The senator is upset because the GOP has used his wife’s comment about being proud of America “for the first time” as fodder for a commercial. He said attacks on his wife should be out of bounds.
On the one hand, I can sympathize. On this board, attacks on my family is the one boundary I ask participants not to cross.
On the other hand, he’s basically asking for a free pass for Mrs. Obama who is out stumping for her husband, on the road and on TV talk shows. This is presidential politics, and it is frankly naive of him to think that that can, or even should, happen. Her phrasing was monumentally dumb when she said it, and even though she endeavored to clarify (i.e, regret and rephrase) her remarks, that doesn’t make them any less a legit target for critics. It isn’t as if, for instance, the GOP dug into her background and discovered she was on antidepressants or something and was saying, “Do you want a medicated woman in the White House?” These were public statements made in a public forum, and that makes them fair game. If Obama wants his wife off limits, then keep her out of the spotlight. But if she’s willingly in the spotlight, then sorry, Senator, but she’s just going to have to endure the glare.
PAD
• 
Josh Pritchett, Jr: “How does Obama come off as weak or naive for defending his wife? I mean Bill Clinton has defended his wife and no one called him weak or naive.”
He comes off naïve not because he did it, but in how he did it. Look, I’m a cop out here in the surreal world. There are things that I know are going to be said to me or about me within earshot of me when I’m in uniform that just comes with the job. I don’t respond to those things when on the job in the same manner that I would as a civilian. One of the things that you have to teach new guys is that crap rolls off your back if you let it and you don’t have to respond to every little insult or you should respond in a manner that intelligently neutralizes the issue.
It’s the same with politics. Obama could very easily have defended his wife in a manner that would have been far more effective, less clumsy and not shown the appearance of being as naïve as his defense did. Look at how it was done.
Obama warned that the Tennessee GOP “should be careful” and said he finds it “unacceptable” for them to use his wife in a video.
“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family….
“Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that’s true for everybody, Democrat or Republican….
“But I also think these folks should lay off my wife,”
His comments were basically, “how dare they use something my wife said at a campaign event.” He had his wife speak for him and she was supposed to be expressing the things that he believed and why he was the guy to vote for. She either said a dumb thing or she said something in a dumb way. it was something said at a campaign speech, it was by someone representing the campaign and it’s, wife or not, fair game. For him to put forward the idea that it’s not fair game makes him look politically naïve.
There’s also the manner in which he did it. It was clumsy and came off almost like a hollow, whiney threat. Had I been on his staff and knew that he wanted to reply to that ad, I would have suggested another approach.
“The Tennessee GOP wants to make a big deal out of my wife’s slip of the tongue on a campaign stop? (laughs) Sure, if they want to play that game they can. But they should be aware of the messages it sends. First, it tells everyone that they’ve just got the same old playbook of mudslinging and can’t challenge us on the ideas and issues. Second, my wife, who is not running for office and isn’t a “professional” speaker, phrased something poorly. If that’s supposed to be their major issue, what does it say about their candidate for the presidency when he’s repeatedly made errors about Iran’s involvement with Iraq and other key issues, been publicly corrected and admitted his errors and then gone on to make the same mistaken remarks a day later?
“They can say whatever they want about Michelle’s poorly phrased comments. It’s just displaying their desperation for everyone to see and it shows that they obviously don’t realize how bad that game bounces back on their nominee or how badly it makes his multiple gaffs come off by comparison.”
Now, I’m not a political speech writer and I did that in one, stream of conscious shot without stops, hesitation or (other than spell check) corrections and I guarantee you that this would have played a hëll of a lot better than Obama’s statements. If I can come up with something as a first draft that would likely have played better than what the man running for the presidency said then, yeah, it his green is showing.
Obama cannot do that. He cannot make too many slips that show he’s inexperienced or that he’s the amateur politician. There are a lot of swing voters and undecideds out there that, when push comes to shove, are going to pull the lever for the guy who, as chaotic as the world seems right now, looks like he knows what he’s doing rather than the guy who says “change” but looks like he doesn’t know how to drive the car to get to “change” without crashing it several times along the way.
And as much as Obama cannot do that, we cannot afford to have him do that.
No. Sit back, enjoy Obama’s masterful campaign, and maybe you’ll learn something.
Look at how Chelsea got away with stupidly playing the “My Family Is None Of Your Business” card* when she was legitimately asked about addressing what the voters should make of her father’s infidelity. Of course the voters’ are entitled to their own account of any candidate’s family interactions. But it’s a hypocrisy anyone with any fidelity to observable reality knows only a fool would refuse to tip-toe around, if tread there at all.
*demonstrating the classic pimping of a candidate’s daughter
Alan: “The ones who apparently think she should keep her big, fat yap shut now, even though SHE is the candidate this time, and Bill is merely her spousal support. I pretty much detest those people.”
Again, which people would that be? I haven’t seen anyone saying she should keep quiet. I’ve seen some people saying that both Democratic candidates should keep their campaigns respectful so they don’t tear their party apart. I’ve seen those calls become focused on Clinton, but that was because of things she said, not because of her gender. I’ve definitely seen a lot of people saying that Bill should shut up. Many, many times I’ve heard people saying that they wish Bill would just shut up.
So who are you talking about Alan? Who have you heard saying that Hillary has no right to speak?
Do we have an exact quote somewhere? Did he say that going after his wife was low-class, or merely that this particular quote flap was low-class?
Me, I don’t think it’s wrong to go after a candidate’s wife–so long as it’s on a point relevant to the election. This point, however, like so many others in elections, was not.
As for naivete, I wonder what exactly are the criteria by which a candidate is perceived as “experienced” or “inexperienced and naive”. Does U.S. Presidential history lack well-regarded Presidents who lacked experience in one relevant area or another? Was Truman experienced? Was Eisenhower experienced in matters of economics or constitutional law? (Hëll, even McCain has amazingly admitted that economics is something on which he still needs to be educated). There seems to be a perception that being governor of a state makes one experienced. But does it? Did being a governor really make guys like Reagan or Clinton experienced in matters of international relations , foreign policy, war, etc.?
In general, I think Obama has shown that he is one of those people who can lead through the force of his personality, mostly because that personality is one that inspires people to follow. I don’t know if this one flap proved the exception to this approach as Peter says, but even if it is, I think those who are captivated by the persona he projects are not going to be turned off by this one flap, any more than they are by any of the other pseudo-flaps that are fabricated in elections. Who exactly would be, who had any inclination to vote for him in the first place? I don’t think Democrats are suddenly going to decide not to vote for him, and if God forbid there were any Republicans even thinking of it, I’d find it ironic (hypocritical, even) if they decided against voting for him on the basis of experience or naivete, given the guy they’ve had in the Oval Office since 2001.
Many people have a problem with two things, explaining themselves, and shutting up. They try rationalizing, and they babble on. Michelle Obama would do herself a world of good if she were to say simply that she erred in her original statement, and that she’s sorry she made the mistake in the first place. Then keep her yap shut about it.
The more you try to explain yourself, the worse you make things for yourself.
(Oh, and Mike; when you find Iraqi militias using Iranian made weaponry, it’s a safe bet somebody in Iran is providing it. When they’re using a lot of Iranian made weaponry, then the Iranian government knows about it, and approves of the delivery. The Iranians are competent, never assume they aren’t. They may be domineering loons, but they are competent domineering loons.)
“What you and Michelle Obama are saying can be, basically, broken down into saying that you’re only proud of your country when you get what you want. ”
I, for one, never understood how anyone can be proud of their country at all. My own sense of pride primarly stems from things I have achieved or fulfilled, secondly from things those closest to me have achieved or fulfilled. To be proud of a whole nation, city, generation, extended family, race, gender, profession or sports team has always been a strange concept to me.
Which doesn’t mean that I want to take away your pride from you (as if I could). I don’t take anybody’s national pride as an insult. Maybe you shouldn’t take the lack of it as an insult either.
Alan,
PAD wrote:
“but I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.”
When Joe Biden and James Baker echo what he says about talking to our enemies, how is that so?
When McCain can’t tell fact from fiction, how is that so?
When someone offers you a new script idea, and you know in your heart it’s going to be a blockbuster, but they have “not enough experience”, how is that so?
Alan Kellogg,
The error in question is not whether or not Iran is doing anything at all in Iraq. The remarks that McCain botched and then corrected and then botched again and then etc. were from when he said that Al Qaeda was leaving Iraq to go to Iran, Iran was training Al Qaeda and then Iran was sending Al Qaeda back into Iraq. That’s not true and there’s no proof of it.
The correction was that Iran has some involvement with some of the insurgent groups and that there’s some evidence that they may be doing this. McCain actually got corrected on that point by Joe Lieberman during a live press conference, McCain rushed to correct the gaff and then went on to repeat the same gaff several times over the next several weeks.
Alan Kellogg: “… when you find Iraqi militias using Iranian made weaponry, it’s a safe bet somebody in Iran is providing it.”
Not always. The issue that you can run into with that logic is the same one that we run into when we find American made weaponry in the hands of people in the Middle East that we never sold them to. The fun of the Middle East Merry-Go-Round is that you can sell arms to a group you 100% support, they may sell them as part of a deal to another group they support, they may trade them to yet another group for something they want more than the arms, they could then sell those arms to yet another group and six months later your bitter enemy is shooting at you with your own guns and ammo. You could also start that nutty daisy chain by saying that the first group stole your arms from you or someone you supplied.
That convoluted example is somewhat true everywhere, but it often seems to be a bit more true with the various tribes and factions in that area of the world.
Hellstone: “Which doesn’t mean that I want to take away your pride from you (as if I could). I don’t take anybody’s national pride as an insult. Maybe you shouldn’t take the lack of it as an insult either.”
I could personally care less one way or the other most of the time. But we’re discussing the average voter as a group and the more right of center voters as well. A lot of people aren’t too swift on the idea of putting someone in office who says that their not proud of their country.
Peter, thanks for promoting this debate. But I think the bottom line is: The GOP has no issues they can win on, so they attack Obama’s wife.
But Obama has to make a stand for his wife and show the American people he has a backbone and will fight. Because if he won’t fight for his wife, how can he be trusted to fight for us?
Look what happened to Kerry: He failed to make a stand on his war record and the Swift-Boaters ate him for lunch. Obama knows this and has to fight.
So let’s do this: Let’s wait and see how the poles pan out. If he loses ground because of it, then it was a bad move; but if he gains ground he’s a winner!
What’s so wrong about saying this is the first time you’re really proud of your country? Man…I wish *I* could say that…
I think attacks on family members of people running is low-class. Attacks on the canadiate, fine sure. Attacks on family members? STUPID, imo. Doesn’t matter if she’s supporting her husband. OF COURSE SHE’S GOING TO SUPPORT HIM. All the other candiates wives do. I hope Obama takes this to heart and does NOT attack any of the other candiates families. I hope he doesn’t stoop to their level.
Oh and I think if Obama is nomated (which it looks like he will be), that he’ll have a VERY VERY good chance of winning. I know I’ll vote for him. I have to say that this is the first election I’ll be voting in and the first one I’m actually interested in. Because there’s a BIG choice to be made. A MAJOR choice. It is:
Do what more of what Bush is selling (which McCain would definitly give us) or do we want some hope for future (which it seems like either Hillary or especially Obama would give us).
Its more then just Republican or Demorat or Independent this time, imo. Its about the Future. Do we want these high gas prices to continue? Do we want the Iraq War to go on and on and on and on and on forever (McCain is a supporter of the war, so he’d keep us there)? Do we want yet another president who can’t make an inspiring speech????
Ya, I know that last one isn’t as important as the others, but man…it looks so AWFUL for us to have a President who doesn’t know what he’s talking about…
McCain is more of the same. Obama or even Hillary, could give us something different!
DF2506
Do you have a source handy? What would be the agenda of insurgents in Iraq who aren’t al Qaeda and who aren’t Sunni? Why would Shiites arm their own opposition or disassociate themselves from their own counter-insurgency efforts? If the Iranians are fighting al-Qaeda and Muqtada al-Sadr, what has that ever been to us except something that benefits the US-backed Iraqi government?
Josh Pritchett, Jr: “But Obama has to make a stand for his wife and show the American people he has a backbone and will fight. Because if he won’t fight for his wife, how can he be trusted to fight for us?”
You seem to keep missing a huge point here. It’s not always what you do or don’t do. It’s often in the way that you do it.
Obama may well have done the right thing, but he did it in the wrong way. Sometimes, that can be more damaging than doing nothing at all or even doing the wrong thing and politics is one of those arenas where that often holds true.
df2506 : “I think attacks on family members of people running is low-class. Attacks on the canadiate, fine sure. Attacks on family members? STUPID, imo.”
If that family member is being placed into the spotlight and is speaking on behalf of the campaign then they’re fair game.
“Its more then just Republican or Demorat or Independent this time, imo. Its about the Future.”
Except that the line about it being about more than politics about about the future is used in every election cycle and it is pretty much equally true each time it’s used.
“Ya, I know that last one isn’t as important as the others, but man…it looks so AWFUL for us to have a President who doesn’t know what he’s talking about…”
Which would actually back Obama’s detractors’ arguments more than yours since one of the arguments they’ll use is that Obama is green and inexperianced on top of being politically naïve.
Do we want these high gas prices to continue?
ZWe do if we want people to use less gasoline, which I thought was one of the things we had to do to stop global warming. There was a time when many progressive politicians wanted a high gasoline tax to reduce consumption. Well, the prices are high and consumption is going down.
As far as getting prices down…good luck. Supply and demand. You either have to get demand down–and with more and more of the world’s population becoming wealthy enough to afford cars, with more countries becoming technological powerhouses, etc, that seems unlikely–or you have to increase supply. Which means drilling.
What exactly is Obama (or McCain or Hillary or Ron Paul) going to do to lower prices. I know Hillary said she’d do it by, I don’t know, making scary faces at OPEC or something but I haven’t heard any of the others offer new and exciting ideas (which might be because there really aren’t any new and excting ideas to be had. maybe massive spending on research for a technological breakthrough?)
The alleged interference of Iran in the Iraq insurgency seems to be a not-very-well-thought-out white house talking point:
They’re citing the insurgents’ use of Iranian weapons as their evidence the Iranians are nurturing the guerrilla war against a government of their own faith. These áššhølëš can’t even keep straight the area’s Hatfields from their McCoys.
Jeez…
And the main issues in any of this are just going to get pushed back even more.
Kentucky just went Clinton in a huge way. Obama better win Oregon and win it big tonight or Clinton is going to drag this out too long for sure.
Kentucky just went Clinton in a huge way. Obama better win Oregon and win it big tonight or Clinton is going to drag this out too long for sure.
I’m still fuzzy on this whole “too long” thing, considering that two candidates going all the way to the convention is hardly unprecedented. As I recall, Reagan did it. So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been.
PAD
Also, Clinton, the projected loser, is still receiving more in donations than republican-nominee McCain. The bulk of McCain’s donations are still gathered at public appearances of George W Bush, the most unpopular president in modern polling. Each half of the split democratic party still clobbers the remaining republican party. It’s hysterical.
I doubt this will go to the convention. Obama has been getting about 4 superdelegates a day. If that rate keeps up, he’ll either hit 2026 on June 1st or be very close to it.
The Rules Committee meets on the 31st and will probably give some portion of the delegates back to Florida and Michigan. This won’t raise the number to 2210 like the Clintons want, but it will put it somewhere in between there and 2026. With the extra votes that will give Clinton, Obama won’t have the new number by June 1st, but he’ll either have it by June 3rd or close after.
At that point there is no good reason for Hillary to keep fighting. Up until now it made sense to keep fighting because there were still battles she could win. After Puerto Rico votes there will be absolutely no victories left for her. There’s nothing to be gained if there are no more chances to point to something and say, “See, that’s something new to think about.”
She still might not drop out. She still might talk about contesting the Rules Committee’s decision on Florida and Michigan and demand that the full delegations be seated. But even if she does that it will be very half hearted. She’s run her last negative ad. She’s not go to make things messy at the convention.
My problem is that:
1: The reps already have their nominee, he can build his strength and his base while Obama and Clinton continue to beat themselves to pulps.
2: This has become so divisive and bitter with large numbers of Hillary voters vowing not to support Obama if she loses; even if that mean losing their reproductive freedoms, draging the war out longer, incressing gas prices, forclosers, declinging dollar and on and on…
3: If it goes to the convetion and the super delegates get cold feet and give it to Hillary or decide that they will count Florida and Michigan the way Hillary wants after all after all, this will say to millons of Obama supporters: “Hey, I know Obama told you, you matter, but you don’t. Please vote for us in November!”
By the way, anyone know who came up with the rule to unseat delegates if they move up their primary’s? That would be Terry McCuliff, former DNC chairperson and member of the Hillary Clinton’s campaigne. He bragged about it in his book “What a Party”. If anyone is responsible for Michigan and Florida, the Clinton’s don’t have to look very far!
Last of all, the party needs to start healing! Hillary is not going to win this cleanly, she needs to go out and tell her supports to get behind Obama and beat McCain.
“So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been.”
Actually, Carter *is* part of the reason that people are worried about Clinton. I’ve read more than one article talking about how Carter and Ted Kenedey’s convention fight weakened Carter to the point that he lost even though he was the incumbent. Maybe he would have lost anyway, but the perception is that he lost partly because of a convention battle, so that has people worrying about another convention battle.
But like I said in my last post, there isn’t going to be a convention battle. Hillary doesn’t want to go down in history as the reason Obama loses the General.
From Mike:
How is this relevant? How does a man’s errors and corporate behavior make intelligence inaccurate? People on the ground, American and Iraqi, have noted Iranian made weaponry. Not only the weaponry, but Iranian agents (volunteers of course) engaged in supply the weapons, training militiamen in their use, even handling the weapons in combat.
From Jerry Chandler:
Non-starter. Purchases from Iranian agents. Training by Iranian agents. At a volume that speaks of Iranian government involvement.
But that doesn’t matter to you, you have your bete noir and you aint letting him go. The years will go by, memories will fade, and new, deadlier conflicts will take Iraq’s place. But the two of you will be cackling triumphantly over your imaginary victory against the evil Dubya. Meanwhile become more and more impotently outraged when your heroes admit to being wrong, or are revealed as being willing accomplices to lies and misrepresentation.
You see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe. You pounce on the slightest misstep your enemies make, and inflate it into a crime against humanity. The vaguest anti-war rumor becomes the Word of God. Unimpeachable evidence vague rumors of half-heard hints or things seen out of the corner of the eye on an overcast night during a power outage. Truth pains you, lies are comforting; so as a frightened cat seeks out the comfort of human arms and a human voice, you seek out the comfort of lies.
You are become enemies of hope, and society shall one day learn that you offer nothing.
Agreed. I’ve been shooting down Hillary because of association with Big Willy… why can’t Michelle be a target? Bush’s daughters have been under attack! Bush Jr and Sr have been under attack… if you’re going to associate yourself politically, then be prepared to get involved in the politics of it all.
Agreed. I’ve been shooting down Hillary because of association with Big Willy… why can’t Michelle be a target? Bush’s daughters have been under attack! Bush Jr and Sr have been under attack… if you’re going to associate yourself politically, then be prepared to get involved in the politics of it all.
Agreed. I’ve been shooting down Hillary because of association with Big Willy… why can’t Michelle be a target? Bush’s daughters have been under attack! Bush Jr and Sr have been under attack… if you’re going to associate yourself politically, then be prepared to get involved in the politics of it all.
The intelligence is that insurgents are fighting with Iranian weapons, and I ain’t denying it.
What’s inaccurate is the notion the insurgents preferring to fight with the weapons of their enemies over fighting unarmed means its done with the consent of the weapons source.
My analogy is relevant by definition of the word “analogy.” Review your own words with the analogous objects inserted in it:
You heard it here, folks, obstructing a rape victim from filing a complaint is Corporate Behavior.™ It’s not evil, it’s an Error.™
You cannot put down the protectionist sniveling anytime too soon.
Matt Adler,
McCain is the Republican candidate, but he is far from the Republicans’ most-liked national figure. Heck, he was my third choice of the announced candidates behind Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. I know many Republicans McCain drives nuts. At this point, I’d say the most beloved Republican national figures are some of the pundits.
Not that they won’t work hard for McCain. But he still has a lot of work to do to earn their love.
Joseph W.,
You really think the media are “dyed-in-the wool Republicans”? Then why the softball treatment of Obama? Why do the vast majority of them Democrat? There are plenty of other examples, but the biggest to me is..When the economy was growing, all we heard about was bad news about the Iraq War. Now that the Surge is working, it’s all Economy, all the Time. (And even that is ridiculous. Judging by most news outlets, you would swear unemployment was at 25%.
One of the big problems is food prices, of which Ethanol mandates by the government have contributed mightily. Yet only McCain has called for elimination of subsidies to big farmers in this boom time for farming. He did it in IOWA, no less. saying it’s wrong for the average taxpayer to be hit with a double whammy of paying taxes to support programs that result in higher prices.
Obama? he was quoted as saying he wants to “reduce” the # of MILLIONAIRES who receive government farm subsidies. Where are we at as a nation where a professed agent of CHANGE doesn’t want to eliminate them completely?
And there are som many success stories in Iraq not being told it is disgusting. Disgusting to our troops and disgusting to our nation.
PAD: “I’m still fuzzy on this whole “too long” thing, considering that two candidates going all the way to the convention is hardly unprecedented. As I recall, Reagan did it. So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been.”
My feeling on it, and I think the general feeling on it, is that it’s a given that Hillary will not be given the nod. She’s not getting it and she hasn’t even a prayer of getting it. The party isn’t going to stab Obama in the back for Hillary or risk the divisions and repercussions of even looking like they’re going to do so. This is a waste of time and of money for Obama and the Democratic party as a whole.
And I’m not an Obama backer. I’m dámņ sure not for McCain and Hillary is rapidly spending any credit I may have once given her, but I’m not an Obama person and even I’m shaking my head and rolling my eyes each time Hillary opens her mouth and goes on about the possibility of her being given the nod. It’s just not going to happen and it’s not even a realistic idea at this point.
Honestly, the only two groups (for the most part) of people who really want her to keep going at this point are her most ardent supporters and the Republicans. One group because they’re hoping for a last minute miracle play and the other because they want Obama as bloody and beaten as possible going into the actual race against McCain. When you look at that, you don’t see a whole lot of reasons to be very supportive of her continuing her crusade and a whole lot of reasons to want her to drop out and go home.
Jason M. Bryant : “I doubt this will go to the convention.”
It will if Clinton is true to her word and does what she said she’s going to do just an hour ago.
“At that point there is no good reason for Hillary to keep fighting. Up until now it made sense to keep fighting because there were still battles she could win.”
I actually think we hit that point about five to six weeks back. Hillary could have bowed out and then positioned herself as a powerful candidate for 2012 if Obama blows it in November. Now, she’s burnt a lot of bridges and I think that many in the electorate, the media and even in the party will partly blame her for damaging Obama, distracting the party and delaying Obama’s ability to start going after McCain. They may not be 100% justified, but when are groups of people ever 100% justified when looking for a scapegoat?
Josh Pritchett, Jr: “3: If it goes to the convetion and the super delegates get cold feet and give it to Hillary or decide that they will count Florida and Michigan the way Hillary wants after all after all, this will say to millons of Obama supporters: “Hey, I know Obama told you, you matter, but you don’t. Please vote for us in November!””
Not gonna happen. They’re not going to risk the fractures and the repercussions that they’ll be facing by screwing over the first truly popularly elected black nominee for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination. I don’t see them stabbing him, his supporters and, basically, the voters in back for Hillary and risking the disenfranchisement of one of their most cherished voter blocks. And considering how poorly the last Clinton presidency did for the health of the party as a whole, I don’t see them wanting to risk all of that for maybe a repeat of Bill’s effect on the party’s majority status.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alan Kellogg : “Yadda, yadda, yadda. Drivel. BS. More garbage. But the two of you will be cackling triumphantly over your imaginary victory against the evil Dubya. The vaguest anti-war rumor becomes the Word of God. You are become enemies of hope, and society shall one day learn that you offer nothing.”
Actually, Tweedle-Dee the Wonder Dummy, I’ve been critical of Bush and crew, but I’ve also pointed out when they’ve been unfairly criticized or attacked over some issues. I know that it’s likely that, from what you just wrote, you have your head too far up Bush, Rush, Cheney and Hannity’s áššëš to see clearly and you never read anything without running through your Fox News decoder ring, but I did point out that there is some evidence of Iran playing dirty in Iraq in this very thread. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that there has yet to be conclusive proof that Iran’s government is in full support of these actions or if it’s being done by just a faction within that government. You know, how your likely heroes and idols of worship like Reagan and North sold weapons to Iran behind the backs of the rest of the law abiding US Government.
And if anyone in this country can be called an enemy of hope, it’s the people who ran this country the last 7 1/2 years through continued use of the fear card, by stripping this country of it’s moral compass, by misleading the people and by doing everything they could to destroy what this country should be standing for. That’d be Bush and crew by the by. The other group of people that are the enemy of hope? The mouth-breathing jáçkáššëš who who supported their every play no matter how badly it trashed everything that this country stands for.
Have a nice night.
Ben Rosenberg,
“Her comment doesn’t bother me at all…it’s like saying one has to be proud of everything a parent does or does not do”
No. It’s not like that at all. It’s like saying a parent (do you feel government is your parent?) hasn’t done ANYTHING right in about 20 years or more. Big difference.
Josh Pritchett, Jr.,
“The press covered (the) Hillary sniper fire thing for less than 3 days”
In which country? Certainly not this one. Hillary deservedly got the crap kicked out of her by the media, vets, vets’ groups, and everyday citizens on the news for over a week afterward. So much so this VERY pro-Clinton state, which I live in, was starting to slip away from her until Obama made his infamous “cling to religion and guns” statement”. At which point mant voters apparently assumed a liar was better than someone who was that condescending to them and her poll numbers shot up again.
PAD,
“I’m still fuzzy on this whole ‘too long’ thing”
Me, too.
1.) The VOTERS are the ones who are still showing up. A lot of these states have not had relevant primaries in YEARS. This long primary has, I think, kept the Democrats and their issues and their Bush-bashing in the spotlight while pretty much drowning out McCain and registering loads of new voters EARLY. A incredible # of voters registerd Democrat or switched over to what they felt was a historic primary. For those without strong ideology or family tradition of party (or even with it) why would you register as Republican when there was all this excitement going on for the Democrats.
2.) The primaries and coverage of them have also helped spur a tremendous fundraising advantage for the Democrats so far.
3.) The superdelegates are going to ultimately decide it anyway, so why not have Obama toughen up a bit and see if he can take it? As W. Virginia and Kentucky, not to mention Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania – important staes those – is that there remains a huge bloc of voters over which Obama’s majestic oratory has not connected. Why not see if that corrects itself in the few remaining contests? Why risk buyers’ remorse?
You know, I kind of feel a grudging respect for Hillary for soldiering on when so much pressure is being brought upon her to quit.
Hey, Alan Kellogg, here’s a quote for you. I’ve deleted the name to ask a question at the end.
Iran sends no weapon to Iraq
“Those who make such claims against Iran only express their personal views which don’t reflect those of the Iraqi government,” he said in interview with the Al-Arabiya TV on Friday.
“I, *********************, do not agree with such views,” he added.
“Our Iranian brothers are ready for dialogue on any such issues,” *********** said.
“As far as Iranian weapons are concerned it should be mentioned that during Saddam Hussein’s rule Iran provided weapons for the Iraqi opposition groups,” he added.
********* also called for enhanced ties between Iraq and Iran and said that “I strongly believe that the relations between Iran and Iraq in different fields could be further strengthened,” IRNA quoted him as saying.”
Who said that? Was it someone in Iran? Was it a member of Iran’s government?
No.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56077§ionid=351020201
That was form Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani.
Now, if he’s on our side, that should be a factual statement. That means that Iran isn’t doing what you claim they are doing. But if you say he can’t be trusted and that he’s telling lies, what does that say about Bush’s “success” in Iraq and the situation he’s created where two supposedly dangerous countries that damaged each other and nullified their overall ability to be a threat are now being best friends? What does that say about the conservatives boasting about how the war is making America safer if the government in Iraq that we helped put there is, unlike the last one, friendly towards Iran and Iran is, in the words of so many conservatives, a danger to us and is our enemy?
And if you want to talk about anything being taken as the word of god by someone, look no further than you believing everything you hear about Iran and weapons. Remember last month the conservative talk show hosts burbling on about the Iranian weapons that we’d recovered and now had as proof? Remember how that was the smoking gun.
And then people wanted to see the proof.
They were going to show off some of those alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists early this month in Karbala and then destroy them. The photo op was canceled after the United States “suddenly” realized that none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.
But don’t let that stop you from calling those weapons “Iranian” at your next meeting of conservative lunkheads are us.
Ok, the link got scuttled since this morning when I first saw it. Just Google portions of the speech. It’ll come up with hits for several Middle East news channels. The only reason I used Press TV was that they did have a link to the video, so, even though they’re based out of Iran, it would be hard to fake that.
*sigh*
Y’alls not using your head.
Iran. Next door. With munitions companies. Cheap shipping and transportation.
You don’t NEED government intervention to have Iranian companies climbing all over themselves to sell stuff to a hot, nearby market and keep making money hand over fist. You just need a government not to say “No”.
On the other hand…look at it from Iran’s viewpoint…next door neighbor…occupied by an unfriendly power to you…you’d be STUPID not to try influence things. And…hey…they’re not invading a country to make things go their way.
The position you seem to be taking doesn;t seem that well thought out…
Luigi Novi.
You know I always respect your articulate and well thought out opinions, but I have to disagree with your statement that Michelle Obama’s statements are not relevant to this election.
What’s the old saying that you can judge a person by the company he or she keeps? Obama’s whole campaign is basically about the optimism he instills in people, how he makes people “feel”. Which is fine. That’s why many are calling him a Democratic Reagan and – given the prevailing mood and results in the recent special elections why he may actually turn some red states blue. That’s his strength.
But if you have a mentor who seems to have some VERY negative views of Americsa and a wife who says she has NEVER been proud of America in her adult lifeuntil her husband starting doing well in the primaries, it does a few things:
1.) Dampens the optimistic aura of Obama
2.) Reinforces the idea that Democrats from Clinton to Edwards are negative about the country and Republicans are positive
3.) makes you wonder what the hëll she is thinking and more importantly what he is thinking
I mean, really, from scientific, technological and medical advances; from entrpreneurs AND philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett; from relief efforts like Clinton and Bush 41 headed to all the other aid we have given the world throughout the years (heck, Bob Geldof even said Bush’s efforts in Africa have been ignored and they are close to a miracle, which is a shame for both Bush and the Africans. he says aid there has saved milions of lives).
We have had space shuttles and our mayors and governorships grow from increasingly diverse America genes; we have recently had a woman Attorney general and a black National Security Advisor, who would become Secretary of State, becoming the second black to hold that position since the LAST Secretary of State.
We also had millions of Americans donate blood and put aside their differences in response to 9/11.
Is the country perfect? But someone who sees NOTHING to proud of when they look at it, think about it and live in it says something about that person. It also says something about the person who is (arguably?) closest to that person and knows them the best.
Iran is NOT sending arms to Iraq.
How do I know this?
The head of their country says it isn’t happening.
The head of a country wouldn’t lie to us, would he?
Hmmm?
After Iraq’s “purple thumb” election, Iraq became a Shiite-controlled government like Iran. Muqtada al Sadr agreed to a cease fire not after talking to any Iraqi officials, but after negotiating with Iran. Iran and Iraq are not unfriendly to each other.
You’d have to be STUPID to think Iran wants to destroy its own already substantial influence in Iraq.
Yeah, what’s that old saying and — with photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and Cheney taking $73m from Saddam to quadruple his oil revenues when he was offering a bounty to the families of suicide bombers — why aren’t you holding Bush’s administration to it? And why aren’t you holding McCain on his campaign to keed p the books closed on what Bush has done?
Yeah, everyone’s dad gets to have a mid-life crisis, the US gets to open its doors as the epitome of freedom while holding out its first century and a half before giving the vote to all its citizens, but if the civil rights movement needs the least bit of slack to go through an end of youth adjustment? Those bášŧárdš are just ungrateful.
Alan, I don’t know how sarky you’re being, but the quotes that I posted above where from President (of Iraq) Jalal Talabani speaking in a televised interview with the Al-Arabia TV of Iraq.
The two choices are that he’s telling the truth or he’s not. If he’s telling the truth, then Iran’s government is not behind the sales of arms to the insurgents in Iraq. Granted, this doesn’t rule out a small faction in the government, but that’s not the same as something being done with the full blessing of the official government.
Now, if he’s a liar and he’s not telling the truth… What does that mean? What does that say about the Iraq situation if the head of that country is siding with Iran over us? What does that mean when the head of that state is telling his own people that America is telling them lies about Iran and that Iran is a good country to create further and stronger bonds with? What does that say about our success in Iraq when Iraq is getting more and more buddy-buddy with a country that our government keeps declaring is evil and supporting terrorism?
To quote George Bush: Mission Accomplished.
“but if the civil rights movement needs the least bit of slack”
See. That’s where you go wrong. By automatically making any statement like that part of the ‘civil rights movement” and therefore forgivable. how convenient. And how condescending.
You know what? People like Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson found plenty in this country to be proud about, despite never afforded the pleasures – and rights as you noted – Mrs. Obama has. As that conservative, pie-in-the-sky, America-is-always-right candidate/activist Al Sharpton points out in many speeches, Ray Charles, though blind and living through a lot of the injustice you allude to, became identified with singing a beautiful rendition of “America the Beautiful” because despite his disability and all the other crap he had been through he could SEE those “amber waves of grain”; he could see the “purple mountains majesties”.
In short, he loved his country though it wasn’t perfect and he could see the reality of America coming closer to the ideal.
And really, the reason Obama has been so successful is because he is not seen by many as the “black candidate”. He is seen as the “change” candidate.
If he – or those close to him – becomes identified as another Angry/Oppressed Black Man/Woman blaming America for their ills and playing to White Guilt, they – swing voters and Reagan Democrates – will go to McCain in droves. People want an optimistic, realistic vision for the future right now. They don’t want to say “here we go again”. Saying there is nothing about America of which to be proud is like saying it has no faults. It is extremist thinking. And not very inspirational.
Well, as I’ve said, it’s Obama’s followers that are his biggest threat. But he’s shown the ability to see this and act on it–some of the hard core Israel bashers have been purged from the campaign and he delivered the proper smack down to Wright when it became apparent that his act of kindness in his first speech in not cutting ties resulted in Wright thinking he had carte blanc to go hard core insane-o and claim that Obama secretly agreed with him.
He’s made mistakes but the real test is whether he’s learned from them and so far it seems he has. he has some potential problems with the embittered Hillary women and needs to watch out for any slights real or imagined on that front–no more “sweetie” when talking to female reporters.
Unfortunately, there isn’t much he can do about the really nutty bloggers and media types who think they are helping somehow by calling the people who vote against him racist hillbillies, or trashing Hillary and her not inconsiderable following, but even here he can partially negate their toxicity by campaigning in states like KY and West Virginia. He will still lose those states but it will say something about his character that will help him across the country.
I think Al Gore put it best back in 1992 when the GOP was going after Hillary Clinton.
“It’s like they’re running for First Lady… and with your help, they’ll lose that, too.”
Jerome, feel free to introduce any observations challenging anything I’ve said anytime you’re ready.
McCain is the Republican candidate, but he is far from the Republicans’ most-liked national figure. Heck, he was my third choice of the announced candidates behind Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. I know many Republicans McCain drives nuts. At this point, I’d say the most beloved Republican national figures are some of the pundits.
Not that they won’t work hard for McCain. But he still has a lot of work to do to earn their love.
I was talking about the public at large.
If it were virtually any other Republican this year, he wouldn’t have a shot. Of course, the same things that made mainstream voters warm up to him are also the problems that the Republican base has with him. But he is attempting to do that “work” you mention, to get back in favor with the reactionary and xenophobic wing of his party, with his recent attacks on Obama regarding Hamas and “appeasement”.
I’m still fuzzy on this whole “too long” thing, considering that two candidates going all the way to the convention is hardly unprecedented. As I recall, Reagan did it. So did Carter. Neither were, to my recollection, vilified to the degree that Clinton has been.
People no longer remember what the democratic process is about. The fact that the whole purpose of creating this system was to give everyone a voice in the process of choosing leaders has been forgotten after decades of media focus on the “horserace” and getting to the “finish line”.
It also doesn’t help that the public education system has been degrading for some time, particularly when it comes to teaching civics, so the media gradually has become the sole source for people taking their cues on attitudes towards the process. And the attitude that the media promotes is generally one of ignorance and contempt.
But like I said in my last post, there isn’t going to be a convention battle. Hillary doesn’t want to go down in history as the reason Obama loses the General.
Here is where my confusion starts.
If a voter prefers Hillary, what makes people think that the voter should automatically switch their vote to Obama if she is out of the running?
Not everyone votes according to party lines, nor do I think they should. Not all Democrats (or Republicans) are alike.
If Obama loses to McCain, blaming Hillary is a feeble excuse. Obama is responsible for his own campaign and for winning over voters.
Personally, I’d prefer to write in Gore’s name rather than vote for any of the three current candidates.
“People no longer remember what the democratic process is about. The fact that the whole purpose of creating this system was to give everyone a voice in the process of choosing leaders has been forgotten after decades of media focus on the “horserace” and getting to the “finish line”.”
In most races, if there were any doubt at this point as to the outcome, this wouldn’t be the factor that it is. But be realistic here. Is Hillary going to win the majority of the delegates? Is Hillary going to win the majority of the superdelegates? Is Hillary going to get backroom dealed into the nomination at the convention?
The answer to all three of those questions is, barring an act of God and a miracle in her favor, no. So at what point does the person who is guaranteed to lose still kicking and screaming stop being a useful and meaningful thing and simply become a wrench in the gears? How long does Hillary keep going on and talking about her being the nominee come the convention before it’s just the sign of someone too egotistical, too stupid or too power hungry/mad to quit?
I’m not an Obama backer. I have my issues with him. Hëll, I’m also one of the people that, even in early April, was saying that Hillary should stay in a while longer since it wasn’t a foregone conclusion. But that was six long weeks ago and even I’m to the point of looking at Hillary and wanting to smack the stupid out of her every time she starts talking the same garbage that she was talking last night in her victory speech. She’s lost. She cannot win. Now is the time for her to bow out gracefully and let the party start fighting the real fight it needs to be fighting.
If Obama loses to McCain, blaming Hillary is a feeble excuse.
If Obama loses to McCain, in an election where all the stars are seemingly aligned for a democrat to win, it will be major blamefest and Hillary will surely be a target. She needs to limit how effective that charge would be (though I think it unlikely this will happen–Obama should be the odds on favorite). That may not be fair but it’s reality and she should prepare for it.
But be realistic here. Is Hillary going to win the majority of the delegates? Is Hillary going to win the majority of the superdelegates? Is Hillary going to get backroom dealed into the nomination at the convention?
No but there’s still a chance she could win the majority of actual votes cast (though one would probably have to include Florida and MI to get to that). A few more victories like KY could put her over the top. That won’t be enough to get her the nomination but maybe it would make the pain go away and give her a potential future rallying point.
Now is the time for her to bow out gracefully and let the party start fighting the real fight it needs to be fighting.
Well, Jerry, here is where we’ll have to agree to disagree and where Obama actually has a chance to win my undecided vote.
If Obama cannot handle the multi-tasking of fighting two “fights” in a campaign, how could he handle the job of president that has a thousand jobs running at once?
On the other hand, if he handles both of the “fights” gracefully, it could inspire more confidence in those that have their doubts about him.
Yeah, they would have to include Florida and MI in that and throwing her MI is a nightmare that could end as badly as a backroom deal. Even Florida is tainted because people were told that their votes wouldn’t count before they did their voting. Who knows how that chnaged things?
In most races, if there were any doubt at this point as to the outcome, this wouldn’t be the factor that it is. But be realistic here. Is Hillary going to win the majority of the delegates? Is Hillary going to win the majority of the superdelegates? Is Hillary going to get backroom dealed into the nomination at the convention?
These are all “horserace” questions. But an election is not supposed to merely be about who wins, but also about giving each and every voter the chance to make themselves heard through the ballot box. Again, this is something we’ve lost sight of over the years, thanks to the media’s focus on the above questions as “the only thing that matters.”
In the end, all votes cast for Hillary Clinton are votes that don’t count.
Go Obama!