Obama's Unprecedented Attack on Free Speech - Mechanisms and Results [Supplemented]

Yes

njb
Is that you Cliff? 2!#2 - Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:39 AM EDTpoliticalcenterWhat is with this Cliff stuff?

0!#2.1 - Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:51 PM EDTJimster
Yes

Jimster & njb...this is not the first you are harassing...Please stop it.

CoH~Harassment and/or intimidation of others on Newsvine will not be tolerated, and patterns of such behavior may result in account cancelation

gp, I fail to see how njb or jimster's comments would qualify as harassment. Are they non-apropos? Yes. But harassment? No.

Brooks - they are repeated again and again on seeds and articles written by center. Further, this goes far beyond simple paranoia and when repeated like this could be taken as a threat. People have left newsvine when those who didn't agree with them searched the net, found private addresses or business addresses and began harassing them there. This kind of psychotic behavior is a danger.

eriq samson@Brooks - they are repeated again and again on seeds and articles written by center. Further, this goes far beyond simple paranoia and when repeated like this could be taken as a threat. People have left newsvine when those who didn't agree with them searched the net, found private addresses or business addresses and began harassing them there. This kind of psychotic behavior is a danger.

This behaviour is consistent with center's seeds...certain commenters accusing the seeder of being someone else . Their identity is not my concern, mine is not theirs, nor is any other Viner's identity.
We are here to discuss the seed...not investigate the seeder.

njb~Is that you Cliff?

Jimster~yes

Hey I asked a question. And for the record--I've never gotten a direct answer.

.

People have left newsvine when those who didn't agree with them searched the net, found private addresses or business addresses and began harassing them there. This kind of psychotic behavior is a danger.

People actually use their real names???

Didn't they ever hear or identity theft or worse... Bush's Patriot Act.

njbIs that you Cliff? 3!#2 - Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:39 AM EDTpoliticalcenterWhat is with this Cliff stuff? 1!#2.1 - Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:51 PM EDTJimsterYes 3!#2.2 - Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:53 PM

njb
Hey I asked a question. And for the record--I've never gotten a direct answer.

You got a response...More than the question deserved.
Besides that, your friend gave you the answer "you wanted".

Now cut it out.

You're assuming a cause/effect relationship where none has been demonstrated. My guess is that Carville was taken out (though, he did reemerge during the final couple of weeks of the primaries) because he was such a close supporter/adviser of Senator Clinton's campaign, and, as I noted, Begala never actually left (sadly).

Begala never actually left (sadly).

Got any sources Brooks? I'm positive Carville was taken out, but I'm not sure about Begala. He's a Obama supporter so you'd think they would take him out to appear politically neutral.

Got any sources Brooks?

Other than personal observations, no, and I'm not terribly inclined to dig any deeper on the subject. Feel free to, yourself, though. I'm sure there are transcripts of each night of primary coverage available via CNN or another source that could confirm or refute my memory of the events.

Begala supported Clinton throughout the primaries.

Whoops. My mistake, I was thinking about another CNN stay-in/Obama supporter.

It could probably do without the direct naming of the other Viner, but I think including the quote is valid, even if I disagree with his analysis of it, particularly since this is a follow-up to there earlier piece where the comment appeared, but anywho...

I hear you PC-

I don't think it subtracts from your point to remove the name.

Thanks

hmmmm. Name is still there. What gives PC?

PC, Would you agree that not manipulating the audience will intensify incidents of violence? Imagine putting angry Obama supporters right next to angry McCain supporters. A simple Obama speech can easily turn into a great wrestling match.

He left Harvard Law School in an almost devastating mess after his three years. Was he at all responsible? Perhaps.

Sensationalist innuendo with no basis in facts. Will you please stop making generalized assertions and allusive disparaging remarks unless you have actual facts to back them up? Just from this remark alone, it is obvious that you are completely biased, ignorant of fact, and interested in nothing but disparaging sensationalism.

This is no different than saying: McCain was a fighter pilot who got shot down and captured in Viet Nam. He left that war a devastating mess. Was he at all responsible for us losing that war? Perhaps.

Everywhere he goes, there is the threat of some kind of destruction.

Lies. Sensationalism. No facts.

politicalcenter:
I think I hear what you're saying... that Barack didn't earn his position but rather he was a token black that was foisted upon a Harvard Law Review that he wasn't qualified to run and where a white candidate was clearly the best there was, right?

You might want to read the following book: . . .

P.C., Instead of recommending reading material for me, why don't you provide a quote from that book, or from anywhere for that matter, which supports your generalized conclusion that Obama was somehow responsible for leaving Harvard in a "devastating mess." Put your money where your mouth is. If you are going to shoot it off with these baseless attacks, then be ready to back it up with evidence.

You are joking, right?

He left Harvard Law School in an almost devastating mess after his three years. Was he at all responsible? Perhaps.

Let me break it down for you:

"He" is a pronoun referring to Obama. "Left" is a past tense verb, meaning to cause something to be in a particular state or position. Harvard LS is the direct object of that verb (i.e. the something that was left). "In an almost devastating mess" describes the particular state or position that he (Obama) left Harvard.

This clearly states that Obama left Harvard in an mess that was almost devastating. O.K., I left out the "almost" in my paraphrasing of the quote, but I think the point is the same. It was implied that Obama is at least partially responsible for leaving Harvard in a mess that was almost devastating. The next line: "Was he responsible? Perhaps." only seeks to reinforce that implication. But tellingly there was absolutely no source or citation given to back up this conclusion.

And then instead of providing a source, you trash me for asking for it.

Yours is a world that I certainly do not want to see, and have entered only because we must fight against Obama, who may be the greatest threat to our liberties since Marbury v. Madison.

Please don't paint yourself as some kind of self-important martyr. It just makes you look stupid. By the way, Marbury v. Madison was decided over two hundred years ago. Get over it.

[George Bush's] is a legacy that will improve with age.

Not likely. Bush/Cheney/Rove/Ashcroft represent the greatest threat to our liberties that this nation has had to endure since McCarthy.

By the way, Chomsky promotes lies, finding them appropriate and at times necessary. In some ways, I agree.

Well, that doesn't surprise me at all, given that your article is full of them. Pretty standard policy for a lot of you right-wingers, though.

"He" is a pronoun referring to Obama. "Left" is a past tense verb, meaning to cause something to be in a particular state or position. Harvard LS is the direct object of that verb (i.e. the something that was left). "In an almost devastating mess" describes the particular state or position that he (Obama) left Harvard.

his is clearly not the English language that you are using.

This is clearly the English language.

Please mind the COH. Insulting other viners is not acceptable. I have asked you about being Cliff more than once for a good reason. Cliff has almost become a legend of insults here on the vine. If you did not agree with him--you were anything--but whatever your favorite slur would be. My bad if you just happen to sound just like him in your articles and insults.

Meanwhile--

I suggest you read the COH---he is clearly speaking English.

This is clearly not the English language that you are using.

I promise you that you do not want to get in a grammar discussion with me.

Perhaps you should look these words up.

I did. "Left" can mean: to go away from a place, as in: He left Harvard and went to Columbia. And "left" can also mean: to cause someone or something to be in a particular state or position. Left can also mean half a dozen other things.

How do you know what it means in a given paragraph? By its context, its relationship to the words around it. You stated:

He left Harvard Law School in an almost devastating mess after his three years.

You didn't just say he left Harvard Law School. You didn't even say he left Harvard Law School and at that time it was in a mess. YOU SAID HE LEFT IT IN A MESS!

You see, the word "in" is a preposition. The object of that preposition is "a mess." This prepositional phrase modifies the verb (left) which describes the action taken by the noun or pronoun (Obama or He) in relation to the direct object (Harvard Law School/it). To break it down even further:

He left Harvard Law School. [How did he leave it?] He left it in a mess. That is what your sentence communicates.

I am sorry if you cannot write the English language correctly to get your points across, but I cannot guess what you are trying to say. I can only interpret your words according to their plain meanings in the English language and the context and syntax of the words themselves.

Anyway, your very next sentence contains the same implication:

Was he at all responsible? Perhaps.

By posing the question and answering it with "perhaps," you are implying that it could be true. Which is what I said. So why are you questioning my interpretation of your words?

And by the way you still haven't provided a citation to a source for this or any other piece of innuendo in that comment and others. You are big on hot air and short on factual support.

I don't even want to get in a grammar discussion with you Dirk..and I like you.

Does it help that I would give my 5th grader papers from my college students to grade for grammar? Wanna talk red ink? They were warned prior--just took the F.

I pretty much just got conjunctive adverbs and clauses--though I'm lazy online. And many other places--funny how academia does that.

I've developed this obvious annoying < dash> habit. Just please don't make us diagram sentences.

Just please don't make us diagram sentences.

Yeah, I was going to diagram it for him. But I was afraid that might result in some kind of wild and dangerous flashbacks to grammar school, and I didn't want to be responsible for that.

I see you didn't bother to try to refute my grammatical deconstruction of your sentence. You just say that isn't what you said. (Even though it is).

The fact is that Obama left Harvard and it was not in great shape.

According to who? Again, just because you state it doesn't make it so. Provide your source. Give us a quote from your all-knowing book. Something besides your own words.

He did not do much at all to deserve his position as editor of the Harvard Law Review, certainly not what every other editor did before him as best I understand the situation.

Really? Do tell. Because this New York Times article says that he was elected to that position by the eighty members of the law review editorial board!

Having been an editor of a Law Review before, I do have some insight into what it takes to get this position. Generally, the primary editors for the next year are voted on by the entire board of editors from the previous year, as was done with Obama. These members of the board are chosen based on a combination of grades and a writing competition, as this article about Harvard Law Review Selection Criteria explains.

Once again, you make unsupported accusations that are factually incorrect. And then you have the gall to say I have no facts!

Let's be clear, here. I am not attacking you. I am attacking your writing. Your article and comments contain lies, rumor, innuendo, sensationalism, and worse. As long as you keep making inaccurate, unsupported statements, I will continue to attack them.

Since you seem to be incapable of providing any evidence to back up your assertions, P.C., I will do the job for you. In this news article from the Boston Globe, the author describes Obama's election thus:

The law review president's election is a fussy affair, part intellectual debate, part frat house ritual. Obama was one of 19 candidates. As the 61 editors not running for the job debated the merits of the candidates behind closed doors on a Sunday morning in late February, the hopefuls cooked them breakfast, lunch, and dinner . Every few hours, the editors winnowed the list further, until just after midnight, when only Obama and a 24-year-old Harvard graduate named David Goldberg remained contenders .

At about 12:30 a.m., the editors called Obama into the room, told him he had won, and broke into applause. Mack, another black editor, pulled Obama in for a hug.

So they were just debating the merits of 19 candidates and slowly winnowing the list until they got it down to just Obama and one other guy, and then they chose Obama. Sounds pretty normal from my days on the Law Review. And gee, you made it sound so sinister!

Also, according to the article, Obama was a stabilizing influence during this turbulent period. This is in direct contravention of your implication that he was somehow responsible for the turmoil. From the article:

In the fall of 1989, when Obama returned to campus for his second year, students were protesting the lack of minority law school faculty. They staged sit-ins in the law library, camped outside the office of Dean Robert C. Clark, and carried signs that read "Diversity Now" and "Homogeneity Feeds Hatred." The tensions continued the following spring, reaching a high when Derrick A. Bell Jr., the first tenured black professor at the school, resigned in protest. Obama was a member of the Black Law Students Association, which organized many demonstrations that spring. But he was less confrontational than some of his peers.

"Barack was a stabilizing influence in that he would absolutely support those efforts, but was also someone who could discuss and debate them with students or faculty who had different views," said Professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr., who became Harvard's seventh tenured black professor in 1993.

Isn't it amazing how your arguments against Obama just dry up under the light of real factual evidence of what happened. No wonder you never cite to any sources. All the facts do is highlight the complete fallacy of your assertions! By the way, notice how I not only provided a link to a real news article in a real news publication, but even quoted relevant sections. That is called supporting your statements with factual references. You should try it sometime.

You started by claiming that there was no proof of Obama's involvement.

Not true. What I stated was that you had failed to provide any proof of your implied assertion that he was involved. There is a difference.

So now you are into the facts, finally.

I am always into the facts, when I can get them. Unfortunately, I couldn't get any from you so I had to find them myself. The quote from the article that you point out states that Obama was a member of an organization that organized demonstrations, but he was less confrontational than his peers. You seem to imply that means he had something to do with the turmoil at Harvard (I believe your original words were that he "left it in an almost devastating mess").

What I find fascinating about this is that he and the other members of his group were exercising their rights to free speech. In your article you blast him for limiting free speech, and now in your comments, you are blasting him for exercising his rights to free speech! You just want to have your cake and eat it too, don't you P.C.?

And you feel that my reference to Obama being black is racist, which by the way I deleted together with your repeated and fake quotations from your own posts.

I never said that. I never used the word racist. That is your conclusion. I am also very disturbed that you saw fit to delete my comments without responding to my valid inquiry, while leaving your own original comment intact. This shows a serious bias on your part, and a desire to censor me rather than fairly moderate your column. Interesting that you are accusing Obama of limiting free speech, but are now the one censoring my comments questioning your underlying motivations for doing so.

Once again I ask you, regarding this comment:

And the fact he was present, black, and involved in entitlements and activism even back then.

Why do you point out that he is black and what does that have to do with the rest of your statement and comment? This is a valid question and you can ignore it or answer it, but you have no right to delete the comment over it.

Res ipsa loquitur. In your case, all one has to do is review the record above and below to see who is telling the truth and who is not.

Truer words were never spoken. It is painfully clear reading the record of these comments and the text of your article itself who is supporting their positions with facts and who is just spouting propaganda.

Dirk - to deny that Obama does it just makes you look silly. Everybody does it - they usually call it "keeping on message" - it's just that the Obama campaign has been avoiding messages more complex than "change". It's hard to do that with a media that is starved for news so you have controlled "events" designed to establish a "message for today"

What Center is really saying is that Obama has succeeded to the levels of the Bush administration in controlling the media and forcing it to accept the campaign's messages rather than actually doing the legwork and coming up with real stories. They repeatedly were successful in pushing their messages like "Clinton will say anything to get elected" (Plouffe) when any reasonable person would have said "wait a minute. If that were true, she would have said her vote to allow the use of force in Iraq was a mistake just like Kerry did". They repeatedly got the media to report on Obama supporters saying Clinton should get out of the race (It's called "voter suppression" and it's a dirty campaign tactic when Bush does it). The Obama people were just very successful in this type of "dirty trick campaigning", a true successor to "Tricky Dick" Nixon.

Everybody does it - they usually call it "keeping on message"

Oh, so you are just talking about standard campaign practices that EVERY political campaign engages in to try to accentuate their talking points and minimize their weaknesses? Like when Hillary's supporters put out the illusion that she was the presumptive nominee before the campaign even started? Like when McCain supporters try to pretend that he is now a true-blue christian conservative republican when eight years ago he ran as the independent maverick? That's fine, but that is not what this article is saying.

Center is accusing the Obama campaign of violating free speech rights. In doing so, he has shown a complete lack of knowledge of Constitutional Law (that is where our rights to free speech originate -- the first amendment to the Constitution). To state that making personal attacks somehow limits someone's free speech rights, or that asking someone to step out of the race because it has become apparent that they can't win it somehow limits free speech rights, makes no logical sense and just shows an ignorance of what "free speech" means and where it comes from.

Freedom of Speech is the ability of the individual to speak freely without censorship, generally from a government entity. In this article, Center is basically arguing that Obama supporters, by exercising their rights to free speech by vigorously supporting their candidate (which includes criticizing the other candidates), are somehow infringing on the free speech rights of those other candidates. This is a circular argument that is so far removed from constitutional law that it would look silly if it weren't so pitiful. Who knew that by suggesting someone was making racist comments you were actually violating their rights to free speech? You might want to inform the Supreme Court about this new interpretation of the Constitution.

To suggest that his campaign somehow has control over all of the mainstream media outlets is just outright ridiculous. Yes, they have been enamored with him as a candidate and may be choosing to go light on him, but not because he has some kind of control over them. If he gets caught with his pants down tomorrow, they will cover it, I promise you.

Perhaps he did complain about biased reporting and perhaps CNN responded to that. I'm sure they respond to complaints from candidates all the time, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. A quote from the same article that Center quoted above:

"We get advice from all the major campaigns about who should or should not be on CNN. If we listened to all of their advice, then there would be very few commentators left to put on television."

This implies that they do listen to some advice and ignore others. It does not imply that Obama has any control over the network's decision -- only that they gave in to his complaints. That is a very different thing than the Obama campaign suppressing free speech rights, which is the conclusion drawn above. And there are plenty of other media outlets besides CNN. Again, a quote from the same article:

"No other network buckled to this political pressure."

Obama's campaign complained and they got a small victory at one network. But to extend this to the conclusion that they are suppressing free speech rights is ludicrous. Obama's campaign has done nothing to eliminate free speech. They have simply run a strong campaign and tried to stay on message, which is what every campaign strives to do. This article simply represents sensationalism at its worst. An overblown opinion piece where the facts presented do not lead to the preconceived conclusions made by its author.

This article is so full of outright lies, I wouldn't have the time to reply to it.

As I agree with all that Dirk has just said, I will let him speak for me.

...to the conclusion that they are suppressing free speech rights is ludicrous. Obama's campaign has done nothing to eliminate free speech. They have simply run a strong campaign and tried to stay on message, which is what every campaign strives to do. This article simply represents sensationalism at its worst. An overblown opinion piece where the facts presented do not lead to the preconceived conclusions made by its author.

Hear, hear.

(one little question though, what part of your politics is center, pc?)

The exercise of freedom of speech has not happened with Obama. Indeed, many other examples exist of his methods which have precluded inquiry, including his complete failure to discuss his drug dealing and other activities as a teenager and/or adult.

You show yourself to be completely ignorant of that about which you speak. Are you saying Obama is prohibiting the exercise of freedom of speech by exercising his own right not to speak about something? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard? If you are going to use inflammatory buzzwords like "freedom of speech" at least take the time to learn what they mean. What actual evidence do you have of his "drug dealing?" Or is that just more of your non-supported sensationalist claptrap?

Yes, you have made your attacks, and found them perfectly acceptable while finding her to be the one who was attacking.

Actually, no. I was a Hillary supporter and voted for her in the primaries (my state had an early primary). I felt she had a team of people that had more experience with running an administration and could get up to speed faster. It wasn't until the last month or two of the campaign, when I saw how poorly she handled the stress of not being the inevitable candidate and how she would desperately stoop to anything to try to get elected that I changed my mind and began seriously looking at what Obama represents. The final straw was when she argued that Florida and Michigan should be counted when she had agreed at the beginning of the campaign that they would not and that she wouldn't campaign there.

That we want nothing of the kind of country you represent is meaningless. . .

This whole paragraph is a ridiculous, imaginary, straw man of what you think an Obama supporter represents.

It has everything to do with the view that you are always right, and refusing to consider the prospect of being wrong.

I do hold strong opinions, but I don't feel that I am always right. I am perfectly willing to admit that I am wrong -- when I am shown factually-supported, well-reasoned arguments that prove I am wrong. (For instance, I admitted I was wrong about supporting Hillary). You have shown disdain for the facts, a flair for empty rhetoric, use of inflammatory language such as "suppression of free speech rights" without the slightest clue what the term actually means in a legal and constitutional sense, (nor any desire to learn) and absolutely no logical and reasoned arguments at all. So no, you haven't convinced me that I am wrong.

Do not give me Constitutional Law. Do not speak to me about free speech.

And there it is! God forbid the truth and the facts the real definitions of words and phrases should get in the way of your empty rhetoric and inflammatory accusations. "Do not give me the truth," he shouts, "I am too busy damning Obama with my own baseless claims!"

*Sigh* And how does anything in that article support your contention?

First, I notice that you failed to provide any citations to support your wild accusations of drug dealing by Obama:

his complete failure to discuss his drug dealing

I asked you for a source that supports this statement, and you ignored me. Apparently you have no source and this is just another vicious rumor you are attempting to spread.

As far as "Obama's efforts to eliminate inquiry and free press and speech," the article you cite states that Obama's campaign seeks to:

maintain control of Mr. Obama's image by tightly managing his public appearances.

Also according to your article, this strategy

has won compliments from political professionals of both parties, who say Mr. Obama's campaign is exhibiting a high level of discipline . . .

You still have not explained how this inhibits freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Actually, the simple fact that this article was written belies your notion that Obama has some kind of chokehold on the press corps.

There are others, but this is a start.

That's a bunch of words that you have written on a page. Who wrote it? Where is it published? Until you provide a citation or link to the source of those words, we have no way to establish their veracity, discover whether you have taken them out of context, or determine if the source is even credible.

Do you understand the concept of citation of a source? Have you ever written a research paper?

I see a whole lot of other people's speculation, people who are not disinterested parties, and not a lot of anything verifiable. Rumor and trash talk, why am I not surprised.

Who wrote it? Where is it published?

*sound of cricket chirping*

After this last "turn in your neighbor" if they tell the truth about my health care. Surely you can no longer stand behind Obama. He dupped the public, but has now shown his true colors. Whether we agree in the fundimentals of the parties is no longer important. We all need to stand together for America.

Renard - The Democratic party has done this time and again: Adlai Stevenson (twice!), George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, etc. Every time they walk away from the center, the center votes for the other guy. This is real simple: the last Democratic presidents we have had in the last 100 years Woodrow Wilson (Cemtrist - "He kept us out of war"), Franklin Roosevelt (Centrist), Harry Truman (Centrist - the more liberal wing tried to unseat him!), John Kennedy (Centrist - more of a hawk than Nixon), Lyndon Johnson (Southern Centrist), Jimmy Carter (Southern Centrist), Bill Clinton (Southern Centrist)

As for loyal Black democrats deserting the party, there is much speculation that while the party insiders know Obama will lose, they are only supporting him to show Blacks that they do belong in the party. Had Obama not been black (half black, whatever), the party's leaders would have gone for Clinton or Edwards, candidates with a chance of winning.

renard,

It's difficult to win against a thieving opponent when they are in power and there cronies own the voting machines.

... or the Delete Comment button.

I see.
Your "arguments" are based on your opinion and the only way to counter them is with hard evidence to the contrary.
[Chuckle]
This racial paranoia about Obama is almost laughable.
I am sure McCain would continue the "openness" and "cooperative" atmosphere of the Bush Administration.
McCain stands for more "my way or the highway", bull-headed and short-sighted arrogance.
McCain, a victim of torture himself, is against torture, until he is for it (does he know something about it working that he has not told us?).
He is against offshore drilling until he is for it.
He lambasts the right-wing, rich televangelists such as John Hagee until he needs them and then dumps them when it is convenient.
Never mind how he talks to his wife...and speaking of wives....
And yet, he and his lackeys work to keep the "maverick" and "honorable" image alive as though none of this is happening. It is the Big Lie and a shell game.
Upon reflection, I owe Mr. Hitler an apology.

PC:

Help me out, Dark Rover. What do you think about Obama choosing the administrative assistant for the "unpicked" vice president. If, as we assume, this never happened before, why did he do this?

You do have many choices. Just being smart. He knows better than anyone else. He can then control them. He has to control them. He is a dominating, self-centered person who would not even allow his vice president to pick an assistant. Etc.

Probably because he saw what Dick Cheney did with his own hand picked chief of staff Scooter Libby: he outed a CIA agent and broke federal law. Why would Obama want to encourage a cowboy attitude from his second in command?

But for me it comes down to free speech. He wants nothing to do with free speech.

That's hilarious considering he was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the world.

It is also, ultimately, another favored finger to Clinton and everyone else. He cannot be satisfied with manhandling women in Congressional hallways (something Bush is castigated for, but which Obama can do as just a "great guy." He can act and do whatever he wants. And you preen yourself on false and wholly inaccurate racism charges.

While your false statement is a violation of our code of conduct, I will leave it because of your apology to Hitler. That stands as one that needs occasional quoting, I must say.

Yeah, it's a hint to Clinton that he won't be choosing her since he employed the woman she fired as her campaign manager. BTW, do you have any proof of this "manhandling" of women in congressional hallways?

derDunkelRover didn't violate any Newsvine rules... you're just paranoid and trying to bolster your argument by accusing him of doing so.

But for me it comes down to free speech. He wants nothing to do with free speech.

Please define what you mean by "free speech" and specifically where you think the rights of free speech comes from and how they are limited. Because it is apparent to me that you have absolutely no clue what the legal or constitutional meaning of the word is.

I suppose if Obama interrupts someone in a conversation, he is violating their rights to free speech in your opinion.

What type of interruption?

It was a sarcastic rhetorical question, P.C. Just the fact that you took it seriously and might consider some kind of interruption in conversation as a limit on free speech is pretty scary.

You honestly have no idea what the legal concept of free speech means, which is of course why you ignored my request that you define it.

Why do you continue to harp on a concept which you obviously do not understand?

Look up the pictures.

I have absolutely no idea what this means or what you are referring to. Please explain.

Apparently politicalcenter has decided he should ignore me.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that Obama plans to use the police to suppress free speech?

No.

PC, you have really lost it, haven't you? Look, I can argue with facts, and I can argue with reason. But I can't argue with diatribe, pointless conjecture and hyperbole. Obama's gonna get us all with his speech police? Give me a break. This type of diatribe seriously calls into question the mental state of its author.

You obviously aren't interested in fact or reason, just inflammatory accusations and chicken little prophesies.

OK--I tried to be nice--but his buddies wonder why some of us ask is he is Cliff?Duh?

If it walks like a duck and talks likes a duck and quacks like a duck...might, be well..a duck.

I don't have time or energy to delve into the abc details--but rest assured I will catch up when I get back to Houston from DC.

No matter or differences--let us all hope I have save drive. An 18ft trailer, towing a car is an automatic prayer in all religions.

We can go back to cussing at each other when I get home.

This is being an American. Hell we don't even have to like each other--but--hey-I got your back. Happy to do it too....why is this a hard concept?

Here's wishing you have a safe drive back to Houston, njb

Isn't Obama now sobbing that McCain has been getting a pass from the media? That fellow just doesn't get it.

I don't know . . . is he? Why not provide a citation to back up your unsupported rhetorical question?

Dirk, you certainly are hyper sensitive. Sorry you missed the story.

Perhaps he just doesn't believe you, given your history…. If it was a story, it should be easy enough for you to find.

Good thing you're not sensitive to honest observations about Obama, huh?

Did you look for the story?

"While we were doing that, John McCain basically was getting a pass, both from the media . . . as well as from other opponents. And so I think that explains it," said Obama of the close race.

I think Obama is a crybaby. Don't you? Yes, he could just be deliberately deceiving. He does want to be president, after all.

Did you look for the story?

I don't feel particularly compelled to make your arguments for you.

Don't you?

No. I think any objective observer would reasonably conclude that during the second half of the presidential primary season attention on McCain was essentially nil while attention on the Democrats was heightened.

backroads:

I think Obama is a crybaby. Don't you? Yes, he could just be deliberately deceiving. He does want to be president, after all.

I'm interested in what possible examples you can offer where McCain got significant attention after he had gotten Huckabee to drop out while Clinton was still contesting the nomination of Obama. The media did give McCain a pass because covering anything besides the Democratic primary race wasn't worth the ink in general.

spiffie, given your history, am I to understand you now believe me, despite how distasteful it is? You knew it was true all along, didn't you? It troubles you that Obama is belly-aching. The presidency is owed to him, right?

It's people like you that enable fascism to take root, politicalcenter. You emphatically say that everyone should have free speech and then you want the govt to punish CNN because it says it is an independent news network. So which is it? Does CNN have the right to say it is independent or should Wolf Blitzer be put in jail?

You're a walking contradiction, a little truth but mostly fiction.

spiffie, given your history, am I to understand you now believe me, despite how distasteful it is?

I'm not sure why it would be distasteful. Why is asking for a source something you find so offensive?

You knew it was true all along, didn't you?

I knew it was true all along that McCain had been given a pass throughout the latter part of the campaign? Yes, I did know that. I knew Obama had commented on it? No, I didn't. I knew Obama had sobbed about it? Factually incorrect, even according to your own source.

It troubles you that Obama is belly-aching. The presidency is owed to him, right?

I don't see it as bellyaching. Straight talk all the way, unlike his opponent.

Dirk, you certainly are hyper sensitive. Sorry you missed the story.

Not hypersensitive. Just don't trust your unsupported allegations and biased interpretation. Thank you for providing the link to the story. Your interpretation has proved to be incorrect. According to the story link you provided, in response to questions about why he wasn't polling stronger against McCain right after he won the nomination:

Obama said that his long Democratic primary battle with Clinton, which wasn't settled until early June, spared McCain critical scrutiny.

"While we were doing that, John McCain basically was getting a pass, both from the media . . . as well as from other opponents. And so I think that explains it," said Obama of the close race.

He was asked to explain poor poll numbers and he gave a direct answer as to what he thought the reason was. How is this "sobbing" and "bellyaching?" Did he hold a press conference to whine about it? Did he mention it in a public debate? No. He was asked a question and answered it with a direct answer. Was he correct? I don't know. I would have to do some research on the number of news stories critical of McCain during that period and I don't really care to waste my time with that.

Regardless, it is smart politics to try to put the perception out there that the media has been light on your opponent, because then they just might decide to be a little more critical. You call it whining. I call it a deft answer to a difficult question. At least by providing the citation, the readers of these comments can read the story and make up their own minds about what it means.

What number would satisfy you?

The total number wouldn't be so important as the comparison of that number to the number of stories critical of Clinton and the number of stories critical of Obama in the same time period.

As a hypothetical example, if there were 12 stories per day critical of Clinton and 10 stories per day critical of Obama, then I would consider less than 5 or 6 stories per day critical of McCain to be valid evidence that he was getting a pass by the media.

What about network shows? Explain? This is better than written word? I don't get it. Please provide the details.

Ah, now it is not the number, but some other quality. Not the force of the opposition, but the number of stories must be imbalanced in some way?

Pay attention to the flow of the argument, please. According to your article, Obama said that McCain was getting a pass from the media while they were covering the bruising democratic primary campaign battle. You said that was complete garbage.

To find out if it was true or not, you would have to know not just the number of stories critical of McCain, but also how that number related to the number of stories critical of Obama and Hillary. That way you can tell if they were treated equally or if McCain was indeed "getting a pass" during that period.

If all you knew was the total number of stories related to McCain, it would not answer the question of whether he was getting a pass. In other words, there may have been 5000 stories critical of McCain during that time period. That sounds like a lot. But if in the same time period, there were 50,000 stories critical of Clinton and Obama, then you would have to conclude that the media did in fact give McCain a pass during that time period.

As I said, I don't care to waste my time trying to research this. But if it interests you, here is a book describing McCain's pass from the media.

Because they failed their own principles and those of our Nation.

Look carefully my friend. It's on both sides of the aisle. And even if McCain represents a better way (which I doubt), one man alone cannot reverse the corruption that has taken root in our government.

One of the reasons I support him is that I feel strongly he cannot lie.

You are joking, right? The same McCain that presented himself as an Independent maverick who eschewed the religious right when he ran against George Bush, and is now trying to pretend he is a dyed-in-the-wool Christian Conservative who agrees with just about every policy Bush supports? No, he could never lie.

So you are basically saying that four more years of the policies we have had for the last eight years would be better than any democrat that could whip Hillary Clinton in a bruising primary fight? I don't buy for a moment that you were ever a democrat.

I don't buy for a moment that you were ever a democrat.

Indeed, and again I ask (because I have yet to be answered) in what way are your politics center, politicalcenter?

Why do his politics have to be "center"?
The pic is of the capitol..is that not a "political center"?

Geez Scott !..Were you on vacation?

Republicans that a Democrat would learn their tactics, master them and then turn their own cannons back on them.

You just backseated your shoe- in candidate....and you've "mastered" something?

Maybe "How to shoot off your foot with a cannon!"

LoL!

I was on vacation over Memorial Day weekend. I've been pretty active afterward though. Just take a look at my column.

Ok Scott! You're tireless !...LoL..

Like the Democratic Party lately...a lot of" fired up" noisemaking... going nowhere... but back to the senate gararge.

Fired up, ready to go, fired up, ready to go. ;-)

Well, goodbye and good riddance Diane. I fail to understand why you would want to be part of a party that never wins and if the Democrats continued running elections the way they have been they wouldn't win the White House again for years. Good luck to you supporting McCain, I hope you take the last two elections' ass kickings with you and give them as a gift to the Republicans.

Diane, please explain to us what exactly was not on the "up and up" about how Obama won the primary? Hillary Clinton conceded the contest, clearly leaving him as the winner. Tell me what Obama did that disgusts you so about this primary election.

So are you going to become an Independent now? Surely after 40 years of being a democrat you are not going to switch to the republican party? Because you are unhappy with one candidate, you are going to vote for the complete opposite of every issue you have believed in for 40 years (for the rest of your life)? That's pretty drastic.

Well, goodbye and good riddance Diane. I fail to understand why you would want to be part of a party that never wins and if the Democrats continued running elections the way they have been they wouldn't win the White House again for years. Good luck to you supporting McCain

Hello Diane, welcome to the traditional Democrats.
Obama says get over it. His supporters agree.

So,you can spend 4 years or more getting over yourself by voting Democrat ....or help let them [Obamacrats] get over themselves in November.

It's your choice.

This is the way in which free and accurate speech is treated in America today.

So when you spout unsupported propaganda, it's free speech. When those who disagree with you call you on it, point out your lack of citation to sources and the inaccuracy of your statements, it is somehow a violation of your free speech. Gee, I thought that was what a comment thread was all about -- everybody exercising their rights to free speech so the real truth can be exposed.

Apparently your idea of free speech is for the conservatives to tell everyone what to see, think, and do; and for the liberals to just shut up. You certainly implied Obama somehow left Harvard in a mess by being in a group that exercised their rights to free speech by protesting racial issues at that school. I guess free speech only applies to you.

The problem is your propaganda and my facts.

Really? Interesting then that in this whole four paragraph tirade in which you make yet another round of accusations against Obama, you don't include one single citation or link to a factual source that supports what you say. And you accuse me of propaganda!

My point has been that his manipulations of systems and lack of merit is studiously avoided and misstated with the use of many false and fake lies.

There you go, stating he "manipulates systems" and has a "lack of merit." But you don't say how he does this or why you think he lacks merit. Nor do you provide any support for your contentions. Who is spreading propaganda?

One quick look at the Wikipedia page on Obama (located here) proves his merit. He graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Political Science and International Relations. He then worked for a church-based community organization for three years. He then attended and graduated from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), and was editor of the Law Review there. He taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. He was then in private practice as a lawyer for 9 years. He also served on numerous boards of directors of various charitable organizations. He then served as an Illinois State Senator for seven years and as a U.S. Senator for four years.

So there. Those are my facts, complete with a link to their source, which supports Obama's merit. He has an excellent education, scholarly as well as practical legal experience, and also experience with charity and community organizations, plus experience in both State and Federal Senate delegations.

Notice how I support my conclusions with facts, and provide a link. Notice how you just made the blanket statement that he had "lack of merit" providing no facts, no proof, and no sources. Do you really not see how silly it looks when you say I am full of propaganda and you are full of facts?

Please, just provide one link to one fact, one little source that supports your contention that he has no merit or that he manipulates systems. You can't do it. Because you have nothing to argue with but bluster and hot air.

About how he is a great constitutional professor and scholar (never was and will never be a professor)

Once again you make lies with no sources. Here, let me help you out. Barrack Obama was indeed a professor, as stated in this Statement from the University of Chicago Law School:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

That's just one more of your lies debunked by the light of cold, hard facts. Where is your evidence?

how he is such a capable debater (which is why he has refused to debate one-on-one

Actually, Obama and Clinton have had numerous one-on-one debates during their primary. Here is a link to a news article describing one such debate and it references another. How can you honestly say with a straight face that he has refused to debate one-on-one?

So there you have it, P.C.: Your Lies/My truths . . . Your lack of sources/My citation of sources, complete with links! Who's the one spouting unsupported propaganda? That would be you.

Please don't respond to this comment with more diatribe unless you are going to link or cite to verifiable sources that support each factual assertion you make. I am tired of reading hyperbole without evidence and tired of having to prove the falsehood of each lie that you make, like these ones above. While you are at it, you could show a little humility and admit that I have just proved both of the above statements for the falsehoods that they are.

I need quote nothing, for the facts are as stated.

I know, you think your word is the God's honest truth. But guess what: it is just your opinion. And few believe you. A fact is something that can be proved, generally by citation to a reliable source. Your refusal to provide reliable sources exposes your argument for what it is. A diatribe with no evidence to support it.

The quotation above has been used to distort the facts.

Really? What part of "his 12 years as a PROFESSOR in the Law School" do you not get?

You stated he was not a professor (with no proof). The law school that he worked at for twelve years states he WAS a professor (absolute proof!). Yet in spite of being proved wrong by real facts, you continue to hold onto your position. You are not interested in reality. You simply have your paranoid delusion of what Obama is and you refuse to accept any other reality.

You were the one who brought up Obama's wonderful credentials, not me.

Another lie. You brought up this subject when you called his credentials into question in this post:

My point has been that his manipulations of systems and lack of merit is studiously avoided and misstated with the use of many false and fake lies.

Without evidence, you said he had lack of merit. I provided evidence of his credentials to show he had merit, and you said he had never been a professor anywhere (again without providing evidence). I provide a statement from the school saying he was a professor, and you ignore it and dismiss it as false.

Do you notice a recurring pattern here? You make false statements and provide nothing to back them up. I correct them with the truth and provide citations to sources which back up my statements. You ignore my evidence or pretend it is somehow biased. Then you make more false statements and again provide no evidence.

In your last post, which was ten paragraphs of Bull****, you again fail to provide one single factual source. Everything you post is opinion and hyperbole.

Pray tell, what is it that he has said or done that you believe counters the record established by the article?

I cannot answer that until your article actually establishes a record, by citations to sources of fact which support your outrageous contentions. I refuse to argue with your delusions. I will be happy to argue the facts, if you can actually provide any to support your point of view.

You really do not know that after one or two one-on-ones, with his losses mounting, he refused to debate any more claiming he had "debated" for long enough after Philadelphia? You fail to realize this?

There were a total of 25 debates in which both Clinton and Obama participated, two of which they were the only participants. (Source) I would say that is definitely more than enough. Yet you castigate him for not engaging in one or two more?

Some of us depend on knowledge of the public record.

If it is in the public record, then you can find it and cite to it to support your argument. By not doing so, you are asking everyone to trust your honesty and unbiased reading of the evidence. You have shown through your statements that you are trustworthy on neither account.

Once again I note that in your previous post you provided not one citation to evidence to support your arguments. In this post and my previous two posts I have provided a citation to the sources of facts I argue. That is the difference between us: you expect people to take you at your word; I provide them with my sources so they can reach their own conclusions. And judging by the voting in the comments on this article, I would have to say they are agreeing with me.

The truth is, P.C., you don't really want a debate on the issues. You just want to preach to the choir. Sorry, but every time you publish your B.S., I'm going to call you on it and provide the facts that you ignore.

Free speech to me, especially public figures seeking to become the president, is to air and err on the side of disclosure

And here is the fundamental problem with your entire article and all of your comments: a basic misunderstanding and misuse of the term "free speech."
Freedom of speech is defined simply as being able to speak freely without censorship. (source)

You are unhappy that Obama is not as candid on certain issues as you would like and that is fine. But you characterize it as a free speech issue and that is mistaken. Obama is free to speak and he is free not to speak about whatever he wants. But you can't say that by exercising his rights not to discuss something that he is somehow violating someone's rights to free speech. That makes no logical sense. And don't forget that there are plenty of issues that McCain and Clinton have refused to discuss as well. So it is not like he stands out in this regard.

I see this as obvious media and speech manipulation, just as Chomsky would also claim and has already done.

Speaking of Chomsky, he also said:

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

(source)

And yet you castigate Obama for being a member of a group at Harvard that protested the lack of minority integration in faculty there. Some big proponent of free speech you are.

Leaving aside the rest of your comments . . .

Right, because it is easier to ignore them than to address them.

you now claim with no basis whatsoever that I oppose the views espoused by Obama and others during this period of unrest at Harvard.

I said nothing of the sort. I said nothing about your views. I said:

And yet you castigate Obama for being a member of a group at Harvard that protested the lack of minority integration in faculty there.

And I based that on your statement that:

And the fact he was present, black, and involved in entitlements and activism even back then.

When you say involved in activism, I take that to mean being a member of this group that he was involved in activism with.

So because a bunch of kids who support Obama got unruly at the Texas caucuses, you have decided to change your party affiliation of 40 years? It has nothing to do with the policies of the candidates and the issues affecting our nation? Wow!

The bad behavior at the Texas caucuses was not limited to Obama supporters, Diane. I was at a caucus as a regular voter and the only disruption the entire night at our caucus was by a Clinton supporter (wearing a Hillary cap, t-shirt, and many buttons) who was screaming at the precinct captain and eventually ran off in a huff. We were lucky to actually have a precinct captain who had managed caucuses before, so he had a pretty good handle on the rules (even though turnout was 20x anything they had seen before).

This lady was attempting to insert herself in the process and take control, even though we already had a precinct chair and officers who were made up of both Clinton and Obama supporters. The precinct chair heard her out and you could tell by his expression and body language that he was trying to be reasonable with this woman, but when she started screaming he finally had to ask her to talk to the Clinton campaign lawyer who was there to observe.

Emotions ran high that night, and there were people on both sides who took it too far. Attempting to lay the blame at the feet of one candidate only completely fails to take into account what happened.

spiffie:
Not only that, but we had some serious bad behavior by Hillary supporters here in Ohio.

Only Obama and his supporters stuffed ballots

Christ, it's like a constant refrain. Proof?

and lauded systems that granted him more delegates despite losing the popular vote. Only the "democratic" Party has such systems.

No, actually. The Republicans in Texas hold a primary and precinct caucuses, as well. In this particular case, it did not result in a split result, but it could have. So you're just wrong when you say that "only" the Democrats have such a system.

Only Obama and his supporters stuffed ballots and lauded systems

Got any evidence to support that? I didn't think so. Saying it doesn't make it so, P.C. You've got to provide some proof or you are just making things up.

None of those three have any involvement in Obama's campaign, and don't have any say or input on his policies. Meanwhile, McCain is being advised by some truly sketchy people like Charlie Black and Phil Gramm, who's policies regarding banking "reform" probably contributed more than anything else to the current mortgage crisis.

Personally, I choose to vote on the issues.

Help me--its been a couple months--but was there not a whole weather thing going on? Might be wrong...but off the top of my head...

I would say the lawsuit filed by Obama to keep only certain Cleveland area polls open longer was serious bad behavior.

This is almost the same argument I hear all the time about the 2000 election and the recounts in Florida and keeping the polls open in St. Louis, MO, and it wants to make me pull the other person's hair out.

Let's address each issue:

Florida had no legal mechanism by which to request a hand recount of the entire state, or the Gore campaign would have done so. Instead, they chose to focus their finite resources on the largest counties where they felt they had been most damaged by circumstances.

Keeping the polls open in St. Louis (2000) and Cleveland (2008 primary) demonstrates the clear fact that not all polling places are the same. They're not staffed the same, they don't receive the same amount of traffic, the weather isn't the same everywhere, ad nauseam. So, again, with finite resources at their disposal, the campaigns chose to make their challenges in areas where they believe a large number of their supporters were being unfairly disenfranchised by on-the-ground circumstances.

In both these cases, I fail to see the problem, given the facts, that each campaign chose to do what they did, so could we please give it a rest, already?

Some of us do.

Then "some of us" are incredibly paranoid and irrational. Tell me, where did Obama acquire all of this power? How does the junior senator from Illinois gain control over all of the media outlets in this nation of ours? How does he manage to "silence" all of his critics? You are big on conclusions and short on explanations.