Comments on: Plouffe v. Palin, The Book Battle

By: Taylor Marsh

Taylor Marsh — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:15:42 +0000

chazmonk says:
07 December 2009 at 8:54 pm

As a big proponent of All’s Fair In Political War, I was sincerely disappointed that in my speed read of Plouffe’s book, especially since he’s not in the White House, that he didn’t delineate how the Obama camp used the Rove playbook against Hillary. No gender tip toeing because she was a woman, as they knew it would take everything they had to beat her. Little did the Obama camp know that Hillary’s own people would actually beat her for him!

It’s also interesting that you aren’t interested in why Plouffe is getting a pass while Sarah Palin’s book is getting picked apart, which was actually the crux of the post.

By: Jane Austen

Jane Austen — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:08:46 +0000

chazomonk – I think your comments are unfair to Taylor and indirectly to those of us who have been around for a long time. As someone who supported HRC I was always glad when Taylor or any of the pro HRC supporters were able to point out her inconsistencies and at times exaggerations. If Taylor wasn’t the objective observer/writer of the politics of our day I’d have been long gone from this site.

As to Sarah Palin – I’m fascinated by her appeal as she has no appeal for me. I tend toward the nerdy/geeky/intellectually curious type of person, all of which Ms. Palin lacks and what I find so appealing in SOS Clinton. I do wonder about Ms. Palin’s supporters though. What is it that they see in this woman? Would they honestly trust her to run any government, let alone the US government? What do they find in her that instills confidence and trust, other than she’s pretty good at riling up a crowd and their negativity towards all issues that relate to the good of all the people of this country?

By: secularhumanizinevoluter

secularhumanizinevoluter — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:32:37 +0000

chazmonk, it shows that you don’t spend any time here. As a dyed in the wool HRC supporter and fanatical Obama opponent during the primary I can say without hesitation Ms. Marsh has concistently been THE most objective Politicol Pundent I have had the pleasure of becoming aware of. She supported HRC and honestly reported on the shenanigans of the Obama campaign and MSM but also was quick to point out when HRC’s campaign screwed up or was inconsistant. Once the primary was over and Obama had the nomination she supported the Democratic Candidate.

By: Hillarysupporter55

Hillarysupporter55 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:18:04 +0000

@chazmonk I think your comments are unfounded. Taylor has long championed the Obama Administration, commending it when it does good and pointing out its mistakes when it makes them. Perhaps you would know that if you read the blog regularly.

Taylor makes a valid point in this blog post. Nobody says anything because Plouffe isn’t Sarah Palin. He isn’t at the forefront of politics and isn’t a politician. Therefore, we don’t fact check him. That and the fact that he engineered Obama’s campaign. We often like to look at the end result and not the whole campaign. I believe that was her point.

Thanks Taylor for another great post! I enjoy reading them everyday (even if I don’t comment that often).

By: chazmonk

chazmonk — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:54:44 +0000

Now if it was a Hillary staffer or, heck, even HC herself, writing a book then I don’t think we’d hear a peep out of Ms. Taylor if it wasn’t scrutinized or if it “rewrote” history a little, now would we?

It’s been a long time since I’ve been on this site I once loved, but you are STILL all things Hillary aren’t you?? If she had indeed won the primary and the presidency we all know her stuff wouldn’t stink. We get it, we get it. All hail Hillary.

What happened to that independent blogger I used to love…

By: MyManJeeves

MyManJeeves — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:38:53 +0000

Big difference in that fact checking on Palin’s book amounted in most cases to things that were either lies or clearly made up. Totally objective stuff. Like making herself out to be a player in the Exxon Valdez settlement, when in reality, as the plaintiff’s lawyer puts it best:

“That is the most cockamamie bullshit,” said Dave Oesting of Anchorage, the lead plaintiff attorney in the private litigants’ civil case against Exxon. “She didn’t have a damn thing to do with it, and she didn’t know what it was about.”

The woman lies seamlessly and whenever she wants. From day one on the campaign she lied, re-writes history completely.

She’s an ignorant liar with a huge following of people who are actually more ignorant than she is. A danger to any society. The saving grace is she has skeletons in her closet so if she does run she might have to answer questions about things like re-filing taxes because she charged the state for her kids personal travel. Looking forward to seeing her twist in the wind if she does run.

I guess one way to put it is she’s like a lot of politicans, only most can’t get away with that amount of lying.

By: guyski

guyski — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:59:37 +0000

Mr. Plouffe sounds petty. Have to follow up and see how those much talked about “organizing techniques” worked on this little exercise. Didn’t work so well in Virginia and New Jersey. Another aspect of the 2008 election is that there was elements of and “event” or a “moment” Should be interesting in following the upcoming elections (2010 and 2012). Perhaps President Obama is like, you know, soooo 2008.

By: Iceblinkjm

Iceblinkjm — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:03:50 +0000

They say those that are victorious write the history that’s remembered. I don’t find it surprising that no one is willing to speak of what transpired in 2008 as it would not reflect very well on certain candidates, political parties or elected officials. The Texas two step hubris being the perfect example.