More Straw On The Camel’s Back
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on March 3rd, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Hillary, Obama Uber Alles, Podium SpinWhen John Edwards dropped out, and I had to hold my nose and choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I decided to go with Clinton. It didn’t feel like a difficult choice at the time. In a nutshell, I distrusted Obama more than I disliked Clinton. (A summary of why I distrust Obama can be found here, mostly in Matt’s words.)
I’m not so sure I still distrust Obama more than I dislike Clinton. My distrust of Obama has stayed constant, but in the last few weeks my dislike of Clinton has continued to increase. Dramatically. The latest straw on my back is Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad, and its downstream fallout. I’m not yet sure if my back was broken by this latest straw, but it’s hurting enough that I better make a doctor’s appointment and find out.
First, Hillary Clinton decided to resort to what can only be called Bush-Rovian fearmongering.
If you vote for Barack Obama, your children are going to die in their beds. This is the message of the latest Clinton television ad running in Texas. The spot starts with a moonlit shot of a blond toddler in the warm tangle of her sheets and then cuts to a close-up of an infant also in deep REM sleep. For the next 15 seconds, the images shift from one cherubic sleeping face to another. You’d think you were watching a Baby Ambien ad if the narrator weren’t giving you nightmares: “It’s 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military—someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.” At this point, we see our first adult, a concerned mother, opening the door and peering into her children’s bedroom. “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” the narrator repeats. “Who do you want answering the phone?”
The mother is indeed vigilant. It’s 3 in the morning, and she’s fully dressed in a business suit.
Then, Slate’s John Dickerson invited the Clinton campaign in a conference call — as represented by the finest minds on the campaign team: Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein — to put their money where their mouth is, by asking: “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” It’s what might be described as a very straightforward question. But the best minds on the Clinton campaign produced the most embarrassing collective whiff imaginable:
Regrettably, the usually loquacious Clinton team sat in stone silence for what seemed like quite a while (I think it was literally seven or eight seconds, which was quite a pregnant pause under the circumstances).
Eventually Mark Penn piped up.
“I think it was a moment of test when she was in China and she stood up and said women’s rights are human rights. That she showed the kind of wisdom that it takes to know when to push, basic elements under difficult circumstances.”
That’s not bad, and Clinton’s remarks in China were terrific, but a) this doesn’t really count as having been “tested by crisis”; and b) Mark Penn has spent the last few months insisting that giving a speech doesn’t really amount to real work.
After whiffing on the question, Clinton aide Lee Feinstein offered a response of his own.
“One of the interesting things is that Sen. Clinton has pretty broad support from the uniformed military, including the endorsement of 27 flag officers. That includes four at the rank of four-star. And this is really based on her work with these officers — a very diverse and esteemed group — through five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she’s had a chance to work with them, some of them very, very closely, and a develop a relationship with them, where she’s earned their trust and respect.”
That, too, is accurate and impressive. But the question was about moments in which Clinton has been tested by crises, a claim from the campaign’s hard-hitting new ad. Endorsements from military officials are important, but they don’t necessarily answer the question.
This redefines political campaign incompetence. They made a ruddy ad, the centerpiece of which was the notion of Hillary Clinton being the crisis-tested candidate. And, between the ruddy lot of them, they don’t have one single instance of crisis-testing to point to? Pathetic is way too weak a word, I think.
I particularly liked the way Jennifer Skalka over at The Hotline phrased it:
You could’ve knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton’s national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak…
Now’s a good moment to remember Obama’s response to Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad. It starts with the exact same visual — the same house, the same children, sleeping in the same bed. Even the voice-over starts with almost the exact same words:
It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House. Something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the president be the one — the only one — who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start? Who understood the REAL threat to America was al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, not Iraq? Who led the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons around the globe? In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters.
The Clinton campaign tried to make it about experience, about being crisis-tested. That blew up in their faces. They themselves can’t point out how Clinton is more crisis-tested than Obama.
Obama has made it about judgment. And he does have something clear and compelling to point to. Clearly, Obama wins this one. Handsomely.
And that’s been happening an awful lot lately. (I’m thinking of the last debate — the reject and denounce skirmish, for example.) Maybe it’s been causing a lot of folks who earlier supported Clinton to think that if Obama the candidate consistently beats Clinton the candidate — and on her own hand-picked talking points — perhaps Obama the president would also consistently beat Clinton the president? I don’t know if that’s a good way to pick a president, but I don’t know what’s a better way either. And maybe that’s what’s driving the poll numbers in Texas and Ohio, where Clinton has steadily (almost inevitably) lost ground to Obama in the last week?
At this point, one would have to say that if Clinton loses both Ohio and Texas, she will have only herself to blame. Or her own handpicked campaign team. Frankly, I now feel that if she somehow wins the nomination, it’ll be a bloody miracle. And I’m still nominally a Clinton supporter!
Dave K wrote:
{Obama has made it about judgment. And he does have something clear and compelling to point to. Clearly, Obama wins this one. Handsomely.}
I wholeheartedly disagree with that but first let me say that I started out as an Obama “admirer”. I wasn’t to the point of a supporter but I was getting close. Just a few days before our caucus in WA State I made the final decision that Clinton was the better choice. A decision I made after many hrs of studying the two candidates and their policy plans.
Back to the judgement argument:
What happens when Obama’s “absentee” record is brought up to a greater degree? He has one of the worst records irt missing votes and voting “present” rather than actually taking a stand. It’s easy to say you didn’t vote for things when you just vote “present”. It’s also easy to say you wouldn’t have voted for the war when you didn’t have any responsibility to do so. If he had been in the Senate back then he probably would have voted “present”… I want someone who’s not afraid to make a decision.
Leaders have to make tough decisions and they won’t always be right. Hindsight is always easy to use but being in a position of responsibility is a little tougher than that… I know a thing or two about making decisions and I learned them in the USMC. The best case scenario for the Dems is a Clinton/Obama ticket for 8yrs followed by an Obama/??? ticket for another 8 after he’s learned more about being a leader and making decisions as opposed to just saying “present”…
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 10:57 am ¶
matt wrote:
stop copy/pasting the same comment on different posts.
looks like dave is trying to be only the third person banned here in five years.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 11:05 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Go ahead, Dave K. Instead of recycling off-topic pre-fabricated talking points, take a stab at this: “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?”
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 11:21 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
First, what’s wrong with re-pasting things on “different” threads? Should people simply throw away their previous comments even if they “are relevant” to a different thread? That makes no sense at all. Additionally, don’t you think there’s a good chance that someone reading one thread didn’t read another thread where the “reposted” point came from? So people need to re-write everything and change a few words? What are you talking about?
So that’s what it takes to get banned? Thanks for using your freedom of speech/expression to express your feelings. I would think you’d appreciate my using the same rights to express my opinion. Wow, it’s good to be in America; let me know when I’m free to speak again (with or without reusing my old thoughts). I found this site by accident a few days ago and at first glance it seemed like a great place for people to voice their opinions. Good grief…
BTW, unless I’m mistaken, we’re on the same side… Did you forget to have a good breakfast or did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 12:13 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Wow, it’s good to be in America; let me know when I’m free to speak again (with or without reusing my old thoughts).
you’re free to do whatever you want. but not necessarily here.
here, we have rules, and you’ll heed them or you’ll be gone. it is that simple.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Dave K:
1) take some “pride” in your “work”, man: “write” your own damn lines, at least
2) those two recycled paragraphs have no “apparent relevance” at all to the “question” of “judgment”
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 1:04 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
You didn’t even address my counter points to your inference that reposting was grounds for being banned so I’m still not sure if that’s breaking the “rules”. Is it within the rules or is it considered forbidden? Hopefully I’ll be allowed to continue to offer up my thoughts (even a few “reposts”) on occasion. If I’ve even come close to crossing a line that got “only 2 people banned here in 5 yrs” it must be a very thin line or there must have been a very small number of regular posters that have been allowed to state their opinions. Would it have been that hard to have just admitted that I made a good case for reposting things? Especially when the repostings are pertinent to the thread as was the case on this thread. A simple acknowledgement of that face and recognition that I was in fact right would have been sufficient and well warranted.
The front page of your site (and associated hard lined commentary) certainly portrays this site as a place for frank, open, discussions but this is seemingly not the case as it is now taking on the appearance of a site that only allows frank, in your face posts if your name is matt or sarabeth. I would like to think that this is not the case and that we can go on from here and have open discussions/debates in the future but perhaps I’ve crossed the line by writing in the same frank, in your face style that the two of you use. Again, I would hope that’s not the case…
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 2:11 pm ¶
matt wrote:
me, three hours ago: “stop copy/pasting the same comment on different posts.”
if you can’t read, don’t write another word.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{{Dave K:
1) take some “pride” in your “work”, man: “write” your own damn lines, at least
2) those two recycled paragraphs have no “apparent relevance” at all to the “question” of “judgment”}}
1) What are you talking about? Please explain because “those were all “my own damn lines” that I “wrote” on my own…
2) Explain to me how voting “present” isn’t showing a form of judgement. His big “judgement” claim is that he was against the war and “one” of the points in that “repost of my own words” discussed how it’s ridiculous to compare making a speech to actually making a decision to vote one way or the other. Making those types of decisions require “judgement” don’t they?… Are you seriously trying to say that my first post on this thread had nothing to do with judgement? It had “everything to do with judgement”… Seriously, do you think voting absent (as opposed to making a stand) requires no “judgement”???… Seriously?…
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Go fuck a duck, dude!
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re #9, the whole “voting present” thing has been debated and debunked ad infinitum. Look it up, if you somehow missed it the first n times.
Making a decision to speak out in public against a then-popular war is somehow a very different type of decision than deciding to vote against it? Get real!
And your argument is that because he wasn’t in the Senate then to vote against the war, therefore he doesn’t have good judgment?
I’m not trying to say it, I said it. In so many words. You do have reading comprehension issues, don’t you?
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 3:00 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{{me, three hours ago: “stop copy/pasting the same comment on different posts.”
if you can’t read, don’t write another word.}}
Well, that’s definitely a good argument to use when you’re wrong. Just avoid the actual point of the argument. Fine, I bow to your superior debate skills and will be sure to change a few words so I’m not reposting things (even when they are entirely relevant to a given topic “as is”). If that will make you happy it’s an easy fix. Congratulations on your victory on the field of “open discussion”. Now can we simply move beyond this ridiculous argument?…
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
“Go fuck a duck, dude!”
Is that also your reply to my trouncing of your #6 post? The part where you tried to state that my original comment “in my own words” didn’t pertain to “judgement” “which it certainly did”.
Seriously, why all the hostility around here? Is it always this hostile when someone has a difference of opinion? Can’t we all be friends?
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{{{I’m not trying to say it, I said it. In so many words. You do have reading comprehension issues, don’t you?}}}
Ok, so we’ve determined that you don’t understand how making a decision requires “judgement”. It looks like you have more severe issues than my “reading comprehension” ones.
{{{Making a decision to speak out in public against a then-popular war is somehow a very different type of decision than deciding to vote against it? Get real!
And your argument is that because he wasn’t in the Senate then to vote against the war, therefore he doesn’t have good judgment?}}}
Yes and no. Yes there’s a big difference between saying you’re for/against something and making the vote on it. Just like a lot of people will “say” they prefer one person but vote for the other or that I could say I’m ready to go on patrol and kill somebody but when the situation presents itself and I’m starring at the guy through my sites it’s a harder “decision” to make and yes “decisions require “judgement”. No, my argument isn’t that because he wasn’t in the Senate he doesn’t have good judgement. The point is just what I just wrote above. “Saying” vs “pulling the trigger” or “pushing the vote button” is different enough that we can draw no conclusion as to what his “judgement” would have caused him to “decide” to do “if” he had actually been in the position to “make that decision”
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Seriously sarabeth, are you for Clinton or Obama? I stated that I started out as an Obama believer but realized that Clinton is the better choice. You stated that you’re a Clinton supporter but I’m not sure if you still prefer her over Obama. It sounds like you’re ready to vote for Obama which is fine (to each his/her own) I’m just trying to understand your position. My reading comprehension issues still let me remember what you said at the top of this thread but I’m trying to figure out what you would actually “decide” to do based on your best “judgement” if you had to vote for Clinton or Obama today.
I hope you guys had a good lunch, I had a veggie sand and some chips. Don’t skip food on my account.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 3:31 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Seriously sarabeth, are you for Clinton or Obama? I stated that I started out as an Obama believer but realized that Clinton is the better choice. You stated that you’re a Clinton supporter but I’m not sure if you still prefer her over Obama. It sounds like you’re ready to vote for Obama which is fine (to each his/her own) I’m just trying to understand your position. My reading comprehension issues still let me remember what you said at the top of this thread but I’m trying to figure out what you would actually “decide” to do based on your best “judgement” if you had to vote for Clinton or Obama today.
The first attempt at posting this didn’t work so I’m trying again. If it ends up being posted twice it wasn’t my doing… :-)
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You might at least try not to sound like a complete loser.
First there was “Is that also your reply to my trouncing of your #6 post?” after I had already replied to that comment (learn the vocabulary, asshole; I write posts, you post comments).
And then you try to pull this pathetic “why are you being mean to me” stunt. You come into our house, say shit like “there must have been a very small number of regular posters that have been allowed to state their opinions”, and you can’t understand why that might invite a rude response?
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
One of these days you might actually learn that everything you post goes through even if you don’t see it right away.
Just takes some people longer to realize that than others.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 4:40 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I don’t know why, but I’m curiously disinclined to engage with you.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 4:43 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{{First there was “Is that also your reply to my trouncing of your #6 post?” after I had already replied to that comment (learn the vocabulary, asshole; I write posts, you post comments).}}
See?… Hostility. Tomato/Tomato. Actually I’ve been on a few different sites/message boards that use “various vocabulary”… I’ll try to use yours while in “your house”. I understand your points and I’d like to think you understood mine. I think we both had valid points in various “comments” throughout this post. The whole thing seems to have started with making a big deal about someone using their own thoughts more than once. Then it accelerated as comment 6 seemed to basically be inferring that I wasn’t using my own words and was instead coping from someone else. Then there was a bunch of “fucking” and “comprehension issues”, “sound like a complete loser”, etc, etc and so on etc. on both sides. Oh, and most recently: “Just takes some people longer to realize that than others”
I think we should just look back at all those comments and laugh at the 2-sided banter. What say you. So say we all!!!???
P.S. Come on, the “mean to me stunt” was sort of funny wasn’t it?
P.P.S. I’m actually impressed that I haven’t become the 3rd to be banned because it shows you are still willing to have frank, in your face discussions. Are we able to get beyond the whole disinclined thing yet?
P.P.S. When’s dessert served in your house. I’m sort of getting hungry again. Come on, that was funny wasn’t it?
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 5:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Enjoy the hostility. You’ve earned it.
As for all the “that was funny wasn’t it?”, maybe we’ll let someone other than Matt and Jamie and me opine on that. (Same goes for “I think we both had valid points”.)
P.S. You seem to have got stuck on pee-pee, when you should have moved on to pee-pee-pee.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 7:36 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{{First there was “Is that also your reply to my trouncing of your #6 post?” after I had already replied to that comment.}}
I forgot to straighten out the point that I “didn’t” write that comment “after you had already replied to it”. If you look at the time stamps it should be evident that I was writing that comment “at the same time” you were posting yours. Add to that the delay that often occurs and who knows when your comment showed up on the page. Anyway, I hadn’t seen your comment when I posted mine…
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 7:49 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re 22: Yes, sorry; I hadn’t looked at the time stamps.
For the record, my comments show up on the page the moment I post them. Our spam filter doesn’t treat my comments with suspicion and put them into moderation.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 7:56 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{Enjoy the hostility. You’ve earned it.}
Good grief you people like to stay uptight (and not acknowledge when you’re wrong). Before you get even more agitated that doesn’t mean I’m saying you were wrong on everything but you should be able to realize that you were wrong on a few of the topics (like the whole decision making/judgement thing)
Relax, and life will be much more enjoyable. Out of curiosity how old are you guys; I recently noticed the flicker pics and that makes me guess you’re in the 18-26 age group. So is it that or is it the 26-34 group? Or is it a secret?
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 7:58 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Re: 23: that explains things and makes sense as it is “your house”. So what happens in moderation? Does that mean you read them and decide if you want to post them or not. If so, that’s impressive because it means that you would have read the comments that you disagreed with but chose to post them anyway.
Well, I feel like things are a bit more civil between us (me and you and matt) now; At least I hope that’s the case because I do feel like this site has a lot of good information. Anyway, thanks for not booting me “yet”. ;-)
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 8:09 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Re 24: I should have acknowledged your acknowledgement of the time stamp thing. Maybe we’ll just agree to disagree about everything else. That still seems strange to me though because I think we’re all backing the same candidate (”so far” at least). I’m 38 just for the record and since I inquired as to the age of the home owners.
So do you guys think Obama will go more negative to match the Clinton’s or will he try to avoid doing so? I think he’s in a bit of a rock/hard place situation because if he doesn’t do something he risks Hillary keeping her new “momentum” but if he goes more negative he tarnishes the whole “I’m a different kind of politician that takes the high road” thing.
Posted 06 Mar 2008 at 8:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Thanks, no doubt, to the evil henchmen of Bill Gates, our spam filter went berserk overnight, and showed great disrespect to a Democratic delegate by removing four of Dave K’s comments.
Order was restored only at 6:15 am. Our apologies to all who wondered what the hell was going on.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 6:19 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Just because you think you’re right doesn’t mean that you actually are.
Since Obama wasn’t in the Senate he couldn’t show his judgment by voting. He did show his judgment on the Iraq war the only way he could–by strongly speaking out in public against a then-popular war.
To argue that this somehow doesn’t demonstrate judgment, that judgment can be demonstrated only by votes, is just stupid, in my opinion.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 6:38 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
We like to assume that anybody who has been around a few blogs knows that every blog has an about page, which introduces the bloggers to their admiring public. Apparently, this is not a safe assumption. So here.
As for the arcane science of looking at flicker pictures and estimating age, do pray enlighten us all what the basic principles are.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 6:43 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Nothing as impressive as that., We read them, and as long as it isn’t spam, we approve it.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 6:45 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
afterthought appended to 30:
Only a fascist would “read them and decide if you want to post them”. We’re not fascist enough to even think of doing that. Can’t speak for other people, though, of course.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 6:48 am ¶
matt wrote:
>So what happens in moderation?
comments go in moderation for many reasons, all beyond our control. ALL CAPS, identical repeat comments, and posting too soon after commenting are a few, and ta-da, you did all three of these. run a site that gets 3000 spam comments/24 hours and then complain to me about comments moderation.
this will be the end of meta-talk in comments. the information we share about ourselves in on the about page.
i get that you don’t care about other people’s rules, but i can assure you that it’s just not going to work here.
i don’t have the time these days to even write much less deal with nonsense like your repeat comments, off topic crap, flickr age divining, etc. stay on topic, don’t post the same comment more than once, and don’t assume that because sarabeth and i (independently) came to the conclusion that obama is unacceptable that we’re on the same team. we’re not. the only thing hillary has going for her now is that she’s not obama. not much to hang your hat on, really.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 8:19 am ¶
Dave K wrote:
Re 28:
{Just because you think you’re right doesn’t mean that you actually are.}
I couldn’t agree more with that statement.
Regarding judgement: At least we can agree on something. That would be to “agree” to disagree on that subject because as I said in #14 (in the yes and no section) I never said he didn’t demonstrate judgement. What I said is that there is a vast difference in the judgement of “speeches” and the judgement of “actions”. Again, “at least we can agree to disagree”
Re 29:
{We like to assume that anybody who has been around a few blogs knows that every blog has an about page, which introduces the bloggers to their admiring public. Apparently, this is not a safe assumption. So here.
As for the arcane science of looking at flicker pictures and estimating age, do pray enlighten us all what the basic principles are.}
Unfortunately, I have “not” spent a lot of time in “blogoshpere” so I’m “not” familiar with the little ins and outs. To assume that most people are familiar with blogging is quite presumptuous in my opinion. Especially when you consider that a vast number of people are still just getting their “first” computers. It takes a generation or two for something to become second nature and the evolving internet is no different. So basically, no, your assumption is not a safe one “imo”…
As to your flicker inquiry: Along the lines of “a picture is worth 1,000 words”…: The very short time I spent on the flicker pg indicated people who were still quite young or still reminiscing about those past “glory days”. As I said before, I don’t have a lot of experience in blog land (or flickering for that matter) so maybe my inference that it would make sense for the “house” pictures to represent the current age of the house owners was way off. Yes, I made the presumption that perhaps sarabeth and Matt were fairly young snowboarders and roller derby fans/(participants?) but it’s always a guessing game now isn’t it?
If you looked at a group of pictures on a site associated with me it would make perfect sense to assume they represented something about me as well no? Generally, to avoid confusion, one would expect someone to have “fairly” current pictures that related to their current stage of life or perhaps label the ones from the distant past as such. I don’t see any reason for people to get agitated about someone formulating assumptions from pictures. That’s what many photographers expect people to do. I’m quite certain that all of you make assumptions about people based on what they write as well. Reading “go fuck a duck dude” doesn’t exactly portray a mature adult (with an English Literature & poetry background) does it dude?
Re 31:
{Only a fascist would “read them and decide if you want to post them”.}
That was my exact thought as well. It looks like we have more agreement.
BTW, you didn’t opine on the second paragraph of 26. Certainly we can agree that it relates to “judgement” correct? In that their campaign will have to make a judgement call as to which path to pursue (the rock or the hard place).
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Re 32:
1) I never “complained” about moderation.
2) I never used ALL CAPS or identical repeat comments on purpose. IRT “posting too soon after commenting” I have no idea what the min time limit is between posts. Back to the identical comments topic: I believe that occurred twice (once on another post and once here) due to the comment not appearing immediately and the error messages repeatedly received which make it appear that the comment may not have gone through. Expanding on the error message issue: Every time I initially hit “post” a page comes up that appears like an error page. Because of that, I had been using my browser’s back button to return to the original pg and hit the post button again. After the second time hitting the post button, a page comes up that says something like “it looks like you already posted that”. This message provides a better feeling of assurance that the comment actually was sent (as opposed to the error message that I described after hitting “post” the first time. I took the second message to mean that my comment actually “went through” and that it only made it through “the gate” “once”. If, on the other hand, all those posts were actually going through twice, that could be part of the disconnect we’ve had. However, even if that’s the case, it’s definitely unnecessary to act childish about a potential “misunderstanding” don’t you think?
3) {don’t assume that because sarabeth and i (independently) came to the conclusion that obama is unacceptable that we’re on the same team. we’re not.}
How is agreeing on which candidate you support not being on the same team? You can be “on the same team” irt “one or two” things and still be on “different teams” irt everything else correct?… Good grief you come across as a very young, high strung person who might have benefited from a stint in the military but that’s neither here nor there.
4) {the only thing hillary has going for her now is that she’s not obama. not much to hang your hat on, really.}
I completely agree.
5) You didn’t opine on the second paragraph of 26. Certainly we can agree that it relates to “judgement” correct? In that their campaign will have to make a judgement call as to which path to pursue (the rock or the hard place).
Yes, that short paragraph was “a copy/paste” because just like sarabeth you didn’t reply to it the first time so I’m asking both of you “separately”. Forgive me for not wanting to “rewrite” the very “on topic” question…
P.S. IRT “meta-talk”: Much of the last two comments of mine (including this one) were “answering” Q’s raised by sarabeth and accusations made by you. I’m sure you understand the logic of replying to those things…
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
IRT the error message I mentioned previously: Here’s what I get after hitting “post” for the first time when trying to “post” a “comment”. Maybe this will help in diagnosing what’s going on or perhaps it’s simply related to the henchmen that sarabeth named in 27. This is an example of “exactly” what comes across. It’s not repeated or exaggerated by me in any way. This is a simple cop/paste of the error message(s) that appear: This came across after my recent reply to sarabeth:
Regex ID: 4339 (Amoxicillin) appears to be an invalid regex string! Please fix it in the Blacklist control panel.
Regex ID: 4342 (Effexor) appears to be an invalid regex string! Please fix it in the Blacklist control panel.
Regex ID: 4343 (Ephedra) appears to be an invalid regex string! Please fix it in the Blacklist control panel.
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/spam_karma_2_plugin.php on line 1049
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/spam_karma_2_plugin.php on line 1050
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/spam_karma_2_plugin.php on line 1051
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/spam_karma_2_plugin.php on line 1052
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/sk2_util_class.php:208) in /home/oneoneon/public_html/wp-content/plugins/SK2/spam_karma_2_plugin.php on line 1063
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
#21:
#33:
Well, at least your grandchildren will know about “about” pages.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
For Pete’s sake. The third message posted before the other 2 that “should have” preceded it. There should have been a comment replying to sarabeth then one to matt “then” the error message example one, “then” this one… I’m actually very surprised that the moderation program you referred to didn’t “moderate” that error message example but “did moderate” the other 2 which were basically benign. It seems like some very strange moderation is going on. Yes, I know you have no control over it; I was simply making an observation.
This was a little “off topic” but I was simply trying to help with and explain an apparent problem with the site. I also wanted to clarify the order the comments were supposed to appear in. By “problem” I’m referring to those error messages I talked about and posted an example of. I’m not going to post that again; I just wanted you to see what I was seeing… Good day to you.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Just give up. You’re only embarrassing yourself.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re 37:
If you keep posting a string of long comments, expect the spam filter to keep deciding in retrospect that stuff it let through before was probably spam, and removing the comments after they have already appeared.
I’ll keep bringing them back to life, but there will be a lag (sometimes a long one).
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Most ordinary people reckon that it takes two to agree. You seem to be doing a great job agreeing for both of us.
That’s entirely of a piece with you certifying that you were right (and we were wrong), or you certifying how funny your comments were.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:28 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I don’t see anyone getting agitated. I do see someone shaking their head and going “How stupid can one guy be?”
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
So, just to be clear, when you went “Does that mean you read them and decide if you want to post them or not”, you were asking in the nicest possible way: “Are you guys fascists?”
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:34 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
{Well, at least your grandchildren will know about “about” pages.}
True but imo more accurately stated as children/grandchildren. Anyone born beyond “approximately” 1985′ish will have grown up with computers, “texting”, and “blogging”. To the grandchildren it will be as common as the television was to me as I grew up or the telephone, automobile, plane travel, etc. was to later generation’s irt those innovations.
So is Barrack between a rock and a hard place?
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Yes, and I don’t intend to either.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 12:37 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Re 39:
I was trying to answer numerous comments in one “comment” as opposed to 5 or 6 separate ones. Doesn’t that seem more efficient?
Re 20:
{Regarding judgement: At least we can agree on something. That would be to “agree” to disagree on that subject…
Most ordinary people reckon that it takes two to agree. You seem to be doing a great job agreeing for both of us.}
I said we were “agreeing” to “disagree” correct? If we both “disagree” with one another that equals 2 people (you and me) “agreeing” that we “disagree” no?… It’s simple logic.
Re 41:
{I do see someone shaking their head and going “How stupid can one guy be?”}
That’s actually extremely funny because that’s exactly what’s been going on at this end. Regrettably, I have to admit that it was more along the lines of “how stupid can two people be”. You wouldn’t believe the comments I’ve received from people I sent yesterday’s string of comments to (you two didn’t come across very well though). I haven’t sent out today’s additions yet. I guess it’s like in the movie Roadhouse in that “opinions vary”…
42:
Yes, in the nicest possible way. However, that was before I knew you to be the open minded, non-bias, realistic people who understand people will have differences of opinion and that both sides will have good reasons for their particular opinions. :-)
Re: 44:
LOL. So you don’t think he’s between a rock and a hard place “or” you decided you no longer want to talk “on topic” and only want to tangentially write about “meta-talk” (as matt put it)?…
If I refer to the “rock/hard place judgement decision” his campaign has to make as a decision as to how they want to proceed in their “campaign skirmish” would that make it seem more “on topic” to you? After all, you started this post with comments about “judgement” and referred to a “skirmish” during their debate…
——————–
Good grief you must have been a tough grader seeing as though you always like to think you’re right. The best teachers I had were the ones who realized they most certainly weren’t always right. I’m sure you’d be surprised (given your obvious opinions) to find out that I did quite well IRT grades and success. I noticed you have a finance background; I actually volunteer at local schools to teach kids about basic finances irt the budgeting, saving, and investing that allowed me to be retired. Perhaps if more schools taught the basics of finance we’d have less people in debt and overall financial trouble…
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
“Disagreeing” is very different from “agreeing to disagree”. You are an absolute idiot!
Oh, why the hell am I wasting my time with this crap? Life’s too short. So “Toodleoo!”
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 1:33 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
Re: 46
LOL. Wrong on the first two points but like I said before “opinions vary”… However, correct on the third. Life is too short. Hey, at least the relaxation of gardening is right around the corner. That’s not a sarcastic comment; my wife and I have a large garden that we enjoy harvesting (the rodents and slugs are a pain to deal with though).
Back “on topic” to the “judgement issue”: My guess is that he’ll go more negative and that it will get used against him by the Clinton campaign and the media as it is portrayed to be a departure from the “different kind of politician” campaign. This is going to the convention unless better judgement prevails and the decision is made to have a Clinton/Obama ticket.
“Toodleoo dude”…
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
matt wrote:
me at 8:19am:
“this will be the end of meta-talk in comments.”
you couldn’t go one fucking comment without ignoring what i said. so you’re either trying to piss me off because that’s what pitches your tent, or you don’t know what words mean, or you just want to be banned.
i don’t care which it is, this is, i promise, your last warning. not one more meta comment, not one more repeated comment, not one more off-topic comment period.
think this makes me look like a fascist? try to imagine how little i truly care.
“who might have benefited from a stint in the military”
now you have something else in common with the only two people who have been banned here. congratulations, you’re certainly in fine company now douchebag.
Posted 07 Mar 2008 at 2:10 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
matt-
It would be great if you would explain specifically what you’re so upset about irt comments 33 & 34 & 35 (the first comments after your comment, #32) . I began 33 by talking about the topic of judgement which I thought was “on topic”. Then I simply “replied” to a question that was posed to me by SB. Are you saying that if an off topic question is “asked of me” that I’m not supposed to reply? The next point I brought up was a simple agreement to a previous post of SB. I ended the post by asking for comments irt my question about the decision making process the Obama campaign faces irt their campaign tactics. Seeing as though this post started out talking about campaign tactics/decisions I don’t see how my Q could have been any more “on topic” and relevant than that. Comment 34 was simply a reply to your comment 32. Comment 34 was a simple example of error messages received when hitting the “post” button.
Are people supposed to ignore attacks such as comments 6, 10, 11 (a question was posed to me in that one as well), 17, 18, 29, 41, 46, and 48? Furthermore, am I to understand that you and SB can post off topic, meta-talk, accusational, inflammatory comments but that the recipients of them can not? Is it not considered reasonable to think that people should stay on topic and all the rest unless they are engaged otherwise? I’m all for staying on topic and rules; it would be nice if those rules applied to everyone though.
I would “love” to get back on topic and you could start off by “actually answering” my question that has been repeatedly passed over by both you and SB. Here it is “again”:
“is the Barack campaign between a rock and a hard place as far as the decision making process they face irt their campaign tactics.”
I answered that very Q in 47 but I’m still unclear as to why you wouldn’t opine on it but instead choose to stay off topic? It would be great to have a civil discussion on this point. Basically, what will his best judgement guide him to decide irt that question? Will he begin more of a smear campaign or try to continue on as the candidate who runs more of a “clean” campaign?
BTW, I have no idea why a stint in the military seems like such a bad thing to you. I think “everyone” could benefit from that. It builds & develops the general ethos of comradery, discipline, character & honor. Yes, there will always be a few bad apples that end up in the headlines but it’s a small minority. Additionally, many of the individuals that end up in trouble were kicked out of the military.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 5:54 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>BTW, I have no idea why a stint in the military seems like such a bad thing to you.
i told you using military status was a sure way to get banned, again in the fucking comment above this one and you again ignored me.
you’re not leaving me any choice, which is fine, because whether or not you have made a marginal point here or there, the sheer hackery and repetition of lame arguments and pathetic clinton campaign talking points make it literally impossible to take anything you say seriously.
even the question you ask about obama’s campaign tactics is sheathed in an annoying pun straight out of a clinton campaign memo. like i’ve said before, to you and others: that shit simply doesn’t work here.
i’ve called out obama on his “new kind of politics” schtick many times, even sketching out this exact scenario. but your argument is that he’s supposed to respond to clinton campaign smears with kindness or be labeled a hypocrite. that’s rich.
don’t respond to this comment, there’s really nothing about it up in the air. either follow the rules as i have stated them in the comment policy and directly to you, or don’t.
and if you have something interesting or intelligent to say, leave a comment. but out of the x number of comments you have left so far, i don’t see much except rote repetition of things that other people have said, and things that simply make no sense.
and i dare you to mention military service again.
Posted 12 Mar 2008 at 9:17 pm ¶