Amateur Liar
Filed under: 2008 elections — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 28, 2008 @ 6:00 pm CET
Barack Obama now says that if Rev. Wright wouldn’t have retired, and wouldn’t have apologized for his hateful remarks (did he apologize? I didn’t see any apology whatsoever, only defenses) he would have considered leaving the Church. Or he wouldn’t have been comfortable staying there. Or something.
I understand that you’re pretty much just another politician, which means (to quote Stephen King) that you lie when it suits you, but don’t be this amateurish about it.
Just don’t.
There is no evidence that Wright ever acknowledged that his comments were “inappropriate,” though that is an absurdly mild description of Wright’s comments. Moreover, it seems like just last week that Obama gave a major speech in which he said that he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community. Indeed, it seems like only Tuesday that Team Obama was blasting Hillary Clinton’s comment that you choose what church you want to attend. Those statements appear to be no longer operative.
People like TNR’s Marty Peretz are probably wondering why they did not get the memo before praising Obama for sticking by Wright. Then again, Obama’s apologists should have known that Obama and Wright already had an understanding that Obama might have to distance himself from Wright.
It’s also worth pointing out that the man who will succeed Rev. Wright isn’t any better. He has already said that there’s a lynching or crucifixion going on. He has defended Wright constantly, and his extreme views.
And no, Wright hasn’t apologized.
In other words; Obama is trying to spin this thing for all it’s worth.
1 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 6:06 pm CETwow, immediately the multitude of Clinton’s lies comes to mind. Since we are after all talking about the Democrat Party candidates.
However on the subject of Wright -
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2738625820080327?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112
Indicates it has not mattered that much.
Is the difference that Clinton is a professional when it comes to being a liar?
2 Michael van der Galien
March 28, 2008 @ 6:15 pm CETInterested: it’s not important yet among Democratic voters. How will this play in the general election though?
As for lying: all politicians are lying, Obama pretends to be different. And yes, he’s a bad liar.
3 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CEThe pales in comparison to Clinton in lying Michael, why you continue to not acknowledge her traits is beyond me. Just like Bill she lies when there is no need too.
4 Michael van der Galien
March 28, 2008 @ 6:24 pm CETUm. Where have I ever denied anything like that? She’s a liar, they all are. That’s constantly my point. They’re all the same. But at least she’s competent and she knows how the game works.
Awkward stuff: how can you deny… I’m not denying anything. I’m only denying that Obama is better.
5 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 6:36 pm CETI would say your lack of holding her to the same standard that you do him is indication enough. Just go back through the posts, how many have you done on Obama’s traits while not doing the same to Clinton.
And how you say she is competent is really beyond me. She has proven that she is not. She is a bad candidate with nothing positive for America.
6 Michael van der Galien
March 28, 2008 @ 6:42 pm CETActually I am holding them to the same standards. It’s just that people deny that Obama is basically the same, which is why I spend more attention his lies, flip-flops, etc.
7 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 6:54 pm CETI do not think you do Michael. How many posts did you do on her latest lie, the Bosnia bit? Then how many posts do you think you would have done if it were Obama. If you intend to be a journalist - you need to gain the ability to report as it is, not emphasize one side and ignore another because you do not think people see it enough.
People see her for what she is. And that is nothing shining.
8 Michael van der Galien
March 28, 2008 @ 6:59 pm CETdo not think you do Michael. How many posts did you do on her latest lie, the Bosnia bit? Then how many posts do you think you would have done if it were Obama. If you intend to be a journalist - you need to gain the ability to report as it is, not emphasize one side and ignore another because you do not think people see it enough.
I’m not journalisting here, I"m blogging. There are differences. As for the Bosnia thing; didn’t Claudia write about that one?
And - personally I just didn’t find it interesting enough to write about. If it was Obama? Perhaps, but he’s presented as some kind of Saintlike new politician, whereas he’s not. So that’s why I may have written about it if it was him; whereas with Clinton I’m thinking to myself "is this news? Of course she, umh, embellishes her memory. They all do."
Understand? (you can still think i should write about it, but then again; i decide what i write about ;)).
9 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 7:05 pm CETExactly, that’s because it’s Clinton, and you give free passes to Clinton.
Break it down, lets see - her "experience?" was a lie. Remember you being so adamant that she protected Chelsey? Apparently not enough to keep her out of a war zone where she had to "run" under sniper fire.
Too Dangerous? Send the first lady - bravo! - farce. The list goes on - and it is just one single example.
If it were Obama, you would have been 5 posts into exposing it.
And that’s a shame.
10 Michael van der Galien
March 28, 2008 @ 7:11 pm CETNo I don’t: I realize she’s a liar and hypocrite, and everyone knows that. To write about it, then, is completely useless.
That’s a cheap shot and… despite what Republican operatives have told you, the records actually show that she was involved in some important issues; no, not as much as she said, but still more than McCain et al. would want you to believe.
My focus on this side of Obama is because he himself and all too many of his supporters act as if he’s different. My posts, then, are aimed at showing that he’s not.
What can you do with Clinton? "She’s a hypocrite, see that?"
"So what else is new?"
Again, I don’t care whether you think that’s fair or unfair, it’s just how it works, also because you have to select stories to write about; personal biases obviously play a role in that process.
And if you don’t like it, don’t read the posts I write.
And this is the end of this debate. Now debate the post.
11 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 7:15 pm CETI would say it would be keeping a level playing field.
You would be my Republican operative Michael. Yours is the only political blog I read. did you somehow miss seeing Chelsey in the news video? Somehow miss her repeating that "That’s what happened"? And somehow missing the continual reports of - that didn’t happen?
Different standards are different standards.
And that is being intellectually dishonest.
12 dr drew
March 28, 2008 @ 7:55 pm CETI am not sure if Obama supporters support him because he is good or because they think hillary is bad? It appears that they dont have much to talk about Obama himself, with respect to what he has done, his lies, his hypocrisies or for that matter his accomplishments. So the argument always is " You call obama bad, look how bad Clinton is". But there is no good about obama himself here. Which is point I believe Micheal is trying to make.
As far as bias goes, its amazing to watch almost all the media which include CNN, MSNBC, Washingtonpost, NYtimes and many others just drooling over obama. The same guys who complained about Bush white house of preferential treatment. The sad thing is there is no objective approach what so ever.
And its sad to see Obama’s supporters obsessiveness to point out clinton is so mean, political or what ever. The point is thats how politicians are. Its not clinton who said "CHange"or "Yes we can". or "ideas go to washigton to die" or "bringing together people".
I think obama’s supporters need to understand that if they believe they have a better candidate, they should do so based on their candidate. Not because they think other candidate is worst. If they do, there is no change or "yes we can" or "Old washington politics". Its the same old politics.
And another sad thing is that offlate Obama supporters are acting the same way many say Bush administration was doing. While many say hillary is arrogant with a sense of entitlement, if anyone pays attention, its Obama who has the issue. They also dont seem to be worried about Democratic party at all what so ever.
Either way, I used to support and have great respect for Obama. Because i did believe him to be different. But that was then. Now I think he is more of a politician then Hillary or Bill for that matter ever can be or ever have been. Thats sad. Because its not new politics. Its actually worst then the old politics. Would have been great with the republicans. If only there was something good unfortunately.
13 Jason
March 28, 2008 @ 8:06 pm CETElections are comparative, not absolute. The only legitimate issue is whether Obama or Hillary is better. The question of whether either should be sainted is irrelevant.
BTW, your claim that Obama supporters "always" avoid talking about issues is flatly false. I did a 2-hour poligazette radio session to prove it. You can listen to it in the archives if you care about actually being accurate.
14 dr drew
March 28, 2008 @ 8:30 pm CETActually Obama has "sainted" ( if I understand it right) himself by professing to be different. A non-politician politician. Hillary never did. And now many are seeing that he is not a saint and is more of a politician-politician.
Agreed. Elections are comparative. That is the point I am making as well. Comparative to what the person says and does. Comparative to the competition. Hillary never said "ideas goto die" or "Old politics". It was obama. so the onus is on him. Not on Hillary. Because he said new kind of politics. Not hillary. So its both comparative and absolute with the difference that the subject is obama himself.
And the same logic can be applied to her Bosnia visit and all the other foreign policy experience. Its about being "comparative" to others candidates experience and not in absolute. After all she was not the president which is obvious.
95% of the positions on the issues are same. And its very hard for me to believe that Obama has the depth or exposure that clinton has when it comes to policy and issues. It was the sense that i got from debates. Besides, using "comparative" analysis, she has never voted 100 plus presents ( Neither yes or no as Obama did in Illinois senate.)
I do take back the word always. Sorry about that. I change " A substantial majority" and "mostly" instead of "always."
15 dr drew
March 28, 2008 @ 9:00 pm CETAnother point. I do believe that Hillary might have wanted to convey that she is more brave then Obama with the Bosnia thing. I find it more silly then offensive. And its an exaggeration. And quite frankly a little immature. Agreed. However, what i see is that she has actually been to Bosnia, met with the troops and had the opportunity to understand the ground reality from the people as well as the troops.
The reason why i do not consider a lie or a credibility issue is that she has actually been to Bosnia. And hence exaggeration.
16 Interested
March 28, 2008 @ 9:20 pm CETYou may want to look over her many campaign slogans before asserting that.
Again look at her campaign - go back and listen to the debates.
Actually it was a flat out lie. not once, not twice - but three times.
so if your kids came up to you - lied about something - more than once, (recall her "That is what happened." - emphasis on period). would you then say - oh kids - your just exaggerating. Please.
Are you trying to assert his being accountable to voters far more than she has? or are you trying to say he spent more pork (well documented that she spent more).
Appropriate