Rachel Maddow - If you want Party, vote Hillary,.. Power, vote Edwards...Personality vote Obama....

Rachel Maddow just summed up the Democrats choices in terms easy to understand.

IF you want someone who is a Democrat, who will operate the machinery, vote Hillary.

IF you want someone who will break the system and change things in Washington, vote Edwards.

IF you want someone who is likeable, good personality, vote Obama.


Rachel is making the case that people are looking for 'change' this time, not just a winner from their party.

Edwards fills that bill.

Edwards says he's going to go fight for you.

Obama says he needs you to help him fight, he makes you believe in your own power.

That's the difference.

Nobody can go to Washington and do this alone. It takes waking up the American people and keeping them involved. Obama is identifying the kind of people who respond to organizing, who can move others to action. He relies on that power as much as he relies on his own ability to bridge divides.

As voters, we no longer have any power or voice in Washington DC. Edwards will bring our power and our voice back to the federal government.

The GOP spent years telling us government was bad so that we no longer cared about it. It made it easy for them to take it away from us. Dems in Congress have come to agree with them - we voters/taxpayers no longer have a right to influence our government. That's total bs. I don't want Obama and Clinton in the WH telling me I have no voice in my own government and that they know best what is good for me.

... but we've spent the last 30 years compromising our standard of living away. It's time we put someone in the White House who's ready to use the bully pulpit to *OUR* advantage, rather than as a mere platform from which to declare the latest compromising of our values and economic security.

The Allies didn't retake the beach on D-Day by negotiating with the Germans, we stormed the beaches and took them back. Talk of hope, unity and compromise is not honestly detailing the fight that is before us. And honesty is ONE of the attributes of the change I'm looking for, as well.

nobody does it alone. Not even FDR could do it alone. It's a nation-wide effort where we think nationally and act locally. Change begins at home.

Obama says, "I know what's best for you so help me out"

Typical DC insider vs. outsider contrast.

Obama is the personal empowerment candidate...(He)...says he needs you to help him fight...

Obama knows that is isn't HIS fight, it's OURS. We've passively treated our government like a demented soap opera long enough--it was MEANT to be participatory. He's sees himself as quarterback as well as coach, and even the best quarterbacks are only as good as the teammates who catch his passes.

P.S. Consider what a president with a LACK of "personality and style" has gotten us!

:headbang:
rocknation

To what President are you referring? Jimmy Carter? HW? Eisenhower?

You certainly can't say that W lacks personality or style -- just because his personality and style aren't to your liking. In fact, W runneth over with personality and style, and that's his main political asset; his is a cult of personality following, and I fear that we're constructing the same with Barack (and to a lesser degree Hillary, where people want a return to the "Clinton years").

Obama's message is one of change through unity and compromise... while Edwards is saying that enough is enough and that we're going to have to put up a fight to wrest control back from the moneyed interests. (see Frederick Douglass, 1857, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.")

I see this as the main difference *in their campaign messaging* -- but no one can say what they'll do once in office. e.g. Obama may be playing it cool, now, hoping to attract more independents and Republicans with his talk of compromise, but will be aggressive in pursuit of change if he becomes Prez; while Edwards may find that the political realities will force him to compromise on many issues.

well ready for somebody to fight for me for a change dammit to hell!!

GO EDWARDS>>>>>KICK SOME (|)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Empty rhetoric that gets him elected...then what is he going to do???
Without a true fighter for the people we are just farting in the wind.

He might as well have a brand label on him.
EDWARDS hasn't taken the blood money!
He is free the shackles of corporate greed!
Your EMPOWERMENT should come from supporting a candidate who doesn't owe his candidacy to corporate interest to whom he will later be beholden.

to make us more acceptable to the plans of major corporations because he is likable. Makes it easier to accept coming from him. Look, congress has our support and cooperation yet refuse to listen or do what they promised even with our support. It's not us it's our leaders who aren't supporting us. Obama is all platitude compared to Edwards. He lacks substance or a sense of urgency about our situation. Everyone of us wants what Obama wants but we need Edwards out of necessity to deal with the reality of our situation.
Who does this sound like:

"...For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike...." FDR-1937

Over privileged...this is the fight we must win...the fight Edwards has vowed to win...they will not give their power away but they will succumb to
regulation and a fair share of the tax burden, to profiteering off our health care, to war and arms profiteering, to energy profiteering. We already have a plan to meet all our energy needs over the next 40 yrs without oil dependence but it is blocked by big oil profiteering. The answers and solutions are being kept from us by the major corporations in the name of profit. All the dem candidates know we support them in this battle but what we need is one who will take the battle on instead of turning around and saying "it's off the table" when it comes to these issues. We need a restoration period in order to progress. We need Edwards and Kucinich.

No wonder St Ronnie is in his pantheon.

See: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-shoot-me-by-digby-jesus-jump-up.html

You are the ambassador of misinformation I see.

they are all the same essentially.

So functionally, they are all the same. It all boils down to style.

If you like a shrewd marm, vote Hillary.
If you like someone who is angry and fired up, ready to throw you red meat, vote Edwards.
If you like a guy who plays it cool, vote Obama.

Or throw a dart at the board with a blindfold on.

Well, I haven't read Clinton's as thoroughly, but between Edwards and Obama they are not at all the same to me.

as is both his and Hillary's plan for getting out of Iraq. There may be a couple of issues where they have things in common, but Edwards issues and implementation are far more progressive than the other two.

Be careful before she pulls a Randy and looses teeth to a stumblin bumblin.

I don't find Obama to have the same substance of other candidates, though he does have more style. And I'm not saying he wouldn't turn into a great leader. Just don't see the same substance right now.

... was due to her falling down drunk?

was due to her being a stumblin, bumblin drunk.

How, then, did she _actually_ lose her teeth? They just fell out, or thru decay?

She got sloppy, falling down drunk at a bar

She attempted to go outside for a smoke

She fell flat on her face in a blackout drunk

She broke her teeth in the fall

She called her employer and, not being able to say "I blacked out and fell down drunk and broke my teeth", told them she was mugged.

... with a simple "yes"?

Q: Are you saying Randi's recent absence was due to her falling down drunk?

What was so difficult in this question? Yes, her absence (and tooth loss) was due to her being drunk.

Donkey.

And he doesn't inspire me. He is a neophyte know it all. IMO.

Tied w/ HillBill for Most $$ From Wall street frome either party! :think: People!

:(

:thumbsup:

That is the only 'real change' to be had.

Maybe if people stopped characterizations based on slick sound bites, and discussed exactly where the candidates stood on the issues, we might be able to carry on an intelligent discussion

I am so glad that I do not watch the news on that idiot box

I didn't hear this particular bit of analysis, but it sounds about right, and it's not a slam against any of the three.

We all have decisions to make, and like a lot of folks, not all of my decision will be based on where this or that person is on policy. Obama isn't an "empty suit;" he could be, to us, what Reagan was to the right wingers--someone who inspires people to join a movement who otherwise couldn't be bothered.

(mind you, I loathe Reagan and his bullshit legacy with the heat of a thousand suns, but I can't argue with posthumous approval ratings that approach those of the Founding Fathers.)

"IF you want someone who is likeable, good personality, vote Obama."

That is the B.S. that Obama has no substance I am arguing about

I am talking about this specific characterization, not other points of view Rachael has made

but, he campaigned in Michigan and didn't even get 5% of the vote, and the ballot only had him, Gravel, Clinton and undecided. It kind of says it all.

zalinda

Had nothing to do with Kucinich. Besides Kucinich is the only real change, the only true progressive dem. All others are measured as plus or minus Kucinich's position. Only his healthcare plan is NOT FOR PROFIT. He need to be in this debate and this campaign to get the other 3 to move in a progressive direction.

Kucinich was not ignored. I listened to the show and she said some pretty cool things about him. She said that he was NOT a nut, but an honest Democrat who speaks the truth (or words to that effect) and urged Michigan voters to vote for him. I was quite pleasantly surprised by her comments.

His is the only not for profit health care plan out there. His is the only voice for making this administration accountable. The others are either plus or minus Kucinich's positions. He will be in till way past Feb. 5th

I thought she made it crystal clear.

Agree or disagree with her (and I sometimes do disagree with her...not this time though) she always makes her points clearly and succinctly.

Pretty good for someone who doesn't actually own a television machine, huh?

I haven't finished watching the debate, but the first 40 minutes or so I thought Edwards did VERY well. Very passionate and sincere. And URGENT. He seemed to be trying to make the point that these are pressing issues that must be acted upon (maybe the urgency was because he never knew when he'd have more time to speak...lol...a la, DK - and, yes, I hate he wasn't there and wish one of the candidates would have said something about it. Maybe they did later?).

I also thought Hillary did well. Obama does so much better in speeches than debates, IMHO. I sincerely like the guy, but in debates I find I get bored with what he is saying very easily...as though there's no energy in him when he's talking, so what he's saying doesn't convey.

I watched a youtube piece where Nevada voters gave feedback and half said Edwards spoke in a language they could understand. I think that's very key in how John relates and gets his message across (when given a chance).

I'm not slamming Hillary or Barack - truly - these are simple observations from an "average" American viewer...

While some feel Edwards comes across as a slick used car salesman, others respond to the warmth and passion.

Hillary often comes across as a typical politician, a policy wonk, not connecting with the "average" person as well.

Obama comes across as a professor in debates (again, he displays a lot of passion in speeches and connects then).

So glad JRE did well - that they all did well. Let's see if the landscape shifts and they start talking about a three-person race (again, my apologies to and sympathies are with DK supporters).

He's real, and he connects to people.

K & R

.... and the more I think about her summation here, the more I agree with her.

Of course Pat Buchanan cannot bring himself to agree with her, especially since he already publicly stated months ago that this is a one-on-one race between Obama and Clinton, ruling out Edwards.

I think Tweety feels threatened by her at times as well.

MSNBC will be missing a great opportunity if they do not create a show for her, and rid themselves of the deadweight anchor Tucker, the bowtie boy.

just to watch Rachel Maddow send Buchanan up the wall. What makes him crazy is that she is clearly so much smarter than him. And, unlike him, she doesn't whine. She's smacked Matthews down a time or two as well, also delightful to watch. Maddow is so the fingernail on the good-old-boys' blackboard. Go, Rachel!

I think a lot of people came to that conclusion after last night's debate.

(nor did his "pent-up frustration move him do act on NH as some here surmised)
How is it empowering to vote for someone who talks pretty - but folds every single time - plus wins bupkus?

... and bring the number down to around 225-200 million. Even FDR had about a third of the nation against him.

In my opinion, Edwards isn't saying he won't compromise, he's just communicating the difficult fight that is ahead of us and that our starting position in any negotiation is no longer going to be preemptively-bent over.

It has to be realistic, but at least we won't be going to the table with our hat in our collective hands begging for morsels with him at the helm.

... and rap them on the knuckles (at a minimum) if/when they pull a Levin.

That about sums it up.

I pick #2, JOHN EDWARDS. Yes indeedy.

re: "Edwards fills that bill."

Your conclusion expresses your opinion, not Rachel's. And you seem to be morphing Rachel's content, as well. Rachel's point is that all 3 Dems are "change" candidates... but that the voter needs to choose their flavor of change, with Rachel stating her opinion as to the available flavors. Her descriptions of the available flavors seem clear, so I don't see the need to rephrase them and change her meaning.

Rachel would not be saying:

"Rachel is making the case that people are looking for 'change' this time, not just a winner from their party.

Edwards fills that bill."

Your criticism is unsupported. (THat was from me, not Rachel Maddow, in case you are still having problems)

... as, aside from the erroneous user tag, your post fails to make any point, beyond leaving the reader with an impression of your personality type.

... but you tried to make it appear that I was quoting her opinion.

What I posted was obvious. Get over it.

I'm not impressed with Maddow.

... as the orig poster did not quote her but, instead, provided their (quite morphed) interpretation of what Rachel had said.

Rachel's actual quote:

"Hillary believes the thing that needs to be changed is that Bush needs to be out and the Democrats need to be back in there. Edwards believes the thing that needs to be changed is that the moneyed interests and the lobbyists need to be taken out of the political game. Obama believes that what needs to change is that he needs to be the president because he is a personally unifying character...Democrats are being asked whether they believe in party, in which case they should be for Hillary, if they believe in power they should be for Edwards and if they believe in personality, they should vote for Obama."

I think the first half of her analysis isn't that far off; but don't agree with her final assessments of the Edwards and Obama decision triggers.

And the OP I posted was a fair approximation of what was said.

Of course I am not viewing things from your dismissive position in the Ivory Tower. (But then again, most posters here do not occupy that vantage point either.)

... but it *is* an accurate transcript of the segment that you "approximated." As for "fair approximation," opinions differ.

And your OP *did* give the impression that you were accurately conveying what she'd said, rather than approximating. Sorry you took the critique so personally, rather than simply linking to or quoting what Rachel actually said.

Sorry you can't spin her comments to the interpretation that you desire. That's life... learn to live with it.

Highlight, for anyone who might still care at this point, exactly where in your OP you captured Rachel's comment that "Obama believes ... he is a personally unifying character," a point underscoring the crux of Obama's message that he's the go-to guy if the voter is looking for a coaliton builder. (Hint: You won't be able to.)

Cheers!

You are a disingenuous poster raising a false issue about the OP I posted.

What I posted was short, succinct, and accurate. It directly from what she said.

You have not proven anything posted in the OP was inaccurate.

You tried to frame the last two(2) sentences of the OP as an attempt by me to deceive posters into believing that Rachel said this, when it was perfectly clear that it was my opinion.

You have been exposed.... you might as well give it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you have thus far.

Oh dear. All of DU thanks you for this great deed. What a hoot.

As for you "capturing all of what Rachel said", it *is* incumbent upon you to capture her *whole* meaning when you begin your post with "Rachel just summed up." Your summary of her summary was more of a selective filtering of her summary.

We've each made our points to the people that care, and I'm happy to differ. I've provided the content of what Rachel *actually* said, so diligent readers have some chance of avoiding your misinformation.

It's been a joy. Peace. Out.

She was involved in an extended discussion with two other people, and you linked to a second hand account that amounted to one paragraph with a couple of sentences.

I did capture her *whole* meaning with the OP.

You have yet to prove anything I posted was inaccurate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2695060&mesg_id=2709086

If your paragraph was the complete recitation of Rachel's comments, she must have been speaking verrrrrrrrry verrrrry sloooowwlly .....

she is one of the best we have.

That right!!! Go, John go!!!

I'm an Obama supporter, but I hate when people boil multifaceted decisions to catch phrases. LEARN the candidates' platforms for yourselves. Avoid name-calling. Ignore neocon trolls posing as advocates for one candidate or another.

Obama's here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Clinton's here http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Edwards' here http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

Vote Edwards!!!!!


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:yourock:

And Edwards in the White House! K&R!

Consider this one Nailed


Thanks Rachel

I ALWAYS knew She "got it" about John Edwards! Rachel is NO slouch, and very intelligent! I'm glad to hear her say this.

It's been John Edwards for my family and me for a long time. Even my grand-son who just turned 18 cast his very first "absentee" ballot for John Edwards for the sort of/kind of Primary here in Florida! All of us got together and made the decision a while ago, but my grandson who has been around me and my activism since he was aware of "my politics" was for OBAMA for some time. He finally called me one night and said... "you know, John Edwards is who I'm voting for." I told him I "knew" he would figure it out and he said "I Love You, but that's not why I'm voting for him."

He said he had watched him on YouTube a lot and he felt like Edwards talking "to him" and he liked that. He said he still likes Obama, but he feels he's more like a performer or something than a President! He's white, but has many black friends and hangs around with them a lot because he's on the basketball team. Anyway, he's a good kid!

I swear he said it, and I didn't make him say it!! I'm really proud of him! I told him that Edwards IS NOT getting much coverage and it may not turn out like it REALLY should. I told him I learned long ago what it was like to lose, but in our hearts we WIN!! If I had one wish it would be that "my" grandson will see his first vote ever be one for the next POTUS!

Well, I do have other wishes, but that's one wish for my grandson, AND for John Edwards!!!

All three linger on bringing troops home. All 3 want to make student loans easier to get rather than make higher education free as in other industrialized nations. All 3 want single payer FOR PROFIT health care rather than leave out the private ins co as they get large campaign donations from their lobbyists. Kucinich is the only real change and the others are judged by how close or how far away from Kucinich they are. You either have not for profit single payer health care or you don't. Same with the other issues. They say they are against the war but continue to vote to fund it.
They say this administration needs to be held accountable but then vote against holding it accountable.
Without Kucinich it's just more of the same to a lesser degree. Notice how the others didn't boycott the debate when Kucinich wasn't allowed to participate. All 3 collectively agree with the powers that be to pay the price of admission. Look the other way. Edwards is will not play along once elected. Know this.

Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
-Jefferson Davis

A statesman is a politician who places himself at the service of the nation. A politician is a statesman who places the nation at his service.
-Georges Pompidou

I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win, than win in a cause that will some day lose!
- Woodrow Wilson

At a certain point, I just felt, you know, God is not looking for alms, God is looking for action.
- Bono

You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case.
- Ken Kesey

No pain, no palm; no thorns, no throne; no gall, no glory; no cross, no crown
- William Penn

One had better die fighting against injustice than die like a dog or a rat in a trap.”
- Ida B. Wells

I want to be a champion for the people I have fought for all my life - regular people
- John Edwards

we better not think in terms of "who is electable"...we need a change in direction. While DK is probably the most honest and truth-speaking of all of the DEMOCRATIC choices, the general VOTING public (what true minority of our population that poorly represents) either will not support such bitter truths from a candidate or do not want to hear ANYTHING outside the Washington-based punditry concerning our national and world state of affairs. So...who is it going to be? Who do you trust to actually do more than get elected and in "power"...who will try to make the change we all so desperately recognize and desire, but feel powerless to facilitate? It is not Hillary, electable as she MIGHT BE. Do not want to get rid of the current "devil" with just another Washington "devil". It is time to put the heat on Edwards AND Obama to LEAD THE CHARGE FOR CHANGE and tell the people what their vision of that change is, how they will accomplish it, and where the want America to be headed in the all-too-near-future. If the truth can't work for Kucinich, and Edwards and Obama with their support can't make the truth work...what does all this matter? Oil, Pharma, Multi-Nats, etc....have your way with us.

a thorough Purge of these right wing buffoons?

That's what I want to vote for.

and not the corporations...vote for Dennis.

Rachel's actual quote follows; judge her meaning for yourself...

"Hillary believes the thing that needs to be changed is that Bush needs to be out and the Democrats need to be back in there. Edwards believes the thing that needs to be changed is that the moneyed interests and the lobbyists need to be taken out of the political game. Obama believes that what needs to change is that he needs to be the president because he is a personally unifying character...Democrats are being asked whether they believe in party, in which case they should be for Hillary, if they believe in power they should be for Edwards and if they believe in personality, they should vote for Obama."

In my opinion, I think the first half of her analysis isn't that far off; but don't agree with her final assessments of the Edwards and Obama decision triggers.

Why don't you admit that the paragraph you copied and pasted comes from a second hand source, not an official transcript, AND it does not include all the remarks Rachel made during the extended discussion with 2 other people.

OR DID YOU JUST CONVENIENTLY LEAVE THOSE FACTS OUT even though they have been brought to your attention at least twice in this thread by me?

You are are piece of work. Don't let the facts get in the way.....

Poster krkaufman has been linking to one paragraph he pasted from a second hand source claiming it shows the OP is misleading.

Here is a link to the entire 15:11 panel discussion between KO, Tweety, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow -- in two parts. You can watch the video and decide who is right.

***************
http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rachel_Maddow_explains_the_difference_Clinton_Obama_Edwards

"Rachel Maddow explains the difference Clinton/Obama/Edwards watch!

youtube.com — IF you want someone who is a Democrat, who will operate the machinery, vote Hillary.IF you want someone who will break the system and change things in Washington, vote Edwards.IF you want someone who is likeable, good personality, vote Obama."
****************

I am posting here an 'unofficial' transcript of the Part 2 of 2 for those who want to read exactly what Rachel Maddow said...

Part 2 of 2 Duration 8:36 minutes
2:20 - 3:30

"Pat I did see one real difference between Obama, and Edwards, and Clinton, in this debate. Democrats seem to like them all, they have a lot of similar policies, they're all calling for change. Ok. You know what Hillary Clinton is really saying the thing that needs to be changed is Bush needs to be out of the White House and a Democrat needs to be back in there. John Edwards is saying what needs to be changed is that the moneyed interests and the lobbyists need to be taken out of the political game. Barrack Obama is saying what needs to change is that he needs to be the president because he is a personally unifying character. They all want change, but they are all saying something different needs to be changed. So Democrats are being asked whether they believe in Party, in which case they should vote for Clinton, or whether they believe in power in which case they should vote for Edwards, or that the believe in personality in which case they should vote for Obama. Those are all very different appeals even if they are all saying they want change. If Clinton's position there is the centrist, moderate or maybe the right wing position among those, I don't know that might stand her well in the general election. I don't think it stands her well in winning the Democratic Primary."

3:58 - 4:10
"I don't think think they fell into line Pat. Don't you think that..don't you think that Edwards in particular landed some blows against her with the lobbyists stuff, the special interests. I mean he is coming at her with populists punches here I would think would resonate with you."

4:36 - 4:51
"She(Clinton) is positioning herself as the general election candidate. But that may not be the best place to be in the primary."

5:18 - 5:37
"I think that the fact you are hearing change is the articulated message on both sides of the partisan aisle means that people don't want somebody who is good at running the existing system, they want somebody who is going to break the system. Now who is the best candidate at making the case that they are the guy or gal to do that? I'm not sure we've seen that yet. But I don't think they just want somebody who is good at running the same old system."

6:17 - 6:30
"For a theoretical Republican that is true, but which of the republican candidates would actually tear Obama to pieces? I mean it would look Godzilla and Bambi at this point, and the republicans are Bambi, they don't have a candidate, Pat."

7:29 - 7:44
"I think a Washington outsider at this point, it could be Ronald Reagan, it could be George Bush, it could be Bill Clinton, it could be anybody from history, Chris is right in picking those guys out. The question is whether or not, not whether somebody has been in Washington, but whether they are going to break Washington when they get there. How radical they can be."

*Now* you've provided people with what Rachel actually "summed up," rather than selective filtering of her summary that favors a particular candidate. Your post is now deemed acceptable.

"Pat I did see one real difference between Obama, and Edwards, and Clinton, in this debate. Democrats seem to like them all, they have a lot of similar policies, they're all calling for change. Ok. You know what Hillary Clinton is really saying the thing that needs to be changed is Bush needs to be out of the White House and a Democrat needs to be back in there. John Edwards is saying what needs to be changed is that the moneyed interests and the lobbyists need to be taken out of the political game. Barack Obama is saying what needs to change is that he needs to be the president because he is a personally unifying character. They all want change, but they are all saying something different needs to be changed. So Democrats are being asked whether they believe in Party, in which case they should vote for Clinton, or whether they believe in power in which case they should vote for Edwards, or that the believe in personality in which case they should vote for Obama. Those are all very different appeals even if they are all saying they want change. If Clinton's position there is the centrist, moderate or maybe the right wing position among those, I don't know that might stand her well in the general election. I don't think it stands her well in winning the Democratic Primary."

And, no, I didn't provide a link to an actual transcript, because I'd watched the segment and the referenced link seemed very accurate, to me, in communicating Rachel's summary. And I think you'll find the same should you compare it to the above.

"Hillary believes the thing that needs to be changed is that Bush needs to be out and the Democrats need to be back in there. Edwards believes the thing that needs to be changed is that the moneyed interests and the lobbyists need to be taken out of the political game. Obama believes that what needs to change is that he needs to be the president because he is a personally unifying character...Democrats are being asked whether they believe in party, in which case they should be for Hillary, if they believe in power they should be for Edwards and if they believe in personality, they should vote for Obama."

And, finally, I didn't care about referencing the rest of the conversation, because the OP was supposedly communicating what "Rachel summed up" -- not detailing or summarizing the entire discussion -- and the OP did not accurately communicate Rachel's summary, having left out her comment that Obama's campaign is about unity, his "personally unifying character."

p.s. I find it mildly amusing that the meat of your OP, that you've been defending, was actually plagiarism (unless you're Digg submitter 'iching', in which case I apologize for the accusation). The whole IF/vote content was copy/pasted directly from the Digg posting, without linking to it or referencing it. (Though note that the Digg submitter did not qualify their posting as a quote of what Rachel summed up.)

I suspect the 'digger' copied my post, not the other way around, since I composed and posted my comments BEFORE the digg comment was posted.

You should be careful accusing anyone of plagiarism given your penchant for making misleading statements.

Not everyone will overlook such a smear, and you could be sued for defamation of character.


Did you overlook the other comments I transcribed??

Such as:

"... people don't want somebody who is good at running the existing system, they want somebody who is going to break the system."

"The question is whether or not, not whether somebody has been in Washington, but whether they are going to break Washington when they get there. How radical they can be."

(actually *did* look at them, but got 'em wrong.) As said before in my pre-emptive apology, my apologies for the accusation, and especially since the answer was so evident.

As for your continued insistence that you'd accurately communicated Rachel's summary...

Did you overlook the other comments I transcribed??

No, they were not "overlooked"; they were not applicable, as they weren't part of Rachel's "summary" -- exactly as I detailed in my second to last post on this thread.

If, however, you wish to scope your OP to all statements made by Rachel during the MSNBC appearance in question, your selective filtering-out her statement Re: Obama that I've highlighted -- "Obama is saying ... he is a personally unifying character" -- is even more stark. No where in my above-linked post did I debate any other points you might be making, yet you opted again to filter-out this quote from Rachel, the key message of the Obama campaign.

As stated previously, you've at least now provided the actual content of what Rachel said, for anyone who may stumble across this thread at this late -- and increasingly irrelevant -- date, so I'm no longer concerned about further spinning or obfuscation.

Best of luck to your preferred candidate. (Which happens to also be mine; I just prefer a less Clinton/Rove-esque style of misinformation politics.)


p.s. Re:

You should be careful accusing anyone of plagiarism given your penchant for making misleading statements. Not everyone will overlook such a smear, and you could be sued for defamation of character.

Seriously, you gotta quit with comments like this. My stomach muscles can't take the convulsive laughter.

Second, YOU pulled out one paragraph out of a 15 min panel discussion and provided no context or illumination regarding the making of the quote you used. I instead provided the ENTIRE SET OF QUOTES BY RACHEL ... which I realize is entirely unhelpful to you and your position. But to accuse me of 'filtering out' anything is completely indefensible.

Third, YOU did not take the time or effort to check your facts before you accused me of PLAGIARISM in posting a response to your accusations. That indeed would not be a defense to a charge of defamation of character. It just shows your true character and reflects badly upon you, not me.

Fourth, those of us who really follow politics are well aware of Rovian tactics, one of which is to accuse your opponent of wrongdoing which you yourself are engaged in. THat would certainly apply to you in making this statement: "I just prefer a less Clinton/Rove-esque style of misinformation politics."

Now that your attempts to deceive and mislead have been exposed, it bothers me not one whit if you go off somewhere and laugh yourself silly ....

... diverts from reality further and further.

I've credited your "ENTIRE SET OF QUOTES BY RACHEL" post as including all relevant information, and made no accusation that that post was "filtering out" anything. However, your OP did selectively filter-out Rachel's comment that Obama's campaign is about his "personally unifying character" and your later reply completely ignored that comment as the crux of the post to which you were replying. You cannot say you are communicating what Rachel "summed up" if you choose to filter-out this critical statement.

As for "context or illumination" for the quote I referenced, I didn't need to provide any beyond what you had set in the OP. The quote I provided was from the MSNBC discussion in question, and demonstrated that you'd selectively filtered-out the "personally unifying character" comment.

As for the plagiarism issue, you state that I "did not take the time or effort to check your facts" -- when, in the very post to which you just replied, I started the post by emphasizing my error, and detailing that I *had* checked the timestamps but brainfarted it, somehow. Obviously, I did take *some* time and effort, but still failed. And admitted my failure. Yet you somehow failed to either read or comprehend my admission. Or simply felt it convenient to do so, allowing you to harp along a few more sentences from that soapbox.

Re: "Now that your attempts to deceive and mislead have been exposed..." Pat yourself on the back, Don Quixote. The world is safe.
:toast:

Since we are going to move into the name calling arena.

You need to look around and not how many people responded to the OP who agree with you, and how many agreed with the OP. That pretty much 'sums up' your failed argument....

see: link

Again, as for details. You weren't called any specific "names." Your reading comprehension was called into question. And rightfully so, given your response decrying "name calling" and again neglecting to acknowledge or even debate what has been demonstrated as your OP error. (Please do reference the above link and witness thy hypocrisy, in your very first response out of the gate. So very cordial and open-minded to criticism you are.)

Re:

You need to look around and not how many people responded to the OP who agree with you, and how many agreed with the OP. That pretty much 'sums up' your failed argument....

Ummm... If you failed to provide the readers with ALL of what Rachel said, then they have nothing to disagree with -- unless, like me, they were aware of what she actually said, called you on it, and then descended into a downward spiral of unreality with the OPer. You didn't provide a link to the actual video or a full transcript (until everyone had long since moved on), so the reader couldn't be expected to have a response to information you failed to provide. We're just two people throwing electrons back and forth at each other, at this point.

I have admitted a few mistakes in our precious volleys, but I find it interesting that you cannot simply admit that you chose to omit Rachel's crucial comment that Obama's campaign is about him being a "personally unifying character." (Really, his powers should be obvious given how close he's brought the two of us.)

:toast:

I have clearly proven that the OP was correct. Others have weighed in and you were the only one to ignore reality, so I went the extra mile to post Maddow's extended comments --and yet that was not enough for you. You continued to reply to people in the thread that the OP was misleading or untrue.

You accused me of plagiarism without the slightest evidence to back up that charge. The fact that you prefaced your accusation with a pseudo-apology that you might be wrong... and then went on to level your accusation was no excuse.

You have tried to frame my comments in a false light time and again.

You are without credibility, and are not serious in your cause.

I am through with you --go make up whatever reality best fits your needs and try to thrust it upon another pitiable poster here. May they have the superior insight to tell you up front to get lost, and save themselves and others wasted time and energy trying to debate with a poser.

No one is so blind as he who will not see.

There is nothing left to prove ....

OPer continues to sidestep and deny the fact that the OP filtered-out Rachel's comment that Obama's premise is he is a "personally unifying character" -- evidence that, in fact, the OP was misleading as to what "Rachel summed up." (This excerpt *was* included in a later transcript post, after some badgering, but the OPer continues to express the accuracy of the OP, contrary to reality.)

Re: name calling... OPer fails to admit "name calling" was initiated in his/her very first reply in this tedious volley. If one wishes to pinpoint where the discourse began to spin out of polite bounds, refer back to that post. As for "Don Quixote", I can see how that can be interpreted as "name calling" -- though it was intended purely as a literary device to exemplify the false fight and victory the OPer proclaimed in having "exposed" this poster to the world -- a world consisting of only the 2 people still lingering in the thread. (Better grounds for taking offense would have been based on having called the OPer's reading comprehension skills into question.)

At least common ground has been found on one point...

No one is so blind as he who will not see.

It has been interesting and insightful, if not pleasurable.

.
.
.

... that that pasty white lump has forever besmirched the name.

This is no exception. Hillary is more than just a cog in the political machine, Edwards is trying to appeal to the solid left in the base (because he can afford to), and Obama is more than just personality.

I dislike it when complex people are reduced to sound bites.