, Clinton said it was naive—that person-to-person negotiations “at that high a level before you know what the intentions are … [would be] used for propaganda purposes.” Obama replied that her refusal to consider such negotiations was proof she was like George Bush. So when Clinton said she would “engage in negotiations,” Obama immediately clobbered her for inconsistency: “I’m not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this. But I can tell you this: when I am President of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand.”

    When I told an Obama aide I didn’t think she was changing her position on direct personal negotiations with Iranian leaders, the aide asked, “So when she says I, she actually means someone else?” The answer is yes. Clinton is using a common campaign construction in which the first-person singular stands for the entire administration. So, for example, when Obama pledges, as he did earlier in the month, “I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately,” he is not saying that he will go to Iraq to do the job himself. He’s saying he would task his secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs to get the job done. So, too, with Clinton: She would task people to negotiate, but it does not necessarily follow from her statement that she would do the negotiations herself, which has always been her distinction. There’s no evidence she was talking about direct negotiations with foreign leaders. Hence, no flip-flop.

  82. Nice post on talkingpointsmemo.com:

    Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Thursday, prompting CBS News to run a report on the interview. It included this jaw-dropper, by way of reader DOK:

    During the twelve-minute interview, the former first lady chuckled in response to Olbermann. But she never unleashed the highly-scrutinized, overly-analyzed belly laugh known as “the cackle” that has been the focus of national media over the past few weeks. Which raises the question: Has the tightly-managed Clinton campaign put the kibosh on the cackle?

    Yes, we’ve apparently reached a point in the media’s coverage of the campaign in which news outlets find it noteworthy when they don’t notice anything unusual about Sen. Clinton’s laugh.

    As Greg Sargent put it, “We’ve come full circle: Damned if you do cackle; damned if you don’t.”

    I was particularly fond of the way CBS tried to distance itself from its own report. The senator’s laugh, the report said, is “overly analyzed.” Apparently, it’s so excessive that CBS finds it necessary to note its absence.

    In related news, Rudy Giuliani delivered a speech yesterday in which he didn’t answer his cell phone; Mitt Romney answered questions without abandoning a position he held five minutes prior; John McCain hosted a town-hall forum in which he did not refer to anyone as a “little jerk”; and Fred Thompson went the whole day without responding to a reporter’s question with, “I don’t know anything about that.”

  83. Pollster Mark Mellman has a story in The Hill on how Iowa could reshuffle the race:

    After reading last week’s Washington Post poll story, a friend asked, “Is it really all over? Has Hillary Clinton already won the nomination?”

    “No,” I replied. “While Clinton is in a very strong position, the race is really just beginning.” While the Post did not jump to the same conclusion my friend reached, its poll and other national surveys showing a consistent, indeed growing lead for the New York senator have led more than just one observer to suggest the end is near.

    When I asserted here, five months ago, that if Clinton won Iowa she would be the nominee, many scoffed. Though a few doubters persist, that prediction has been transformed into conventional wisdom. In short, Clinton is strong enough elsewhere that a loss in Iowa is one of the few events with the potential to scramble the race enough to create an opening for others.

    Five months ago I also wrote here that the Clinton campaign would be better off figuring out how to win Iowa than how to survive without it, and it has done exactly that.

    However, despite the time, attention and money she has lavished on the state — and the lead in Sunday’s Des Moines Register poll — Sen. Clinton has not won Iowa yet, and the caucuses stand as a potential choke point on her march to the nomination.

    Why the uncertainty?

    First, while Ann Selzer’s Register poll is one of the best, all the public polls in Iowa suffer from a fatal flaw I described here many months ago — they survey the wrong people. Pollsters rely on notoriously inaccurate self-reports of voters’ likelihood of attending the caucuses, an extraordinarily low-turnout event. The inherent problems with these polls lend a continuing air of mystery to the real state of play in Iowa.

    Second, with that critical caveat, the race appears to be much closer in Iowa than it is elsewhere — the three leaders seem to be within striking distance of each other, separated by only about six points. Trend lines suggest both Clinton and Barack Obama are gaining, apparently at John Edwards’s expense. None of the three is out of the hunt in Iowa, though, and victory for either Obama or Edwards would have a substantial impact on their standing in every contest that follows. John Kerry picked up about 20 points nationally from his Iowa victory in 2004. The lift would not be that dramatic this time — Obama and Edwards are better-known than Kerry was, and Hillary Clinton is a true front-runner, with the ability to absorb some real body blows and still emerge victorious. Nonetheless, a Clinton loss would significantly reshuffle the race.

    Third, caucus attendees decide late. More than two-thirds of the Democrats who voted in the 2004 Iowa caucuses didn’t decide who to vote for until a month before the caucuses. Four in 10 decided in the last week. Kerry more than doubled his vote in Iowa (and nearly quadrupled it in New Hampshire) — in less than 20 days.

    One consequence of this late decision-making is that what happens between November and January will be vastly more important than everything that has occurred until now. Put differently, that which we know about now could prove much less significant than those things we cannot know about yet. Of course, it’s possible that nothing much will happen over the next three months, but odds are something will.

    Questionable polls, the possibility of a close race today, late-deciding voters and events yet to unfold combine to create real uncertainty about the Iowa outcome — and that means the race for the nomination is far from over.

    Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the majority leaders of both the House and Senate.

    Share this story
    Digg Digg
    Delicious Delicious
    NewsVine NewsVine
    Reddit Reddit
    Also On The Hill
    Bush touts trade as engine for growth
    Jefferson makes second court appearance
    Bush calls for action on trade agreements
    Clinton camp: Obama abandoning politics of hope
    Regula says he will not seek reelection

    Classifieds

    BLOGS
    Blogs
    ADVERTISER

  84. There is an article in the right wing newspaper NewsMax which confirms much of what this website has been saying all along . The headline reads: “Daley Machine Backs Obama”. It quotes Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass description of the “Chicago Way–in which projects large and small are completed only after the proper palms have been greased, and in which is dependent on politics and favors”. It notes the clean bill of health offered up by Jay Steward of a supposed Chicago based watch dog group, my nominee for the Alberto Gonzales award. It notes Obamas connections to a lobbyist who represents the NRA, Pfizer, Monsanto, Carlyle Group. And it shows how Obama rose in the ranks and his relationship with the Machine turned from tepid to torrid. (Note: my computer crashed, so I am having difficulty cutting and pasting–will try again).

Comments are closed.