Lets Change The Subject From Diebold - Barack, Hillary, and the Sinister Nothingness of "Change"

[althecat]

Dear DU GD,

In another thread I offered the following explanation to a Hillary supporter who opined that to Hillary Supporters she is the better anti-corporate candidate. Yurovsky delivered a rather stinging comeback and another presumably Hillary suppoerting poster chimed in saying.

"after all, Obama is so anti-corporate that he married a corporate lawyer. "

Prompting me to momentarily forget about Diebold :) and I replied with the following. Scoop really would be interested in the views of Hillary and Obama supporters. And Political debate really is a good thing... we need to understand the opinions of others. Sometimes we forget that. That is what makes all of this fun.

Anyway back to my rejoinder....

Being a lawyer is not a bad thing.. nor is being married to a lawyer...

I think sometimes in this Clinton vs Obama discussion something gets lost.

For people who support Obama it is not because Clinton is necessarily a bad candidate - and she is indisputably a more corporate one - but rather simply that Obama is a much better candidate. He is fresh. New. Young. Passionate. And can really really speak well. He is the best orator I have seen in the 21st century..

See below an alternative critique on Obama... also carried on Scoop.

We try to have a diverse range of opinion on Scoop. However submissions which expound Hillary's virtues are seldom if ever received. If you see any please suggest to the authors that they submit and as long as they meet basic standards we will probably publish them. You can see how to submit on Scoop's contact page. http://www.scoop.co.nz/about/contact.html

A real political debate is a wonderful thing...

And on that note I offer our new lead....

http://www.blackagendareport.com/

from: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00077.htm
Barack, Hillary - Sinister Nothingness Of "Change"
Thursday, 10 January 2008, 8:07 am
Column: Black Agenda Report

Barack, Hillary, and the Sinister Nothingness of "Change"

Black Agenda Report
By BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"Although 'change' may come, it will be at the direction of the rich."

The scam of this still-new century enthralls and envelopes the nation, a narrowly-packaged farce in which political twins Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pretend they are not joined at the hip on every public policy issue that has been allowed to enter the corporate media-vetted discourse: health care, Iraq, trade. Even these points of (non)contention disappear in the din of purely commercial marketing mantras with infinitely malleable meanings: "Change," "Hope," "Reform."

... it contains a interesting perspective on the hairy tale of new york.

The biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

Ironically, it was Bill Clinton who, on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, exposed the bogus nature of the stage-set battle between his wife and Barack Obama:

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time - not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

When the Great Triangulator and Supreme Snake Oil Salesman tells you a scam is going on, take it from an expert, and believe.

The Real Story on Obama

Actually, Clinton got one of the dates wrong. We at Black Agenda Report know - because we have been closely scrutinizing Obama since his Illinois state senate days, and engaged him in a month-long interchange in June of 2003. Obama's October 2002 anti-war speech first disappeared from his U.S. Senate campaign site, not in 2004, but in 2003, when public perception of the war and occupation - with the exception of Black opinion - had dramatically shifted towards war. At the time, Bruce Dixon and the core Black Agenda Report crew, including myself, were housed at BlackCommentator.com.

More...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1
and
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00077.htm

Al

[althecat]

1. Ok... so should have put diebold in the headline....

[althecat]

2. Lets see if that works..... and lets discuss the merits of the two leading contenders....

[althecat]

3. QUESTION 1: Who Is The Most Anti-Corporate Candidate?

[althecat]

4. QUESTION 2: Who Is The Most Anti-War Candidate?

[althecat]

5. QUESTION 3: Which Candidate Has The Most Credible Health Reform Rhetoric?

[Tyler Durden]

6. Which candidate is stalest on LGBT Equality?

BAM!

That should get you some traffic!

[foo_bar]

7. could you explain the connection between "the hairy tale of new york" and Obama?

Unless I'm reading too much into "the fairy tale ot New York" (the original title of this thread), it appears you're under the impression that Obama's from NY.

(Speaking of which, the word you were seeking for Obama was "concede", as most people who write for a living are aware.)

<< and as long as they meet basic standards we will probably publish them >>

Flashback:

I was Bev Harris's publisher back in the distant past and if Febble or OTOH ever wrote anything worth publishing I would be happy to be their publisher too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x474094

That's quite a standard! To reiterate my last unanswered question:

Anyway, if Liddle and Lindeman sent a press release (god forbid) to <[e-mail] >, would it be published alongside the corporate apologias, Freedom House inspired exit poll legends promoting the reversal of elections with a fictional branch of statistics, and fun facts about energy companies? Or do people need to agree with you in advance to be "worth publishing"? It's difficult to believe that Bev Harris and weekly Solid Energy encyclicals are "worth" it, while actual research by actual researchers is found lacking in your selection process; that isn't "disintermediated" so much as "disintermediated from reality".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1687847&mesg_id=1728060

Can you explain what these "basic standards" are? Because it seems you have no problem publishing and defending press releases by an energy company in the process of defending its practice of infiltrating left wing organizations in New Zealand. The fact that you're now promoting anti-Obama (bold: "The Real Story on Obama") and anti-Clinton "stories" in a country you can't claim as your own should raise a few eyebrows, especially when you possess no apparent familiarity with the geography of the land.

never beleive your own bs - Frank Haden

That's "believe".

[althecat]

8. Bev Harris!

For god sake foo_bar what is this load of crappola supposed to be saying?

"The fact that you're now promoting anti-Obama (bold: "The Real Story on Obama") and anti-Clinton "stories" in a country you can't claim as your own should raise a few eyebrows, especially when you possess no apparent familiarity with the geography of the land."

I support Obama. That much should be clear I would have thought.

I am not promoting anything. I do not agree with Glen Ford. But it is interesting. Bill Clinton raised the subject and I thought made a complete fool of himself.

I am merely suggesting that it is good for people to attempt to understand other people's opinions. It is good to argue about facts in an intelligent fashion and it is good to try to understand views which are different to one's own. Scoop.co.nz is and has always been a big tent containing a range of opinions.

Unfortunately around here when people disagree with you (or in this case someone whose article you post on your website) instead of addressing the subject matter there is a tendency to.

1. Smear by association
2. Question motives and suggest outside influence
3. Attack on some other basis (i.e. geography)

And so foo_bar to you sir I say

Bev Harris!

[foo_bar]

9. "Can you explain what these "basic standards" are?"

Can you explain what New York has to do with this article, or Obama?

[althecat]

11. basic standards are

1. not defamatory
2. not wingnut crazy
3. not EXPRESSED WITH THE FREQUENT USE OF CAPITALS
4. not inexplicably confusing and incoherent
5. not racist, mysogynist, homophobic or otherwise tending to try to induce or encourage hatred or any other form of criminality

[foo_bar]

13. so Bev Harris wasn't "wingnut crazy" or "inexplicably...incoherent"?

[althecat]

15. No she wasn't. But that really is a straw man Foo_bar and has nothing at all...

... to do with what we are discussing. And is not really worthy of your often fine turn of phrase.

Around here saying "Bev Harris" is a bit like yelling "Fire" in a cinema in flame bait terms. I think you know that.

:)

[foo_bar]

16. it might be helpful to learn what "straw man" means

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Now you'll need to show where I misrepresented your position. Since Bev Harris passed your "basic standards" while published academics with whom you disagree are not "worth publishing" in your words, asking how Bev Harris exceeded your "standards" is a rather straightforward question in this context.

[althecat]

10. As for your original question.....

Isn't Senator Clinton a Senator from New York?

The Fairy Tale of New York is a song by the pogues.

The Hairy Tale of New York is the tall story told by the husband of the Senator of New York.

The reference is not actually that tricky.

Can I then presume that your most thoughtful response is to this post is to

a) Question my ability to spell?
b) Question my knowledge of where Illinois is?
and
c)accuse me of being a foreigner (like dear elizabeth) :)

[foo_bar]

12. since the subject of the article isn't Senator Clinton, the reference didn't make much sense

Bill Clinton isn't exactly "of New York", so the joke was missing a certain je ne sais quoi (like humor, or a common point of reference).

c)accuse me of being a foreigner

Straw man. I accused you of taking positions in American politics that would be fairly inappropriate for an American to take in New Zealand/Aussie/UK politics, for instance:

I support Obama. That much should be clear I would have thought.

Okay, but who do you support for French Prime Minister?

Can I then presume that your most thoughtful response is to this post is to

Just pointing out that you aren't doing a very plausible job of mimicking a news organization.

[althecat]

14. Aha well thats better humour....

on being a foreigner

c) Since when is it inappropriate for a foreigner not to have a political opinion? Just coz Liddle wants to sit on the fence doesn't mean I have to do so. Plus to be honest what happens in America effects the whole world whereas what happens in NZ does not have a material effect on what happens in say Wisconsin. In any event Americans can and do interfere in NZ politics - usually with large amounts of money and usually a bit secretly I might add.

For french PM

Personally I supported Ségolène Royal.

on mimicking a news organisation

My views expressed here on DU are not actually Scoop editorial policy. They are my opinions. I presume I am allowed to have such. Seems to me that Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman and Bill O'Reilly have political opoinions and express them without being accused of mimicking a news organisation. That said Scoop is a new kind of news organisation and are unusually plural in the range of views that we publish. Mostly I think Scoop does a far better job of mimicking a real news organisation than most of what passes for news organisations these days.

[foo_bar]

17. "Scoop does a far better job of mimicking"

Since when is it inappropriate for a foreigner not to have a political opinion?

You're certainly entitled to an opinion, and people are entitled to wonder where the opinion ends and the "basic rules" begin, since there isn't a clear distinction:

I was Bev Harris's publisher back in the distant past and if Febble or OTOH ever wrote anything worth publishing I would be happy to be their publisher too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So Bev Harris was "worth publishing", in your opinion, thus the rules didn't apply to her. DUers Febble and OTOH, on the other hand, have a special set of rules rendering them unpublishable, except in AAPOR and scientific journals that do actually possess standards.

My views expressed here on DU are not actually Scoop editorial policy. They are my opinions. I presume I am allowed to have such.

The difference between your opinion and "Scoop editorial policy" isn't terribly clear.

I once visited a universe where...

journalists 'did the numbers' before publishing; they certainly wouldn't leave their publisher to indignantly push the 'research' onto readers. Weird, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x474094#474855 (-DU moderator "yowzayowzayowza")

basic standards are
<...>
3. not EXPRESSED WITH THE FREQUENT USE OF CAPITALS

Contrast with:

BOLLOCKS: IT SAYS THE RURAL VOTE FOR BUSH DECLINED WHICH IT DID.
<..>
NOPE AGAIN: SAYS LOADS MORE THAN THAT
<..>
THE CLEAR INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE OP IS THAT BUSH'S VOTE IS PADDED PROBABLY IN THE SUBURBS THE SMALL CITIES AND THE BIG CITIES. SOMEONE LIKE YOU THAT HAS READ AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ THAT INFERENCE. THE OP DELIBERATELY DOES NOT ACTUALLY STATE THIS AS ITS INTENTION IS TO OPEN A QUESTION FOR OTHERS TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER.
<..>
NOPE: VOTE SHIFT FROM RURAL TO URBAN IS A PARTICULARLY STUPID WAY TO PUT IT. BUSH'S RURAL VOTE DECLINED. HIS SMALL TOWN VOTE IS STATIC. HIS URBAN VOTE EXPLODED. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHIFT IT IS ABOUT CHANGE.
<..>
THIS SENTENCE IS NONSENSE.
<..>
YES INTERESTING AND PLEASE PROVIDE A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.
<..>
WELL THATS AN INTERESTING PIECE OF ACTUAL INFORMATION WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE - REFERENCE PLEASE.
<..>
IT APPEARS BECAUSE WHY? BECAUSE YOUR THIRD FINGER FOLLOWED YOUR SECOND WHEN TYPIING THE SENTENCE?
<..>
IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NO ANSWER SO DON'T BOTHER LOOKING.
<..>
WELL THAT WILL BE INTERESTING. PLEASE BE SURE TO TELL US WHEN YOU DO.
<..>
IN OTHER WORDS I AM AN IMPORTANT PERSON WRITING IMPORTANT PAPERS SO BELEIVE WHAT I SAY.
<..>
WHILE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT THIS PARA GIVES THE ILLUSION THAT THE POSTER ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING.
<..>
YIP NITPICK. IRRELEVANT. UNRELATED TO THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH.
<..>
NO IDEA WHAT THATS ABOUT BUT THEN MOST OF THIS CONVERSATION IS TAKING PLACE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER SO ITS HARDLY SURPRISING.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x474094#474855 ("althecat" reaffirming both the need for "basic standards" and the importance of not believing one's own press releases, especially when trying to maintain the illusion of journalistic integrity)

[althecat]

18. Good lord.......

* /me stops digging....

Lets call that a victory to foo_bar. Fascinating though the discussion has been. Really.