On NPR's Weekend Edition this morning, Scott Simon interviewed Senators James Webb (D) and Jon Kyl (R) about the war in Iraq. When he asked Kyl if the military's presence in Iraq made it less able to respond to other crises, Kyl blamed, guess who? Yep. You're right. It's all Bill Clinton's fault for weakening the military.
So, let me see, Bush 43 has been in office for over 7 years, and the Republicans controlled the Congress during Clinton's last 6 years, but Bush still isn't responsible for the state of the American military? Not that this absolution should surprise us. The biggest success of the Republican media machine was in turning Bush into the hero of 9/11 rather than the villain. 9/11 did, one must remember, occur 9 months into Bush's administration. Had it occurred on Clinton's watch is there any doubt that the Republican Congress would have impeached him again for dereliction of duty? Of course not.
Oh, I almost forgot. Kyle also blamed for U.N. for the Iraqi election that has not resulted in a viable government. Gee whiz, weren't Republicans almost giddy about all those pictures of Iraqis with ink-stained fingers proving that they had voted? Oh, well.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Michigan and Florida Must Have Their Real Votes Counted
Let's be honest. Hillary wants their votes to count because they are her best shots at beating Obama in the popular vote if not in pledged delegates.
But, it is also clear that Obama does not want their votes to count, at least as they currently exist or could turn out in a re-vote, because he is afraid that Hillary will get what she wants.
All the Obama talk about rules is simply a cover-up of this simple equation. One need only think about the issue if the roles of Obama and Hillary were reversed. Can anybody doubt that Kos et. al. would not then be so fixated on the "rules"?
The case for Florida is simple. All the candidates were on the ballot; they were all subject to the same campaigning rules - and Obama's commercials were played throughout the state.
Michigan is harder because Obama was not on the ballot. Those who argue that it was his choice (as it was) are playing the same "rules" game that Obama is playing.
As for those "rules": the DNC should never have given in to the blackmail by Iowa and New Hampshire. If any states should have been excluded, it should have been those two for their selfish insistence on being first. It is well past time to develop an alternate primary setup (regional, groupings of states by pop., etc.)and simply ignore N.H. and Iowa if they don't agree. The most important part of any new primary setup is that it be changed for every election. It is imperative that the media not be able to rely on past performances in early states to call a winner before all the voters get their say.
Back to the current situaton: if Dean, Pelosi, or the Florida and Michigan representatives in the House and the Senate think that Obama (or Hillary) can become the legitimate candidate without counting the real votes of Florida and Michigan, they are living in a dream (nightmare) world.
After the 2000 debacle in Florida, the reactions of Obama supporters and the DNC (to date) re the legitimacy of the votes in Florida and Michigan are bizarre, to say the least.
But, it is also clear that Obama does not want their votes to count, at least as they currently exist or could turn out in a re-vote, because he is afraid that Hillary will get what she wants.
All the Obama talk about rules is simply a cover-up of this simple equation. One need only think about the issue if the roles of Obama and Hillary were reversed. Can anybody doubt that Kos et. al. would not then be so fixated on the "rules"?
The case for Florida is simple. All the candidates were on the ballot; they were all subject to the same campaigning rules - and Obama's commercials were played throughout the state.
Michigan is harder because Obama was not on the ballot. Those who argue that it was his choice (as it was) are playing the same "rules" game that Obama is playing.
As for those "rules": the DNC should never have given in to the blackmail by Iowa and New Hampshire. If any states should have been excluded, it should have been those two for their selfish insistence on being first. It is well past time to develop an alternate primary setup (regional, groupings of states by pop., etc.)and simply ignore N.H. and Iowa if they don't agree. The most important part of any new primary setup is that it be changed for every election. It is imperative that the media not be able to rely on past performances in early states to call a winner before all the voters get their say.
Back to the current situaton: if Dean, Pelosi, or the Florida and Michigan representatives in the House and the Senate think that Obama (or Hillary) can become the legitimate candidate without counting the real votes of Florida and Michigan, they are living in a dream (nightmare) world.
After the 2000 debacle in Florida, the reactions of Obama supporters and the DNC (to date) re the legitimacy of the votes in Florida and Michigan are bizarre, to say the least.
ABC's Pennsylvania 2008 Primary Debate - Open Letter to ABC
Well, it looks as if ABC's offering to host a debate prior to the Pa. primary has been accepted. This will probably be the last chance primary voters will have to choose between the two, so....
DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT
1. race
2. gender
3. electability
4. things surrogates have said
5. religion
6. favorite food, dress, movie, music, etc.
DO ASK
1. What will you do about Guantanamo? Habeas Corpus? Federal wiretapping? Requiring passports to go to Canada?
2. Will you use signing statements? If either or both says "yes", point out that the Constitution gives a President only 3 options none of which is a signing statement. Ask them to explain the legal justification for such statements.
3. Iraq - in general, how will they remove troops. What about the "permanent" bases? How will they protect all the Iraqis who have allied themselves with the U.S. Why is the U.S. accepting so few refugees from Iraq in comparison with our European allies.
4. The Taliban are gaining strength again in Afghanistan. What will they do to turn this around?
5. Health care: ask Hillary exactly how the mandates would work. How will the govt. decide that a particular family simply cannot afford to pay for health insurance, at any cost?
6. Would either candidate consider redefining what constitutes poverty in this country, given that housing and energy rather than food are now the biggest family expenses and there are widely divergent costs-of-living in the country.
7. Tax policy: do you think it is right to tax dividends and capital gains less than interest or wages? If so, why? If they say that capital gains get reinvested into businesses, ask them what proof they have of that and what % of capital gains is so invested rather than, say, just spent likely any other income.
8. Some credit cards carry interest rates of 20% or more. Payday lenders often charge interest rates of 400%. Do you agree that the markets should be able to charge whatever rates they want? (When credit card interest rates first hit double digits, it was justified by the high rate of inflation. Inflation dropped but the credit card interest rates have continued to go up.)
9. Will you review the current bankruptcy law in light of the fact that so many bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses?
DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT
1. race
2. gender
3. electability
4. things surrogates have said
5. religion
6. favorite food, dress, movie, music, etc.
DO ASK
1. What will you do about Guantanamo? Habeas Corpus? Federal wiretapping? Requiring passports to go to Canada?
2. Will you use signing statements? If either or both says "yes", point out that the Constitution gives a President only 3 options none of which is a signing statement. Ask them to explain the legal justification for such statements.
3. Iraq - in general, how will they remove troops. What about the "permanent" bases? How will they protect all the Iraqis who have allied themselves with the U.S. Why is the U.S. accepting so few refugees from Iraq in comparison with our European allies.
4. The Taliban are gaining strength again in Afghanistan. What will they do to turn this around?
5. Health care: ask Hillary exactly how the mandates would work. How will the govt. decide that a particular family simply cannot afford to pay for health insurance, at any cost?
6. Would either candidate consider redefining what constitutes poverty in this country, given that housing and energy rather than food are now the biggest family expenses and there are widely divergent costs-of-living in the country.
7. Tax policy: do you think it is right to tax dividends and capital gains less than interest or wages? If so, why? If they say that capital gains get reinvested into businesses, ask them what proof they have of that and what % of capital gains is so invested rather than, say, just spent likely any other income.
8. Some credit cards carry interest rates of 20% or more. Payday lenders often charge interest rates of 400%. Do you agree that the markets should be able to charge whatever rates they want? (When credit card interest rates first hit double digits, it was justified by the high rate of inflation. Inflation dropped but the credit card interest rates have continued to go up.)
9. Will you review the current bankruptcy law in light of the fact that so many bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Electability. Why Obama Can't Beat McCain
When it comes time to pull that lever or mark a box with an X in the General Election, more voters will choose McCain than will choose Obama.
This isn't because they will agree with McCain's stand on Iraq. They won't. Or because he is an inspirational speaker. He isn't.
No, I think when push come to shove, voters will see a very ambitious young man on the move who has not yet paid his dues vs. a man who has served his country above and beyond the call of duty, a man who has earned the right to be President.
Hillary, too, would have to overcome this fundamental respect for McCain the soldier. But they are closer in age. And she, too, has paid her dues and then some. No, she wasn't a prisoner of war. No she hasn't suffered physical torture for her country. But she has been tested, and she has proven her mettle. And that vote on Iraq that hurts her so much with liberal Democrats will be a plus in the general election because it will demonstrate that she is willing to support force if force is needed.
This isn't because they will agree with McCain's stand on Iraq. They won't. Or because he is an inspirational speaker. He isn't.
No, I think when push come to shove, voters will see a very ambitious young man on the move who has not yet paid his dues vs. a man who has served his country above and beyond the call of duty, a man who has earned the right to be President.
Hillary, too, would have to overcome this fundamental respect for McCain the soldier. But they are closer in age. And she, too, has paid her dues and then some. No, she wasn't a prisoner of war. No she hasn't suffered physical torture for her country. But she has been tested, and she has proven her mettle. And that vote on Iraq that hurts her so much with liberal Democrats will be a plus in the general election because it will demonstrate that she is willing to support force if force is needed.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
OBAMA v. MCCAIN or CLINTON v. MCCAIN
Well, it's pretty obvious that McCain will be the Republican nominee, so the obvious question is which Democrat has the best chance of beating him. I honestly don't know, but my current analysis follows:
1. Media Coverage
The Media (MSM and most of the blogosphere) love both Obama and McCain. This means that, for possibly the first time in 20 or 30 years, we could expect fair coverage of both candidates (i.e. negatives will be minimized).
If Hillary is the candidate, we can, of course, expect her to be thoroughly trashed no matter what she says or does and no matter what McCain says or does.
2. Debate Performance
O v. M
Visually, we will see a tall, young, vigorous man vs. an older, shorter, weaker man.
In a debate between these two, both men have to be careful how they attack. If McCain focuses too much on Obama's youth, he risks raising the specter of his own age.
McCain must also be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as racist. (This is less likely for McCain than it would be for Hillary because there is no presumption that McCain would play the race card.)
But Obama must also be careful about calling McCain too old, or implying that his experience and judgment are irrelevant or flawed. Whatever else McCain's opponents may think of him, they know he is a war hero. Just as McCain must worry about being perceived as "dissing" Obama, Obama must avoid the use of his "Hillary-dissing" strategies: looking down his nose, smirks, etc.
H v. M
Visually we will see a short, middle-aged woman vs. a short, older man. They will appear, more or less, evenly matched.
McCain must worry about talking down to Hillary or treating her as a lesser rival because of her sex. He will lose a lot of woman if he dismisses her experience.
Hillary, I suspect, will not commit any "perception" errors. She has known McCain for many years, she knows about his temper, she already knows how he treats her. That gives her an edge over Obama.
3. General Election
If there is a terrorist attack prior to the election, it will favor McCain. But which Democrat will it hurt less? I think Hillary, in part because she did support the vote to invade Iraq and because of her experience on the Armed Services Committee. Obama would be at a disadvantage because McCain could paint him as a peacenik who obviously doesn't know how dangerous the world is. (The fact that a second attack occurred under the same Republican President as the first attack will not hurt McCain. Why, I don't know. But it won't.)
Otherwise, I think either Obama or Clinton has a good shot to beat McCain simply because they are Democrats. Hillary would have negative media coverage while Obama's would be good. (See #1 above.) Obama is, of course, the more uplifting speaker, but there's the chance that during the campaign, his speeches could wear thin. And, as in the debates, he has to avoid the flip side of the race card.
Still, I don't think one can reasonably predict which Democrat would do better against McCain.
1. Media Coverage
The Media (MSM and most of the blogosphere) love both Obama and McCain. This means that, for possibly the first time in 20 or 30 years, we could expect fair coverage of both candidates (i.e. negatives will be minimized).
If Hillary is the candidate, we can, of course, expect her to be thoroughly trashed no matter what she says or does and no matter what McCain says or does.
2. Debate Performance
O v. M
Visually, we will see a tall, young, vigorous man vs. an older, shorter, weaker man.
In a debate between these two, both men have to be careful how they attack. If McCain focuses too much on Obama's youth, he risks raising the specter of his own age.
McCain must also be careful not to say anything that could be interpreted as racist. (This is less likely for McCain than it would be for Hillary because there is no presumption that McCain would play the race card.)
But Obama must also be careful about calling McCain too old, or implying that his experience and judgment are irrelevant or flawed. Whatever else McCain's opponents may think of him, they know he is a war hero. Just as McCain must worry about being perceived as "dissing" Obama, Obama must avoid the use of his "Hillary-dissing" strategies: looking down his nose, smirks, etc.
H v. M
Visually we will see a short, middle-aged woman vs. a short, older man. They will appear, more or less, evenly matched.
McCain must worry about talking down to Hillary or treating her as a lesser rival because of her sex. He will lose a lot of woman if he dismisses her experience.
Hillary, I suspect, will not commit any "perception" errors. She has known McCain for many years, she knows about his temper, she already knows how he treats her. That gives her an edge over Obama.
3. General Election
If there is a terrorist attack prior to the election, it will favor McCain. But which Democrat will it hurt less? I think Hillary, in part because she did support the vote to invade Iraq and because of her experience on the Armed Services Committee. Obama would be at a disadvantage because McCain could paint him as a peacenik who obviously doesn't know how dangerous the world is. (The fact that a second attack occurred under the same Republican President as the first attack will not hurt McCain. Why, I don't know. But it won't.)
Otherwise, I think either Obama or Clinton has a good shot to beat McCain simply because they are Democrats. Hillary would have negative media coverage while Obama's would be good. (See #1 above.) Obama is, of course, the more uplifting speaker, but there's the chance that during the campaign, his speeches could wear thin. And, as in the debates, he has to avoid the flip side of the race card.
Still, I don't think one can reasonably predict which Democrat would do better against McCain.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Has Obama's Campaign Turned Into a Cult?
Has Obama's political campaign turned into a political cult? I ask this in all seriousness.
It's not simply that almost the entire MSM, and a large majority of the so-called netroots, is actively campaigning for Obama.
It is that the language used by the MSM, netroots, and thousands of commenters on blogs such as those at the Huffington Post, is eerily similar. Hillary is Satan, a woman without principles, a woman who has lied since the day she was born, a woman who acted as a pimp for her husband, and so on, up to and beyond all the Right-Wing swiftboat attacks in the 1990s that included an accusation of murder. Nothing she says or does is considered to be sincere. If she smiles, she's just pretending. If she tears up, she is acting. If she criticizes Obama, she is being nasty at best and racist at worse. If there is any way, no matter how bizarre, to detect evil in something she says or something one of her supporters says, it is pounced on and amplified until, like the Swiftboat attacks, it sticks.
OTOH, no criticism of Obama is valid. Point out that he is not the first African-American to win a Presidential primary in South Carolina and you are racist - even though the MSM frequently opined that he was likely to receive the majority of Black votes in the South Carolina (why? because he's Irish?). The MSM was not accused of injecting race.
Everything that Obama says and does is good because he is Obama. Point out that he attacked Hillary and the answer is that she attacked him first. So, of course, he didn't really want to do it but he had no choice. Did he smirk at her, snub her? No, of course not. Just another of Hillary's lies and an attempt to get sympathy. See an Aussie's take on this:"Stop Bagging Hillary" by Michael Costello, 2/1/08
Nobody has asked just how Obama plans to "bring us all together" or even if that is a good idea. We are just supposed to take on faith that Obama, because of "who he is" rather than "what he has accomplished" will bridge the divisions between Republicans and Democrats, supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq, right-to-lifers and freedom-of-choicers. The subtext is that the divisions and bitterness can be equally apportioned between Republicans and Democrats. Anybody who has lived in the U.S. for the past 20 years and thinks that the Republicans are willing to compromise and share power has, indeed, been living in a dream world. Worse, he implies that the divisions are not based on strongly held principles which are worth fighting for.
Name me any President, other than Washington, who was not reviled by some part of the population. Adams? Lincoln? FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (well, maybe nobody actually hated Ike), JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, some people hated Reagan), Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43? Name me an era when Washington politics was all sweetness and light.
Think I'm being irrational? Check out these two blogs and read the comments made after the 1/31/08 debate in Hollywood (start with the oldest ones since they represent the first reactions, uninfluenced by the media spin. It is necessary to read only 20 or 30 comments.)
HuffPost "LA Debate: Hugs, ..."
The candidate of hope and light who promises to bring us all together (white and black, Republicans and Democrats, the rich and the poor, Bill Kristol and Ralph Nader) is supported by people who hate, loathe and despise Hillary with a venom greater than that usually heaped upon child abusers. And many of these supporters of the unity candidate promise to vote for a Republican rather than vote for Hillary. In short, their allegiance is to a person, not to a political philosophy, and they are willing to give the party that has achieved a bloodless coup against the Constitution another shot at completing the destruction rather than vote for Hillary.
TalkLeft's "Democrats and America Won Tonight"
The unelectable, divisive, high negative candidate is supported by people who saw a woman and an AA standing on the stage and vying for the Democratic Party's nominee for President as a truly historic event. They were thrilled at the sight and proud to be Democrats. They want Hillary to win but will support Obama if he is the candidate. (I have yet to see a Hillary supporter threaten to vote for the Republican if Obama is the nominee.)
These are not aberrational differences. They have been playing out for months. Obama's supporters spew poison minute by minute, directed almost solely, with the exception of Hillary's vote on Iraq, at her as a person who is worse than Satan rather than at specific decisions & acts. Hillary's supporters, OTOH, tend to point out specific factual reasons for not choosing Obama.
Read the comments posted in response to any blogger or columnist who is neutral or pro-Hillary (there are a couple) and. Obama's supporters accuse these people of working for Hillary, of being paid shills for Hillary, etc., etc. They then launch into the usual anti-Hillary diatribes. In their minds, nobody can possibly support Hillary out of a conviction equal to their own.
After 7 years of a supine press blindly supporting the inarticulate & uncharismatic Bush 43, I think we should worry about the love affair of the media, new and old, with Obama, especially their belief that he is Perfection personified and to criticize him is to commit a sin.
It's not simply that almost the entire MSM, and a large majority of the so-called netroots, is actively campaigning for Obama.
It is that the language used by the MSM, netroots, and thousands of commenters on blogs such as those at the Huffington Post, is eerily similar. Hillary is Satan, a woman without principles, a woman who has lied since the day she was born, a woman who acted as a pimp for her husband, and so on, up to and beyond all the Right-Wing swiftboat attacks in the 1990s that included an accusation of murder. Nothing she says or does is considered to be sincere. If she smiles, she's just pretending. If she tears up, she is acting. If she criticizes Obama, she is being nasty at best and racist at worse. If there is any way, no matter how bizarre, to detect evil in something she says or something one of her supporters says, it is pounced on and amplified until, like the Swiftboat attacks, it sticks.
OTOH, no criticism of Obama is valid. Point out that he is not the first African-American to win a Presidential primary in South Carolina and you are racist - even though the MSM frequently opined that he was likely to receive the majority of Black votes in the South Carolina (why? because he's Irish?). The MSM was not accused of injecting race.
Everything that Obama says and does is good because he is Obama. Point out that he attacked Hillary and the answer is that she attacked him first. So, of course, he didn't really want to do it but he had no choice. Did he smirk at her, snub her? No, of course not. Just another of Hillary's lies and an attempt to get sympathy. See an Aussie's take on this:"Stop Bagging Hillary" by Michael Costello, 2/1/08
Nobody has asked just how Obama plans to "bring us all together" or even if that is a good idea. We are just supposed to take on faith that Obama, because of "who he is" rather than "what he has accomplished" will bridge the divisions between Republicans and Democrats, supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq, right-to-lifers and freedom-of-choicers. The subtext is that the divisions and bitterness can be equally apportioned between Republicans and Democrats. Anybody who has lived in the U.S. for the past 20 years and thinks that the Republicans are willing to compromise and share power has, indeed, been living in a dream world. Worse, he implies that the divisions are not based on strongly held principles which are worth fighting for.
Name me any President, other than Washington, who was not reviled by some part of the population. Adams? Lincoln? FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (well, maybe nobody actually hated Ike), JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (yes, some people hated Reagan), Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43? Name me an era when Washington politics was all sweetness and light.
Think I'm being irrational? Check out these two blogs and read the comments made after the 1/31/08 debate in Hollywood (start with the oldest ones since they represent the first reactions, uninfluenced by the media spin. It is necessary to read only 20 or 30 comments.)
HuffPost "LA Debate: Hugs, ..."
The candidate of hope and light who promises to bring us all together (white and black, Republicans and Democrats, the rich and the poor, Bill Kristol and Ralph Nader) is supported by people who hate, loathe and despise Hillary with a venom greater than that usually heaped upon child abusers. And many of these supporters of the unity candidate promise to vote for a Republican rather than vote for Hillary. In short, their allegiance is to a person, not to a political philosophy, and they are willing to give the party that has achieved a bloodless coup against the Constitution another shot at completing the destruction rather than vote for Hillary.
TalkLeft's "Democrats and America Won Tonight"
The unelectable, divisive, high negative candidate is supported by people who saw a woman and an AA standing on the stage and vying for the Democratic Party's nominee for President as a truly historic event. They were thrilled at the sight and proud to be Democrats. They want Hillary to win but will support Obama if he is the candidate. (I have yet to see a Hillary supporter threaten to vote for the Republican if Obama is the nominee.)
These are not aberrational differences. They have been playing out for months. Obama's supporters spew poison minute by minute, directed almost solely, with the exception of Hillary's vote on Iraq, at her as a person who is worse than Satan rather than at specific decisions & acts. Hillary's supporters, OTOH, tend to point out specific factual reasons for not choosing Obama.
Read the comments posted in response to any blogger or columnist who is neutral or pro-Hillary (there are a couple) and. Obama's supporters accuse these people of working for Hillary, of being paid shills for Hillary, etc., etc. They then launch into the usual anti-Hillary diatribes. In their minds, nobody can possibly support Hillary out of a conviction equal to their own.
After 7 years of a supine press blindly supporting the inarticulate & uncharismatic Bush 43, I think we should worry about the love affair of the media, new and old, with Obama, especially their belief that he is Perfection personified and to criticize him is to commit a sin.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Democratic Race: Who's the Real Establishment Candidate?
Hillary is, among other things, widely characterized as the old-style, liberal Democratic candidate because she is supported by labor (horrors), older women (horrors of horrors), high-school graduates (what could be worse?) - none of whom, of course, have any right to a candidate whom they think will represent them. And, we should not forget, she is Bill's wife, was First Lady and is now a Senator.
Obama, OTOH, is the fresh new face. Young people like him. African-Americans like him. The highly educated like him. And, oh yes, he has endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy (who must feel pleased to know that he is not part of the Establishment) and John Kerry (ditto). He also has the support of most of the netroots who have expended enough energy repeating right-wing, neo-con, Republican slurs against Hillary to, surely, power an entire city.
Oh, and let us not forget: the MSM love Obama. They don't even bother to try to restrain their enthusiasm. Indeed, they have already crowned him our next President. Even Andrew Sullivan, self-styled saviour of the Conservative movement in America, loves him.
Anybody supported by such a motley mix is surely worthy of more than a little skepticism. He's such a blank slate that everybody from the far left to the far right, excepting those in the middle, sees in him what they want to see.
So, it looks to me as if the "change" guy is really the old-style pol who is careful not to offend anybody and who wins by slandering his opponent...and rolling in the dollars from the Democratic establishment.
Obama, OTOH, is the fresh new face. Young people like him. African-Americans like him. The highly educated like him. And, oh yes, he has endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy (who must feel pleased to know that he is not part of the Establishment) and John Kerry (ditto). He also has the support of most of the netroots who have expended enough energy repeating right-wing, neo-con, Republican slurs against Hillary to, surely, power an entire city.
Oh, and let us not forget: the MSM love Obama. They don't even bother to try to restrain their enthusiasm. Indeed, they have already crowned him our next President. Even Andrew Sullivan, self-styled saviour of the Conservative movement in America, loves him.
Anybody supported by such a motley mix is surely worthy of more than a little skepticism. He's such a blank slate that everybody from the far left to the far right, excepting those in the middle, sees in him what they want to see.
So, it looks to me as if the "change" guy is really the old-style pol who is careful not to offend anybody and who wins by slandering his opponent...and rolling in the dollars from the Democratic establishment.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Obama's 911: Judgment
Rudy's been selling himself as the 911 mayor for so long, even Joe Biden realized he was a one-note candidate: "a noun, a verb and 911"
But Obama's been running on two pitches and nobody has noticed how old they have gotten.
First there is his "new generation, bring us all together" about which I've written before. Tonight we got another indication of just how he is planning to bridge our differences: he snubbed Hillary when she took the initiative to shake Ted Kennedy's hand even though he had just endorsed Obama. (Obama had been standing beside him when Hillary approached.) It's one thing to be a sore loser; Obama is a sore winner.
But his key 911 song is "judgment". And what is this qualification pegged on? Well, he once publicly declared that he thought the war in Iraq was dumb. Gee whiz, I was also against the war before it started. Like Obama, I wasn't in a position to actually vote against it - but, what the heck, if that's all one needs to be a candidate, maybe I should run for office.
But Obama's been running on two pitches and nobody has noticed how old they have gotten.
First there is his "new generation, bring us all together" about which I've written before. Tonight we got another indication of just how he is planning to bridge our differences: he snubbed Hillary when she took the initiative to shake Ted Kennedy's hand even though he had just endorsed Obama. (Obama had been standing beside him when Hillary approached.) It's one thing to be a sore loser; Obama is a sore winner.
But his key 911 song is "judgment". And what is this qualification pegged on? Well, he once publicly declared that he thought the war in Iraq was dumb. Gee whiz, I was also against the war before it started. Like Obama, I wasn't in a position to actually vote against it - but, what the heck, if that's all one needs to be a candidate, maybe I should run for office.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Questions for Obama
It is well past time for somebody (Hillary? Edwards?) to ask Obama a couple of important questions:
1. Are you a Democrat or an Independent?
2. If you are a Democrat, what does that mean to you? What political beliefs do you have that distinguish you from being a Republican?
3. If you are an Independent, why should Democratic voters vote for you?
4. You say that it is time to end the divisiveness of the past 20 years. What, precisely, do you mean by this? What are the divisions you plan to overcome? And how do you plan to overcome them? For example, how do you plan to bridge the divide between Republicans who insist on Supreme Court justices who will override Roe v. Wade and Democrats who want the reverse? Or those who believe that tax cuts are the solution to every domestic problem vs. those who believe that the people, especially the rich, should be willing to pay for the government services they want? Between those who believe the war in Iraq is wrong and those who believe it is right? Are you just going to wave a wand and make all happiness and light? [oops, forget that one. "Fairy tale" allusions are racist.]
5. A rather large proportion of your vocal supporters on the Web have stated that they will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, rather than vote for Hillary or John. That suggests that, at best, they are voting for you as a person rather than as somebody who supports their political beliefs. What do you say to them? And to Democrats who want a Democratic President who will represent their Democratic beliefs?
1. Are you a Democrat or an Independent?
2. If you are a Democrat, what does that mean to you? What political beliefs do you have that distinguish you from being a Republican?
3. If you are an Independent, why should Democratic voters vote for you?
4. You say that it is time to end the divisiveness of the past 20 years. What, precisely, do you mean by this? What are the divisions you plan to overcome? And how do you plan to overcome them? For example, how do you plan to bridge the divide between Republicans who insist on Supreme Court justices who will override Roe v. Wade and Democrats who want the reverse? Or those who believe that tax cuts are the solution to every domestic problem vs. those who believe that the people, especially the rich, should be willing to pay for the government services they want? Between those who believe the war in Iraq is wrong and those who believe it is right? Are you just going to wave a wand and make all happiness and light? [oops, forget that one. "Fairy tale" allusions are racist.]
5. A rather large proportion of your vocal supporters on the Web have stated that they will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, rather than vote for Hillary or John. That suggests that, at best, they are voting for you as a person rather than as somebody who supports their political beliefs. What do you say to them? And to Democrats who want a Democratic President who will represent their Democratic beliefs?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
MSNBC Does Something Right: Rachael Maddow
Well, when I checked in with Countdown a few minutes ago, whom did I see but Rachael Maddow, not as a guest but as an MSNBC analyst!
Cheers to MSNBC, although it did take them rather a long time to realize that she is smarter than anybody else they have on the air.
Here's hoping that replacements for Matthews, Scarborough, and Carlson may be somewhere out there in the wings.
Cheers to MSNBC, although it did take them rather a long time to realize that she is smarter than anybody else they have on the air.
Here's hoping that replacements for Matthews, Scarborough, and Carlson may be somewhere out there in the wings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
