Cavuto and Milbank would totally make sense if I were on crack.

I figured you were.

If your going to stalk Heru properly Taz you really should try to make you posts a little closer timewise.

So, are you saying Taz is licking Heru's crack?

There are times when an empty stomach is a good thing. This is one of them.

While Milbank interpreted the comment as self-aggrandizing, people who were actually in the meeting disputed that interpretation. Milbank did not cite a source for the quote, but in a July 29 entry on the Post's The Trail blog, Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman reported a similar version of the comments, writing that, "according to a witness," the reported remark "suggest[ed]" that Obama "was beginning to believe his own hype."

Too much she said, he said.  Who's interpretation is real, who cares.  Obama beleives the hype, even the main stream media is getting tired of this guy.   I am still trying to figure out why he is running for President, and the American that was good was when? 

 

About this "messianic" thing:

The McCain/Heston ad was Moses. Moses wasn't the messiah. Not even close. So why did all the pundits giggle about how clever that ad was, because it pegged Obama on the "messiah" thing?

Just asking. 

 

Now you know how stupid the McCain base is.

No, the ad talked about the "Chosen One", Moses was the chosen one!   Chose to lead the Jews out of Egypt. Watch the ad, then make a comment!

They probably chose the Moses metaphor, becuase if Obama is elected president, the country is going to wander in the desert for the next four years....

 

...and then will be led to the promised land where they will reside for the next 40 years under democratic control.

Doubt it. It will be JC 2- (Jimmy Carter, Not Jesus Christ) where after four years of "malaise" a New Reagan will rise and right the wrongs of the naive and ineffective dems. LOL

 

Plus you're assuming that "Jimmy Jr." will make it to the big chair come November.. Presumtption didn't help the dem cause in 00 or 04 if you can get past the "stolen election" pablum you've all been chewing for nearly a decade now..

 

 

MissDeeFicient, you're confused as always. Obama wants to work towards getting out of the desert, while grampy McCain has noted that he's cool with another 100 years in the desert.

Hardly Colonel Cluck... so far, things would indicate that your annointed one hasn't exactly run away in the polls, as the liberal media and the liberal base expected after his "second coming tour" in Europe.

 It's gonna be a tight race, and you're deluding yourself as to the same things that havent' worked for the dems in the past two presidential races.if you're that condifent. Ask Gore and Kerry what it's like to be saying "Huh? what happened???. Liberal elitism always underestimates the intelligence and common sense of the majority of Americans. America's bigger than just the liberal coastlines.

 

Missdee, I'm trying to read between all of the "liberal media" nonsense of your post, and the meat of it seems to be disputing my confidence in an Obama victory.

The problem here is, I never stated or implied my opinion on the odds of Obama winning.

Are you retarded, or just putting on an act.

The other point you're completely upside-down on is your idea that Dems lose elections by underestimating the electorate.Aside from the number of your fellow meathead-Americans who voted for the guy they'd like to have a beer with, there are just too many examples of the Republicans dependency on the ignorant vote to even start here. You can be exhibit A, if you'd like to start your own list.

"........people who were actually in the meeting disputed that interpretation"

By people, you mean House Democrats.   

It was a closed-door meeting with House Democrats. Meaning, the only people who were present were House Democrats and their aides.

I know, and their interpretation is automatically soaked in bias, as it would be if McCain had spoken to only Republicans, so their interpretation should be viewed accordingly, and not worth much.

Both interpretations come from people who were present at the meeting.

Huh?  The comments are not in question, it's the interpretation of them.  MMFA using the House Democrats as some proof of that interpretation is the issue.

I think you need to go back and reread the story. Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post quoted an unnamed source who was present at the closed-door meeting. This is the quote that Dana Milbank later picked up on. But before Milbank's article came out, another unnamed source who was present at the meeting informed Weisman that the quote was incomplete and missing context that altered its meaning entirely.

Both sources were at the meeting. By your logic, this means that both sources are "soaked in bias" and "not worth much." But the only one you're questioning is the one that's favorable to Obama.

I read it perfectly fine.  My comments stand.  One could read the entire text of Obama's comments and come away with different interpretations, that is the point.  For MMFA to rely on only those who actually heard them, namely fellow Democrats, is weak.

"For MMFA to rely on only those who actually heard them, namely fellow Democrats, is weak."

That's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. Instead of relying on witnesses who actually heard what Obama said firsthand, you want to rely on the interpretations made by people who weren't even there? So hack reporters who are pushing the "Obama is arrogant and presumptuous" meme are somehow more trustworthy than people who actually heard Obama's comments firsthand?

Make it simple.  When those propping up your interpretations are of the same political party, then yes, that is weak.  If you are that incredibly naive, I actually feel sorry for you.  What do you think they are going to say?

You cannot be this simple. 

Tommy, your argument is weak, even by your standards.

One could read the entire text of Obama's comments and come away with different interpretations, that is the point. 

There is no text. That's the point. 

So, would you say Obama views himself as messianic?  Are you stating Milbank or Cavuto have a valid point?

Maybe he does a little?  I don't know, and frankly it doesn't bother me either way.  He is very inspirational, and he has to know that....so a little cockiness is fine by me.  I like someone who is confident and self assured, if they have good reason to be.  I don't like false or inflated arrogance, but Obama does not strike me as that at all.

I'm good with that.  Presidential candidates are raging egotists by definition. 

Since their interpretation of it can't be proven false, does that mean it can't be a myth?  :-p

Only if it's disputed.

If it can't be proven to be false then it's most likely a difference of opinion, and any myth would be in trying to prove it false, falsely.  :)

Go immediately to your nearest college or university and enroll in Logic 101. Seriously.

Coming from you, I think I'll pass.  But thanks anyway.

I guess that's your motto: Stay stupid.

Per "Tommy's Rules of Logic." 

I can get you an autographed copy for $19.95, plus shipping and handling.  Makes a great back to school gift.....

:) 

Trade you straight accross for mine. As I've mentioned, it makes a good coloring book.

Are we missing a post from the col somewhere arround here?

Ah, it is still there.

He is not the Messiah!!!!

He's not even a very naughty boy.

I'm an obscene prophet.

The Ob Scene needed a prophet?

Obama IS a symbol of the American Dream.  If your lot doesn't like that, maybe you shouldn't have picked someone who is a symbol of nepitism, marrying well and spineless political pandering.