This is what we get when we don't know a candidate well enough

[Stinky The Clown]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722">Obama board funded gun control efforts

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.

~~snip~~

Now, for what its worth, I would be very happy to see every gun ever made melted down into wind chimes. I would be supremely happy to see gun ownership banned outright.

But I am also pragmatic. That view will not win elections. So I let it go and don't engage in the debates favoring the outlawing of guns. I vote that way, but I am quiet about it because there are a whole lot of bigger issues for me.

And I suspect that's similar to Obama's view. That's just a wild-assed guess. I don't know.

But there you have the headline. "Obama board funded gun control efforts"

Can we find a bigger, brighter, more incendiary red flag to wave in the faces of the knuckle draggers, mouth breathers, fence sitters, and even so-called rational gun owners?

Had we had more time to vet the man who is clearly going to be our nominee at this point, we might have known about this shit.

What else is out there?

Again, to be PERFECTLY CLEAR ...... I am not opposed to gun control. I am really not pleased that this shit is dribbling out .... making me and probably lots of others wonder ..... what next?

Democrats have been down this road too fucking many times with our candidates ......



And don't bother to let me know you think Clinton would be worse. I do, too. Well, if not worse, then just as bad. For different reasons ..... but at least as bad.

[grasswire]

1. K&R

The General Election case against Obama is being built in right-wing radio every day. This is one in a list of strikes against him in the eyes of at least half of America.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grasswire]

6. I thought Skinner posted a rule against name-calling here (eom)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. You knew she was talking about you? You're pretty observant there, bud. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

18. You can put your head in the sand and yell at me, but YOU, of all people, ought to know ........

....... how shit like this sticks.

Does "Perfumed Prince" mean anything to you?

"Almost started WWIII?"

General Jackson?

Nobody's weak kneed here, Frenchie.

But I have been known to wear a pink tutu

[FrenchieCat]

24. And it was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now.

I fought it then, and I sure am going to fight it now.

Gen. Clark didn't get out from the primaries. OBama is doing just that.

I'm consistent.

Bout you?

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Just as consistent.

And not turning on former allies from the trenches like some people who are simply blinded to how they act.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Really now?

Are you talking about Hillary Clinton dissing an organization that was born fighting for her?

or are you talking to me?

Personally, my priorities are with what is best for the nation, not how do I best serve loyalties to some Internet fellowship. But then, I became politically active due to my opposition to this war, and I could never, ever rationalize supporting someone who was in favor of it. That would defeat my entire purpose of being political to begin with. I have never believed that this nation would elect a Democrat who ever supported this fucked up war, and I still don't believe it now. Like I said, I'm consistent.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. Why do you think I support Clinton?

You're dead wrong.

But you seem to have this idea.

Why?

[FrenchieCat]

71. Because I can tell by every single thing you post......

this post included.

In otherwords, I am a thinking person.

[Stinky The Clown]

75. Whatever.

You can tell.

How, exactly?

Never mind. Don't waste your energy. It really doesn't matter.

There's no convincing you of anything.

You're nothing if not tenacious.

Do us both a favor. Stay out of my threads and I'll stay out of yours. Or better yet, put me on your ignore list.

Actually, I usually do stay out of yours because there's usually nothing there but the same old same old.

Have a nice day and a nice life.

Really.

[Two Americas]

143. there is no "war"

Calling what is happening in Iraq a "war" is to accept and promote the administration's framing of this - "we are at war." We are not at war. Our government illegally invaded a country, and what we have now is more correctly called an occupation, not a war.

Another important point about this, is that the occupation of Iraq is not an isolated anomaly, but is consistent with a pattern of behavior by this administration and in that way is a symptom of what is wrong, not a cause in and of itself to be opposed to.

I think that making "the war" the central focus of this election, and of activism in general, is a way to deny and avoid looking at the complete reality. It is shadow boxing - nibbling around the edges of the problem, minimizing and trivializing the problem, taking the safe and easy way out.

The reason that there is violence in Iraq is because the people there are resisting the occupation and domination by the US. If they passively surrendered and allowed the US to dominate them, there would be no "war." Would that then mean that the problem was solved and all was well?

The anti-war movement is merely posturing and can never be effective or relevant. Confronting and taking on the war makers, those who are destroying everything and waging "war" of some sort on all of us would take some courage rather than mere self-righteous posturing.

[boston bean]

84. You are consistently

pushing bullshit, that is a fact. In many ways that are disgraceful and discriminatory.

[DevonRex]

119. Delete.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Wow, the Rape-Publicans are gonna fling feces at us??

Surprise...surprise... :eyes:

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I'm not talking about you, am I?

or did the tu-tu fit?

[ClassWarrior]

67. I think you were aiming for another post and missed.

The fight ahead is too important, Frenchie. Let's keep our wits about us.

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

72. You are correct in your assessment of my missing the post aimed at.

I beg your pardon on that oopsie.

[Lucky 13]

3. It's getting DENSE in here.

Sitting on the BOARD of an organization that gives out MILLIONS to MANY different projects does not mean that YOU PERSONALLY agree with each and every grant. It doesn't mean you write the grants or have anything to do with the projects.

Did you even WATCH the debates on Wednesday? One of the things I took away from it was that both candidates, while supporting the 2nd Amendment ALSO said there is room for localities to impose further limitations LIKE BANNING OF HANDGUNS.

I challenge any member of congress to stroll into southeast dc at night alone and tell me that the DC assault weapons ban shouldn't remain in effect.

Get a fucking clue.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You're off the point

The point is, its out there and no one knew it was coming.

You think there's any Oppo Research that will turn up new shit on McCain?

The answer is no.

Will they turn shit on Obama? Yeah. And we have NO FUCKING IDEA what it will be.

It may be total lies.

But some will stick.

Close enough to steal? Remember how that works?

[Lucky 13]

35. You think they won't chuck bullshit at Hillary?

She creates her own scandals weekly!

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Hey Lucky .... read the OP again ..... below the graphic. Okay?

Now .... you were saying?

[Willo]

61. and the fact that you volunteer-research- vetters haven't found

a decent piece of dirt yet, means what to you? That the big-bad Rep wolves are smarter and found what you're still looking for?

[Stinky The Clown]

64. What are you calling me?

That's an accusation that I want answered

[Willo]

80. What? You need me to retype it?

volunteer-research vetter

How about you explain your outrage over the label and I'll explain why I put it on you.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Tell ya what, willo, you're free to think whatever the fuck you like

My 'outrage' is over what is an unsubstantiated accusation *you* made up about me. Its just that simple.

But you just keep on keepin' on in your fantasy world. Make up any facts to support your story and move along.

[Willo]

100. LOL. Not good enough

First off, I didn't simply make it up, I substantiate it by your subject line and your follow-up response posts.
"This is what we get when we don't know a candidate well enough." Followed by how easily it can be spun by the enemies.

Secondly, I never gave you "a story" so your whole second sentence makes no sense.

Back to the first; I've only been here a few months so I don't know the party's history or what effect Hillary's campaign is causing here. What I am finding out is why the democratic party is often considered weak and that's pissing me off to no end.

The reactionary fright of "what will they do" is amazing. Its like armies of David and Goliath. I'm finding a whole lot of intelligence on DU but the fight is backasswards.

So by the time I got to this OP I had had enough, so I addressed you.

But, I shan't be pooh pooh away. We can continue or you can step to the left.

[Stinky The Clown]

114. No, actually, you made it up

Right out of your own head. A few sentences and your own bias, and bingo, you're a Sherlock Holmes genius.

Bye now. :hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

122. H2S, "Man, you are one up tight dude. Why are you so angry?" How do you respond?

In 30 seconds or less.

:hi:

[Left coast liberal]

112. Man, you are one up tight dude. Why are you so angry?

[stellanoir]

5. Being on the Board of an organization is a far cry from having a majority control

over to whom they allocate funds.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. It is the ***headline***

Not the facts.

When you have to try to **explain** a soundbite, you always lose.

The headline is a perfect soundbite.

The explain is ..... well .... an explanation.

[stellanoir]

27. Well I feel a couple things on this matter.

First of all, people have been lied to long enough that they're not buying into the crap as much as they used to.

Secondly, a fundamental distrust of the media, as evidenced by the outrage over last week's embarrassment of a debate.

Maybe I'm totally deluded but I'm stickin' to it.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. This is not intended to be snarky .......

I really do want a serious discussion of this.

Here's how I see it.

The headline is a fact, more or less. The organization's mission was self-described as fostering a discussion, not banning guns.

But ..... the headline can be changed. How about "Obama on board that funded anti gun discussions"?

There is enough truth in most any variation on that theme to make it true enough to merit a reply.

But here's the rub. The headline is a ready made soundbite. The explanation will be necessarily lengthy (by comparison) and overly dense (by comparison).

When that's the dynamic, the soundbite sticks and explanation is reported on page B7, way below the fold and over by the gutter margin and then is taken out with the trash.

And the soundbite lives on.

[stellanoir]

48. A couple of years ago, I heard an older retired reporter talking about this phenomenon.

He was talking about how they used to research stories for weeks if not months for the morning and evening news.

He described the truth and veracity as being the casualty of the 24/7 news cycle.

He used the analogy of a locomotive train. He said something like, "When it first plows through, it gets everyones' attention. But the truth lies in the caboose. By the time that passes, no one is paying any attention anymore."

So I hear ya about the short attention span theatre. For sure.

[boston bean]

87. Not to worry Husb, it will just be another What Obama Really Meant and we will all be happy again.

Some of these supporters wouldn't know if a rat started nibbling at their noses.

[Zachstar]

7. The NRA gave both Candidates a 0

And while Obama sits on boards that does not automatically mean he is for anything. Boards vote and foundations fund several different things.

Yes the republicans are going to try a few things against Obama. Yet most of the crap has been exposed already.

The people who adore guns and vote based on gun issues are going to vote McCain. That has not and will not change.

[QC]

8. Don't worry: he'll just make a speech and fix everything. n/t

[Zachstar]

12. Well when the allegations are bullshit they tend to fix things.

You know by denying them and clarifying?

[Stinky The Clown]

38. That's the problem. The 'allegation' is apparantly true

He served on the board.

Its just that we never knew that before his canonization.

[Zachstar]

46. The allegation is he had not always supported handguns.

Which this is trying to say he is not because he served on a board?

The republicans are going to get nowhere with this.

[boston bean]

88. and he obviously lied about the questionnaire during the debate about the gun issue. that is well

documented, but who give a flying fuck if we actually get a dem in the WH or not.

[anonymous171]

9. I wish I had known Obama was a democrat before I voted for him.

I can't imagine what the GOP is going to do to him now.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

11. This is nothing new.

The SwiftBoaters were successful in attacking John Kerry's heroics, for God's sake.

The Republicans are going to attack our nominee no matter what.

[Zachstar]

17. Bingo!

Anyone who thanks any Democrat is not going to be swiftboated by desperate republicans is a fool. Obama knows this. Clinton knows this. etc...


And I know first hand how Kerry was swiftboated. It was a clusterfuck because democrats were not united to defend him. Otherwise AWOL Bush would have been exposed and defeated. And Dan Rather would still have a job at CBS.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

21. And the irony is that Hillary would be hit twice.

Once for her dealings (or non-dealings) and once for Bill, who has more baggage than LAX.

[Olney Blue]

125. Which is a reminder of how important it will be to support our nominee

against the GOP clusterfuck coming.

[ProSense]

13. Dumb!

Hillary voted against this:

"To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."

Roll Call

Published on Friday, June 18, 2006] by Reuters

Senate Votes to Bar Emergency Gun Confiscation

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby.

By a vote of 84-16, the Senate embraced an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. He attached his measure to a domestic security spending bill for the fiscal year starting October 1 that the Senate is expected to pass soon.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed its version of the spending bill and negotiators will have to decide whether to keep the gun provision. The House is usually sympathetic to gun owners.



TA man carries a shotgun as he surveys damage to his neighborhood
in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Metairie, outside New Orleans
September 5, 2005. The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the
confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's
Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby.
REUTERS/Lee Celano

Citing the constitutional right to bear arms, Vitter said that during an emergency people should be allowed to hold onto "legally possessed firearms to defend your life, your property" at a time when telephone lines and cell phones probably are not operating and victims "can't reach out to law enforcement authorities."

more

[Stinky The Clown]

77. So?

[ProSense]

116. Dumb! n/t

[AllentownJake]

14. So..

By nominating Hillary we will do a lot better. Guns are a loser for democrats regardless of the candidate.

If she was winning all they would be talking about is the Million Mom March.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Did you bother to reasd the OP

Cuz if you did, you'll see what I said about Hillary.

Stick to the issues ...... okay?

Maybe read this, too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5581416

[AllentownJake]

I apologize

I didn't see what you wrote after the Graphic. I thought the graphic was the end. If you had that part with the rest of the post I might not have skipped it.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Maybe its the location of your head that you ought to observe

The ISSUE is not the point.

The headline is the point.

Soundbite: Obama on anti gun board

Explanation: 1000 word treatise on the function of non-profit boards.

[tekisui]

16. And, with well known Hillary she starts with 50% Negatitves, and tanks from there.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

23. I propose a +20 "Bill add-on" to her numbers.

You know he'd bring out the controversy.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. And your point is ......... ?

I believe she'd be a shitty candidate, too.

Now address the actual issue in the OP.

Assuage my knock-kneed fears

[Armstead]

19. You donl;t think the GOP will go after Hillary on Guns God and Gays just as hard?

If you eliminate every Democrat with tenuous connections to anything liberal, there's only one logial candidate -- Zell Miller.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Excuse me ...... hello .......

.... did you read the ENTIRE OP?

Yes, I think the GOP will go after Hillary.

Did you have another point?

[Armstead]

118. Hello. I did read your post. I stand by what I said.

NO Democratic candidate would be immune to right wing memes.

Therefore, we have to take that as a given, and work from there.

Obama is no more vulnerable than anyone else you might name. Heck, did you see the right wing smear attempts against Gen. Wesley Clark when he was running? The GOP would have painted him as a military failure and a peacenik.

[thevoiceofreason]

28. And this is how Obama supporters act poorly?

[Stinky The Clown]

31. No, this is how non supporters who have to choose from bad and badder act.

[amandabeech]

140. I hear that. And I get your point about headlines taking on a life of their own.

Neither Obama nor Clinton were in my top 3, and I'm not impressed with either or his/her electibility.

[AllentownJake]

32. Suggestion

The bottom stuff you wrote I think people are missing. Move it up and you won't have to spend so much time acting all pissy.

[depakid]

33. Have you looked at the Joyce Foundation?

Hint: it's involved in a LOT of issues: http://www.joycefdn.org/

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter.

Soundbite: Short and sticky

Explanation: Long and wordy and .... and ..... and ...... and a thousand more 'ands'.

[AllentownJake]

41. Who the hell do you want to nominate

Yosemite Sam...seriously what democratic candidate did not have a "gun" problem.

[Stinky The Clown]

54. Its not about guns

Its about shit coming up out of nowhere.

We didn't know diddly about this guy until he gave a speech at our convention. Since then he's been given a pass on everything. Meanwhile the oppo guys are working OT digging shit that will stick. Mark my words ..... there will be no swiftboaters this go-round. Everything will be rooted in facts.

He would have been the PERFECT veep for any one of a number of good candidates we had (or should have had). As a veep running for the big chair in eight years, he (or anyone else, for that matter) would be pretty much immune to the kindergarten crap that could be his undoing this cycle.

But no. He got anointed and jumped to the head of the pack.

And to answer that jerking knee, if you have one, ..... I was never in favor of Clinton. Never.

[AllentownJake]

57. The democratic candidate

was going to be attacked by the gun lobby..I still don't know where your getting shocked and worried about this. The NRA is an extention of the GOP, of course they are going to attack the democrat.

That's like saying the anti-choice lobby is going to attack a democrat.

[depakid]

I don't fear the NRA's bullshit -it's of limited value

if the nominee runs a starkly populist campaign.

Bread & Butter beats Guns & Butter, provided that the campaign isn't afraid to make that case.

[2rth2pwr]

36. Obama SOP. All sides of the issues, to show he "understands".

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Obama Was Trying To Keep Rifles Out of The Hands of Snipers

The knuckle draggers and mouth breathers aren't voting Democrat anyway, except maybe by mistake.

[benEzra]

145. Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies...

if you're talking about freepers, that's one thing, but if you're talking about gun owners in general, ignoring that fact was one of the mistakes that helped turn Congress red in 1994.

Alienated Rural Democrat

And FWIW, the vast majority of those gun owners (~80%) are nonhunters. Keep that in mind.

[Sensitivity]

43. JUST STUPID. Can't find GOTCHAS from Senate record, so find any ASSOCIATION WITH ANYONE OR ORG

[PragmatismRules]

51. he doesn't have much of a senate record

but ther's plenty of gotchas (e.g., why did he vote to continue to fund the Iraq war?)

[KSinTX]

47. What next? He had a life before running for president

He sat on a board that disbursed $219 million in GRANTS to local and national organizations - less than 10 percent of which involved guns, gun ownership, gun limits or gun bans.

"Of the $219 million in grants approved from 1997 through 2002 — the years of Obama’s tenure for which the foundation has posted its annual reports online — the environment received $57 million, followed by education ($56 million), employment ($41 million), gun violence ($21 million), money and politics ($17 million) and culture ($6.5 million)."

Some of those grants may have gone to questionable agencies, who may not have been sufficiently vetted but which were granted based solely on a submitted proposal. This is not unusual. John McCain, too, had a life before running for president. Just two of the three I looked up:


John McCain - honorary board member, Leonard Cheshire Foundation, 1997-present

"This review has highlighted a variety of sources that argue that the activities of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation have had a detrimental effect on the lives of disabled people. This has been realised through the segregation of disabled people in residential institutions, and by speaking on our behalf with no mandate from disabled people themselves."

John McCain - Board of Directors, Board of Directors Chair, International Republican Insitutute (IRI)
1992-present

"U.S. Treasury Undersecretary John Taylor said the United States would contribute $232 million and the Inter-American Development Bank $400 million. But what many people don’t know is that U.S. federal funds have been flowing into Haiti for the past six years. A federally-funded group called the International Republican Institute, or IRI, has funneled some $3 million into Haiti to destabilize the democratically-elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide.

"The IRI, a nonprofit political group backed by powerful Republicans close to the Bush administration, initiated the destabilization of Aristide’s government by imposing harsh sanctions, training Aristide’s political opponents and encouraging them to reject internationally-sanctioned power-sharing agreements. Haiti’s political crisis eventually escalated into violence until Aristide was overthrown in February of this year in what he calls a modern-day kidnapping in the service of a coup backed by the United States."

Let's all stay focused and keep our eye on the prize!

[Stinky The Clown]

59. You make an excellent example .....

Headline:

"Obama sat on anti gun board"

Explanation:

e sat on a board that disbursed $219 million in GRANTS to local and national organizations - less than 10 percent of which involved guns, gun ownership, gun limits or gun bans.

"Of the $219 million in grants approved from 1997 through 2002 — the years of Obama’s tenure for which the foundation has posted its annual reports online — the environment received $57 million, followed by education ($56 million), employment ($41 million), gun violence ($21 million), money and politics ($17 million) and culture ($6.5 million)."


Some of those grants may have gone to questionable agencies, who may not have been sufficiently vetted but which were granted based solely on a submitted proposal. This is not unusual. John McCain, too, had a life before running for president. Just two of the three I looked up:


John McCain - honorary board member, Leonard Cheshire Foundation, 1997-present
"This review has highlighted a variety of sources that argue that the activities of the Leonard Cheshire Foundation have had a detrimental effect on the lives of disabled people. This has been realised through the segregation of disabled people in residential institutions, and by speaking on our behalf with no mandate from disabled people themselves."


John McCain - Board of Directors, Board of Directors Chair, International Republican Insitutute (IRI)
1992-present
"U.S. Treasury Undersecretary John Taylor said the United States would contribute $232 million and the Inter-American Development Bank $400 million. But what many people don’t know is that U.S. federal funds have been flowing into Haiti for the past six years. A federally-funded group called the International Republican Institute, or IRI, has funneled some $3 million into Haiti to destabilize the democratically-elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide.

"The IRI, a nonprofit political group backed by powerful Republicans close to the Bush administration, initiated the destabilization of Aristide’s government by imposing harsh sanctions, training Aristide’s political opponents and encouraging them to reject internationally-sanctioned power-sharing agreements. Haiti’s political crisis eventually escalated into violence until Aristide was overthrown in February of this year in what he calls a modern-day kidnapping in the service of a coup backed by the United States."



Let's all stay focused and keep our eye on the prize!


Very few will bother reading past the first few words. Really.

[KSinTX]

65. If just ONE takes away the message and passes it on, we all win! n/t

[Vinca]

50. So essentially what you're saying is everyone must stick to a position

they took at one point in their life and stay with that same position come hell or high water. No one is allowed to change their positions, ever, ever, ever. That's called being a Republican.

[PragmatismRules]

53. o will never be president . . . never

[stillcool]

58. Wishing and hoping and begging and praying..

planning and scheming..will not stop the Obama Express...move out of the way....

[Stinky The Clown]

60. Not saying that at all

Look, I like the idea of banning guns. I understand his involvement on the board. I agree ....... on and on ...... but

THAT DOESN'T MATTER

Soundbite easy

Explanation wordy.

[Auntie Bush]

89. So then why can't Hillary change her mind on the war...just like

Kerry, Edwards, Dodd and more than half the Dem party? How come she is the only one crucified for her vote?

[Stinky The Clown]

94. Because she never reversed her stand until she got CLUBBED for it

The others did it more or less spontaneously. She continued to defend it, even in the face of party wide - hell, nationwide - world wide - opposition.

For a time she sounded as bad as The Great Joementum.

[tabasco]

52. Riiiiight. Post a slam on Obama and demand that no one say anything about Clinton.

LMAO.

[Stinky The Clown]

62. What?

What caused you to read *that* conclusion?

You can say anything you want. Just don't say that **I'm** shilling for Clinton.

I'm not.

[mtnester]

136. Listen my Nutella soulmate

your post is significant for the VERY post above. In a day of irresponsible sound bite media presentation, and one line delivery, you get this exact reaction because no one reads past the first line. No where in your post at all did you anything like that. It was someone's PERCEPTION about what was said...which is damn dangerous for any political game in the gotcha climate of one line and sound bite media.

It is no secret I am a Hillary supporter...I started with Edwards. It is also no secret that I am first a Democrat, and will vote for whomever our candidate is, because the alternative is positively too horrifying to consider...because the alternative is a REPUBLICAN. And a conservative one at that. McCain is no where near the middle AT ALL.

All that said, I have always been of the firm belief that no one needs political R&D anymore because the so called "press' is in the business of dirt, so whatever it is that can be found, WILL be found. The level of news reporting and journalism in this country went to complete shit in the 90's, and continues to be Enquirer level or WORSE daily, as proved by what I heard about the debate on ABC (I have been boycotting ABC for a couple of years now so did not watch it). When guys like Bob Woodward can jump the shark...well, that says it all really doesn't it? Or when a man like Dan Rather gets crucified...not for BAD information, but for what format that information was presented in...it was NEVER disputed as to whether the information was untrue...what was disputed was whether the document was the original typed one and not one reproduced by a typewriter to LOOK like the actual document...the TRUTH was there...it was admitted it was the context of what was typed, it was just NOT the actual typed document..and POOF, Dan Rather's career was shot dead in the front yard of TV land. Did the press care that Dan had just shown Bush to indeed have been AWOL? No...what they were interested in doing was taking down a man because the document itself was not the original...it was recreated for an authentic look.

And the sad thing is? I have no idea how to fix this. None. Vetting can be sneaky, even on a candidate like Clinton who has agreeably been vetted to death for nearly two decades now. And if it cannot be found, it will be TWEAKED or MADE UP or SPUN to damn near a lie by our treasonous press....no matter which candidate is going in to represent us in November. And can we also point to the FCC for part of this mess? Oh yes!

Now, get a spoon! :)

[trof]

55. I heard Obama bites his toenails.

That's just yucky.

[stillcool]

56. Wow..he made $70,000

in 8 years? I believe that Obama has mentioned that he believes cities have the right to pass gun legislation just as they do zoning laws. I think Chicago may actually have such legislation.

Obama joined the board in the summer of 1994 as a 32-year-old lawyer who had yet to run for public office, but he already had a reputation in Chicago as an up-and-comer, particularly on issues related to low-income communities — a key foundation focus.

LaBolt said Obama, an Illinois senator, “does not remember each of the over 1,500 individual grant requests and his assessment of their merits, but he considered all requests in light of the foundation's goal of developing a robust public dialogue around reducing gun violence.”

[Stinky The Clown]

63. What's your point?

I would LOVE cities to ban guns.

But what does that have to do with the OP? :shrug:

[stillcool]

73. that's what the article said...

and I just repeated what Obama has said. Is this not relevant?

[Stinky The Clown]

78. Actually .......

..... no.

[stillcool]

93. What is pertinent then?

His position on gun control? His position as a board member of the Joyce Foundation? His salary?
http://www.joycefdn.org/

[Stinky The Clown]

97. This:

Headline: Obama on Antigun Board

Truth: a thousand words and a ton of nuance.

And that we never knew about this.

[stillcool]

98. I see....

[grantcart]

66. Well atleast the Clinton campaign now gives up on trying to be better lol

And don't bother to let me know you think Clinton would be worse. I do, too. Well, if not worse, then just as bad. For different reasons ..... but at least as bad.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. You're irrational

I bet you look under your bed before you climb in at night.

Be sure the flap on your Dr. Dentons is buttoned, too.

[JohnnyLib2]

68. Bang! ( Another dead messenger)

No pun intended. Guess you are now part of "concern-gate" on DU.

[Diamonique]

69. I'm sure the Rethugs will use this, but...

... they're gonna dig up whatever they can against whoever is our nominee.

The fact that *we* didn't know about it doesn't matter. Obama knows about it, and I'm sure he's ready for it.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. "I'm sure he's ready for it"

Or thought he could duck it.

[AtomicKitten]

70. He believes the Second Amendment and sane regulations aren't mutually exclusive.

It's a reasonable, pragmatic approach that isn't a secret, and if the piece shown on Bill Maher last night is any indication, people seem to get him on that issue. Certainly it was made clear that McCain represents a third term of this disastrous administration, or worse, and this election will be a no-brainer in a McCain vs. Obama matchup. It was a real eye-opener.

[Stinky The Clown]

79. No argument for or against .......

.... but what does it have to do with the OP?

[AtomicKitten]

81. I just don't understand the concern because his position embraces a sane policy.

Your piece indicates another 6th degree thing. I just am not seeing a close connection between sitting on the board of this organization and their efforts which are born of a consensus as contrary to his stated position on gun control.

Well, I can see how license was taken in making that connection in the piece, but I think it's loose enough that he'll roll around on the ground and be alright. ;)

Obama is changing the paradigm of politics as we know it, and I really don't think these wedge issues are going to get the kind of traction they did in past elections.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. I hope you're right about these wedge issues not gaining traction.

The piece reads as if he sat on a board that was hardcore antigun ..... not what they actually do.

I have two issues:

1 - The soundbite will stick while the explanation will be necessarily long and wordy and will be ignored. net result: Obama wants to take your guns away.

2 - The fact that this came up out of nowhere. If he (or maybe I really mean his campaign team) were more skilled or more anticipatory they would have already had this fact out in the public arena with **their** spin on it ..... not the media's spin. I see this as a flatfooted mistake on the campaign's part. They **have** to know guns are a hot button. Did they think they could hide this? The fact it came out this way just seems amateurish.

[AtomicKitten]

91. I assure you it didn't come out of nowhere ;)

It's the product of a thorough excavation of ANYTHING to use to throw a monkeywrench in his path.
I picture him brushing this off his shoulder as well. ;)

If you can, check out Real Time with Bill Maher from last night. The video of Pennsylvania may answer some questions for you. It truly was an eye-opener.

Cheers :hi:

[PM7nj]

95. I've known about this for months.

This has been floating around for a while. I think this may be the first time a real news organization (Can you even call Politico that?) has written anything about it though.

[derby378]

142. Punishing law-abiding Americans just for obeying the law isn't sane...

...which is why Obama needs to retool his message on gun control, and fast.

The endorsement from AHSA may not be enough to help him in Pennsylvania, since that organization's "pro-gun" credentials are still considered questionable.

[dailykoff]

83. Kerry knew him well enough to make him keynote speaker 4 years ago.

Caroline and Ted Kennedy knew him well enough to endorse him last February, along with most of their family, and that's well enough for me.

[Stinky The Clown]

86. Okay .... that's you

[JoFerret]

138. Yep. plucked from obscurity to be the

chosen one.

They picked well. No record to speak off so no trip-ups there. And he dresses nicely, speaks well and people like him.

[BeyondGeography]

90. After all the shit that he has already weathered, you think this makes a hair's bit of difference?

Nobody.will.care.

[boston bean]

92. ha

[DevonRex]

99. This guy just like to stir stir shit up and then tell folks to

shut the fuck up. As far as I can tell the OP is pointless. He puts it up there, then says he disagrees with it, but then says we can't tell him Hillary is just as bad. Totally irrational.

[grasswire]

106. ha!

When you've been here a little longer, you'll be worthy to critique this poster.

[DevonRex]

121. Worthy? I'm plenty worthy right now thank you. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

96. Wrong forum. Should be in the gun nuts forum, not gd-p.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

104. Then answer the charge .......

The fact is, its now out there.

Did you know it was coming?

If not, why?

Do you think its meaningless?

People vote based on the most illogical of basis. Gun people have among them some of the most illogical of the illogical. And that includes some Democratic gun owners.

But that's besides the point.

[LowerManhattanite]

107. The one I liked...

...was “He's winning, so put your guard down and let the opponent hit you in the nuts.” jobbie.

It was fairly entertaining treacle. :)

[boppers]

102. Alright, who left the Gungeon door open?

Shoo, shoo!

[BlueCaliDem]

103. Yep, it's starting already. Repub hitmen are gearing up against Obama...

...because they know he's going to win the nomination (bar a coup by Superdelegates, that is).

But they are equally gearing up against Hillary. Right-wing blogs are all fired up ready to take down Hillary - that's why they want Hillary to win.

Did you know she and Bill are defendents in a huge civil lawsuit in California? Well, the Republicans do. Check it out.

Courtesy of MarkBaker at Huffington Post:

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/what_hillary_clinton_and_the_media_are_hiding_from_the_voters/

http://www.paulvclinton.com

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56305

Oh, and a little some-some about not-so-straight talking McSame:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/23/03912/3990

[Two Americas]

105. yes we can

"Can we find a bigger, brighter, more incendiary red flag to wave?"

We most certainly can, and here is a perfect example of it:

"the knuckle draggers, mouth breathers, fence sitters, and even so-called rational gun owners."

That is what some of us are talking about when we say that the liberal activist community appears to be elitist - arrogant and self-righteous.

I disagree with you on this issue, and so do the 40-45% of the people in the reddest of red rural areas who vote Democratic. The stereotyping and bigotry is the problem, not guns or religion or "bitter." This is a blind spot for us - we think of ourselves as the "tolerant" people the "enlightened people and think that we don't have any hatred or prejudice or bigotry.

We are the stylish people, the fashionable people, the smarter people, the better educated people, the more "caring" people - all and all, we are quite superior, aren't we?

Most people, blue collar working people, do not vote for the Republicans, nor cling to anything, they vote against the liberal activist community, and with good reason.

[amandabeech]

141. Thanks.

I'm half knuckle-dragger and you said it very well.

I liked Edwards, too. If the convention deadlocks, which looks unlikely, I hope that the delegates look at Edwards again.

[bvar22]

108. Hillary LED the Million Mom March AGAINST guns.

There is Video of her calling for the registration and licensing of ALL guns and an outright ban of Assault Weapons (whatever they decide those are).

In terms of Right Wing fodder, that trumps Obama sitting on a board.

[libbygurl]

109. Thank you for your honesty and integrity in posting this.

I happen to share your perspective on the issue. This is not something that will win the Dems the GE, and is another weak point for BO. It's sad to see you getting viciously attacked for being clear-eyed about the political reality of the issue.

[caligirl]

110. check the author out Ken vogel writes for Politico, a repub blog. so

this issue is one some in Pa are concerned about and they are gun owning hunters, not South Chicago types concernd about a different gun issue. This article is timed too conveniently and written by a repub connected writer of Politico.

[mopinko]

111. listen friend, if we don't want a president mc slime, this is what we have to do-

we have to look at this bullshit, all of it, and say- not this time. we have to answer loudly, and in unison, each and every time some trumped up piece of bullshit gets trotted out- not this time. not buying any. had enough. don't give a shit. run along, sonny.
we need to set the example. like, starting right here in our own little neighborhood. right now. we have to get over it. we have to link arms. we should start right now, because you know he is going to be our nominee. we have to have his back. we have to be his choir.
we have to stop this fucking fratricide.
look into the camera, friend, and say this- wow. the man can set aside his own opinions and feelings, and respect the constitution. what a great president he is going to be.
we have to, h2, we just have to find a way.

[Stinky The Clown]

120. I couldn't agree more

The problem in our own party is the tone of things.

Yeah, I'm incendiary. But that's because I'm *mad* *as* *hell*. I'm mad that the two left standing are neither our best nor our brightest. One might actually be ...... but in a few years ..... not now. The other one is a retread from an earlier time. A good time, largely, in my view, but a time that is gone. And everyone is glad it is.

But what do we have now? We have open warfare within our party. And those of us not enchanted by the choices are supposed to do what? Turn on a dime and support the cool guy? Or look like a dope and support a loser? No thanks.

No good choices, in my view.

I actually **expect** magnanimity from the winners. I see it as the role of a winner to open their arms and invite in those who weren't with them. Instead, we get this shit. Again.

I agree with you. We have to find a way. I think that's incumbent on the winners.

I did my first volunteer campaign work in 1972. I may just skip this year. There's no senate race in my state. My congressman is a shoe in, even if he never campaigns. There are no significant local races. And I can't see myself working along side the likes of some (not all) of the Obama supporters I've seen - here and in real life.

Sore winners.

We'll see what happens in Denver. I'm hopeful. And hoping against hope that hope isn't really just whistling past our graveyard.

[mopinko]

123. obama will be more than magnanimous. he will be a healer.

i say this to you from the bottom of my heart. there are very few here that are not on the obama train that i give 2 shits about. you are one of them. i read your posts, and i wish i could find a way to help you see the guy like i do. i believe in this guy. on my children's head, i swear to you that he is the real deal. he is my homie, and i know. i know who his friends are, i know who his mentors are, i know who helped him get started on this trip, i see how hard folks around here have worked for him. i think that half the illinois general assembly has taken a bus trip to knock on doors. my congresswoman, jan schakowsky, one of the most honest and brave members of the us house, is one of his biggest backers. she will be at his downtown office tomorrow, making phone calls to PA, ALL DAY.
i met him when he ran for the senate. he was out in the deep red burbs, trying to help get a democrat elected. and that is exactly why he has risen as far as he has. he has succeeded by locking arms with those around him, and marching forward together. i promise that is what he will do once this thing is locked up. he will proceed with humility, with dignity, with honesty, and with humor.
i personally invite you to come along.

[Sparkly]

126. I tell H2S...

1. Focus on McCain
2. Don't spend too much time on DU right now

It is really time for positive, understanding posts like yours from supporters of our presumptive nominee!

[mopinko]

129. my ignore list is long.

i was really finding myself getting drawn into so much bullshit. i hate to turn my back on a fight, but i had to just screen it out. i especially hated knowing that i was fattening the paychecks of paid disruptors. the greatest page moves a lot slower these days, but this is still home. i wasn't gonna get chased away.
please read this post. and look ahead.

[mtnester]

137. Here is a bonus to surprise him with

http://www.diabeticdesign.com/lanch.html


based on our "conversation" from C&B..heh heh

Yes, stress is not a good thing.

[grasswire]

128. mopinko, your post is very touching and compelling

However, you are one -- the other thousands of Obama supporters are mostly rude, ruthless, foul-mouthed, illogical and filled with blind adulation. I have said before that they sound identical to the Bushies who trashed message boards in support of W. Most of those responding to Stinky do not even understand what he has said; they just jump to the insults.

It's pretty difficult for those who are not in thrall or who do not directly know Obama as you do to set aside the anxiety. Crazed, angry supporters do not help.

[mopinko]

131. it has been an ugly fight.

you cannot deny that there have been many paid trolls here, stirring the shit, driving the wedge. we are tired. many of us feel backed into a corner. i guess in that way some of us are very like the authoritarian followers who have driven this country into the ditch.
but please judge the man. and consider this snippet from the last man from illinois to reside at 1600-
The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

[bridgit]

113. Don't look at me, when I worked in the music bizz I carried a permit to conceal...

along with a straight-up license, proficiency certificate the whole nine :shrug: Good luck with sorting it all out, though :thumbsup:

[Clintonista2]

115. I love watching Obama supporters eat their own

[ElsewheresDaughter]

117. watch the hands.....watch the hands

[RichardRay]

124. Why do you believe that this is something new?

Why is this something that you don't believe Senator Obama's campaign has looked at and is ready to respond to when it comes up in the GE? Is it because David Axelrod hasn't personally responded to your post here at DU explaining how they'll respond?

There seems to be a movement among some of Senator Clinton's supporters here at DU to raise Republican talking points that haven't been raised by the Republicans (yet, perhaps) and then to avow that they're valid points in the process of selecting between two Democrats. I'd prefer a forum in which a Democrat would raise that kind of a point and then note that it's on the list and needs to have a refutation available if one isn't already available (as it is in this case). Instead, you seem to raise the point and then try to make it stick. Maybe you're really doing your best to make certain we get the strongest possible Democratic candidate, but it sure doesn't seem like that when I read your words.

Your claims seem a bit disingenuous to me, it seems more like you're carrying water for the opposition.

[GoldieAZ49]

127. "Democrats have been down this road too fucking many times with our candidates "

I am beginning to think they prefer to lose. Why would half the party vote for an unknown?

the drip drip drip of Obama's "blank screen" being filled in, AFTER he is 3/4 of the way to being the nominee insures defeat in the GE.

I think it was intentional, my the media and others. They knew some of this stuff about Obama but did not run those stories until after TX and OH?????

It is their job to find out who the candidates are and inform the public.

By the time of the GE we will long for a Dukakis or McGovern, they will look more electable.

[Stinky The Clown]

130. Well said ..... that's my fear

[grasswire]

132. good point, and here's the illustration

We tried desperately in 1999 to force the press to break the story of Bush's AWOL trouble with the Texas Air National Guard. Thousands of letters, phone calls, FAXes, e-mails, and even some personal visits could not get that story to the American people. Not until the very Friday before the election did Senator Bob Kerrey hold a news conference to challenge Bush over a story he read in the Boston paper.

That was heartbreaking. And we all know the result.

Other election breakers also existed for Bush. None of those was investigated, either.

So the fact that the corporate news outlets will let a story rise or fall for political intervention is very real. They are obviously marching to someone's drum, and it ain't the best interest of fair elections.

[Bonobo]

133. You're a fool if you ever think you know ANYONE "well enough".

You think you know Hillary or Bill Clinton?

Who is being naive really?

[Stinky The Clown]

134. I know you well enought o have an opinion

And on many occasions you've demonstrated the same of me.

[Bonobo]

135. As long as you know it's just another opinion, fine.

We're all making character judgments of these candidates, based on our preconceived ideas, conscious and unconsious.

[xchrom]

139. recommend

[Two Americas]

144. important issue

There are not any "positions" on this issue, and Obama is extremely vulnerable on this. It surprises me to see how ignorant and short sighted people here are about this subject.

The Republican party use guns as a campaign issue, and Democrats pander to the anti-gun confiscation fanatics. It is a perfect example as to how we are misled by those who are supposedly our friends, and how we play right into the Republican's hands for nothing in return. They are not our friends. They are holding the Democratic party hostage, and that will end when we demand that it ends.

As Democrats, we should always be looking for, addressing and tackling the underlying political causes, the conditions that cause social problems. We stand for stronger communities, we stand for public institutions and public infrastructure, we stand for justice and equality, for jobs and education and we see that as the way to eliminate social ills such as gun violence. Yet we are suckered into a "for or against" guns debate with the Republicans - we are on their playing field and we are playing by their rules when we do that.

Calling for the elimination of guns is dealing with a symptom and not a cause. The power behind the right wing gun arguments is that they can say that there is a hidden agenda in anti-gun activism - confiscation. The organization that Obama is associated with is an extremist organization that is calling for confiscation, and doing it in a dishonest and manipulative way.

This is a worst case scenario for the general.