Why doesn't Hillary give speeches like this instead of praising McCain's purely imaginary CiC "qualification"?

Yes, but his middle name is HUSSEIN!

She did give a similar speech yesterday, if you were paying attention, but the media was totally preoccupied with Obama.

The other clever thing is that he gave the talking heads something else to talk about besides his association with Wright.

This is rich: "Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have made the same arguments against my position on diplomacy, as if reading from the same political playbook. They say I'll be penciling the world's dictators on to my social calendar. But just as they are misrepresenting my position, they are mistaken in standing up for a policy of not talking that is not working."

He manages to accuse HRC of misrepresenting his position in the very same sentence he misrepresents here.

That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev. And that is what I will do as President of the United States.

Geeze, McCain and Clinton really come off looking like losers, defending demonstrably failed policies.

More of this, please.
.

I'll echo what so many other commenters said about yesterday's speech - Obama seems to be addressing the American public as adults.

Are we adults?

I really don't know, but maybe we'd all behave a little differently if our leaders adopted a different tone.

More speeches like this please.

Kevin, don't fret. He's giving another speech tomorrow in Charleston, WV which will focus on Iraq and the Economy.

Think Republicans are still so giddy about the prospects of facing him? Yesterday he began to remind the nation why so many have gotten behind an obscure guy with a funny name. The longer the GOP believes he's just an empty vessel for liberal fantasies, they better chance he's got to win this thing. Please, right wing, keep underestimating him.

She did give a similar speech yesterday, if you were paying attention, but the media was totally preoccupied with Obama.

Kevin, you describe Hillary Clinton's reference of Samantha Powers' remarks as "exploitation", yet Barack Obama's two-dimensional remarks that once again flog Mrs. Clinton over the Iraq War issue -- for which you clear state, "There wasn't too much new in it" -- is "not a bad speech" that "helped his cause." It begs the rhetorical question: Why the obvious double standard?

When I want to see cheerleaders, I'll watch the NCAA basketball tournaments.

What has Obama done in the Senate to take us one step closer to ending the war? What has he done that Clinton has not? Asking the reverse question, Clinton put the Pentagon on the spot by demanding that they prepare a plan for exit and testify about it during hearings of the armed forces committee. Obama has held no hearings of his subcommittee.

Obama, as usual, talks a good game, but his words and actions do not match.

Clinton did not stipulate McCain's CinC credentials -- she recognized that he has 25 years of experience in the Senate which more than qualify him to run for President. That doesn't mean he is otherwise qualified or should be elected.

Obama, on the other hand, gratuitously supported Lieberman is his re-election bid (Clinton had to support him but Obama volunteered to support him). How dare Obama link Clinton, McCain and Bush repeatedly in the same sentence (Bush's old tactic to link Hussein and Al Qaeda) when he himself is the less aggressive, more conservative person when it comes to opposition to the war?

I see this as an attempt to deflect attention from his Wright problem, not a major speech on anything -- both candidates will end the war as quickly as they can. Clinton is more likely to be aggressive about it. Obama is more likely to talk about it forcefully while doing a lot less to accomplish anything.

Kevin -- for comparison's sake, what's your rating/critiques of Hillary's major policy speech on Iraq?

Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sen. Obama is wrong. Killing Afghanis and Pakistanis is not necessary. After six years of killing Afghanis, nothing has been accomplished. Nothing can be accomplished by the US militarily except wholesale slaughter. I think Sen. Obama understands this, yet he cannot help but appeal to the military solutions so many Americans consider a reasonable option if he is to be a successful presidential candidate.

And what has Clinton done that HE has not? How do you imagine that this argument gains any traction for her? It can't wipe out the disgrace of having voted for the war resolution, out of naked political calculation, and without even bothering to read the NIE. It can't clean the resulting blood from her hands.

Hate to get involved in the Hillary-Obama jihad, but Hillary linked herself to McCain when she praised him over Obama as qualified to be president.

I'm sensing a turnaround in the press again. It had taken the SNL skits about their kid glove treatment of Obama, and Clinton's "pillow" comment during the debates to heart and starting peaking underneath the hood, so to speak, just in time for the Ohio/Texas elections. However, now with Wright, and just when Obama was possibly most vulnerable, his speech yesterday seems to be swaying them back the other way again. I mean, the way they reported on that speech yesterday, it might as well have been the State of the Union. It's a good sign for Obama. His speeches have a stronger relevancy than Clinton's or McCain's. He sounds and looks and acts Presidential, and it's a meme that is gaining strength now.

"I see this as an attempt to deflect attention from his Wright problem"
And it's a doozy, right up there with John Kerry's fake medals.

And it's a doozy, right up there with John Kerry's fake medals.

Or McCain's fake POW status.

lobbygow: "I'll echo what so many other commenters said about yesterday's speech - Obama seems to be addressing the American public as adults."

Yeah -- adults who like to be patronized, perhaps.

And speaking of adults -- it's really too bad that Sen. Obama himself didn't play the part of one all last week as his Rev. Wright problems were inevitably exposed.

Rather, he once again ignored an issue until adverse political circumstances finally compelled him to step up to the plate, take some responsibility and address a personally uncomfortable issue.

Sure, it was an eloquent speech he gave yesterday -- but it was also one that really should have been given last summer or autumn, in order to diffuse what was clearly an obvious problem, before it ever became compounded to the extent it did.

You all ought to think very seriously about whether that sort of potentially self-destructive procrastination is a character trait we really want to see in our president.

Or McCain's fake POW status.

Why are you dissing his POW status? I'm not a McCain supporter, but it seems to me his credentials as a POW are genuine.

Clinton attacks McCain on Iraq

…She blasted Obama and the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, arguing that she is the only candidate with a withdrawal plan.
"Sen. McCain would gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary," she said in the address at George Washington University. "That in a nutshell is the Bush-McCain Iraq policy -- don't learn from your mistakes, repeat them."
Arguing that victory can only be achieved through political, not military, solutions, Clinton said, "Sen. McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat.
"Let's be clear: Withdrawal is not defeat.
"Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years."
….
An Obama administration, she said, would not follow through on campaign promises to end the war.
"I have concrete, detailed plans to end this war, and I have not wavered on my commitment to follow through on them," she said.

Obama fired back during a town-hall meeting in Pennsylvania.
"I have been consistent as saying that we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in," he said, adding that he would endeavor to withdraw U.S. forces while maintaining stability in Iraq. Clinton has not been consistent, he said.
Noting that he opposed the war in 2002 and each year since, Obama said, "I've been clear, unlike Sen. Clinton, who voted for war and has never taken responsibility for it."…

Just to be Obamaclear on that claim:

July 2004: 'There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position [on Iraq] at this stage.' In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04] [No difference? Bush supports war]

Obama on 2002 Iraq resolution vote: 'What would I have done? I don't know:' "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." [New York Times, 07/26/04]

In September 2004, Obama says he ' would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq.' [AP, 9/19/04] [Sounds like a supporter in every way]

Obama on Iraq: U.S. Senate Record

Upon arriving in the Senate, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion….until he started running for President. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06; HR5631, 9/7/06]
As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq. "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video] [Sounds like a flip-flop]

Since Obama entered the U.S. Senate, his record on Iraq is identical to Hillary's, with one exception. ABC News reported that, "In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against." [ABC, 5/17/07; senate.gov; see chart]

Top Obama advisor says, as president, Sen. Obama will 'not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.' Samantha Powers, who has subsequently resigned her position, also described Sen. Obama's Iraq plan as a "best case scenario." [BBC, 3/6/07]

Yes, Obama has failed the test: He clearly lying about his opposition to the Iraq war and hedging on withdrawing American troops.

Oh, I forgot: Obama is ever right, even when he's not.

Hell of a speech.

Between Obama's appearances this week and the implosion of the FL/MI revote pipe dream, Clinton's shot at the nomination just went from slim to none.

"Why are you dissing his POW status? I'm not a McCain supporter, but it seems to me his credentials as a POW are genuine."

It was an equally appropriate response to the trash Uli Kunkel posted.

Whoa, Donald, you're getting more shrill. It's interesting that a support of Hillary wants to talk about character traits. Really, you've got to be kidding me. Potentially self destructive procastination on the part of Barack? This one is just laughable! You don't want us to start going through the history/record of the Clintons on this matter.

I, too, read Clinton's speech. I'll give her props for clearly advocating withdrawal. But, I'm again disappointed in her attacks on Obama without very little criticism directed at McCain.

While Obama will attack McCain, from his speech:

Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.

"It was an equally appropriate response to the trash Uli Kunkel posted."

Settle down, I was being facetious. Kerry's medals are as fabricated a "problem" as Wright is for Obama, though there's plenty who are happy to take the bait.

As for Clinton, she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, giving Cheney a virtual big wet kiss. Luckily, the revised NIE came out.

Sorry, I didn't realize you meant it facetiously.

The last sentence WAS clever.

The lie he told in the third sentence was ALSO clever ... IF you let him get away with it.

Mike, that is a deliberate, utterly slimy strategy on Clinton's part. She and McCain are double-teaming Obama; she's not even thinking about how little the nomination will be worth if she pries it away in this fashion. It's a testament to the strength of his candidacy that it has withstood this gang-up. But it's sickening that the party's leaders are (in some cases) too gutless or (in other cases) too deeply in the tank for the Clintons to put a stop to this fratricide. Same old Dumbocratic Party, snatchhing defeat from the jaws of victory as usual.

….Think Republicans are still so giddy about the prospects of facing him? …. NHCt at 2:35 PM

….And what has Clinton done that HE has not?….Steve LaBonne at 2:42 PM

Hillary linked herself to McCain when she praised him over Obama as qualified to be president. fafner1 at 2:43 PM

…But whether Clinton or Obama emerges with the nomination, McCain will be a force to reckon with.
When compared to either Democrat, McCain is rated as the "strongest leader." He easily outpaces both when voters are asked who has the "right experience to be president," beating Obama by 31 points and Clinton by 12…..

Mary writes:Obama, on the other hand, gratuitously supported Lieberman is his re-election bid (Clinton had to support him but Obama volunteered to support him).

You do know Ned Lamont endorsed Obama don't you (http://nedlamont.com/news/2256/why-im-supporting-barack-obama) While Lieberman and Clinton endorsed McCain.

And according to OpenSecrets.org - Clinton's HillPac gave Lieberman $10,000 in the 2006 cycle and $5,000 to Lamont. Obama's PAC gave Lieberman $4,200 and $5,000 to Lamont.

Obama as a senator not up for re-election was expected to contribute more Dems running for re-election.

Steve Labonne: "It can't wipe out the disgrace of having voted for the war resolution, out of naked political calculation, and without even bothering to read the NIE. It can't clean the resulting blood from her hands."

And dare I suppose that you also hold to that same lofty standard former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle?

I mean, after all, Daschle has been all over the TV news shows as an Obama supporter and spokesman, and he's also the same guy who actually sponsored and introduced that AUMF Iraq resolution in the autumn of 2002, and then steered it to passage through the U.S. Senate.

Or do you deliberately choose to not see anything on his hands?

GOD: "Whoa, Donald, you're getting more shrill."

Actually, you're the one who's sounding hysterical when you choose to insult me personally, rather than discuss the issue like a rational adult. What's your point?

"Daschle has been all over the TV news shows as an Obama supporter and spokesman"

Support from a HJR114 voter = voting for HJR 114?

You go, Mike.

Actually that was Donald I meant to refer to. Whatevs, this is getting pretty dumb-ass (as usual).

I don't care about Daschle- he's not running for president, so I don't have to worry what he'll do if somebody tries to gin up another war. With Hawkish Hillary, I DO worry.

Nice try, though. (Well, not really.)

Here's a Yahoo News front page headline for you:

Obama belittles McCain for confusing extremists

You'll never see a sharp attack like that directed at McCain from Clinton.

[You need to give it a rest. You consistently make me sufficiently annoyed]

Actually, the central front of the war against terrorists should be in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in that order.

Personally, I enjoyed the parts about the military. For too long the left has been portrayed as hostile or clueless about the military, and this speech was a good way to at least start dispelling that myth. Especially since Dems who actually served in a war (Kerry, Murtha, etc.) keep being branded as traitors by those who never had the guts to do so (Bush, Cheney, etc.).

I'd give it an 8.34, simply for that.

Donald. I appreciate your newfound ability to rail against Obama without the need to work in a reference to Minister Antonin Rezko X. Let the healing begin.

Kennedy-Vietnam

Nixon-Cambodia

Reagan-South America

Obama claims to be their heir! Yeah, thats great!

What starts to wrinkle my pantyhose is how some people won't let go of the "he's light on policy" myth. Obama's Iraq plan is stronger, more detailed, and more fleshed out than McHillary. His economic policies are more detailed and better for middle class America than McHillary. His healthcare plan may be inferior in numbers covered, but it's a realistic plan that I think he has a chance to make into law, whereas Hillary's plan has failed once and she won't get it through again, and McCain's plan is basically let the Corporations run the Hospitals.

Obama is the right man, at the right time, with the right message. If you want a Clinton White House, then go rent some Seinfeld DVDs and set your wayback machine, because the future is Obama.

Uli Kunkel: "As for Clinton, she voted to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization ..."

... on a non-binding resolution, the same one for which Sen. Obama deliberately chose to duck his own vote on the matter.

Further, Obama himself on October 13, 2007 told National Public Radio: "I would have supported a stand-alone piece of legislation identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization."

Therefore, what's your point?

Donald, how's saying you're more shrill a personal insult? I hope you're not that sensitive.
As to the what's your point comment, I thought that was clear in my response to your original post. Talking about personality traits and character wrt Barack can't work in Hillary's favour. Surely, even a devout supporter like you can see that!

The lie he told in the third sentence was ALSO clever ... IF you let him get away with it.

I believe the words they've landed on in talk radio land are "slick" and "smooth" when referring to Obama. It would be nice if they could just come out say "Jive Turkey", but give them a few months.

Why are you dissing his POW status? I'm not a McCain supporter, but it seems to me his credentials as a POW are genuine.

Uh, that keeps getting called into question by various POW/MIA organizations and by conservatives who oppose McCain.

There are some schools of thought on this. On the one hand, it's people who are mad that McCain pulled the rug out from under the MIA movement by saying that there weren't any POWs in Vietnam. On the other hand, there are some who claim he made all that shit up and told the North Vietnamese everything without being coerced; his code name was apparently "songbird."

YMMV on this--I won't vouch for anything in this quote, but it's typical of what's out there:

What is the real story behind his days as a POW? The U.S. Veteran Dispatch had an article in June of 1996 entitled "POW Songbird McCain Wrongly Described As A Hero." It recounted numerous instances where John McCain violated the Military Coda of Conduct, which specifically orders American personnel to give the enemy no information other than name, rank, serial number, and date of birth. It requires that they accept no favors from the enemy, and to make no written or oral statement disloyal to the United States.

The fact is, in exchange for better medical treatment, McCain violated this code four days after being captured on Oct. 26, 1967. In a U.S. News and World Report interview dated May 14, 1973, two months after he was released, McCain admitted that he exchanged military information in exchange for spending six weeks in a hospital normally reserve for North Vietnamese Military officers.

U.S. government records show that less than two weeks after he was taken to the hospital, Hanoi's press began quoting specific military information, including the name of the aircraft carrier on which McCain had been based, information about the location of rescue ships and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place. The records demonstrate, according to the Dispatch article that McCain continued to collaborate with the Communists after he recovered from his injuries. He did a number of propaganda broadcasts that were aimed at destroying the moral of American servicemen fighting in the jungles of South Vietnam, On June 4, 1969, a U.S. Wire Service story reported one of McCain's broadcasts.

The service reported "Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of the U.S. Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praised medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner."

McCain committed other breaches of the Code of Conduct by meeting with and giving interviews to foreign news reporters and anti American delegations.

McCain admits to talking with numerous high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, including General Vo Nguyen Giap, their Minister of Defense.

He also did a cozy interview over coffee, oranges, and cake wish a Cuban psychiatrist, which took place in the Hanoi office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations.

He failed to "evade answering questions to the utmost of his ability;" by actually conversing with his interviewer in Spanish.

Perhaps these are some of the reasons why John McCain hip been so instrumental in discounting any suggestion that live prisoners of war still languish in Southeast Asia. It certainly does explain to me why he traveled to Hanoi in May of 1993 with soon-to-be Ambassador to Vietnam Pete Peterson, and convinced the Communist leadership to agree that they would NEVER MAKE PUBLIC THEIR INTERROGATION FILES OF AMERICAN POWs

enozinho: "I appreciate your newfound ability to rail against Obama without the need to work in a reference to Minister Antonin Rezko X."

That information is already out there in the ether. Why are you bringing it up?

This is getting tiresome. Now I remember why I only screwed cheerleaders in college, and didn't talk politics with them. I'm outa here. Aloha.

"….And what has Clinton done that HE has not?….Steve LaBonne at 2:42 PM
Came out for withdrawal in 2005 and taken a firm stand without equivocating to withdraw now."

The problem with Obama speaking to Americans like we were adults is that folks like Mike refuse to think like them.

Obama has not equivocated about withdrawal. All he and his advisors have ever said is "Hey, if it looks like pulling troops out of Iraq would cause a disaster, we'll obviously factor that into our decisions." Which is exactly what Hillary has said on more than one occasion.

Mike

I'm outa here. Aloha.

Come on Donald. I was just messing with ya.

The moderator at 3:42 gets my vote for "comment of the thread."

Rather, he once again ignored an issue until adverse political circumstances finally compelled him to step up to the plate, take some responsibility and address a personally uncomfortable issue.

Actually, Obama addressed the Wright issue several months ago. Yet, for whatever reason, it didn't get that much attention (as soon as I find the link, I'll post it).

And since Republicans have been chummy with all kinds of ridiculous religious figures without any significant blowback, he probably thought the issue would be treated as it should have been -- as nothing. After all, every single one of us has friends who say or believe things we disagree with, yet we're still friends with them.

I guess people had to find something to blast the guy over, and this wound up being it, as ridiculous as it is.

GOD: "Donald, how's saying you're more shrill a personal insult?"

Oh, for Pete's sake! Steve Martin had it right: Comedy is not pretty.

I'm through with you.

I'll echo what so many other commenters said about yesterday's speech - Obama seems to be addressing the American public as adults.

Are we adults?

Robert Klein had a very funny bit about his experience in theater at (IIRC) Cornell in the 50s. He was playing Shylock and had just delivered the "Hath not a Jew eyes?" speech. A chorus from the crowd erupted with "Jew! Jew! Jew!"

I hope we're adults and that the campaign would be run by adults, but the noise machine(s), keep(s) harping on trivialities and troglodyte issues. After re-electing (sort of) Bush, who knows what the electorate is capable of?

Media and folks have never taken HRC seriously - just read her speeches from years ago - her positions are there clear & concise. Obama is a whimpass and has NO experience in dealing with the global nature of these problems. What policy has been attached to his name - NOTHING - people get a grip here.

You are all looking through rose colored glasses at him - you all have given him a pass and are not tough on him at all. So what he gave a speech about race - well sorry he is VERY TIGHT with his pastor and that is scary. His policies are nothing new and actually just a regurgitation for HRCs.

Mark D: "And since Republicans have been chummy with all kinds of ridiculous religious figures without any significant blowback, [Sen. Obama] probably thought the issue would be treated as it should have been -- as nothing."

Let's all hope, for the sake of our party, that he's really not that naïve!

OK, now I'm going to be late for work. Aloha.

Obama is a whimpass and has NO experience in dealing with the global nature of these problems.

And what experience, exactly, does HRC have on this front?

Seriously. What experience in dealing with issues that are "global in nature" does she possess? Where is the list of legislation with her name on it? Where is all this experience with foreign policy I keep hear about all over the place?

Or does simply living in the White House for eight years count?

Seems to me Obama and his people had a hand in orchestrating the timing of both the Rezko and Wright dust ups. Everybody knew when Rezko was going on trial. Months ago Wright told Obama that at some point he'd probably have to disown him for some of his past comments. Hillary and surrogates have been demanding, whining and then finally begging the media to broadbrush him with this stuff since at least January.

So now we have a lull in the primaries. It's 5 weeks til PA. Obama's sit down with the Chicago Trib last Thursday in time for Sunday's papers put that scandal to rest. Yesterday's speech has pundits all over the country saying it's the best political speech on race and maybe on anything they've ever seen. I'm an Obama supporter but damn, Chris Mathews was acting like he'd just witnessed the reincarnation of John Fitzgerald Christ O'Mighty. Barack needed a base hit and he hit it over the wall all the way to the Lake.

Now we learn thousands of pages of Hillary's WH schedule files are being released and they'll raise more questions than they'll answer. She's been stonewalling this for years and finally lost the legal appeal, but that's not all. There's much more to come from other lawsuits trying to pry open her files. We'll have weeks of questions about not just the released papers but the unreleased until April 15th when she says she'll divulge her current and past tax returns which is sure to draw a boatload of criticism when people see just where she and Bill got their money.

Barack has just had two weeks of the worst news cycles he's ever gonna have and is sipping lemonade he made out of those lemons. Hillary is heading into what should be about six weeks worth of questions about her real experience as first lady claims and finances.

All while his superior organization is pulling more delegates out of county and state conventions in IA and TX and getting ready to rack up more big wins after PA.

Yeah if you're a Hillary backer it's gotta be frustrating to be up against an operation that plans ahead and has a contingency plan for just about everything while you watch your team scramble to subvert the rules and stupidly delay your candidate's most damaging disclosures until they can't be put off any longer and they've stupidly maneuvered her into a corner just before the next big primary.

Please, right wing, keep underestimating him.

I don't think they do, I think they're scared to death of him. That's why many of them are softening their stance on HRC a little bit, to make her more palatable to voters.

Obama inspires people, he has energized his base, and caused 100's of 1,000's, if not millions of citizens to register. That is what John McCain faces in November, and the GOP knows it.

Let's all hope, for the sake of our party, that he's really not that naïve!

I should have clarified.

I'm sure he thought Republicans would go after it. They go after pretty much everything, no matter how trivial.

What he may not have considered are the attacks he's getting over this from those in his own party.

The whole Wright flap is easily one of the most absurd things that have happened this primary season, right behind Edwards' haircut and before Clinton's cackle.

And the fact so many liberals think it's an important issue just boggles my mind. I simply don't get it.

When I want to see cheerleaders, I'll watch the NCAA basketball tournaments.

Try to catch an Oregon game. They have a particularly talented cheerleading squad, if you know what I mean.

….Talking about personality traits and character wrt Barack can't work in Hillary's favour. GOD at 3:46 PM

…..Obama is the right man, at the right time, with the right message. …..Da5id on March 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM

….It would be nice if they could just come out say "Jive Turkey"…. enozinho at 3:48 PM

And that is exactly what his campaign and his supporters do: play the race card to the extent that they twist, distort, or truncate statements to make them appear as racist attacks when they were not.

Kevin, how about a post inquiring what people's favorite ice cream flavor is? I suspect, given the mood of the herd here, that that would generate as much heat and light as current discussion.

My favorite is Phish Food. I wanna see how Shortstop can twist this so that it looks like I am spouting republican talking points.

I love Phish Food. Rainforest Crunch was my all-time favorite but they discontinued it.

Okay, one more speech: on the economy this time ...

Kennedy-Vietnam

Completely untrue. While Kennedy did send more "advisors" to Vietnam early in his administration, he was adamant that the war was the Vietnamese's to win or lose. As early as Fall of 1962, JFK authorized Robert McNamara to draft a withdrawal plan (NSAM 273).

While it is true that he would not have begun withdrawal until after his reelection in 1964, it is clear that he was committed to it.

….Or does simply living in the White House for eight years count? Mark D at 4:09 PM

you watch your team scramble to subvert the rules ….markg8 at 4:11 PM

….I think they're scared to death of him…. MeLoseBrain? on March 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM

…The prime movers of both political parties have long tried to game the presidential nominating process—not only to choose their eventual winner, but also to pick their November opponent. And in this landmark election without incumbents, the media wing of the Republican Party, in particular, has quite visibly been playing that game. Right-leaning pundits for months now have very openly not just called for Hillary Clinton's head, but also coddled and promoted Barack Obama, salivating over the prospect of facing him in November.
Meanwhile, voters have been echoing that program: Barack Obama has been beating Hillary Clinton in part because Republicans are helping him….

And the fact so many liberals think it's an important issue just boggles my mind. I simply don't get it.

It's simple. Liberals as a group really are unpatriotic traitors that hate America. If they can't have their own personal vision of Utopia, they'll eat their own, throw away their votes on idealistic crackpots, or even vote for the enemy out of spite. In the end, we end up with disasters like Bush and McCain, and the world sinks further into the apocalypse.

My favorite is Phish Food.

Phish?!

You dirty fucking hippie ...

;-P

(Fan of Carmel Sutra.)

How did that not put my name in the comment at 4:37pm above? Usually, that is an automatic reject.

Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM:

When I want to see cheerleaders, I'll watch the NCAA basketball tournaments.

Or look in a mirror, right, Hawaii-Don-0?

Actually, you're the one who's sounding hysterical when you choose to insult me personally..

And calling Kev (or anyone who has anything positive to say about Obama) a 'cheerleader' isn't a personal insult, Don? Or is IOKIYAHRC supporter?

Now I remember why I only screwed cheerleaders in college, and didn't talk politics with them.

I'm guessing that's because once you became shrill when one disagreed with you, you weren't gettin' no play whatsoever, yes?

Obama only wants to play when he can win.

And that seperates him from other politicians...how?

Mark D: "And the fact so many liberals think [the Rev. Wright controversy is] an important issue just boggles my mind. I simply don't get it."

I'd like to think that Rev. Wright himself is not the issue himself, because he's no longer part of the Obama campaign. And to be honest, I don't think that it's all that big a deal for us liberals on a philosophical level. It's how this issue will now play within the context of the politics of white-bread middle America that has many of us justifiably concerned.

The core issue here is that Sen. Obama himself, because he failed months ago to exercise sound political judgment in this matter, is simply going to get hammered big-time and mercilessly by the right -- and for something that could and should have properly played itself out in public last year, had he but chosen to resolutely address and put it to rest back then.

As it stands now, he has some real political problems, and no amount of pretty speechifying is ever going to completely undo the sowing of those seeds of doubt. The truly sad part is that it was all so avoidable.

Off to Murphy's, to finish the books on our St. Patrick's Day bash. Aloha.

"

."

This speech by Sen. Obama troubles me. He states there is going to be more US aggression if he is elected president. That is not what the US or the world needs. It certainly is not what the Afghanis and Pakistanis need.

From Donald:

Sure, it was an eloquent speech he gave yesterday -- but it was also one that really should have been given last summer or autumn, in order to diffuse what was clearly an obvious problem, before it ever became compounded to the extent it did.
You all ought to think very seriously about whether that sort of potentially self-destructive procrastination is a character trait we really want to see in our president.

I completely disagree.

You have to remember that last Summer or Autumn, Hillary was the presumptive nominee, with Obama not really being present in people's minds as having a legitimate chance. If Obama gave a speech back then, few people would've paid attention or cared.

Also, more importantly, because the media hadn't got a hold of Wright's taped sermons back then, all the speech would have done is raise eyebrows, and even encourage "reporters" at Fox News to do some digging until those tapes were discovered. And then Obama would be in a world of hurt, because he'd have to respond, and what could he do? He couldn't say "I already covered this in my speech last year", and he couldn't repeat the same speech, so he'd really be in no-man's land.

As it happened it actually couldn't have worked out better. Those tapes were bound to come out sooner or later. If they came out before Iowa, his candidacy wouldn't have gotten out of the starting gate. If they came out in October, he'd have problems in the general election. Instead they come out during a down period in the primary season at a time when he holds an insurmountable lead, giving him the time and the spotlight needed to respond.

I'm not much for conspiracies, but it's possible his campaign realized that the best time for this to come out is now, and maybe nudged the issue forward so they could deal with it.

"I'm guessing that's because once you became shrill when one disagreed with you, you weren't gettin' no play whatsoever, yes?"

Blow it out your ass, clown. Just be sure to pull your head out beforehand, so you don't give yourself a whiplash.

Whatever the kind is with the pretzels innit, optical...

Mike on March 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM:

Referencing a Village Voice article:

Meanwhile, voters have been echoing that program: Barack Obama has been beating Hillary Clinton in part because Republicans are helping him….

Meanwhile...

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show...

..Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

It does when your number one adviser actually did the job for eight years.

Clinton's 'number one advisor' isn't the one running, Mike.

No one in the US have as many tax returns in the public as the Clinton's

Excepting all the ones since, what? 2000? And then one of her surrogates makes a Ken Starr reference when questioned about the Clintons not releasing their tax returns...which, incidentially, is the same thing that Hillary did - thru Wolfson and a guy dressed in an Uncle Sam costume - to her Rick Lazio, the Repub opponent for her Senate run.

You're just flat-out wrong on that one, Mike. Along with much of what you've written in other comments as well.

*Oh: Apparently those "Remember personal info?" buttons don't work anymore, or our system settings prevent local storage of that info...kinda frustrating to me too...

Whatever the kind is with the pretzels innit, optical...

Chubby Hubby!

Joe: "You have to remember that last Summer or Autumn, Hillary was the presumptive nominee, with Obama not really being present in people's minds as having a legitimate chance. If Obama gave a speech back then, few people would've paid attention or cared."

You may have a valid point, although I think such a supposition would be far more applicable to Rep. Kucinich or Sens. Dodd or Biden, etc. Sen. Obama might not have been front-runner, but he was definitely in the top-tier with Sen. Edwards by that time.

Further, if I had been advising Obama, I would have argued that such a speech last summer or fall would have been a good vehicle from which to make a play for the top spot, with the added benefit of diffusing a political time bomb.

But I'm afraid that's an observation that's just as speculative, as well, since there's no way to undo or re-write the past.

Aloha.

Brojo: "This speech by Sen. Obama troubles me. He states there is going to be more US aggression if he is elected president."

Wow. I missed that. I had thought it was a good speech, if belated. But clearly, I must have dozed off during the part where he took off his shoe and flogged the podium with it.

I guess I was more tired from St. Patrick's Day than I realized ...

Don (AKA Aloha-Man): "Further, Obama himself on October 13, 2007 told National Public Radio: "I would have supported a stand-alone piece of legislation identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization." Therefore, what's your point?"

You conveniently didn't mention that Obama wanted a separate resolution so he could explicitly require Bush to get Congressional approval for any attacks.

Maybe you should reserve the bad-faith attacks for McCain and his supporters.

Turning back to the subject of the post, is there any doubt that the way Obama frames the debate on Iraq and foreign policy in general is

1. The most consistent with Democratic opposition to Bush/McCain policies?

2. The most effective way to negate both the media's, and the low information voter's perception of GOP as tough on defense?

3. The only case where a Democrat has been successful in the GOP war stance without being marginalized as a cook?

Maybe I'm silly and naive, but I joined this party specifically because I opposed the war. I didn't join up for health care, or the economy. I want someone to speak loudly and clearly against the mindset that sent this country down the rabbit hole. And as far as I can tell, Obama is the only politician giving voice to this issue in a credible and coherent way.

Sorry, meant to say this

3. The only case where a Democrat has been successful in taking on the GOP war stance without being marginalized as a cook?

Blue Girl, Red State on March 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM:

Chubby Hubby!

Thanks! I was probably unconsciously blocking out my memory of the name due to the name being too pertinent of a description of my current state of being...

What the hell. I'm pretty happy at the moment.

enozhino,
I don't go around correcting peoples' language (unless they use Orwell's name or I'm busting shortstop's, um, well anyway) but your point is important, so I'll make an exception.

3. The only case where a Democrat has been successful in taking on the GOP war stance without being marginalized as a cook?

I think the word you want is "kook."

Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM:

Blow it out your ass, clown. Just be sure to pull your head out beforehand, so you don't give yourself a whiplash.

Shrill much, Don? Amazing what a low level of discourse you will sink to...It's good that the average HillaryFan is nicer than that.

Really; what is it about your support for Clinton that makes you act this way?

Uli Kunkel on March 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM:

Maybe you should reserve the bad-faith attacks for McCain and his supporters.

Second that.

Nice of me to mis-spell your handle while correcting your English.

shithead. (saving you the trouble)

Jesus Christ, and that was after I corrected myself. I have a six month old daughter, so I'll blame her for my sleep deprivation and poor writing.

Thanks though.

I know there are some extreme pacifists who are going to take Barack to task for saying that he would move forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. But the Senator and most Americans (including most Democrats) are not philosophically anti-war. We are anti-Iraq war, and that is what Barack clearly explained in his speech today. There are times we need to fight--and going after Osama bin Laden where he's hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a necessary and appropriate endeavor in light of the ongoing terror threats we face ever since 9/11.

Donald: Yeah -- adults who like to be patronized, perhaps.

Noyoudidn'tnoyoudidn'tnoyoudidn't just call someone else patronizing with a straight face!

OMG, you did. Too funny.

Mark D: (Fan of Carmel Sutra.)

ME, TOO! Except I think the chocolate side isn't very good. The vanilla side rocks. The stream-of-caramelness...sublime.

enozinho: 3. The only case where a Democrat has been successful in taking on the GOP war stance without being marginalized as a cook?

I personally never cared for his souffles, which are prone to fall. And he could have a lighter hand with the butter. I'm just trying to be fair here.

Isn't it time both Senators stop complaining about the war but voting to fund it? What good does it do to talk about the war as a failure and still fund it? The kids who are dying are still dead even though you are publicly on the record as opposing the war. Either vote to get out or shut up!

I have been preaching all week that the timing of the Wright story was just way, way too convenient for Obama. Now somebody else has noticed. Four or five weeks to the PA primary. Not much going on. His campaign getting a little restless. A couple of bad weeks. Obama needed to do something to get off the sni. Suddenly the Wright story bubbles to the surface. If it had hit him in October, he would be taking the hit then. That could be bad. By dealing with it now, he is dominating the new cycle. He actually has us talking about his foreign policy speech. Both Clinton and McCain gave foreign policy speeches today. Some of us might have known, but not many others will notice.

Say what you will about Obama, but he is running the best campaign I have ever seen. Of course, you can simply conclude that he is just lucky. If that is the case, maybe it is better to be lucky than good.

thersites: (unless they use Orwell's name or I'm busting shortstop's, um, well anyway)

Oh, you're gonna get it. You won't know how. You won't know when...

Take it easy on Donald from Hawaii guys, I'll admit I find him a sincere Democratic poster.

shortstop's the comedy boss today. Good work.

Shortstop:
I personally never cared for his souffles, which are prone to fall. And he could have a lighter hand with the butter.

I got nothing, shithead.

shortstop's the comedy boss today. Good work.

Too late to suck up to me now, Mr. Sassy Mouth!

I got nothing, shithead.

LOLOL.

In my opinion, in the past two days, Barack Obama has turned the national debate from "why should we elect Barack Obama as president of the United States?" to "why should we even consider electing anyone but Barack Obama as president of the United States?"

The precise details of what JFK did, or when Obama should have spoken about Rev. Wright (who was, in my opinion, right in his inflammatory remarks, but I am not running for president so I get to say that) really don't do much to change my mind. What I notice are things like:

1) once upon a time, Obama spoke against the war, before the war, and gave good reasons why, and most of those reasons were validated by subsequent events.

2) Clinton, for whatever reasons, voted to authorize Bush's actions, and (unlike Edwards) has not said that this was a mistake.

3) Clinton has claimed that she and John McCain have foreign policy experience, and have met the bar.

4) John McCain thinks that Iran is supporting Sunni Al Qaeda.

All the high order bits line up, for me, for Obama. Perhaps I care more about exam results than who showed up for class, but Obama did demonstrate that he knew more about foreign policy back in 2003. If she's learned anything since then, she hasn't admitted it. Furthermore, to speak more favorably of your Republican opponent (who is what, senile? as ignorant as Bush BEFORE the war? My 14-year-old son knows that who is who in the Middle East, why can't that be a minimum requirement for all our presidential candidates, given that we are fighting a war there?) and disparagingly of your primary opponent is atrocious.

There's quite a few bits of policy that would be interesting to discuss -- Obama's support for gasohol I suppose is a consequence of representing Illinois, but that is one turkey of an idea. National health insurance has to be mandatory, as Clinton has pointed out. I'm not sure what these guys have to say about regulation of financial markets or capital gains for bogus LLPs and LLCs, but I'd sure like to hear it.

But, if it's foreign policy, Obama wins. Clinton's as ready as a senile/ignorant guy, she said so herself. Some claim to fame.

And yes, my posts have been getting ruder and less respectful over time, especially to Republicans. Tough, I think I've earned my incredibly bad attitude (as have we all).

Yes Donald is a good guy, but he goes bat shit crazy when it comes to Obama praise or Hillary criticism.

I honestly don't know what get into him.

I personally never cared for his souffles,

Well of course. We've already noticed that he was margarinized.

I'm trying to remember what Ice Cream tastes like. Last time I was allowed to eat it I don't think Ben and Jerry's even existed.

Oh, and I think dr2chase has made the case very well at 6:33 PM.

You all ought to think very seriously about whether that sort of potentially self-destructive procrastination is a character trait we really want to see in our president.

As opposed to the leadership skills demonstrated by Hillary, who frittered away a huge advantage in name recognition, funding, media presumption, and connection to party insiders to be in second place?

You should think very seriously about that.

What does that say about her judgment in selecting advisers and developing a strategic rather than tactical approach?

I'll support the Democratic nominee whomever it is. But Hillary has not been particularly impressive in either the speech making department or the action department.

Obama may be all talk and no action, but he has the better talk.

What does Hillary really have to offer, and what is the concrete example of this trait? Having more years in D.C. just doesn't cut it.

Again, Dick Cheney is far more "experienced" than any of the candidates, and he's one tough old bastard to boot. Talk about never say die.

What does Hillary really have to offer, and what is the concrete example of this trait? Having more years in D.C. just doesn't cut it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/hillaryclinton.uselections20081

But an initial reading of some of the more than 11,000 pages of Clinton's schedules from her days as first lady, released today by the National Archives and the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, shows that she was often far from the site of decision-making during some of the most pivotal events of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Clinton spent something like 16 years as First Lady, whether in Arkansas or in D.C. Then she joined the Senate, where the real Salt of the Earth hang out. We have a phrase for people who live like this, and it ain't "experienced". It's "out of touch".

Jeez, a presidential candidate talking sense about important issues, something I can hardly ever remember happening before in my 53-odd (some of them damn odd)years.

I must have dozed off during the part where he took off his shoe and flogged the podium with it.

Sen. Obama: "...we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

More aerial bombing of civilians is not what the Afghanis and Pakistanis need.

But the Senator [Obama] and most Americans (including most Democrats) are not philosophically anti-war.

This Easter try and forgive them.

But an initial reading of some of the more than 11,000 pages of Clinton's schedules from her days as first lady, released today by the National Archives and the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library, shows that she was often far from the site of decision-making during some of the most pivotal events of Bill Clinton's presidency.

And let's remember, they didn't have phones or email during that time, so there was no way for her to communicate or offer advice when she was away.....

Obama: "That is why my presidency will shift our focus. Rather than fight a war that does not need to be fought, we need to start fighting the battles that need to be won on the central front of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

The new Decider will make decidedly better decisions, I've decided. But it won't be Obama trashing the Constitution, it will be "my presidency." "My presidency" will "shift our focus" to a ramp-up of a fruitless war in Afghanistan, which is a humanitarian disaster, and a new war with Pakistan, which happens to be an ally as well as the only Muslim nation with nukes. And we will owe it all to his presidency! The Presidency in Chief!

Got it, Your Presidency.

Excellent snark, but you might want to read the article. It's not damning, but it does leave the impression that Clinton was more Queen Mum than GI Jane. Which is pretty much what you would expect from someone in a ceremonial position.

Okay, worse decisions.

Can liberals be so close minded and anti-Bush that they can't readily think of an answer to this question? This can't be the level of argument that Obama thinks will win the general election.

"What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations?"

"What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations?"

Putting on my best wingnut thinking cap...How about?

A sleeper Muslim/Christian Halfrican that will personally steal every American's house keys and hand them to the terrorists?

I think you're confusing an open mind with a willingness to engage in masterbatorial fantasies.

A sleeper Muslim/Christian Halfrican

He really should have picked a boring Presbyterian church or something to hide in, don't ya think?

He really should have picked a boring Presbyterian church or something to hide in, don't ya think?

Yes, of course. But the fatal flaw of all Liberals and Terrorists, and Terrorist Liberals is that they are so blinded by their hatred of Boosh! that they often get tripped up in their dastardly plans to drink America's milk shake.

Only electing a senile old fart like Yawn McCain can keep the little boys and girls safe from "ridin dirty" with Islamofascists and their fancy dance moves, and superior basketball playing skillz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

I need a cigarette after watching this... Sweet, sweet wingnut porn.

*

Think about it. Without laughing if you can.

Should I be picturing them in cute little C-in-C outfits like Bush wears? That Member's Only jacket is Fabulous. And so masculine. Sends little goosbumps up my back. Does it do it for you too?

mhr -- I am thinking about it. I can't help but laughing, although maybe not for the reasons you think.

It has been said in this thread, but it hasn't been sufficiently emphasized, that Obama's conflating of Clinton with Bush and McCain on the talks-with-dictators issue is the purest Grade-A bullshit. Clinton was out calling for diplomacy with Iran and North Korea before Obama ever did. The only distinction, which is, I think, every much in her favor, is that she insists on initial communications between lower-level emissaries PRIOR to head-of-state-level talks. Without pre-agreements, such talks could devolve into something not noticeably different from PR stunts for clowns like Ahmadinejad.

Obama is very aware of her position. He only began to emphasize this after having been called out and rightfully pilloried by the press on his debate answer, in one of the initial debates, to a question whether he'd meet with dictators "without precondition," to which he replied with an unqualified "yes." Deciding, later, that he would not only stand by his answer but turn it into a continuing dishonest line of attack against Clinton very much smacks of the Bushian I-can-make-no-mistake attitude, the kind of attitude that inspired Ron Fournier's column yesterday.

From Don: Further, if I had been advising Obama, I would have argued that such a speech last summer or fall would have been a good vehicle from which to make a play for the top spot, with the added benefit of diffusing a political time bomb.

That might have worked, but the other reason I'd argue it wouldn't have made since to give the speech last year is that the tapes of the sermons weren't being circulated then, meaning there really wasn't much to defuse. Even if he did give the speech last year, he'd still have to do something now when the tapes are being aired, and if he'd already given the speech what could he do now? Repeat the same speech? Give another speech? Either way, I don't think his response would have been as effective.

HRC experience in foreign affairs: "I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill around... I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principle player." David Trimble on Mrs. Clinton's claim to have brought peace to Northern Ireland. (Daily Telegraph, March 8th)

With that kind of experience how can we not elect her?

HRC experience in foreign affairs: "I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill around... I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principle player." David Trimble on Mrs. Clinton's claim to have brought peace to Northern Ireland. (Daily Telegraph, March 8th)

With that kind of experience how can we not elect her?

Okay friends, while enozinho gets credit for originality and humor, I'll provide the correct answer to Obama's question:

"What more could America's enemies ask for than an endless war where they recruit new followers and try out new tactics on a battlefield so far from their base of operations?"

ANSWER: An America who surrenders to Al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq through immediate withdrawal and abandoning our Iraqi allies.

Could America possibly be so short sighted as to do that?

Could America possibly be so short sighted as to not do that? You would prefer to win the battle and lose the war? You confuse strategy with tactics. Or maybe you just don't have a fucking clue of the difference.

Joe: "That might have worked, but the other reason I'd argue it wouldn't have made [sense] to give the speech last year is that the tapes of the sermons weren't being circulated then, meaning there really wasn't much to defuse."

Well, I'd offer that the Obama campaign already knew that this was a potential problem with legs, when they disinvited the Rev. Jeremiah Wright from performing the invocation at the public event held last year to celebrate Sen. Obama's announcement.

Further, I would have advised the Obama campaign to buy up every available DVD and VHS of the good pastor's sermons.

Why they waited for this pre-cancerous political cell to fully metastacize, we'll never know.

enozinho: "That Member's Only jacket is Fabulous. And so masculine."

And SOOOooo 1980s.

Here is something for you all to ponder. Since he delivered the speech yesterday, the full speech has had 1,700,000 views (two versions) on Youtube. That is the full 37 minute speech. That doesn't even count the views on the various networks.

By comparison Hillary's 3:00 am video has had about 850,000 views since it was launched. John McCain, forget about it. He is in the toilet by every comparison. There have been a lot of high visibility negative John McCain videos (like "bomb,bomb,bomb,bomb Iran," but he has not actually put out anything that is even in the ball park.

Boys and girls, spinning the speech is going to be harder than hell. It has escaped from the control of the media elite. It is beyond the reach of Wolf Blitzer, Tweety, Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of those gatekeepers. It is beyond the reach of the Corner. It is beyond the reach of LGF. Hell, it is even beyond the reach of Donald from Hawaii. It has become the video people are watching. I think they are going to make up their own minds.

Don, don't yell at me. I was joking--about you.
Next topic.

. . . our Iraqi allies?

I'm lovin' it!

While Hillary is running around Michigan pissing and moaning about the illegitimate delegates that she isn't going to get in that state, Obama is standing up and giving major speeches about big, serious stuff. Who do you want as your President?

ANSWER: An America who surrenders to Al Quaeda terrorists in Iraq through immediate withdrawal and abandoning our Iraqi allies.

Wow, I didn't see that coming.

From Mike:

Yes, Obama has failed the test: He clearly lying about his opposition to the Iraq war and hedging on withdrawing American troops.

I've already debunked all these "Obama flip-flops on Iraq" claims before. I'll just cut and paste my post from another thread (Media Matters already covered this by the way):

His quote about his "position being similar to Bush's" was from July of 2004, at a time when Iraq was at its most chaotic (at least up until that point). Sadr's followers had just been beaten back after taking over many cities and throwing the south of the country into open conflict, and the Iraqi Interim Government had just been established. So yes, at that point, when Iraq's interim government was barely off the ground, Obama thought the US should stick around as a stabilizing force....which is neither inconsistent nor unreasonable.

Here's a helpful timeline of Obama's comments on the war. I'll give you a summary:

2002 - Before the war: This is a bad idea, we should not invade.

2003 - After the invasion: We shouldn't have invaded.

2004 - A year after invasion, with chaos erupting all over: We shouldn't have invaded, but owe it to the Iraqi people now to try to establish a government and salvage this mess.

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 - We shouldn't have invaded, our attempts at salvaging the situation aren't working, we need to withdraw.

And Obama's comment on "not knowing how he'd have voted on the war resolution" was from an interview he did on the eve of the Democratic convention in July of 2004 when he was asked about how he viewed the votes of Kerry and Edwards, and he answered exactly the way a loyal Democrat should. He could've thrown Kerry and Edwards under the bus and said "These guys blew it!" Instead he takes the high road, says he wasn't privy to Senate intelligence reports and can't say for sure how'd he vote, thereby giving Kerry and Edwards some cover, and then adding that "from my vantage point the case was not made." It was the perfect answer.

re: "...the speech was heavily focused on the purely military aspects of the war on terror — too heavily focused for my taste."

No. There needs to be a LOT more focus on the military aspects of this war, especially regarding whether or not they are beneficial or counter-productive toward reducing the risk of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil or against U.S. interests abroad.

OK, I am an outsider. I am not really in favour of any of the candidates in the present election. I do not think that they are going to make the drastic changes which the United States needs to reverse the tendency towards authoritarianism and fostering global war which I see in that country.

However, of the three, I am inclined to think that Mr. Obama is probably closest to being such a candidate. I suppose that might make me an Obama supporter in some eyes, whatever that means for someone who can't vote.

Notwithstanding, I do not understand the extraordinary hostility between the two potential candidates of the Democratic Party. It really does seem like two bald people fighting for a comb; what difference does it make who supported or opposed the Iraq war when the Democratic Party had no power to prevent it? Surely the real question is, why has the Democratic Party done so little to prevent it, now that it has power?

But despite this, I do find that it is beyond belief that Ms. Clinton has chosen to accuse her opponent of being less competent than the candidate of the party opposing her. I think that is the sort of thing one does not actually do in an election time. In fact, I think that this would be serious grounds for expelling Ms. Clinton from the Democratic Party altogether (I know of course that in your country parties don't do that kind of thing because they are not ideological entities). But I think that this sort of behaviour proves my point.

I also -- perhaps it is my misreading -- perceive that the attacks on Mr. Obama by the supporters of Ms. Clinton seem often motivated by other matters than the question of policy, which surely ought to be uppermost. I do not think, for instance, that many people are rooting for Mr. Obama simply because he is black, whereas a remarkable number seem to be supporting Ms. Clinton purely because she is a woman. Also, in some cases, there seems to be a desire to get a Clinton in as a kind of payback for the humiliations of the last years of the Clinton regime; a kind of "nya-nya-nya" to Starr & Co. If my perception is right, this is a poor basis for a decision on who should rule the nation.

Dr. Morpheus: "Yes Donald is a good guy, but he goes bat shit crazy when it comes to Obama praise or Hillary criticism. I honestly don't know what get into him."

It's called trying to be fair. I don't mind just criticism of Hillary Clinton -- Lord knows, she's got plenty to be criticized for -- but when it gets over the top with personal insults ("power-hungry pig", bitch, etc.) and re-visits the realm of the anti-Clinton lunacy of the 1990s, then yes, I'm going to defend her.

And on occasion when Obama criticism goes the same way, i.e., closet Muslim or the offering about "U.S. aggression" from Brojo upthread, I've done the same for him.

And regarding "bat shit crazy", you ought to review the recent offerings of some of the Obama trolls.

Now, there are those here who are Obama supporters, like longtime poster shortstop, whose opinions I really respect even if I might disagree with their conclusions. And we're able to discuss issues in an adult and rational matter.

Then there are those, like grape_crush, recently arrived at this site, whose mission appears to be to drive from "The Political Animal" through verbal intimidation, all those whose opinions digress in any way from the Obama party line. These are the same people who've infested the sites like Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos and successfully skewed the dialogue accordingly. In temprament and tone, they don't sound any different from the right-wing Bushies of four years ago.

I try to be constructive in my criticism. While I've come to oppose the general superficiality of the Obama campaign, I have never made a personally deroguatory comment about the candidate, and I've said repeatedly that I intend to support him if he's the nominee.

I can't help it if people only read what validates their own opinions, and see only what they want to see. That's their problem, not mine.

Aloha.

Up to now, Saddam Hussein will be sure to have repeated the human rights violation as a dictator. However, can you say that holding down however by power is correct?For instance, Vietnam was not able to be called a very democratic nation ahead for a while about China. It changed greatly because of having economically become rich. Are not you because it is the best method of it of ending despotism it doesn't hold down by power but to achieve economical richness?

There might be a rebuttal of taking time when such a thing is done, too. However, the United States is not doing satisfactory revival support after the war though Afghanistan is seen. Isn't there what the war afflicts people's lives long because it is clear?

The U.S.Army is using one million depleted uranium munitions in the Gulf War though there is an insistence that Iraq is dangerous because it used chemical weapons for the people, too. Effects of radiation will afflict the Iraqi people in it is and the future.

I liked it that he hit McCain for his Sunni, Shiite, Al Qaeda, Iran faux pax.

MFB: But despite this, I do find that it is beyond belief that Ms. Clinton has chosen to accuse her opponent of being less competent than the candidate of the party opposing her. I think that is the sort of thing one does not actually do in an election time.

In fact, your disbelief is perfectly calibrated. Such behavior would get a lesser mortal effectively thrown out of the party. That Clinton has done it and otherwise reasonable people try to defend or minimize this behavior is a complete mystery.

Donald from Hawaii: I don't mind just criticism of Hillary Clinton -- Lord knows, she's got plenty to be criticized for -- but when it gets over the top with personal insults ("power-hungry pig", bitch, etc.) and re-visits the realm of the anti-Clinton lunacy of the 1990s, then yes, I'm going to defend her.

I think you probably do believe that your more heated commentary is scrupulously limited to responding to "personal insults" about Clinton and to comments about the events of the late 1990s. I don't think any cursory review of your posts would support that flattering notion, however.

Donald again: Then there are those, like grape_crush, recently arrived at this site

grape has been an intelligent, witty and valued member of this community for years. Your failure to notice him until he started criticizing your preferred presidential candidate doesn't diminish his long record of good posts.

And Donald again: While I've come to oppose the general superficiality of the Obama campaign, I have never made a personally deroguatory comment about the candidate, and I've said repeatedly that I intend to support him if he's the nominee.

You've also said that you may not vote for him if he is. You were even more enraged than is your wont when you made that post, so perhaps it was a heat-of-the-moment thing. But failing your saying so, we'll assume that your previous extensive argument that good progressives who have their priorities straight will vote for either Obama or Clinton in November is...inoperative, at least insofar as it applies to yourself.

Is it just me, or Cheney acting the Preznut.

Stange how Cheney didn't send the Bushie out to do this.

Iraq approves provincial election law after Cheney visit
AFP - 15 hours ago
The breakthrough came a day after US Vice President Dick Cheney left Iraq following a surprise visit during which he was reported to have pressed the ...
Iraqi Council Ends Objection to Election Law New York Times
Iraqi Council Withdraws Election Objection CBS News
Iraq polls possible after law ratified Reuters India
Edmonton Sun - The Associated Press
all 284 news articles »

Turkish Press Cheney Calls Iraq War a 'Major Success
ABC News - 23 hours ago
US Vice President Dick Cheney takes to the stage on March 18, 2008 to deliver remarks to US troops stationed at Balad Air Base, Iraq. ...
Cheney says economy going through "rough patch" Reuters
After five years, US is still bogged down in Iraq’s ethnic discord Kansas City Star
Cheney vows to finish job in Iraq BBC News
PRESS TV - The Age
all 633 news articles »

Just who is the president? Is it drunken podium slapping puppet, little Bushie or the ex-CEO of Hallibuton, Dick Cheney?

Why hasn't these self-serving criminals been impeached yet?

The core issue here is that Sen. Obama himself, because he failed months ago to exercise sound political judgment in this matter, is simply going to get hammered big-time and mercilessly by the right -- and for something that could and should have properly played itself out in public last year, had he but chosen to resolutely address and put it to rest back then.

AFAIK, he did: it came back now because a number of news organizations (CNN and FOX, I believe) decided to purchase (from the Church) and start repeatedly broadcasting videos of the sermons, which launched the issue over again from ground zero, especially among viewers who hadn't been paying much attention last time the issue came up and who didn't react to Wright or Obama's responses earlier because there wasn't anything with the visceral impact of the constantly replayed videos.

It does when your number one adviser actually did the job for eight years.

--Mike at 4:37 PM

But you never asserted that her "number one adviser" had the experience necessary. You -- and nearly every other Clinton supporter -- have claimed that SHE has the experience.

So please, try again to show me where all this experience is.

But only do so after you read the heavily-redacted files she released about her time as First Lady. Because it shows she wasn't nearly as hands-on as some folks think.

Also, do not get me wrong here. I think Clinton would make a fine President, and I'll be voting for the Dem nominee no matter what. I simply don't have the animosity toward her that some do.

It's just that she's making arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny, and I see very intelligent, reasonable people repeating them over and over again. Obama folks have done some of the same, but it's nothing like I see from the Clinton side. I'm not sure why that is.

**shrugs shoulders**

The core issue here is that Sen. Obama himself, because he failed months ago to exercise sound political judgment in this matter, is simply going to get hammered big-time and mercilessly by the right -- and for something that could and should have properly played itself out in public last year, had he but chosen to resolutely address and put it to rest back then.

--Donald from Hawai'i, at 4:53 PM

Once again, he DID discuss the Rev. several months ago. In all likelihood, he'll have to do it again if he gets to the general. Our society has Shiny-Object Syndrome and can barely remember news from yesterday.

But as someone else noted, the video of Obama's speech has been watched more than a million times on YouTube. People are able to watch it themselves and make up their own minds. Since it's out of the hands of the media -- who will just show certain clips and try to spin it this way or that -- it's able to stand on its own, filtered only by the experiences of those watching it.

And that's why I don't think it will be an issue -- because everyone has those people in their lives that say stupid crap, yet they still love them and are close to them.

Whether it's the sister who doesn't like Mexicans, the college friend who votes the opposite, a grandparent who thinks being gay is icky ... whatever. Clinton has them. Obama has them. Hell, McCain is one of them. And so on.

That's just the way life is, and I think most will get it.

Donald from Hawaii on March 20, 2008 at 6:00 AM:

Then there are those, like grape_crush, recently arrived at this site..

Recently? Next time, at least do a quick Google before you again prove to everyone else how inflammatory and wrong you can be.

..whose mission appears to be to drive from "The Political Animal" through verbal intimidation, all those whose opinions digress in any way from the Obama party line.

Project much, Don?

See, I think you're just funny in your partisanship - I've actually defended Clinton when I felt it was warranted, and strive to advocate for my candidate (Edwards, now Obama) in an honest manner, criticizing Clinton when my BS detector goes off. I don't really post comments at (and very rarely read) dKos and TPM, so your characterization of me is, again, false.

I can't help it if people only read what validates their own opinions, and see only what they want to see. That's their problem, not mine.

Yes, Don, that is precisely your problem. You're equating someone pushing back against the spin coming from sources like Fox (aka - The Jeremiah Wright Channel) News or the Clinton campaign as Obama-based fanaticism instead of just normal discussion and refutation of talking points like you would find in any non-campaign thread.

I don't know why this has become personal for you; what your stake in all this is, or what your motivations are...and I really don't care. For whatever reason, what you are doing is really destructive; you're not helping the Clinton campaign, your reputation as a generally reasonable commenter is swirling down the commode, and you're promoting divisiveness at a time where we need to have each other's backs. So take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and decide what you want to do: continue with your current behavior or come back down to earth.

Your decision.

*thanks, shortstop; I don't quite agree with your description of me, but I'll try to live up to it.

….the fact so many liberals think it's an important issue just boggles my mind…. Mark D at 4:14 PM

…....nearly every other Clinton supporter -- have claimed that SHE has the experience….Mark D at 11:13 AM

….That last sentence is clever, associating himself with three presidents who are widely admired as toughminded negotiators. It's a neat play, both rhetorically and substantively…. Kevin Drum 2:17 PM

It's also typical that Obama cites more Republicans as his mentors. It's also typical that Obama is now saying things about Iraq that he knows voters want to hear while his adviser said another. That sounds like the same NAFTA pandering we saw in Ohio. Where is the real Obama?

The whole thing is classic Obama: empty rhetoric. Where's the substance? He has a voting record. It contains nothing different from Bush, or Clinton, until he announced.

…To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation would have begun a redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that was consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group….

Clinton, at least,came out for withdrawal in 2005 while Obama was equivocating as late as 2006.

Commenter Mike's frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for Barack Obama is certainly impressive.

spinning the speech is going to be harder than hell. It has escaped from the control of the media elite.

That is a very good point.

The US should surrender Iraq to the Iraqis. It is their country, not ours. The US only controls Iraq because of its superior military strength. The US has no superior morality with which to rationalize its occupation. The belief that Al Quaeda has anything to do with Iraqi resistance to the US occupation and rape of their country derives from Creationism and knotted-up panties.

the offering about "U.S. aggression" from Brojo

The day before the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, Sen. Obama told the American people he will kill more Afghani and Pakistani civilians in W. Bush's war on terror. A war Obama and many other moderate Democrats believe in. Sen. Obama may want to revisit why his pastor wants ex-American slaves to appeal to God to damn America, because the Afghanis and Pakistanis will have good reasons to make the same appeal to their deity after Barrack drops bombs on them.

Mike on March 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM:

Fine, but if a white candidate were in a similar situation, the calls for that candidate's resignation would be resounding constantly.

Erm...Like they are for McCain?

Frankly, the speech was an merely an attempt to remove the topic from discussion, but the RNC media will not allow that. It will become one of the main 527 attack positions.

Yep. But without this blemish, the right wing noise machine would not attack Obama for anything at all, right?

..and Obama needs to do better to disavow the racism and hate.

How? By flogging himself in public?

You probably mean that Obama should throw his pastor - who he says he doesn't agree with on some things - under the bus. That shouldn't happen, nor should it be demanded by anyone.

[Clinton] is more experienced than the lightweight Obama and nutjob McCain. Obama said his came from attending school overseas.

And Clinton said she's visited eighty countries. By that measure, my travel agent has more foreign policy experience than Clinton...

The sentence "Senator Clinton.."

That's an impressive list of (mostly-refuted) talking points, Mike. You come up with them yourself?

Probably not.

Mike 12:04 PM - "White candidates" have been supported by and have supported so many religious nut jobs over the past thrity years - without repercussions - that it makes my head spin. Think John Hagee, Bob Jones, Rod Parsley - and yes, I am just talking about Republicans but you were just talking about white people.

"The whole thing is classic Obama: empty rhetoric." At least there is something coherant coming out of Obama's mouth. McCain can't even read a teleprompter and Hillary seems fixated on McCain's vast experience. Please illustrate the policies that have been substantiated by Clinton and McCain better than by Obama.

the war is not cool, dude

Regardless of who the media interviews, whether it is childish anti-war activists or the most serious fact filled learned persons, popular opposition to our nation's military involvement in any country is not going to be effected until a significant percentage of the people hold the men and women doing the killing in contempt for their role, in my opinion.

After almost a decade of violent protest, what is most (falsely) remembered about the Vietnam anti-war protests is that some protesters spit on the troops. When contempt for the troops reaches a critical point, the nation and the military can no longer maintain a war.

The longer the occupation lasts in Iraq, the closer mass contempt for the troops becomes. It has not occurred yet, and that is why none of the anti-war protests have done anything to prevent or shorten the occupation. Too many people still respect the men and women serving and obeying W. Bush.