A Fair and Balanced look at Ulster County Politics. Got a tip? E-mail the Blaber Tip Line : email@example.com
Sounds like a democratic highlight tape to me.They are not Deval Patrick's either.This is a lame case for plagerism.Don't you think?...smitty
Jeremy, What are you doing? You voted yes?
His message was always written by others. That's why he can't hold his own in debates. I would have had some respect for him if he'd come out and claimed the words were his before Patrick used them. This is why we set up the superdelegate system. Back in '82, it was agreed upon that real Democrats would have a 20% stake in the nomination process to ensure that no outside influence could force our party to nominate someone that didn't carry the majority of Democrats. Since many states have open primaries and caucuses, the current popular vote count is diluted by independents and republicans. The actual number of Democrats supporting Clinton is way more than Obama. The superdelegates are supposed to support the nominee with the most Deomcratic support. So regardless of the pledged delegate count, the superdelegates are bound by conscience to support Hillary. This makes the superdelegates in Obama's camp blatantly unethical in their support of him. The longer they protest the rules about the superdelegates and the vote on seating Fla. and Mich., the more ethically offensive they become. It's a losing situation in all respects for Obama. Look for a last ditch claim of racism. "They wouldn't allow a black man" garbage. Sad that these opportunistic losers are allowed to get this far. Barack allowed his unfettered greed to subvert his ethics.
It all speaks to his credibility. That Obama recited without attribution the speech of another politician has the potential to undermine the central case he has tried to make in the contest for the Democratic nomination - that he is not just a typical politician. His majestic, sweeping oratory seems somewhat less compelling now that it is seen as a quote from somebody else.I liked Obama - and have enjoyed seeing him speak at the campaign events shown on TV... but I had no idea he was a copycat. It makes him seem quite a bit less authentic. How can his fainting, swooning followers take him seriously?
"I am neither surprised nor troubled that he used the words that I asked him to use of my own," Patrick said in an interview Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think it's a sad comment on the state of the race and the state of our politics that the Clinton campaign is taking this particular tact."
Jeremy,You've been incredibly silent on the presidential race during Obama's 8-0 winning streak. Is this the best you can come up with? I challenge you to show the video where Hillary states "I'm fired up and ready to go", a clear lifting of Barack's words.Barack has clearly stated that he should have credited Patrick, Hillary won't apologize for anything including her vote on the war.It is obvious that the Clinton campaign is out of control and is totally going negative. It is obvious that Bill Clinto is losing it.
Indeed, two of Mr. Obama’s standard lines – “It’s time to turn the page,” and “Fired up and ready to go,” – have made their way into Mrs. Clinton’s campaign appearances during their contentious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. In recent days, echoes of his “Yes we can,” chant has surfaced in Mrs. Clinton’s speeches as “Yes we will.” NY Times
Can't it be said that Patrick is guilty of using another person's words? Without Acknowledging their originators?
There is a difference when Hillary mocks Obama's stump speech and what Obama did.
Yet, despite this terrible scandal against Obama, you'll still support him when he wins the nomination -- as will all you liberal hypocrites.
Of course I will. There is no comparison between Obama and McCain.
11:33- "Yes we can" belongs to the United Farm Workers and Hillary has permission to use it since they endorsed her. Obama has been using it without permission and has never credited it to Chavez and the UFW. Sorry, but that one just digs the hole deeper. I'm sure there's more to come.
This is irrelevant and not plagerism when the guy says he told him to use it...at any rate...after Wis. and Haw. it is now over. She and her supporters should do what is best for the party...end it. Isn't that what you preach all the time. She cannot win now and she and her supporters know it. Step back for the party. Isn't that the right thing to do? or should they continue to tear him up for four more months and lessen his chances to win it. Can someone tell me what this moron thinks a "real democrat"is. That is the problem with this party...Obama has the support of the majority of democrats. wake up. These every four year power brokers will find there existence very short if they do not vote for who the party voted for in the primaries.
Real Democrats are people that actually belong to the Democratic party. The majority of Democrats do not prefer Obama. If the percentages of outsiders are subtracted, as they must be for the consideration of the superdelegates, Hillary has an overwhelming lead. This is the nomination for the Democratic nominee,not the people's party. If it were the people's party as you wish,then why fight the inclusion of Fla. and Mich.? Obama only leads by 61 delegates now,with over 400 supers uncommitted. PR has 63 for Hillary locked up for 6/4. Winner take all. So even with non-Democrats' interference it's a virtual tie. This race will not end until at least the convention,when the full convention gets to vote democratically. It's clear that the "moron" is the person who doesn't understand the rules,the process, or the party make-up. Educate yourself in the matter at hand instead of being Obamafied into making stupid false remarks.
9:52- You're completely ignorant of the fact that only closed primary states reflect the choice of Democrats.
Preserving the ambiguity in the race for the Democratic nomination allows us to gang up on McCain while he doesn't know who the nominee will be. We could compromise in the summer with Edwards for all he knows. McCain's got a big target on him, and we have a moving target.
If clinton were winning these primaries, there sure would be a ton of commentary by Blaber. I guess the Clinton Campaign has put the word out to pro hillary bloggers, not to discuss the losses, at all.
The Clinton camp is quite happy being misperceived as the underdog. It's Obama's turn to take the heat for a while. The last thread that dealt with this race got infected by sleazy Obamacans that spewed filth everywhere. You know there's reason that the government had to force unit pricing on supermarket shelves. The same one that makes Obamabots think they're winning. At least the repugnant ones fall for that price/volume scam as well.
The republicans want to race against Obama, why? He has lead in the head to head polls, and is growing his lead. Why, because hillacrats are jumping ship, they no longer fear her (or her husband for that matter). Hillary has always been either close or losing in any head to head polls. Trust me, we'd rather take on Hillary. Hillary is by far, the largest polorizing figure in American politics today. You got disgruntled republicans saying they'd vote for the big O, before voting for McCain. They are NOT saying the same about Hillary.How many 'open' primaries are there on the dems side? I don't think the republicans had anything to do with opening democrat primaries to independants. It was probably the DNC.
3:10- The electability polls from this period are notoriously wrong and if they to guide a decision now they'd point to a Hillary landslide over McCain. Basically they reflect the opposite of reality. Obama is an easy target for McCain and many Hillary supporters would prefer a weakling McCain with a leash over a brash youngin' like Barack who seems to get more arrogant by the day. The Hillary-hater base that you're referring to is so marginalized now it's about as powerful as Pat Robertson. Impotent.
Check out the delegate explainer site by Hillary at Delegatehub. You'll notice if you google it,there are plenty of Obaman sites trying to denounce it as all lies. Everything Obama doesn't like is immediately called a lie. Too bad the truth isn't on his side. I half expect him to call the theory of evolution a lie at this point. Seriously bad methodology. I wish he'd grow up and disagree like an adult.
There's some major denial going on among some Clinton supporters.
Here we go again, "major denial" is at least a milder form of the usual "lies, all lies" idiotic reaction to factual reality by Obamans. Btw, is it really ethical for a prosecutor to squelch evidence in an influence peddling case that could make or break a candidate just because his case could be weakened? Is Rezmar more important to convict than our right to know about a scandal before voting? I guess the public's right to know has no weight when it comes to law enforcement.
Obama has a 1.5% percent lead while including non-Democrats. We've only gone through half the states. I think the casual observer would have no choice but to conclude that the Obamabots are ludicrously out of line with their victory claims.
Some reasons why Hillary with all her experience is perfect to run our government:1.Her campaign is $7.5 million in debt at the end of January.2.Her staff is in turmoil with constant changes at the top.3.She's lost 10 primaries in a row yet she continues to use the same strategy.4.Every time she makes a speech she has a different slogan behind her.5. Her surrogates constantly try to utilize old style "gotcha" politics.Feels a lot like the Bush administation.
Is it really in the publics interest to squelch the China connection the Clintons have? There is a reason there, and no one talks about it.Why are polls always 'wrong', when they don't reflect how you feel. Hey, I'm guilty of it too. In 2004, I was convinced the polls were wrong about Kerry's margin over Bush.
This seems like the Sennett/Bradley debacle, just in reverse. Obama is far more liberal than Hillary, yet the people who supported Sennett (the far more liberal and less electible candidate for the democratic ticket), are pulling for Hillary.
I find it very revealing that the simply because Hillary is now losing many of her supporters are now complaining about the rules put in play in the Dem primary process. Oh, so more Democrats voted for Hillary and Obama only won TEN straight primaries because of Republican and independent support. Bottom line is the rules were there long before this thing started and no one complained then or did anything about changing them. Same thing goes for Michigan and Fla. I did not hear any complaints when they were dropped and now all the Hillary supporters want them added back AFTER the fact. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me.
- "...the people who supported Sennett (the far more liberal and less electible candidate for the democratic ticket), are pulling for Hillary."Not a very astute assumption. If one supports more progressive ideals, then that person will support the more progressive candidate. Your own post contradicts itself in that regard. And the facts contradict your silly pronouncement that Jonathan was less electable than Bradley...he got more votes than Bradley.In fact, other than Jeremy, I'm not sure I know another Jonathan supporter who supports Hillary, though I'm sure they're out there.
Writing styles are recognizable. I suppose I am being presumptious, being so few post their names, but the writings for Sennett are very similiar to writings for Hillary.You are correct though, with your logic. Supporters of the more progressive WOULD be more likely supporting the big O. Perhaps the Bradley supporters are supporting McCain. Leaving the Sennett supporters split (angrilly) between the Hillary that gave us Sennett, and the big O, who is more in line with Sennett's views.
Post a Comment