Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 15, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

DEBATE GRAB BAG....Dodd sure got a huge round of applause from the audience when he said that NCLB was a catastrophe, didn't he?

Clinton: National security is "absolutely" more important than human rights. No hesitation.

Biden is pretty obviously not really running for president. So what is he doing?

Barack Obama just used the phrase "sound science" in response to a question about nuclear waste. Bad Barack. Doesn't he know that "sound science" is a conservative code phrase for "whatever corporations want"?

Hillary: "They aren't attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because [wait a beat] I'm ahead." Huge applause.

Hmmm. Big boos when Edwards says something about Hillary Clinton and corporate interests. But I had just turned away and missed exactly what it was.

Thinking a bit during the break here....Starting out the debate with such a moronic attempt to stoke up the conflict between Hillary Clinton and everyone else actually worked out in Hillary's favor, didn't it? It was so obvious and so dumb that ever since then I think everyone has been a little hesitant to add fuel to such a transparently fabricated fire.

From Dave Weigel's liveblogging: "8:30: As the conspiracists hoped, Blitzer is saving Hillary's ass. He asks everyone about illegal alien licenses and they dish out the same poisonous gruel that Hillary did last time. No one can say 'yes' or 'no.' Except for Hillary, who says 'no' and smiles like she just took your house in a poker game." That's true, isn't it?

Break is over, it's back to real-time blogging. Kyl-Lieberman. Private contractors. Nothing new on either front.

Obama, responding to Hillary Clinton on Social Security: "This is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, playing with numbers to make a point." Oooh.

It's 9:50 Eastern and Blitzer just said we have a "lot more" after the break. When does this thing end? I thought it was two hours. Or does five additional minutes now count as a lot more?

Biden's top choice for the Supreme Court would be a female dogcatcher who supports privacy rights?

Obama on how he'd bring everyone together after he was elected: "I would convene a continuous advisory meeting including both Democrats and Republicans." A continuous advisory meeting? Yeesh.

A fun question! Oh boy! Diamonds or pearls?

Coming up in two weeks: the long-awaited Republican YouTube debate!

Anderson Cooper: Let's hear about the big Clinton-Obama slugfest!

And with that, I'm off to dinner. Keep 'em coming in comments while I eat.

Kevin Drum 8:46 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

What a gaffe! National security can't be more important than human rights.

In her formulation, it would be ok to turn America into a prison camp, and the rest of the world into a nuclear wasteland. America "would be safe".

Posted by: stm177 on November 15, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Can anyone show me how a undocumented worker can get a driver's license in New Mexico. I heard what the Governor said, but on the state's website it says documents showing one's social security number ARE REQUIRED to get a driver's license. What gives?

Posted by: DF on November 15, 2007 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't say, "We have no security unless we have human rights." 'Cause it's true.

Posted by: David in NY on November 15, 2007 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

DF: For $150, I know someone who can get you a SS# too.

Posted by: absent observer on November 15, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

You're ignoring the obvious question from the debate: Wolf Blitzer -- empty suit or the emptiest suit?

Posted by: demisod on November 15, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

I meant, "Didn't anyone say ..."

Posted by: David in NY on November 15, 2007 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

edwards was giving his standard denunciation of clinton accepting lobbyist cash. the booing appeared to be because that was a pretty inartful pivot from the question at hand. he finished up with an applause line though.

Posted by: along on November 15, 2007 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton: National security is "absolutely" more important than human rights. No hesitation.

Benjamin Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

We sure came a long way in the last couple of hundred years...

Posted by: Aris on November 15, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton: National security is "absolutely" more important than human rights.

Good Lord. Terrorists hate our freedom and so do our politicos. WTF is wrong with these people?

Posted by: Ya Know.... on November 15, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Our Founders would disagree with Hillary, since they believed those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I will never vote for that woman.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 15, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

I seem to recall getting a driver's license in Britain without being asked why I was there, or why I wanted a driver's license. But then, I'm not Mexican, so I guess that doesn't count.

Posted by: craigie on November 15, 2007 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Dammit!!! These guys & gal just booted a big cross-over opportunity on the 3-tour soldier's mom's question.

While you can be all for getting the U.S. out of Bush's war - you can also speak to damn near every Republican voter by appealing to a sense of duty.

"We can never thank you enough for your service to our country. But your job is to fight when your President calls you. If tomorrow that's Iran, tell your Mom you'll see her later. And as President, I'll fight tirelessly to ensure that never happens."

Unpopular? Maybe with the Democratic base. We need more than that. With U.S. standing among fundamentalist Islamists, there's no telling whether 'President Clinton' might need to send forces somewhere.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

We sure came a long way in the last couple of hundred years...
Posted by: Aris on November 15, 2007 at 9:28 PM
----------
Yeah, what happened to "better dead than red"?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 15, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

I too am distracted by things in the house as i watch the debate. Husband is just in from an appointment, and hungry although fending for himself. I especially love Edwards on the
grass roots matters. He is my man. Barack, although I respect his skill, seems young to me tonight. Biden is funny and confident. Edwards and Kucinich say what I often feel. I love them both. Richardson would protect my constitutional rights. Hillary is holding her own-- And I really love Bill Clinton. I love that Dennis is hollering for impeachment now. The debate thrills me. Did Edwards get enough chances to speak?

Posted by: consider wisely always on November 15, 2007 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Aris - Franklin was never President. Loved his paper, tho.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

But your job is to fight when your President calls you -WIW2

Yeh, that must be why Rove and Cheney, Limbaugh and many others, never served when they were called.

Posted by: Ya Know.... on November 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

This debate is more focused on the GOP, as Dean and the party elders would want it. Hillary will have recovered after tonight. Edwards comes across as too negative. Richardson is being careful to not jettison his chance for VP. Cambell Brown was able to get the woman question into play for Hillary in a way that reached out to women. Does anyone notice how NONE of the people there answer the question asked?

Posted by: james b on November 15, 2007 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ya Know - serious cheap shot there. Everyone knows that crowd pulled major crap to get out of duty. Not sure what argument you're trying to make with that. Should we all be as deceitful and cowardly?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

What's Biden doing? You mean beyond amusing me when he speaks?

Posted by: Callimaco on November 15, 2007 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

The claim that terrorists haven't come over the southernborder is, quite simply, a lie. Yet, CNN didn't raise any questions about it and has probably misled most of those watching into believing it.

Posted by: The annoying LonewackoDotCom on November 15, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

My point is that Democrats have a golden opportunity here to score points with seriously-disaffected Republicans. Give 'em a few painless nuggets - please.

But I'm not hearing it. Maybe it's the TV market. CNN programmers & others know much better than I. Are any Republicans even tuned in? Maybe this is this just Democratic ear candy. Depressing.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like to have a beer with Richardson. He's out.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

National Security trumps human rights WAS aimed at disaffected Repubs. You cant win an election against a Giuliani for example without saying that. Obviously she would not implement that philosophy the same way that Rudy would. I guarantee you that. It wasnt a gaff.

Posted by: jammer on November 15, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Jammer - I agree. She's one of the few playing that game. Bill's influence?

Biden & Dodd could be great cabinet members (I have newfound respect for Dodd tonight). But as honest and smart as they are, they just don't play politics as well.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Over. Whew. Just in time for "BarbWire"

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Whew is right. I resonated with Edwards & Senator Clinton, somehow. The others warmed me as well. Now lets go after the creepy repppublicans.

Posted by: consider wisely always on November 15, 2007 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm now on the Clinton wagon. She didn't "wow" me, but she demonstrated genunine competence. Isn't that soooo refreshing??

That's not entirely fair of course, because several candidates were pretty competent. But she was under fire from the first seconds - mostly from both the mediators and Obama. The first 10-12 minutes of the show was a 2 person duel. After that, it became a 7-sided show, and Obama kind of melted away. Hillary showed her knowledge.

Barack is going to be a great American voice. It's just too early for Presidential prospects.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

wishIwuz2: she was under fire from the first seconds - mostly from both the mediators and Obama

She's a fighter, I'll giver her that. Now if only she were a Democrat ...

Methinks both Harry Truman and Ben Franklin are spinning in their graves.

Posted by: alex on November 15, 2007 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Is CNN's John Roberts great or bothersome?

I liked it when John Edwards and Hillary Clinton criticized the neocons when standing up tall--really big looking--in the second phase of the debate.

Posted by: consider wisely always on November 15, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Alex - you're a good party soldier. Cudos 2 U.

I want the GOP out. I have other wants - but they're less likely to occur with another candidate. Truman and Franklin are in a better place, and I don't worry too much about them.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Saw Hillary sweat some real bullets when that Iraq army youth stood up with his mom and they asked about Iraq and Iran. She almost lost it right then and there.

And I almost thought they were going to ask why Bill Clinton talked about WMD and pre-emptive war. Too bad they didn't, Ms. question planter Hillary would have be screaming if they had ask about the past.

I notice that Edwards got boo too but Nevada is very pro-Hillary and I don't think that location was a mistake. Still think these guys are neck in neck in Iowa.

Posted by: Me_again on November 15, 2007 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Me_again, (yes - YOU!)

The various camps were all well represented tonight - including both Clinton and Edwards. The 'yays' and 'boos' were mostly scripted.

But all the attempts to tie Hillary to Bill's previous positions were both unfair and unsuccessful. Her response to NAFTA clearly demonstrated that. It wasn't insightful; merely honest.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. What the first comment said. Jeebus, are we in Rudy! land?

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on November 15, 2007 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Clinton: National security is "absolutely" more important than human rights. No hesitation."

She really said that????!!!

Doc: "Yeah, what happened to "better dead than red"?"

Wasn't that 'better red than dead?'

Posted by: nepeta on November 15, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

We should have a civilized policy to deal with a civilized world.

But when that world becomes somewhat less than civilized, how should our policy reflect it?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

wishIwuz2: Alex - you're a good party soldier.

Which party?

I want the GOP out. I have other wants - but they're less likely to occur with another candidate.

Why? Because Hillary is the Beltway/DLC choice? Dynasties are a safe bet?

Truman and Franklin are in a better place, and I don't worry too much about them.

I'm not worried about them either, but we're sure taking a big step down (of course it is the supposedly safe bet).

Posted by: alex on November 15, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the soldier and his mother looked dumbstruck when Suzanne and Wolf changed the question from the one they asked. That would have been the time for Biden's great "I'm going to answer their question, not Suzanne's" line. We all would like any one of those candidates to tell us what they are doing right now to show leadership in ending the Iraq war and keep us out of Iran.

Clinton's explanation of her rationale for her vote on Kyl - Lieberman was the best explanation of her rationale I have heard her put forward. Obama and Edwards' rebuttals were a little stale, I thought. And good for Wolf for asking Obama why he missed the vote - Russert never asked that in the last debate.

Posted by: Dawn on November 15, 2007 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

**...you're a good party soldier.** - wish

*but we're sure taking a big step down...* - Alex

Down from what? From what we have today, or from what another DFL candidate offers??

Hillary is definitely the beltway's choice. I agree with you on both points. But she's also the nation's choice ---- so far.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, Richardson did say he would give undocumented workers driver's licenses...because he already did as governor and it made New Mexico safer.

Posted by: flounder on November 15, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

The soldier's mother DID look dumbstruck. Remember the time span allowed for these questions. You couldn't find better contestants on "Jeopardy".

Biden came up with a great response -- just not as fast as these "moderators" anticipated.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Alex, I agree with you completely. That's probably why neither of us could ever be 'politicians.' Way too much game playing instead of principle. Obama had a great paragraph in his speech to the Jefferson Day crowd in Iowa. I wish I could remember it all, but one phrase was about displaying 'conviction' rather than 'calculation.' That's what I want from the candidate I support and hope to heaven that there are enough other people who value conviction vs. calculation to still win the election.

Posted by: nepeta on November 15, 2007 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the paragraph I love from Obama's speech:

" "If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, then we can't live in fear of losing. This party, the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Roosevelt and Kennedy, has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led not by polls but by principle, not by calculation but by conviction, when we summoned the entire nation to . . . a higher purpose."

Posted by: nepeta on November 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

I particularly appreciated Obama's response early on in the debate following Blitzer's innane "this should be a straight yes/no answer" after asking if the candidates support driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Obama essentially said that those type of hypothetical, gotcha-type questions are crap, should be abandoned, and oversimplify complicated issues. It was refreshing to hear Obama call out the ridiculousness of the debate format/questions. Of course Blitzer couldn't resist looking the smug fool and continued to press for yes/no answers that obviously did little to no justice to the issue of immigration.

I'm not decided on who to support, but good for Obama for calling out Blitzer's trollllllling for soundbites.

Posted by: Zachary on November 16, 2007 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINK

demisod, surely the Wolf question is rhetorical, but if not, then, B. Wolf is the emptiest suit. Call him, Mr. Bivalent. He's managed, much more effectively than Reagan ever could, to distill the world's complexities into banal simplicities: You like either vanilla or chocolate, but there's no way you can choose both. And this is the kind of barometer this great country uses to separate the best from the rest. How ridiculous.

How could anyone win a debate framed with such narrow limits? C'mon now (Wolf's veins popping in his neck) national security or human rights? Huh?
And you get a minute to answer such an asinine question.

Kucinich was the wisest in rejecting the premise of Wolf Blitzer's abbreviated binary world. Indeed, that theme is better suited to a 5th grade civics class than a Presidential debate.

Even more ridiculous was the schoolyard temper of the opening round where, supposedly, the issue of piling on Hillary was going to get settled, regardless of the bloodletting. Wow. Apparently Wolf's a big fan of World Wrestling. He would've really enjoyed those ancient Roman games.

As far as the entire debate goes, it's stunning to see how much mileage Hillary gets based solely on her 'tude as opposed to detailed answers. Regardless of what anyone may think about the other candidate's responses, all of them presented more data, complex logic, and more profound critical thinking than Hillary did. Yet, amazingly, they're now saying, from one coast to the other, Hillary held her own. Based on exactly what?

She blames Congress for not producing immigration reform, like the rest of America does, but doesn't accept the responsibility for not having pushed legislation through. Oh I know, her loyal supporters say, but there's gridlock; no one can get anything through. Well, if that's true then there's a distinct lack of leadership to do so. Why is she exempt from bearing responsibility for it?

And if you think healthcare, medicare, social security, education, and border security are going to be successfully imnproved or solved while continuing this foolish "War on Terror" and the Iraqi civil war, then you're delusional.

Kucinch and Richardson are clear about that. Obama and Edwards agree for the most part, but aren't willing to commit to an, effectively, immediate pullout. Biden at least has a plan for negotiated finality. On the other hand, Hillary's good until at least 2013. As far as she's concerned, Iraq will become, as the Neocons have wanted all along, the next South Korea. What's characteristically Democrat, or liberal about that? And she's going to bring everyone healthcare and a new bicycle too? Gee willikers Hillary, why don't you throw in a bottle of that special snake oil on top of it.

As it is, the Fed can't print enough money to fund existing calamities, much less cover new expenses. So then what, taxes? If the Democrats expect to win on the issue of raising taxes, then the core "leadership" has woefully misread the tea leaves.

Americans are taxed out and Ron Paul's doing an excellent job of illustrating why. Sorry to say, especially from the liberal side of the fence, but W has done at least one brilliant thing on behalf of the right wing: He's illustrated how wasteful the federal government can be. In the process he's soured Americans on perpetuating higher taxes. For what? More misadventures?

So how does Hillary's "strategic thinking" add up? Let's see. Peperpetuate the war, while expanding it to Iran, and perhaps Syria if diplomacy doesn't work, healthcare for everyone, improved education, a stronger military, shore up social security, renegotiate trade pacts, aggressively fight global warming, and, in her spare time, solve the Israeli issue. How do such platitudes translate into realities based on existing circumstances? Only one way. In one's imagination - the central headquarters for Hillary World where exigenxies are routinely cited without specific, finite solutions.

How anyone, other than a direct beneficiary of Hillary's ascendancy, can believe America is going to buy such an impossible pacakge is the political enigma of our time.

Posted by: arty kraft on November 16, 2007 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

"Clinton: National security is "absolutely" more important than human rights. No hesitation."

She really said that????!!!

Yeah, I'm curious too. Did she really come out and say that? It seems to me that this sounds an awful lot like China's policy on human rights.

I wasn't a huge fan of Mrs. Clinton before, but if she actually believes this ...

Posted by: josephdietrich on November 16, 2007 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

"Obama on how he'd bring everyone together after he was elected: "I would convene a continuous advisory meeting including both Democrats and Republicans." A continuous advisory meeting? Yeesh." So what do you want? At least he is making an attempt to address a very important problem. Or do you think both sides should just continue to bash each other and accomplish nothing. I guess that does provide fodder for bloggers and that keeps the money coming in.

Posted by: mdeemer on November 16, 2007 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Ben Franklin is the one I'd want to have a beer with.

Dr. Franklin, of course, was too old to have ever been POTUS (Reagan hadn't come along yet to smash through the DEPENDS ceiling). He also might have had some zipper problems to overcome.

Posted by: howie on November 16, 2007 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

On a more serious note, why isn't Chris Dodd doing better? He's shown some leadership in his full time job of late, yet no one notices.

Posted by: howie on November 16, 2007 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

"You have to fight when the President calls"

Good thing Cheney, Limbaugh, Romney, et al had unlisted deferment numbers.

howie, my wife asks the same question - thinks he should be VP, at least.

Even if Kevin didn't understand Biden's comment, loved his slap at academics being thrown at the Supreme Court with not a great deal of real life experience. Obama blanched.

Posted by: bert on November 16, 2007 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Is it me, or did CNN serious stack this debate for Hillary?

Murdock wants Hillary for president.

Posted by: Me_again on November 16, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

It's 9:50 Eastern and Blitzer just said we have a "lot more" after the break. When does this thing end? I thought it was two hours. Or does five additional minutes now count as a lot more?

Kevin: This is the oldest TV trick in the world and it's used all the time everywhere. Their goal is to make you sit through their commercials thinking that there will be more of the show/discussion/debate/comedy afterwards. Then, after the commercials are over, they come back and say: "Well, that's our show for tonight! Come back next week when our guest will be....."

It took me years to figure this out. (!) Why is almost everything in life JIVE?

Posted by: fingerfood on November 16, 2007 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Barack Obama just used the phrase "sound science" in response to a question about nuclear waste. Bad Barack. Doesn't he know that "sound science" is a conservative code phrase for "whatever corporations want"?

Yes, he does. That's why he used it. How else is going to compete with Hillary for the support of Corporate America?

Posted by: cmdicely on November 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I'm curious too. Did she really come out and say that?

My understanding (I didn't see the debate), was that the statement was specific to policy on Pakistan, which lines up pretty well with our policies since the beginning of Pakistan, though I'm not sure if it's a good idea to say it outright.

Posted by: Boronx on November 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK
Murdock wants Hillary for president. Me_again at 9:46 AM
The Murdock empire is solidly with Il Duce Rudy dating back to his days as mayor when he tried to give Fox cable access on the city channel. Turner is now a faceless corporate entity that tends right Posted by: Mike on November 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

It bothers me when any of the Democrats try to score points by putting down No Child Left Behind. That was Ted Kennedy's legislation. It wasn't just Bush's idea. The Democrats deserve a lot of the credit or blame (depending on how you look at it) for NCLB. Conservative Republicans were for the most part against it.

Posted by: but wait a minute on November 16, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Human rights question responses [scroll down a bit to Biden scores; Richardson whiffs]

...There are a lot of ways for a would-be president or vice president to answer that question, and Richardson's competitors showed off some of them. You can say, as Obama did, that national security and human rights are "complementary." You can say, as Clinton did, that national security is paramount but that that protecting human rights helps ensure it. You can say that the Bush administration has put our national security at greater risk by running roughshod over human rights and civil rights -- think Abu Ghraib, rendition, Guantánamo Bay, and waterboarding. You can take a spin on Benjamin Franklin and say that those who would give up human rights for national security deserve neither....

Posted by: Mike on November 16, 2007 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS, OR HOW I STOPPED THINKING AND LEARNED TO LOVE THE BOOBS (as in idiots):
Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Posted by: frankdawg81 on November 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

"The Murdock empire is solidly with Il Duce Rudy" -Mike

Really? Is that why the NewsCorp PAC donated close to 100,000 to HRC and showed up on her top 20 list of contributors? Hillary is a female clone of Neo Lib in disguise GWB! I don't want to hear any pissing and moaning after you elect Clinton and she proceeds to send our troops to Iran whle simultaneously inflating the already massive Federal Government. Have fun with your neo-liberal corporate lackey ver 2.0.

Nepata wrote-"Here's the paragraph I love from Obama's speech":

"If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, then we can't live in fear of losing. This party, the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Roosevelt and Kennedy, has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led not by polls but by principle, not by calculation but by conviction, when we summoned the entire nation to . . . a higher purpose."

HAHAHAHAHA! It never fails to ammuse me how the "black" man cites his own party history to accentuate the ideas of togetherness and brotherhood. Hey guess what! The only brotherhood ANY of those Dems (minus JFK only slightly) supported was the Brotherhood of rich white male! Those "principles" of Jefferson and Jackson sold men and women into bondage. The "principles" of Roosevelt were what has noe become known as "The Southern Strategy" HE desperatley needed the support of Southern Democrats for his New Deal programs, and therefore decided not to push for anti-lynching legislation that might threaten his ability to pass his highest priority programs. In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese, Italian and German Americans (Many not released until well after the War's end) during World War II. Additionally in 1939, 950 Jewish refugees on board the SS St. Louis were denied asylum and not allowed into the United States. Thanks FDR!

Not to mention the fact that we have had an "unprincipled" Pres, for the last seven years, with more "convictions" than Gary Busey, who refuses to (or can't) "calculate" the end result of his "Higher Purpose" to invade Iraq. It's done wonders for the nation. Why don't we take another unexperienced candidate who refuses to "calculate" or "lead by polls" (i.e. listen to the American public)so he can summon us into yet another vague and open ended "higher purpose".
Why is it when the exact same bullshit message is dressed in blue, you libs find it so hard to disagree with? Color it red people! It maintains the same shape!

Posted by: Eason on November 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

I heard that Kucinich brought up impeachment ... are we allowed to mention his name on these liberal blogs?

Posted by: RS on November 16, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly