http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/today/creators/bg/bg1214g.gif (http://today.iwon.com/toonedview/id/3.html)

If he doesn't like the question he can always flap those ears and fly away. Was his mother scared by Dumbo when she was carrying him?

If the guy hasn't even announced that he's certainly running yet, why would you expect him to be out campaigning and discussing his platform?

If the guy hasn't even announced that he's certainly running yet, why would you expect him to be out campaigning and discussing his platform?

True. If anything we should be commenting on the people that have decided without a doubt that he should be the next president. Not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular. :)

If the guy hasn't even announced that he's certainly running yet, why would you expect him to be out campaigning and discussing his platform?

You are exactly right.

That is like asking an Architect for a rough estimate and expecting to receive full Blueprints.

It is completely unrealistic.

He hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to be President. Maureen Dowd of the NY Times said he had big ears and he went whining about it. He told her he was putting her on notice that he didn't like being teased about his ears. Even Ross Perot didn't whine like Barack does.

If he whines about having big ears what would he do in the rough and tumble of the White House, go crying to mommy?

He hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to be President. Maureen Dowd of the NY Times said he had big ears and he went whining about it. He told her he was putting her on notice that he didn't like being teased about his ears. Even Ross Perot didn't whine like Barack does.

If he whines about having big ears what would he do in the rough and tumble of the White House, go crying to mommy?

I hesitate to ask (I know I'll regret the answer), but what exactly do Mr. Obama's ears have to do with anything?

Whenever political cartoonist are drawing a picture they attempt to make a characiture. Ross Perot was drawn with big ears, Jimmy Carter with buck teeth, Bill Clinton with a red nose, George Bush monkeylike. These people did not go whining that they were putting people on notice that they didn't like it. If they didn't like it they sucked it up and went about their business.

Barack Obama has shown a bit of his personality by whining and in a way threatening Maureen Dowd by putting her on notice to not mention his big ears. He has shown that he does not have the temperment necessary to be President of The United States.

The question that should be asked, as the cartoon suggests, who the hell is this guy, and why is it that he rose to prominence so fast?

I've got to agree with Decka, if Obama can't take jokes about his ears, he won't have the toughness to survive the Presidency. Imagine if Obama got the kind of treatment that is meted out to W day after day. I think he'd fall apart.

George Bush I'm pretty sure of, but Ronald Reagan NEVER let his critics get the better of him, he laughed them off. THAT is the mark of true leadership, dammit.

The question that should be asked, as the cartoon suggests, who the hell is this guy, and why is it that he rose to prominence so fast?
A black man in a position of power, that's who and why.
George Bush I'm pretty sure of, but Ronald Reagan NEVER let his critics get the better of him, he laughed them off. THAT is the mark of true leadership, dammit.
Disregarding your critics is a mark of bad leadership. "Staying the course" is not always the best mode of policy crafting. One should be a true leader and open to suggestion, criticism, and reform.

they know he can't win and his loss is easily excused with the country just isn't ready for a black president.

The whole idea is to get FOX, CNN, MSNBC et al to pump up BO so Hillary doesn't get the nomination. She's unbeatable and they know it.

A black man in a position of power, that's who and why.

So, because a man is BLACK and in power, we should what fawn all over him. Gee, and and all this time I was judging greatness by quality of leadership rather than color of skin or sex. I admired Margeret Thatcher because she was a very, very tough leader not afraid to stand up for principle. The idea that I should admire Ms Thatcher because she was a woman IN POWER never occured to me, dammit. I don't quite recall such fawning over Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice. Why is that? Is it because they are black but Republican? More to the point the true criteria for judging greatness should be their ability to lead, especially during tough times and with the toughness to ignore petty criticisms, dammit. The idea of admiring a guy becuase he's BLACK and in power reduces the man into a kind of exotic PET! Gee, look, there's a black guy who's actually in Office, OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH! While I'm ranting away, is this kind of fawning going to happen when a person of Asian decent decides to run for Office? How about the first man of Indian (American and from India) decent or the first person of Mexican or Arabic decent decides to run for Office. This entire idea that because a person is of a certain race or certain ethnicity or sex or whatever should be given any kind of special treatment is complete garbage, dammit.


Disregarding your critics is a mark of bad leadership. "Staying the course" is not always the best mode of policy crafting. One should be a true leader and open to suggestion, criticism, and reform.

If criticism is constructive, one should listen. One concludes, after listening to ALL the criticisms of George Bush that are nothing BUT negative. Are you honestly going to tell me that all the criticisms from Kerry's "I've got a secret plan for Iraq, I'm just not going to say what it is" to the moveon.org and dailykos "Bush is Hitler" mantra are constructive? The man has been tarred and feathered from the get go, dammit. He hadn't met anything from the opposition BUT tarring and feathering from before he got into Office, never mind his responses to 9/11. You want to talk about the Iraq war, all the criticisms has been "Iraq is a quagmire," "not enough troops" no plan for peace in Iraq, blah, blah, blah. I've yet to see a SINGLE critic stand up and say "we can win in Iraq IF......." or "this needs to be done to WIN in Iraq." I've yet to see it. All I've seen is "Iraq is going to hell because......." That isn't the kind of criticism ANYONE needs to listen to, dammit.

One can listen to criticism, but there are times when it comes down to a person needs to do what is right, not what is popular or what the critics say. When one has the strength to "stay the course" while being cricized by some of the most vile slander I've seen a President undergo, and the man just goes on and does what he believes is right, THAT is the mark of true leadership, dammit.

I don't recall Bush ever going to a cartoonist and saying "I'm putting you on notices, I don't appreciate being made to look like a monkey."

Dammit.

I'm not ready to have some black guy shoved into the Presidency simply because he's black. No way. Were that to be the case, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would have been in office years ago. Let's see a show of hands on how many here would have voted for either of those?

I'm not sure Obama is deserving of any praise he gets. But I wouldn't rule out his opportunities because he is sensitive to some cartoons that portray him awkwardly.

I'm not ready to have some black guy shoved into the Presidency simply because he's black. No way. Were that to be the case, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would have been in office years ago. Let's see a show of hands on how many here would have voted for either of those?That shows that there's more to him than just being black, contrary to what Evakian stated. (It was also the same case with Colin Powell.) People like Jackson, Sharpton and Alan Keyes didn't nearly have the amount of public support held by Obama or Powell.

If criticism is constructive, one should listen. One concludes, after listening to ALL the criticisms of George Bush that are nothing BUT negative. Are you honestly going to tell me that all the criticisms from Kerry's "I've got a secret plan for Iraq, I'm just not going to say what it is" to the moveon.org and dailykos "Bush is Hitler" mantra are constructive? The man has been tarred and feathered from the get go, dammit. He hadn't met anything from the opposition BUT tarring and feathering from before he got into Office, never mind his responses to 9/11. You want to talk about the Iraq war, all the criticisms has been "Iraq is a quagmire," "not enough troops" no plan for peace in Iraq, blah, blah, blah. I've yet to see a SINGLE critic stand up and say "we can win in Iraq IF......." or "this needs to be done to WIN in Iraq." I've yet to see it. All I've seen is "Iraq is going to hell because......." That isn't the kind of criticism ANYONE needs to listen to, dammit.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to actual politicians and political scientists, instead of moveon.org and some lame anti-war rallies. There have been plenty of alternatives put out on what to do in Iraq. All you have to do is listen.

After reading Obama's Books I believe he has what it takes to be President.

As for this rumor about Obama and his ears, it reeks of a made-up blogosphere rumor. I have not found one credible source to confirm it.

Personally I would rather see Edwards/Obama, because Edwards has more experience.

The whole idea is to get FOX, CNN, MSNBC et al to pump up BO so Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

Wow. Now THAT is --to put it mildly-- an interesting bit of reasoning.

She (Hillary) is unbeatable and they know it.

LOL.....this is going to be interesting, Dop.

You are --imo-- one of the most intelligent posters here, and you think Hillary is *unbeatable*, while I think she is (because of what the Media will do toher) certain to lose.

I hope she gets the nomination just so we can watch what happens.....

:D :D

(while I find her 100 times more appealing than any putrid 'Gawd-Guns-n-Guts' nitwit that the Republi-Fascists would have as their presidential candiate, I will not be supporting her. She voted for the Iraq war, and I could never in good conscience vote for anyone who willingly went along with that bit of murderous insanity)

You are --imo-- one of the most intelligent posters here, and you think Hillary is *unbeatable*
LMAO.

That shows that there's more to him than just being black, contrary to what Evakian stated.
I was being facetious.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to actual politicians and political scientists, instead of moveon.org and some lame anti-war rallies. There have been plenty of alternatives put out on what to do in Iraq. All you have to do is listen.

Believe me, Jester, I've read on this subject. From blogs to newspapers to talk radio from both sides of the isle. I've yet to see ANYONE from the Left say anything CONSTRUCTIVE. Why don't you try and find links from Democrat and or leftist websites that STATE they want victory in Iraq, or at least have alternatives other than "cut and run" or "whistle and walk away." I'll tell you this right now, I won't be holding my breath, dammit.

Barack Obama has shown a bit of his personality by whining and in a way threatening Maureen Dowd by putting her on notice to not mention his big ears. He has shown that he does not have the temperment necessary to be President of The United States.This is from a Washington Post article dated 24 February 2005:

His signature quality is the ease with which he inhabits his charisma. Nothing about him conveys "trying too hard," as one might sense with a John Kerry, who often appears to be burning 500 calories for every hand he shakes. When he works a room, there is no clench to Obama's perma-smile or detectable strain to his small talk. He projects effortlessly, whether being earnest, wonkish or sheepish, and as with so many "likable pols," he applies self-deprecation as a favorite balm against any prima donna conceit.

"I am genuinely somebody who doesn't get caught up in the hype," he says, adding that his wife, Michelle, loves to tease him about his big ears, and that he loves her for that.

"I think me puncturing my own balloon is something that's not only calculated to endear me to others," he says. "But it helps remind me of who I am and where I've come from."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48523-2005Feb23.html

I think you may want to consider the possibility that he was engaging in banter with Dowd. And her response, "We're just trying to toughen you up," indicates to me that she was teasing him in return.

I've yet to see ANYONE from the Left say anything CONSTRUCTIVE.

Yeah, amazing, ain't it. :rolleyes:

Iraq has been such a complete and unmitigated disaster, it's no surprise that sane people don't see much of a "constructive" nature to say about it.

Why don't you try and find links from Democrat and or leftist websites that STATE they want victory in Iraq,.......

More moronic *binary thinking* from a Rightwinger. Go figure.

I can't find ANY comments from any Democrats saying --"I want world peace!", so that naturally means they "don't want it", right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

......or at least have alternatives other than "cut and run" or "whistle and walk away."

Well, that just MIGHT be because there ARE NO sensible alternatives to ending the US military presence there.

I've yet to see ANYONE from the Left say anything CONSTRUCTIVE.

Then clearly, you have not been paying attention.

If I give you links will you simply dismiss the ideas in them as "cut and run" as all rightwingers have done up till now? Or are you ready to actually accept that Democrats have had ideas all along but you haven't been listening?

Yeah, amazing, ain't it. :rolleyes:

Iraq has been such a complete and unmitigated disaster, it's no surprise that sane people don't see much of a "constructive" nature to say about it.

Or because you lack the cranial capacity to override your hate of Bush to actually think in a reasonable manner.

After reading Obama's Books I believe he has what it takes to be President.

As for this rumor about Obama and his ears, it reeks of a made-up blogosphere rumor. I have not found one credible source to confirm it.

Personally I would rather see Edwards/Obama, because Edwards has more experience.


You are like the person who says, "I didn't see that dog so no dog exist."

I heard the audio of what was said. Obama did put Maureen Dowd on notice about mentioning his ears.

Believe me, Jester, I've read on this subject. From blogs to newspapers to talk radio from both sides of the isle. I've yet to see ANYONE from the Left say anything CONSTRUCTIVE. Why don't you try and find links from Democrat and or leftist websites that STATE they want victory in Iraq, or at least have alternatives other than "cut and run" or "whistle and walk away." I'll tell you this right now, I won't be holding my breath, dammit.
Here are a few links to what some prominent Democrats have said on the matter:
Harry Reid - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3341238,00.html
John Kerry - http://blog.johnkerry.com/2006/10/mistakes_and_responsibilities_1.html#more
Zbigniew Brzezinski - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601482.html
Finally, the Democratic Party Platform of 2004 - http://www.issues2002.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_War_+_Peace.htm

There's more if you're willing to go look for it. You'll probably dismiss some of it as "cut and run," but remember that just because you disagree with a plan doesn't mean that it's NOT a plan.

Wow. Now THAT is --to put it mildly-- an interesting bit of reasoning.



LOL.....this is going to be interesting, Dop.

You are --imo-- one of the most intelligent posters here, and you think Hillary is *unbeatable*, while I think she is (because of what the Media will do toher) certain to lose.

I hope she gets the nomination just so we can watch what happens.....

:D :D

(while I find her 100 times more appealing than any putrid 'Gawd-Guns-n-Guts' nitwit that the Republi-Fascists would have as their presidential candiate, I will not be supporting her. She voted for the Iraq war, and I could never in good conscience vote for anyone who willingly went along with that bit of murderous insanity)


My gut says she can (and will) expand the electorate by a full 10% or more -- mostly 1st time voters, women pushing against the glass ceiling etc.

If she does ... she will win in a landslide. Time will tell.

Thanks for the compliment ... I don't get many of those around here. LOL.

Thanks for the compliment ... I don't get many of those around here. LOL.
Pfft. I give you lots o' love.

Yeah, amazing, ain't it.

Iraq has been such a complete and unmitigated disaster, it's no surprise that sane people don't see much of a "constructive" nature to say about it.

Or because you lack the cranial capacity to override your hate of Bush to actually think in a reasonable manner.

Cluephone for the imbecile Evakian;

My personal view of Bush has absolutely NOTHING to do with the facts of what is currently happening in Iraq or with the unmitigated and total disaster the Iraq war is.

Cluephone for the imbecile Evakian;

My personal view of Bush has absolutely NOTHING to do with the facts of what is currently happening in Iraq or with the unmitigated and total disaster the Iraq war is.
Your personal view infects your outlook on this situation.

The term "unmitigated and total disaster" is a subjective one. There is no set universal guide to determining such, and just because you think it is so, doesn't make that fact. You can repeat invectives all day, but until you present your reasoning (which would be better if supported with cited factual information), I'll just disagree with you day after day. People can judge things differently, which is a realization learned in 1st grade.

You are like the person who says, "I didn't see that dog so no dog exist."

I heard the audio of what was said. Obama did put Maureen Dowd on notice about mentioning his ears.

Sorry, I do not consider a Blog to be that reliable of a source.

It does not sound like something Barak would say, so I think it is unlikely.

I expect many rumors to start flying about Barak in the next two years.

You are --imo-- one of the most intelligent posters here, and you think Hillary is *unbeatable*, while I think she is (because of what the Media will do toher) certain to lose.

I agree. Hillary is unelectable. Her hawkish stance on the war cost her much of her base. The Republicans know that and it is why the Corporate Media keeps hyping her relentlessly dispite the complete lack of excitement about her from the Democrats. Republicans desperately want Hillary to get the nomination because they believe that Guliani or McCain can beat her. (maybe not so much McCain anymore though)

After reading Obama's Books I believe he has what it takes to be President. Relevance?
JFK and Hillary both put out ghost-written books. In fact, JFK's actually got a Pulitzer which he kindly kept himself (I'm sure he thanked the guy in private though).

I heard it on the radio, dharmabum.

If Obama can't take comments about his ears what would he do when he really got hammered, go running home to Mommy.

I think you may want to consider the possibility that he was engaging in banter with Dowd. He might have been, but to also include ".....I'm very sensitive, I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears" sounds like an odd detail to throw in during lighthearted banter.

Relevance?
JFK and Hillary both put out ghost-written books. In fact, JFK's actually got a Pulitzer which he kindly kept himself (I'm sure he thanked the guy in private though).

If you have any proof that Obama's book was Ghost written I would love to see it.

Otherwise I stand by what I said.

I heard it on the radio, dharmabum.


Thats nice. It is still much ado about nothing.

It shows a hypersensitive individual who is thinking of running for an office where such childish sensitivity is counterproductive.

Maybe Obama will be ready for the presidency one day. This is not that day.

If you have any proof that Obama's book was Ghost written I would love to see it.
Otherwise I stand by what I said.Whether he wrote it or not, writing a book is a bit of thin gruel upon which to state "After reading Obama's Books I believe he has what it takes to be President."
I mean, if someone has months, weeks or even days to articulate their issues I'd expect it to be damned impressive. Means nothing though.

If Obama can't take comments about his ears what would he do when he really got hammered, go running home to Mommy.

Yes Frogger, that's what democrats do...they cry a lot and sniffle, and run home to mommy.

By all accounts he's a polished public speaker, and such individuals aren't usually rattled as easily as you seem to believe. Your political bias is showing again, and sadly, for a man of your intelligence, you seem to have little of substance to say about Mr. Obama since you keep repeating the same playground remark.

Whether he wrote it or not, writing a book is a bit of thin gruel upon which to state "After reading Obama's Books I believe he has what it takes to be President."
I mean, if someone has months, weeks or even days to articulate their issues I'd expect it to be damned impressive. Means nothing though.

Riiiight, if that were true then all books would be impressive.

Truth is, they are not.

If you consider two books to be "thin gruel" then there is no satisfying you.

It shows a hypersensitive individual who is thinking of running for an office where such childish sensitivity is counterproductive.

Maybe Obama will be ready for the presidency one day. This is not that day.

Basing your opinion of the man on one rumor you overheard on the radio or on a blog is really, really "Thin Gruel".

I am very glad I do not base my opinions on such weak excuses for evidence.

If you consider two books to be "thin gruel" then there is no satisfying you.I'd be satisfied if a two-time published author were a head librarian somewhere, but so far on three different threads, the only thing anyone has ever said of any actual Obama accomplishments is the fact that he wrote two books.

Considering we are talking about becoming president of the United States, I don't think anyone would be satisfied with the fact that he wrote two books.

Basing your opinion of the man on one rumor you overheard on the radio or on a blog is really, really "Thin Gruel".

I am very glad I do not base my opinions on such weak excuses for evidence.Is your only answer to this incident the fact that you don't believe it happened?
That's not a response.

Please tell us why BO would make a good president without mentioning the book or the white fall-back position of "well spoken".

I would like to hear the audio and the context of which it was said. But even if it is true, that isn't a valid reason not to vote for someone.

But even if it is true, that isn't a valid reason not to vote for someone.True. An incident cannot cancel a reason to vote when none existed to begin with.
Oh that's right. He wrote a book.

I will not be supporting her. She voted for the Iraq war, Great news. Haven't you heard?
She now says she wouldn't have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMD's!!!!!! How truly bold.
It's safe to vote for her now. YAY.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/12/hillary_clinton.html

I didn't say Democrats, did I, Vilepagan. I said Barack Obama. I like the way you took a criticism of Obama made by me and extended it to a point where I was criticizing all Democrats.

I guess I'll have to borrow Brooks' tag line when responding to you.

If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up.

I didn't say Democrats, did I, Vilepagan. I said Barack Obama.

That's true you did. I was just taking your ridiculous assertion and making ridiculous enough so even you'd notice.


I like the way you took a criticism of Obama made by me and extended it to a point where I was criticizing all Democrats.

I like the way you're trying to make this a discussion about what I said instead of defending the childish remarks you made.


I guess I'll have to borrow Brooks' tag line when responding to you.

Please borrow someone's line, the one you keep repeating makes you look like a fool.

It doesn't matter if you take what you said and apply it to Obama exclusively, or democrats in general, it's still an absurd statement that apparently even you can't defend, since you're flailing desperately here trying to change the subject.

Vilepagan,

I said that Barack Obama's reaction to the remark about his ears showed he was too hypersensitive to be President at this time. I also said that maybe in the future he would be presidential timber but not at this time.

I am sorry you found those to be childish remarks in need of defending. I am also sorry you felt you would twist what I said in an attempt to, to what, to educate me.

Then you go on to say my tag line makes me look like a fool.

Guess what, Vilepagan, I have three words for you. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Vilepagan,

I said that Barack Obama's reaction to the remark about his ears showed he was too hypersensitive to be President at this time. I also said that maybe in the future he would be presidential timber but not at this time.

Yes Frogger, you did say those things, and I didn't have a problem with either of those statements.


I am sorry you found those to be childish remarks in need of defending.

Those were not the remarks I was referring to, but you knew that.


I am also sorry you felt you would twist what I said in an attempt to, to what, to educate me.

In an attempt to point out the absurdity of your remarks.


Then you go on to say my tag line makes me look like a fool.

I never mentioned your tag line.

Just in case you're not just being intentionally obtuse, these are the childish comments I was referring to:


If he doesn't like the question he can always flap those ears and fly away. Was his mother scared by Dumbo when she was carrying him?

If he whines about having big ears what would he do in the rough and tumble of the White House, go crying to mommy?

If Obama can't take comments about his ears what would he do when he really got hammered, go running home to Mommy.

Is this what passes for political discourse in your mind? I called these playground remarks because they might have been uttered by a ten-year old.


Guess what, Vilepagan, I have three words for you. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

This about the response I'd expect from someone who made the previous comments. If you're embarrassed about what you said Frogger, get angry with yourself, don't take it out on me.

Obama has been criticized and ridiculed for a lot more than his ears. Yet I haven't seen him "running home to Mommy" about any of it. For example, his name is often derided but his response is to either joke about it or just ignore it; not quite the reaction you would expect from someone who's "hypersensitive."

Obama has been criticized and ridiculed for a lot more than his ears. Yet I haven't seen him "running home to Mommy" about any of it. For example, his name is often derided but his response is to either joke about it or just ignore it; not quite the reaction you would expect from someone who's "hypersensitive."

Don't take it too seriously.

The entire --"Oh, Barak Obama is just SO hypersensitive, he isn't fit to lead"-- argument is simply the Rightwing whiners, in typical fashion, grasping at straws.

If Hillary begins to get a lot of attention, you can look for the same group of cretins to begin lambasting her over some absolutely meaningless side issue, similar to the way they're doing with the size of Obama's ears.

How hilarious is it that the same group of hypocritical bastards who did not care in the slightest that their 2000 presidential candidate had a history of cocaine use are now screaming about how a potential candidate is *unworthy* to hold the office because he (or so they have alledged) said he didn't want his ears made fun of............................?!?!?

Get off your high horse, Vilepagan. If you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and serious discussion that is your problem, not mine.

I am tempted to post more but it necessitates the use of foul language I don't really want to use right now so I will just end this post.

Please tell us why BO would make a good president without mentioning the book or the white fall-back position of "well spoken".


I believe he would make a good President because of his stances on the issues and the policies he supports. But those were talked about in his books and you don't want me to mention those. Only blogosphere rumors count with you, eh?

Get off your high horse, Vilepagan. If you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and serious discussion that is your problem, not mine.

I can tell the difference just fine Frogger, can you?

When I made a sarcastic, exaggerated comment, you cried foul, and told me I should read Brooks' sig line, indicating that my use of exaggeration meant that I'd already given up. You don't "exaggerate, you use "hyperbole" and expect not to get called on it. You say Obama is a whiner, and "hypersensitive" yet when you are called on your use of hyperbole, you lash out and hurl invective. In short Frogger, you have a double-standard when it comes to your conduct, and the conduct you demand from others. Bottom line here is that you made a few foolish comments and now you're angry. Deal with it.

I would like to hear the audio and the context of which it was said. But even if it is true, that isn't a valid reason not to vote for someone.Here is a link to a link of the audio as it was played on Rush's program. The exchange with Dowd comes up after the 7 minute mark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/14/audio-obama-scolds-maureen-dowd-about-making-fun-of-his-ears/

Here is a link to a link of the audio as it was played on Rush's program. The exchange with Dowd comes up after the 7 minute mark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/14/audio-obama-scolds-maureen-dowd-about-making-fun-of-his-ears/
Wow. That was worthless. If I was made fun of for something physical I'd be sensitive about it too. However, I doubt this will affect how he will be able to lead this country.

It is just like the Republicans to harp on something that means NOTHING in order to make it appear like it is a big deal.

True. An incident cannot cancel a reason to vote when none existed to begin with.
Oh that's right. He wrote a book.

The problem you seem to have trouble grasping is that there are a lot of very good reasons to vote for Obama, but you refuse to acknowledge any of them. That makes it your problem and nobody else's.

Here is a link to a link of the audio as it was played on Rush's program. The exchange with Dowd comes up after the 7 minute mark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/14/audio-obama-scolds-maureen-dowd-about-making-fun-of-his-ears/

Rush Limbaugh???

There goes it's credibility.

If you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and serious discussion that is your problem, not mine.

I dunno, Frogger. Just yesterday, you were unable to grasp the difference between absurdity and serious discussion (Ohio smoking thread).

Maybe you should do some studying up.

Just trying to help. :)

In short Frogger, you have a double-standard when it comes to your conduct, and the conduct you demand from others.

Yuppers!

.....their 2000 presidential candidate had a history of cocaine use How did that become a fact to you. That came from a single source who wrote a discredited book and then killed himself.
Oh dear, there goes Dop's conspiracy alert.

I believe he would make a good President because of his stances on the issues and the policies he supports. Specifics to be furnished at a future date I suppose.

The problem you seem to have trouble grasping is that there are a lot of very good reasons to vote for Obama, but you refuse to acknowledge any of them. That makes it your problem and nobody else's.I think I'm probably repeating my last post but what are some of these issues and stances to which you are referring.
I'm having trouble grasping it because there's nothing to grasp. Throw me a rope. Even a little one.

Specifics to be furnished at a future date I suppose.

I would suppose the same. Are any of the candidates standing on street corners proclaiming their platforms? I have no doubt that if and when he chooses to run, he'll make his stances on the issues known...wouldn't you agree?

Rush Limbaugh??? There goes it's credibility.
The credibility of what? The audiotape of Obama's actual words?
Unless you're suggesting that Limbaugh was impersonating Obama, disputing it's credibility is just plain silly.

Anyway, now that I've actually heard the tape, anyone who suggested it was lighthearted or banter should definitely reconsider.

How did that become a fact to you.

From numerous sources.

That came from a single source who wrote a discredited book

ROTFLMAO.

How did *his book was discredted* become a fact to you?

....and then killed himself.

Or he was possibly killed.

It shows a hypersensitive individual who is thinking of running for an office where such childish sensitivity is counterproductive.Maybe you missed what I posted earlier. Here, I'll post it again (this time with bold font to emphasize the relevant point):

His signature quality is the ease with which he inhabits his charisma. Nothing about him conveys "trying too hard," as one might sense with a John Kerry, who often appears to be burning 500 calories for every hand he shakes. When he works a room, there is no clench to Obama's perma-smile or detectable strain to his small talk. He projects effortlessly, whether being earnest, wonkish or sheepish, and as with so many "likable pols," he applies self-deprecation as a favorite balm against any prima donna conceit.

"I am genuinely somebody who doesn't get caught up in the hype," he says, adding that his wife, Michelle, loves to tease him about his big ears, and that he loves her for that.

"I think me puncturing my own balloon is something that's not only calculated to endear me to others," he says. "But it helps remind me of who I am and where I've come from."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48523-2005Feb23.html

I wonder how his marriage has survived, what with his 'hypersensitivity' and that relentlessly teasing wife of his.

Specifics to be furnished at a future date I suppose.

Why? You already said you are not interested in what Obama said in his books, which means you are not interested in specifics.

You apparently prefer internet rumors.

The credibility of what? The audiotape of Obama's actual words?
Unless you're suggesting that Limbaugh was impersonating Obama, disputing it's credibility is just plain silly.

Anyway, now that I've actually heard the tape, anyone who suggested it was lighthearted or banter should definitely reconsider.


I bet you probobly think Michael J Fox also was not taking his Meds because Rush said it was so.

That you listen to Rush is just plain silly.

Anyway, now that I've actually heard the tape, anyone who suggested it was lighthearted or banter should definitely reconsider.That's funny. I came away with the exact opposite impression. Haven't you ever heard someone use a mock accusatory tone when teasing someone else? That's how it sounded to me. And Dowd's response sounded light-hearted as well.

For what it's worth, here's how the incident was recorded by a reporter who was actually there (I will place in bold font the relevant clause, as some here are prone to miss such things):

Obama is very sensitive about his press. After his press conference, he headed toward New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and chided her -- in a kidding way -- for a comment in the 12th of 14 paragraphs in an Oct 21 column. She wrote that Obama's "ears stick out."

"I just want to put you on notice," he said.

"I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears."

Said Dowd, "We're trying to toughen you up.''

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/12/sweet_column_obama_draws_big_c.html

Why? You already said you are not interested in what Obama said in his books, which means you are not interested in specifics.
You apparently prefer internet rumors.I don't even know any internet rumors about him.
Similarly I don't know any accomplishments either. The situation isn't helped by his most vocal supporters' reluctance to proffer any.

I bet you probobly think Michael J Fox also was not taking his Meds because Rush said it was so.
That you listen to Rush is just plain silly.I'm trying not to be disrespectful here but you questioned the credibility of the tape because it was on Rush's show.
HOW is it less credible because of where it was played?

What I find most amazing about this whole debate is how an inconsequential bit of repartee between a columnist and a candidate can be spun so far out of proportion by the likes of Limbaugh that folks like Frogger and even Brooks are buying into it. Obama threatens, he whines, he intimidates, he's a crybaby. What kind of sense does that make? An intimidating crybaby? Think about that for a second. And why would he threaten a columnist who is very likely to give him good press in the future? That would be a pretty stupid thing to do. On the other hand, singling out an important journalist and engaging her in some friendly banter while simultaneously letting her know that you read every word she writes about you (a flattering nuance that surely was not lost on Dowd) sounds very much like something a competent politician might do. So what's really going on here? Is he some whining incompetent hypersensitive bully? Or is he a guy who knows how to schmooze with the media? It's pretty clear what Limbaugh wants people to believe. But I have to say that if you side with Limbaugh on this one you're letting him take you for ride.

That's funny. I came away with the exact opposite impression.
I guess we heard it differently. That didn't sound the least bit lighthearted to me.
I heard him on a game show on NPR and he can be very funny and very lighthearted.
This didn't sound like one of those times.

Dharmabum, If you have a gut feeling about Mr. Obama there's nothing wrong with that. Most voting is based on that to some extent.
There's less shame in that than in imagining presidential-caliber accomplishments.

HOW is it less credible because of where it was played?

Rush Limbaugh is well known for lying and misrepresenting anyone who doesn't agree with his extreme, partisan Conservative viewpoints. Much like hannity or O'Reilly.

If it is reported by a disreputible source like Limbaugh then it should not be trusted as accurate.

It is really just common sense.

Dharmabum, If you have a gut feeling about Mr. Obama there's nothing wrong with that.

Not so much a "gut feeling" as an informed opinion based upon substantial research.

Same as I have for John Edwards. He is the kind of classic populist we have not seen since Ike or FDR.

I don't even know any internet rumors about him.


Not true, you have been citing the internet rumor about his "serious" reaction to what was, in reality, lighthearted joking.

What kind of sense does that make? An intimidating crybaby? Think about that for a second.

Therein lies the problem. Getting those who don't want to think about it to stop and think about it.

They are reacting, just like Limbaugh, in an extremely predictable, partisan manner.

If it is reported by a disreputible source like Limbaugh then it should not be trusted as accurate.

It is really just common sense.IT WAS A F-----G RECORDING!!!!!!

Not true, you have been citing the internet rumor about his "serious" reaction to what was, in reality, lighthearted joking.I heard the recording. Is that what you refer to as a rumor?

That you listen to Rush is just plain silly.I have been listening to Rush for going on twenty years now. His show has been an indispensable part of my political education. And the link I provided gives the actual audio of the encounter between Obama and Dowd. I am confident of it's accuracy, as it matches exactly what has been reported in print. There's no harm in giving it a listen.

IT WAS A F-----G RECORDING!!!!!!

Oh pulleese, you don't think recordings can be taken out of context and twisted?

That is precisely what Limbaugh did here.

I heard the recording. Is that what you refer to as a rumor?

That is the rumor you keep referring to, is it not? I heard it too and I don't think Obama was serious at all.

It was nothing but a lighthearted joke.

Some people seriously need to pull the stick out and lighten up.

I have been listening to Rush for going on twenty years now. His show has been an indispensable part of my political education. And the link I provided gives the actual audio of the encounter between Obama and Dowd. I am confident of it's accuracy, as it matches exactly what has been reported in print. There's no harm in giving it a listen.

I used to listen to Rush for over ten years, when there was no other choice because rightwing dominated talk radio. now I have a plethora of fantastic progressive programming that actually has value and substance rather then hyperbole and rhetoric.

I admit Rush has something to offer in the way of education on ultra-partisan rhetoric, but that is it.

Oh pulleese, you don't think recordings can be taken out of context and twisted?
How can he twist and take out of context something something he then plays?
You and I disagree on Obama's tone. Where is the "internet rumor" in that.
More cliches.

How can he twist and take out of context something something he then plays?

Did you see his spin on Michael J Fox's ad? Did you think he was correct there too?
I don't see how you can honestly ask that question.

Yes "spin". You are perfectly welcome to spin whatever you want.
That's not what you said. Spinning is different than something being "taken out of context and twisted. You can't twist and take out of context something you then allow others to see or hear.

I guess you've given up defending the "internet rumor" accusation.

That is not correct. These days political spin hardly contains itself to the realm of reality. Take the "swiftboat" character assasination campaign against John Kerry. Almost all of their accusations were complete nonsense but so many gullible people believed them that it hurt John Kerry in the end for assuming Americans were smarter than that.

Or Rush Limbaughs idiotic claims that Michael J Fox was "Faking it".

As for the internet rumor, I see nothing to "defend".

"Spin" is when a political advocate comes into the CNN booth after you've seen a debate and explains to you why what his guy said was more significant and relevant than the other candidate. He'll then point out inconsistencies in the other guy's performance.
But it's only "spin" because all they can do is try to deflect you a little bit more in their direction.

Your characterization of the Swift Boaters would not be spin.

Limbaugh's characterization of Michael J Fox would be spin because he showed the commercial and tried to sway other viewers of it with his interpretation.

But in all this my greatest confusion lies in what you call the "internet rumor" of Obama's statements to Maureen Dowd.

After listening to the clip, I don't see how anyone can be sure of the spirit in which his comments were made. You can't hear what was said before and after and you can't see any facial expressions. In other words, that little recording is useless.

I bet you probobly think Michael J Fox also was not taking his Meds because Rush said it was so.

That you listen to Rush is just plain silly.


I just saw Michael J. Fox in a t.v. movie the other day and guess what, (gasp) he was hardly shaking. I tend to believe that he exageratted his head shaking more than a wee bit.

Perhaps this was an old movie? His condition becomes worse with time - I think that's why he had to stop making "Spin City".

I just saw Michael J. Fox in a t.v. movie the other day and guess what, (gasp) he was hardly shaking. I tend to believe that he exageratted his head shaking more than a wee bit.

What movie? I will wager it was probobly before he left the television industry.

By the way, The shaking is a symptom of him having taken the medicine. That is the mistake Limbaugh made. If he had not taken his medicine his body freezes up and he could not move.

Michael J. Fox has hardly left television. He's been in at least two recent shows that I can remember off the top of my head, Scrubs and Boston Legal. My favorite shows, incidentally enough.

Dharma, MJF himself has stated that he does not take his medicine in certain situations (such as testifying before congress) to make a point.

I don't see a problem with that and neither does he or he'd be denying it.

Dharma, MJF himself has stated that he does not take his medicine in certain situations (such as testifying before congress) to make a point.

I don't see a problem with that and neither does he or he'd be denying it.

When and where did MJF ever say that?

I saw him specificly responding to Limbaugh's nonsense and he said no such thing at the time.

When and where did MJF ever say that?

I saw him specificly responding to Limbaugh's nonsense and he said no such thing at the time.
From the memoir "Lucky Man"
"I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling."

http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5

Nonsense?