Obama’s Teleprompter Goes On the Road
Well, at least his campaign has recognized this weakness of his.
It appears Barack Obama’s teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.
The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn’t use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.
But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.
Maybe he should name the teleprompter as his new running mate.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1213 hrsAre you allowed a teleprompter at the debates?
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1246 hrs
How Rovian! Take your opponents strength (speaking) and claim it’s his weakness. It’s a lot like being a huge pork advocate and then first thing out of your mouth is that you’re it’s sworn and steadfast enemy. You guys are good.
BTW, Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates. (No doubt you’ll blame teleprompters, or lack of them, or malfunctioning ones or something or other.)
Posted by scott on September 16, 2008 at 1336 hrsTake your opponents strength (speaking) and claim it’s his weakness.
If you’re going to claim it as a strength, then you should be more specific. His strength is at reading copy. He would do well volunteering to read to kindergarten classes at story time.
His weakness is that he needs to read copy, and can’t ad-lib. Because, uh, when, uh, for, uhm, er, because when, uh he does, his point, uh, the main idea he’s, uh trying to, point out, uh, gets lost, yes, it the point gets lost.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1348 hrsoooooh
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Riiight. So you’ve got a youtube clip of him saying “um.” Anyone who watched the Democratic debates knows better than to think he’s bad ad it.
Posted by scott on September 16, 2008 at 1353 hrshttp://boortz.com/more/video/072108_obama_abc.html
Some quality ad-libbing.
More? Sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GaU-ExYm30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Ooops, how did that last one get in there? I think that was from his Senate campaign
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1401 hrs
The man’s been in eight different televised debates over the last year or two. Nobody has walked away from it saying that he can’t speak or can’t think on his feet. Now all of a sudden you’ve got some choice youtube clips and we’re all supposed to agree that the new meme is Obama can’t talk without a teleprompter? Christ, you guys are really something.
Posted by scott on September 16, 2008 at 1411 hrsRecap:
(obama bringing ‘prompter wherever he opens his mouth)Foul! Claiming that your opponents strength is actually his weakness is Rovian!<i>
(point is made that he can’t speak coherently when unscripted - hence teleprompter)
<i>It was just one time
(five examples easily found and shown)
Well screw you guys.
Hilarious!
Posted by Fuzz on September 16, 2008 at 1420 hrsC’mon, you can find clips of everyone--certainly of John McCain--flubbing it in front of a mic. Your accusation that he can’t speak off the cuff is entirely unfounded and obviously refuted by the fact that he’s appeared in numerous unscripted situations including a half dozen debates.
But, hey, just because it’s an easily refuted idea doesn’t mean you can’t stick with it! You go for it!
Posted by scott on September 16, 2008 at 1425 hrs8 Democratic debates where softball loft pitches were thrown, and no one seriously distinguishes themselves from the others ideologically. Now he actually has to say something of substance and defend his positions. He’s in serious trouble come the debates.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1429 hrsSo was the lipstick on a pig with or without the teleprompter?
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1433 hrsYes, but everybody claims that Obama is some great orator. Now, after the last few hiccups, he’s been caught with incoherent ahs, uhms, 57 states, and the like, and his campaign is forcing him to use a teleprompter.
It’s the public speaking equivalent of lip syncing.
Nobody has EVER accused John McCain of being a good speaker. There’s a difference between being a great speaker and a great doer. Obama former. McCain latter.
Present!
Posted by Fuzz on September 16, 2008 at 1434 hrsNow all of a sudden you’ve got some choice youtube clips and we’re all supposed to agree that the new meme is Obama can’t talk without a teleprompter? Christ, you guys are really something.
Don’t you mean, “Obama, you guys are really something” ??
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1550 hrsI wasn’t aware that McCain didn’t use a teleprompter.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1654 hrsHe doesn’t on the stump. Neither did Obama until recently.
Posted by Owen on September 16, 2008 at 1658 hrsIs McCain reading from a script? Notes? Memory?
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1701 hrsDo we have to go back to Saddleback where Obama stuttered alot and McCain was very clear on his answers? No prompters were permitted there now were they?
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1713 hrsIs McCain reading from a script? Notes? Memory?
Two questions… 1 - Relevance? 2 - Ask him?
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1737 hrsI have a question that as far as I know has not been answered:
Is Obama even capable of forming any coherent thoughts? and actually expressing them?
It seems to me that if he needs a teleprompter in public that unless he sits down and writes his own material to be put onto the prompter, he must have a speechwriter, which leads to this; Whose thoughts/views/opinions are we really getting? Obamas or his speechwriters?
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1822 hrsJust to clarify my last point:
Its one thing if Barack tells the speechwriter what message he wants to convey, and the writer puts it into the teleprompter to use later.
However its quite another if prior to an appearance he is told “here this is what your going to say” without his prior knowledge.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1827 hrsC’mon scott, even you have to admit using a ‘prompter on a stump speech, especially in the middle of a rodeo ring, is a little unusual. I don’t think many would deny Obama’s skills as an orator, but he has gotten himself into trouble when he strayed from his prepared remarks more than a few times.
As far as the debates are concerned, I have no idea where you get the idea The One will “destroy” McCain in a debate. They already had one and he had his lunch handed to him.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1831 hrsHey cynical, if you keep talking facts that disagree with scott, he’ll just up and leave the discussion. He’ll probably take his ball with him too.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 1902 hrsBTW, Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates.
Strange, then, that McCain would repeatedly challenge Obama to a series of ten town-hall debates. And strange that Obama agreed to having only one of these debates.
How could he pass up nine more opportunities to destroy his opponent, scott?? Seems like the perfect chance to regain the momentum he so desperately needs, wouldn’t you agree?
Please enlighten us.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 2007 hrsTony, I’m sure Obama doesn’t want to look way too superior to McCain. Hence the decision not to debate the old man more than once
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 2109 hrs
Owen,
Will you please keep a copy of these comments. I would like to see them again when the left starts talking about what a great debater McCain is and down playing Obama.
Do you remember them saying what a great speaker GW was in 04. The media played along with that bold faced lie.
Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 2145 hrsBTW, Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates.
That’s funny.
Posted by jimi on September 16, 2008 at 2224 hrsNobody has EVER accused John McCain of being a good speaker. There’s a difference between being a great speaker and a great doer. Obama former. McCain latter.
After all these years you still want to claim McCain is the agent of change. With the recent Wall Street failings because of his actions toward deregulation, that is what I would call a doer.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 0513 hrs
He is proud of it and announced himself the “Deregulator” before the news broke, only to come back after the Wall Street debacle and say he will form a commission to look into it. Hope you are hugging your 401k real tight.
Before you all go bananas on this statement, ask yourself one question. What do commissions do?
The answer would be along the lines of more regulation.
“More of the same”Strange, then, that McCain would repeatedly challenge Obama to a series of ten town-hall debates. And strange that Obama agreed to having only one of these debates.
No, it’s not. McCain issued this challenge when he was behind. He had nothing to lose, and it was free media for him, an opportunity to shake things up. And why the “town hall” format? Because that’s the format in which he’s least likely to look and sound like a cadaver recently risen from the dead. Obama declined simply because it was not advantageous to give McCain free media, especially when he, Obama, looked to have a lot more money to spend on paid media.
I have no doubt McCain will do okay in the scheduled debates, but I have absolutely no doubt that Obama will do very well also. In fact, I believe that Obama will come across as more articulate, more in command of the facts, and his policy positions are the ones that will be addressing the issues voters care most about--thus I predict he will “win” them.
The idea that Obama is incapable of shining in these forums is absurd, given the fact that he has done so well in all the previous ones. The way you guys seize upon a made up issue like “Obama needs a teleprompter to speak” is testament to your willingness to take whatever talking point is at hand and pretend that it’s a genuine and well considered idea.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 0755 hrsHe made the challenge again this week, when most polls have him in the lead or tied. Why won’t Obama take him up on it if he would “destroy” him?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 0815 hrsPerhaps Obama sees what I see: polls notwithstanding, Obama’s poised for a victory. I know you believe Kos is the devil, but if you’re curious as to what the other half of America is looking at, see here.
I’m given to wonder what McCain wants to talk about in these debates. Will he ask Obama to admit he was “wrong about the surge”? Will he accuse him of wanting to raise everyone’s taxes? I just have a hard time seeing him with any winning issues. But I guess we’ll see.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 0830 hrsLOL - I was wondering when one of you goofballs would reference the Kos “Tracking Poll”. You gotta be pretty desperate when you have to make up a “poll” that shows your guy is up.
Face it, this race is pretty much tied at the moment. This election, same as the last several, will be very close. The debates may very well determine who wins.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 0845 hrsThen I think we’re in good shape.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 0850 hrsscott, I find it fascinating that you refuse to answer the question. Why not “destroy” your opponent by accepting the challenge? All this “poised for a victory” stuff is pure b.s.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 0851 hrsI think I answered that question earlier. Regardless of my belief that Obama is going to do better in the scheduled debates, agreeing to a dozen of them is doing nothing more than giving free media to your opponent. Plus it’s just giving McCain more chances to get it right. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Why give him endless opportunities to get lucky?
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 0857 hrsYour free media angle is a smokescreen. All those chances to “destroy” his opponent, even if he occasionally “gets lucky”, would seal the deal for Obama. He wouldn’t be worried about free media.
The fact is, he’s not taking the challenge, and I think a lot of people have figured out why.
He’s an empty suit.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1013 hrsYes, you’re right. Obama, with all of his um’s and er’s, will come across in the debates as a mindless drone. McCain, on the other hand, will easily win with his charm and wit.
I wish it weren’t so, but them’s the facts.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1044 hrsScott said in #3:
Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates
Scott says in #29
I have no doubt McCain will do okay in the scheduled debates, but I have absolutely no doubt that Obama will do very well also.
Now THAT’S the scott we know and love…
I have a feeling that the debates aren’t going to matter much.
After the republicans finish vetting out the NY Post article that talks about how Obama went to Iraq and tried to convince their leaders to stall troop withdrawl until after the election and that story gets blown wide open Obama’s going to be so far behind in the court of public opinion that McCain could have a heart attack on stage and he’d still be elected over Obama. He’ll be lucky if he’s not charged with a felony under the Logan Act.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1053 hrsYadda, yadda. Obama’s a traitor. Blah, blah, blah.
Logan act my butt.
I’d love to know where you’re hearing these stories. Link?
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1102 hrsVetting out the NY Post article by Amir Taheri , the known swindler who’s close with top McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann? The same Taheri who made up the story about Jews being forced to wear badges in Iran?
Good luck with that one.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1104 hrsOh come on Scott, this is old news:
Good luck with that one.
Well I guess we’ll see know Steve-O won’t we. t’will be interesting.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1114 hrsMy guess is the MSM will do its best to try to bury that story. We’ll see how successful they are.
Funny that the lefty talking point is to smear Taheri when The One’s own campaign essentially verified the story.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1119 hrsMy guess is the MSM will do its best to try to bury that story. We’ll see how successful they are.
Yeah, I think this one is going to be hard to bury but they’ll do their best.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1122 hrsMy guess is that Amir Taheri is as full of hot air as always. All you’ve got is his “story”, which is nothing.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1126 hrsSo then clearly you are acknowledging that if what was reported is true, its big trouble for B.O. correct?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1151 hrsAs long as if you’ll admit that if John McCain has held a string of mistresses since the 1980s, it will be really bad news for John McCain.
Or if Meg McCain is a werewolf.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1211 hrsInteresting Steve… Let me ask you in another way so as to avoid your typical moral-equivalence method of spinning a bad situation.
As a matter of public policy do you think its wrong of a presidential candidate to go overseas and negotiate/persuade foreign leaders in conflict and without the blessing of the elected administration?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1229 hrsWell, I just want to be clear that I don’t trust you or the report. It may or may not be factually correct, and even if it is, it’s likely to be wholly misleading in its conclusions. I just don’t trust you. At all. I think about how you turned Al Gore into a pathological liar, decorated war hero John Kerry into a French America-hater, and nondescript governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton into a quasi-mafia serial killer. I don’t believe you have the ability to discern fact from fiction, nor the ability to draw sensible conclusions from the facts you do have, nor the inclination to give a damn about these deficits as long as it serves your ideological aims.
The whole thing is manufactured outrage, a smoke screen, a diversion from talking about the genuine issues that the American people need to have addressed by their government.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1302 hrsscott… I’m a little confused. Are you referring to me? Or to conservatives in general or what?
Or are you once again just off blathering making up positions that you need to assume I must have taken because that gives you a mirage of a point to your rant?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1327 hrsI’m referring to anyone who points to an article like that one and demands that people like myself disprove it’s claims.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1335 hrsI’m referring to anyone who points to an article like that one and demands that people like myself disprove it’s claims.
Typical reaction from the same people who made up the awful lie that Sarah Palin was actually never pregnant with Trig and then demanded that she get a maternity test.
Fucking pathetic.
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1341 hrsI agree that someone who ran with that crazy Palin story would be a hypocrite to complain about what you’re doing today. However, I flatly deny that I’m one of the people you’re referring to. I didn’t even know about that rumor until it had already been debunked. And if I had heard it, I would have disregarded it as unsubstantiated and irrelevant.
She IS a liar, though. That’s substantiated.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1345 hrsWell thats interesting scott…
I don’t think I nor anyone else here was demanding that you disprove its claims.
I’m sure you’re very well connected but I doubt that you know Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. And I doubt B.O. would give you an honest answer if you asked him.
But I do think its a valid question to ask if “people like yourself” think that a presidential candidate is wrong to be persuading/negotiating with leaders of foreign countries in conflict and outside of our elected administration?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1347 hrsIt’s not a “valid question” at all, because I suspect story and it’s claims and conclusions are bullshit.
This sort of reminds me of how you guys wanted to nail Nancy Pelosi to a tree not long ago for supposed violation of hate Logan act. Complete and utter BS.
How’s your health care reform proposal? Not too popular? Well, why not just accuse someone of treason instead?
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1350 hrsI agree that someone who ran with that crazy Palin story would be a hypocrite to complain about what you’re doing today.
Save for the fact that Obama plainly admitted to violating Logan, right?
Of course, he’s a liar, too. Luckily, he’ll be using a teleprompter everywhere he goes to be certain that he keeps most of his lies straight.
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1353 hrsHow’s your health care reform proposal? Not too popular? Well, why not just accuse someone of treason instead?
Does Obama actually have a ‘proposal?’ All I ever hear is, “Health care. Hope. Change. Believe.,” proceeded by his followers wiping the tears from their eyes in joy. No solutions - just words.
Rhetoric. Now THAT’s change we can believe in(tm).
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1358 hrsNo, you’re being told that he’s an empty shirt. But, as with so many other issues, there’s a genuine difference between what you espouse to be true and what is actually the case.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HealthPlanFull.pdf
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1402 hrsScott, you are a trip. The more damning a story might be the more you get in a tizzy and run in circles incoherenltly flailing at anything to distract from the topic at hand.
I usually come here for debate, but I must say you provide entertainment as well.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1404 hrsI’m “incoherently” saying that I don’t trust you, and why. And I’m calling you and your side out for diversionary tactics.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1407 hrsAnd I’m calling you and your side out for diversionary tactics.
...by using diversionary tactics of your own.
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1409 hrsI’m trying to ‘divert’ you to an actual issue that voters care about. While I’m sure that the finer points of the Logan Act are uppermost in some voters minds, perhaps there are other more pressing issues that we could talk about. Thoughts?
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1411 hrsCertainly, scooter. Here’s a more pressing issue than a candidate violating the Logan Act: A candidate that continuously touts that we need a “timetable for withdrawal,” has been caught saying, “don’t make one yet,” in order for him to take credit when it happens. Legal issues aside, please discuss the moral issues that Obama faces with his actions.
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1421 hrsYou misunderstand scott’s position, Fuzz. He only wants to talk about issues that he cares about, since he is the “Voter Everyman”. And he certainly doesn’t care about any issue that makes his candidate of choice look bad.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1427 hrsNo, I get it, it’s the same endless loop that has existed in politics since the beginning of time.
“Your argument is bullshit”
followed by a list of facts
followed by “your facts are bullshit”
followed by more facts
followed by “well this other point of yours is bullshit”
ad nauseam
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1437 hrsFuzz you must be new here…
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1443 hrs LOL I think the reason scott won’t come out and say that he thinks a presidential candidate going behind the back of our elected officials and negotiating in his own political interest with foreign leaders is because he’s worried the story is true.
If scott was so confident the story wasn’t true… He’d come out and condemn the behavior, but since he doesn’t have that confidence (me thinks he knows his righteous leader well)
he can’t expose himself like that. Because then when the story is verified, he’d be on record saying as such. He needs to avoid the foot-in-mouth. That will give him more leeway to spin when the story is verified. Perhaps scott is learning. For all the times he’s made his bold claims and then backed off of them. Maybe he’s finally thinking and measuring his statements before he makes them. This is great progress for you scott.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1446 hrsScott might be wise to follow Steve-o’s lead on this story and go mum on the subject. Its bad boys…
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1447 hrsI’m a vegetarian. My brain has been shrinking.
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1448 hrs Explains a lot… *cough* fantasy football *cough*
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1452 hrs I blame that on my web host. Sorry.
Posted by Fuzz on September 17, 2008 at 1457 hrs
Um, all I’m saying is that I don’t believe the story’s true. Certainly, if Barack Obama told the Iraqis to hold off on a withdrawal agreement until after he’s elected, that would be bad. But I don’t see any evidence that it’s the case, other than the claims of a guy who’s been discredited more than once, and who is close to one of McCain’s foreign policy advisors.
We could play a similar game with hypotheticals about anyone on the planet, but it’s not particularly useful.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1500 hrsCertainly, if Barack Obama told the Iraqis to hold off on a withdrawal agreement until after he’s elected, that would be bad.
Progress at last! Maybe Steve forgot his Kool-Aid this afternoon.
So, if Obama said:
“...we’re probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office.”
You’d agree that’s bad, right?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1519 hrsI think the reason scott won’t come out and say that he thinks a presidential candidate going behind the back of our elected officials and negotiating in his own political interest with foreign leaders is because he’s worried the story is true.
No, I’m worried that it’s NOT true, and that every moment we spend dignifying it with responses is a moment we allow ourselves to be distracted from real issues.
You know what else bugs me about it? The fact that I just read about a study indicating that conservatives, when their lies are refuted, cling to them even more tightly than before.
Bullock and others have also shown that some refutations can strengthen misinformation, especially among conservatives.
Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration’s prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation—the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration’s claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.
A similar “backfire effect” also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.
Link.
Posted by scott on September 17, 2008 at 1536 hrsNo, I’m worried that it’s NOT true, and that every moment we spend dignifying it with responses is a moment we allow ourselves to be distracted from real issues.
I think a candidate that would put his political self interest ahead of whats legal and whats best for the country demonstrates a very stark danger. I think that is a real issue.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1625 hrsHey, Scott - wait… what was the question?
Oh yeah; never mind. I did want to correct one thing Scott wrote, though. You said, “… you turned Al Gore into a pathological liar, decorated war hero John Kerry into a French America-hater, and nondescript governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton into a quasi-mafia serial killer.”
I think you meant “quasi-mafia serial rapist.”
Okay, g’head.
Posted by tee bee on September 17, 2008 at 1720 hrsUm, all I’m saying is that I don’t believe the story’s true. Certainly, if Barack Obama told the Iraqis to hold off on a withdrawal agreement until after he’s elected, that would be bad. But I don’t see any evidence that it’s the case, other than the claims of a guy who’s been discredited more than once, and who is close to one of McCain’s foreign policy advisors.
Steve-O (and scott), Obama’s own campaign is admitting he asked the Iraqis to wait until after Bush leaves office.
Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
Hard to interpret that any other way but that the man was interfering in foreign policy and attempting to directly supersede not only the plans and policy of the elected administration, but his own stated policy for a quick drawdown of American troops.
Pathetic.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1836 hrsUm, read your article again, Tony.
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1916 hrsUm, was that supposed to be a defense of your guy, Steve-O? Care to try again?
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 1950 hrsSteve-O I don’t know HOW you read that and see anything other than just exactly what it says:
Here I’ll quote it to… maybe you can read it again:
Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 2231 hrsObama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
Why doesn’t Bush talk to them? Oh yeah he’s hiding out trying to find something positive to write in his memoirs.
Obama may be right because if the U.S. and Iraqis come up with an agreement before whoever takes over, it may be nullified by the new administration. You guys are something else.
Can you find something real to talk about? This is all just more of the same distraction.
Posted by on September 18, 2008 at 0013 hrsKeep reading, xxpilot.
Posted by on September 18, 2008 at 0518 hrsYou mean the part where Obama’s spokesperson starts arguing with herself? What about it?
Posted by on September 18, 2008 at 0754 hrs“Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades,” Morigi said.
Flies in direct contrast to what she said a paragraph earlier.
Sounds like a big-time spin to me. I think they know the report (Ny Post) is accurate so they are trying to position themselves to accommodate the truth when its verified but yet try to paint that as innocuous. We’ll see.
As for your comment MoveForward… No presidential candidate should be overseas interfering in our countries foreign affairs and foreign policy. Last time I check only elected officials or people with the blessing of our elected officials should be doing so. A point even other leftists in this thread agree on.
Posted by on September 18, 2008 at 1127 hrsKeep talking, xxpilot and Tony, because you’ve got nothing.
Posted by on September 18, 2008 at 1252 hrsWell, now. I’ve certainly been put in my place with that thorough, lucid argument. Thanks for poking your head above the parapet for a few moments to share that with us, Steve-O.
Posted by on September 18, 2008 at 1313 hrs85 comments and not one mention of Palin’s constant use of a teleprompter even when she’s saying the same things she’s said for the last 3 weeks now.
Politicians use teleprompters all the time, so the fact that Obama uses one is not that big of a deal, at least to me.
Posted by on September 19, 2008 at 1155 hrsYou’re missing the point! It’s a thought-free excuse to knock Obama.
Posted by scott on September 19, 2008 at 1158 hrsWhat an amazing read! Enjoyed reading every bit of it. Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw.Thanks for posting this informatve article here.
Posted by Web Hosting Templates on October 13, 2008 at 0116 hrs
Web Hosting Templates
Ol' Army
