Barack Hussein Obama wins Iowa (97% Whites)

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

Battle of the Books

Why Obama whups Clinton in the war over word ownership.

Post Date Friday, February 22, 2008

The New Republic

by Jason Zengerle

 

The Clinton campaign's latest tactic is to smear Barack Obama by claiming he plagiarized material in some of his speeches. As many pundits have noted, this was a move right out of Karl Rove's playbook--try to take an opponent's strength (in this case, Obama's eloquence) and turn it into a weakness. But when you consider the different approaches that Hillary and Obama took in writing their respective books, the Clinton campaign's attack is especially Rove-ian: When it comes to the issue of ownership of words, let's just say Obama is on much firmer ground than Clinton.

 

For Clinton's two literary efforts--the 1996 book It Takes A Village and the 2003 book Living History--she used ghostwriters. That's no grave sin: Plenty of politicians use ghostwriters. But it should be noted that Clinton didn't exactly shower hers with credit. In Village, Clinton infamously failed to include Barbara Feinman--the ghostwriter Simon & Schuster paid $120,000 to help Hillary with the project--in her acknowledgements. Hillary haters subsequently made Feinman a literary martyr, alleging that she'd written the entire book. More recently, Hillary's advocates told the New Yorker that Feinman's work was so unsatisfactory that it was basically unusable and Hillary didn't credit her out of spite. The truth probably lies somewhere in between--which still doesn't make Hillary look particularly good.

 

Nevertheless, Clinton did seem to learn her lesson from the episode and in Living History, she acknowledged the help of ghostwriter Maryanne Vollers. But Clinton didn't go so far as to list Vollers's name alongside her own on the book's cover, a gesture plenty of other presidential candidates--including John Edwards and John McCain--have made. As for Vollers's feelings about her work with Hillary, the novelist Walter Kirn--who lived in the same Montana town as Vollers--once wrote that Vollers came to conclude that "there was no Hillary, really, just a creature concocted by her people who was happy to be a concoction of her people." Vollers subsequently disputed Kirn's characterization, branding him a "delusional Clinton hater" and reaffirming her admiration for Hillary. When I called both Feinman and Vollers to learn more about their experiences working with Clinton, neither one was able to tell me about them due to the confidentiality agreements they'd signed. The editors of Village and Living History--Becky Saletan and Nan Graham, respectively--did not respond to phone messages, nor did Lissa Muscatine, a former Clinton speechwriter who reportedly helped with the writing of Hillary's two books. And Feinman's former literary agent, Flip Brophy, who brokered her deal for Village, refused to discuss the matter with me, branding it "old history."

 

Obama's literary efforts, in contrast to Hillary's at least, are an open book. As a relatively unknown young lawyer with a smallish book advance, Obama obviously couldn't afford a ghostwriter for his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father, so he wrote the book himself. But anyone familiar with the story of Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish knows that editors sometimes do more than just massage an author's prose--they can also rewrite it. So I called Henry Ferris, who was Obama's editor on Dreams, to ask him how many of the words in that book were Obama's. Ferris didn't have too many specific memories of the work he did with Obama more than a decade ago. "He and his book now are seen in such different ways than I was looking at them at that time," Ferris explained. "I didn't take on the project thinking he'd be a leading candidate for the presidency." But Ferris was absolutely adamant about one thing: "He wrote it completely and totally all by himself," Ferris said. "No one helped him." He added, "The manuscript needed shaping and focus, it needed editing, a lot of which he did based on suggestions I made. He was a terrific writer, a great stylist. ... This was not a job where I went in and had to completely redo this book for him. He needed the kind of guidance any first-time writer would need."

 

For his second book, the 2006 The Audacity of Hope, Obama got enough of an advance ($1.9 million for a three-book deal) and was certainly busy enough with his work in the Senate--not to mention laying the groundwork for his presidential campaign--that no one would have blamed him for going the ghostwriter route. But, according to Rachel Klayman, the Crown editor who worked with him on Audacity, he didn't. "I get irritated when people ask, 'Does he have a ghostwriter?' because it's the opposite of that," Klayman told me. "Not only does he not have a ghostwriter, he's on an entirely different plane from most writers editors work with." Klayman said that Obama's writing process was similar to that of many authors: He'd write a draft of a chapter--oftentimes working at his computer late at night--and then send it to her and a group of other people (although in Obama's case these people weren't just friends but mainly political and policy advisors) for suggested edits.

 

As for what Obama sent in, Klayman said, "I've never worked with any other writer who needed less line editing than he did. That's how clean his writing is. That doesn't mean we didn't do some editing. I did a lot of different things. But he's sort of a self-editing phenomenon. Sometimes my role was to stand back and watch him edit himself." She added, "Working with him was so much like working with someone whose day job is being a writer. He is a writer as far as I'm concerned. [slate editor-in-chief] Jacob Weisberg said he's more like a writer who became a politician than a politician who became a writer."

[LayZie G.]

^Did you get to read the piece in huffingtonpost by Star Jones?

 

O factor linked to lynching

 

I do admit, I haven't watched mr O factor in quite sometime, but even he is too classy to have made such remarks.

 

In any regards, Star Jones went off and went off pretty good on him, but why hasn't the Obama camp defended its dreamy first lady? Why are they keeping quite@sanka?

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

I didn't read that article, but the "lynching" story has been pushed by MSNBC in the last couple of days and they are still at it. HuffPo had the video the other day. Keith Olbermann seems to be enjoying this gaffe from BILLO and FOXNEWS. BILLO apologized "reluctantly" but Jesse Jackson said it is not enough.

 

Lazie, it is good Obama is ignoring it. Avoid the "black candidate" label.

[LayZie G.]

Miss Aaliyah, we all due respect, but the debate I watched this past thursday wasn't the same debate you so eloquently described above.

 

The debate I watched showed a man who majority of the time was defending his position on some of the issues that was raised by hilary, as well as campbell brown,(cnn's new face).

 

Instead of taking the fight to hilary, she had brought the fight to him.

 

Yes, at one point, she made the xerox remark and it wasn't a strong moment for Mrs C, but she made it up at her closing, she definetely drew that crowd on her favour.

 

I was very disappointed with both candidates on more than one occasion (more so with obama than hilary)when a question was asked that deserved a very brief answer, instead, both candidates went around it.

 

Hilary did infact once or twice illustrated the difference in their policies, such as health care and cuba.

 

With cuba, there wasn't much difference, she was willing to meet the president, whoever it may be as long as some of the conditions that will be imposed on the future leader is fulfilled and ofcourse with some preparation involved.

 

I recall Obama going for that same line that hilary had and even agreeing with her. That was until campbell brown came back and recalled a comment he made regarding his willingless to meet up with the communist leader without any conditions, then ofcourse he didn't seem so sure of himself after.

 

All in all, it wasn't obama's finest moment, and I have watched enough debates between both candidates to come to that conclusion.

[Aaliyyah]

Obama throughout the debate was talking about his position and his plans on the many different issues that are important to Americans. Isn’t that what a candidate has to do, try to educate the public on what he stands for. So other candidates will not twist or misinterpret his position.

 

Majority of Americans have responded to Obama well and find him to be the perfect candidate and many have agreed that he had improved his debate skills over the last several debates. Surely, it is obvious by now that Obama comes across more positive and sticks to the important issues. While, Clinton is trying to attack Obama on a personal level, for instance when she said how when one supporter of Obama was asked why he supports Obama he couldn’t come up with one reason on why he supports Obama. She was more or less trying to claim that those who support Obama don’t even know why they support him. That showed that she didn’t respect the voice of American citizens, and if they dnt vote for her then hey they don’t know what they are doing. Does this lady think that she is entitled to win the presidency. Even today, she accused Obama of spreading false information, seriously this lady is better off working on her campaign and what she stands for rather than focusing on Obama and what he says/does if she wants to win in the coming up state elections.

 

This is my thoughts on this on-going campaign, and am sure everyone has their own understanding and interpretations.

 

Wa salaamu alaikum

 

--------------------------

 

A quick temper will make a fool of you soon enough.

- Bruce L

[LayZie G.]

While, Clinton is trying to attack Obama on a personal level, for instance when she said how when one supporter of Obama was asked why he supports Obama he couldn’t come up with one reason on why he supports Obama.

^ I am glad you brought that up, because I had forgotten all about it.

 

She had a valid reason to bring it up on the debate because the "supporter" she was talking about on tv was none other than a state senator Kirk Watson of texas, who appeared on MSNBC earlier on the week and the host of the show asked that since he is a obama supporter to name "some of obama's legislative accomplishments" and ofcourse the senator had no answer, not a single answer.

 

Later on, the senator said that he blanked out because he didn't expect the question, he figured he would be asked something about the primaries and such?

 

You either know who you are supporting or you are going for the hype, and Obama is today's news, everyone jumped on his bangwagon because everyone else was going that route, so please, at the end of the day, you can't fault hilary for bringing it up.

 

We are not talking about ordinary people, we are talking about lawmakers who don't know jack about their candidate, and thats why I said he is some sort of a celebrity more than anything and americans don't know any better, and if that is the type of man they want holding office, so be it?

 

The truth is, americans wouldn't be this interested in these primaries and caucasus if the media courage wasn't overwhelming.

 

This is a bad case of paparazzi and britney spears.

 

Her face is blasted everywhere, including magazine shelves at the grocery store.

 

Even if you are not a tablod fan, you have no choice because its in your face constantly and thats what obama is, the britney spears of politics of today.

 

The american people have no choice but to go with the candidate with the most hype, they just don't know any better, so why should anyone respect their choice of candidancy?

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

BREAKING NEWS

 

http://www.whitehouse.com

[Aaliyyah]

It is biased and unfair claim that the media is portraying Obama as the better candidate and due to that Americans are supporting him. This whole argument that Obama talks the talk and doesn’t have experience is ridiculous. Obama is experienced man, lemme just sum up his experience in few points since many people overlook his experience:

 

1- Obama worked with unemployed youths.

2- He was a community leader and organizer

3- He graduate from Harvard Law school

4- He worked in a law firm

5- He was a professor

6- He was a state senator

 

He achieved all that even though he was born to a teenage mother and a colored father. He wasn’t born with a gold spoon in his mouth. Yet, he beat the odds and constructed a strong experience that meets what is required from a presidential candidate and on top of that managed to be the front runner of this campaign.

 

Obama does not only has the experience but the personality that matches. Obama is young and inspirational individual. There are too many people out there with education and experience. But, that is not where the competition ends you have to be able to connect with people to succeed and that is exactly what Obama has done throughout this campaign.

 

--------------------------

 

A quick temper will make a fool of you soon enough.

- Bruce L

[LayZie G.]

lol@Sanka, good news all around eh?

 

Did anyone see the saturday night skit of last week's debate?

 

Pure comical waaye, I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I watched it on youtube.

 

 

Funny as hell

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

^^ Lazie, don't hate. Just observe!

 

Obama is up in Texas Poll. Both CNN and SurveyUSA polls show Obama leading Texas by 4 points.

 

 

OBAMA THE COWBOY: Presidential candidate Barack Obama tips a cowboy hat given

to him by a volunteer after a rally

in Austin, TX, on Feb. 23, 2007. Between

15-20,000 people gathered at a concert

venue and waited through drizzly weather

to hear Obama speak.

[Pujah]

LG, I don't think you were watching the same debate the rest of the nation watched on the 21st. How could you even say Hilary was the stronger candidate after watching her painful struggle to make policy distinctions where none exists? Remember how she kept jumping to add one more thing whenever he spoke – clearly showing woman that is not sure of herself - even frustrating the moderators.

 

She also lost an opportunity when she was asked to clearly explain how she will make the better president – her answer was basically listing all the countries she visited as a first lady without explaining or reminding everyone exactly what she accomplished in those tours. Where as he clearly demonstrated he has the sort of leadership style and good judgment the next president needs to reverse the nations shattered image.

 

As for her out cry that Obama is discrediting her universal health care policy – he basically said more or less the same thing that night. Her plan will devastate the average low income family that cannot afford it and will definitely be in a worse position if their meager wages are garnished. If she had issues with his stance that was the time to defend it not cry foul when the other candidate is not there or accuse them the same dirty tactics she has been using from day one.

 

by LG

I recall Obama going for that same line that hilary had and even agreeing with her. That was until campbell brown came back and recalled a comment he made regarding his willingless to meet up with the communist leader without any conditions, then ofcourse he didn't seem so sure of himself after.

Now this is simply not true. Maybe you got up to grab cup of tea when the question was asked. There was no way Obama could have agreed with Hilary even if he wanted to because the question was phrased in a such a way that he had to either backtrack his previous record or agree with it head on. Senator Obama made it very clear he will meet with any head of state without pre-conditions whether they’re our allies or so called enemy. He even when step further and said that is exactly what is needed in order to reverse this pre-conceived notion that ‘we are better than everyone’.

[LayZie G.]

Pujah, you can catch most of the debate on its repeat format whenever its aired again, but its clear to me now that you only saw what you wanted to see.

 

After the question was asked to Hilary first, and Obama second, I recall him saying yes, I agree with hilary regarding preparations being done and so on and so on, then campbell brown came back at him and recalled a statement he made previously talking about how he will hold meetings without a condition, then be backtracked and said, yes, that but preparations and such has to be in place before that can happen, and ofcourse went along and said a bunch of load after, as usual.

 

If you believe he didn't agree with her, thats one thing, but him saying he agreed with hilary that preparations need to be in place before he meets up with castro junior and such or kim from north korea, tells you just how much of a flip flopper he is. He is worse than John kerry, kaas aba anyday qaadanaa

 

The very idea that he is willing to sit down with dangerous leaders and beg for mercy tells me just how weak he is.

 

He plans to beg his way into the presidency.

[Faarax-Brawn]

^Do me a favor,please TIVO tonights debate,will ya? You obviously are so biased,that you are making up stuff

 

The O'Bama train has left. Personally,i am tired of these two,really,more so,i am tired of these Dem voters. They need to make up their minds & vote off one of them. The more these two fight,the more McCain has time to reflect & regroup. This divisiveness is obviously not good for the party in General.

 

The Republicans,of course have no life in their elections but,that OLD man is too comfortable,we need a nominee soon,really SOON. Hopefully,by March 4th. Mrs Clinton can just start endorsing the O'man

[xiinfaniin]

^^And here's why she should do that!

 

============================================

Hillary Should Get Out Now

Clinton has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself.

 

By Jonathan Alter

NEWSWEEK

Updated: 1:39 PM ET Feb 23, 2008

If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she'd drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I'm hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.

 

Withdrawing would be ****** if Hillary had a reasonable chance to win the nomination, but she doesn't. To win, she would have to do more than reverse the tide in Texas and Ohio, where polls show Obama already even or closing fast. She would have to hold off his surge, then establish her own powerful momentum within three or four days. Without a victory of 20 points or more in both states, the delegate math is forbidding. In Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22, the Clinton campaign did not even file full delegate slates. That's how sure they were of putting Obama away on Super Tuesday.

 

The much-ballyhooed race for superdelegates is now nearly irrelevant. Some will be needed in Denver to put Obama over the top, just as Walter Mondale had to round up a couple dozen in 1984. But these party leaders won't determine the result. At the Austin, Texas, debate last week, Hillary agreed that the process would "sort itself out" so that the will of the people would not be reversed by superdelegates. Obama has a commanding 159 lead in pledged delegates and a lead of 925,000 in the popular vote (excluding Michigan and Florida, where neither campaigned). Closing that gap would require Hillary to win all the remaining contests by crushing margins. Any takers on her chances of doing so in, say, Mississippi and North Carolina, where African-Americans play a big role?

 

The pundit class hasn't been quicker to point all this out because of what happened in New Hampshire. A lot of us looked foolish by all but writing Hillary off when she lost the Iowa caucuses. As we should have known, stuff happens in politics. But that was early. The stuff that would have to happen now would be on a different order of magnitude. It's time to stop overlearning the lesson of New Hampshire.

 

Hillary has only one shot—for Obama to trip up so badly that he disqualifies himself. Nothing in the last 14 months suggests he will. He has made plenty of small mistakes, but we're past the point where a "likable enough" comment will turn the tide. When Obama bragged in the Austin debate about how "good" his speeches were, the boast barely registered. He has brought up his game so sharply that even a head cold and losing the health-care portion of the debate on points did nothing to derail him. Hillary's Hail Mary pass—that Obama is a plagiarist—was incomplete.

 

So if the Clintonites were assessing with a cold eye, they would know that the odds of Hillary's looking bad on March 4 are high. Even Bill Clinton said last week that Texas and Ohio are must-win states. If she wants to stay in anyway, one way to go is to play through to June so as to give as many people as possible a chance to express their support. While this would be contrary to the long-stated wish of many Democrats (including the Clintons) to avoid a long, divisive primary season, it's perfectly defensible.

 

But imagine if, instead of waiting to be marginalized or forced out, Hillary decided to defy the stereotype we have of her family? Imagine if she drew a distinction between "never quit" as it applies to fighting Kenneth Starr and the Republicans on the one hand, and fellow Democrats on the other? Imagine if she had, well, the imagination for a breathtaking act of political theater that would make her seem the epitome of grace and class and party unity, setting herself up perfectly for 2012 if Obama loses?

 

The conventional view is that the Clintons approach power the way hard-core gun owners approach a weapon—they'll give it up only when it's wrenched from their cold, dead fingers. When I floated this idea of her quitting, Hillary aides scoffed that it would never happen. Their Pollyanna-ish assessment of the race offered a glimpse inside the bunker. These are the same loyalists who told Hillary that she was inevitable, that experience was a winning theme, that going negative in a nice state like Iowa would work, that all Super Tuesday caucus states could be written off. The Hillary who swallowed all that will never withdraw.

 

But in her beautiful closing answer in the Austin debate, I glimpsed a different, more genuine, almost valedictory Hillary Clinton. She talked about the real suffering of Americans and, echoing John Edwards, said, "Whatever happens, we'll be fine." She described what "an honor" it was to be in a campaign with Barack Obama, and seemed to mean it. The choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption. Why not the latter? Besides, it would wreck the spring of all her critics in the press. If she thinks of it that way, maybe it's not such an outlandish idea after all.

NewsWeek

[Faarax-Brawn]

^Nice read sir.

 

 

The Doddster,Endorses the O'man