 |
 |
 March 19, 2008
OBAMA ON IRAQ....Two big speeches in two days for Barack Obama. Today, in a big speech on Iraq, he takes some strong shots at both Hillary Clinton and John McCain ("What we need in our next Commander in Chief is not a stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality or empty rhetoric about 3 AM phone calls") and argues that we're fighting the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time:
There's a lot more in this vein, and the speech was heavily focused on the purely military aspects of the war on terror — too heavily focused for my taste. But there were nods here and there to nonmilitary issues, including this nicely delivered paragraph:
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. Overall, not a bad speech. There wasn't too much new in it, and I wish he had taken on some broader themes, but overall it helped his cause. Not only was he firm about wanting to leave Iraq (thus addressing Hillary's exploitation of Samantha Power's remarks that Obama would "revisit" withdrawal when be became president), but he gave good reasons for wanting to leave. On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 7. —Kevin Drum 2:17 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (147)Comments
Why doesn't Hillary give speeches like this instead of praising McCain's purely imaginary CiC "qualification"? Posted by: Steve LaBonne on March 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKShe 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. Posted by: Matthew Heaney on March 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKThis 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. Posted by: gyrfalcon on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINKThat 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. Posted by: lobbygow on March 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINKKevin, don't fret. He's giving another speech tomorrow in Charleston, WV which will focus on Iraq and the Economy. Posted by: Keith on March 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKThink 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. Posted by: NHCt on March 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKShe did give a similar speech yesterday, if you were paying attention, but the media was totally preoccupied with Obama.I was paying attention, and indeed have read the transcript with attention, but 1) it did not draw anything like the sharp contrast with McCain that Obama's speech did; perfunctory references to "Bush / McCain", without Obama's kind of clear explanation of what is wrong with their strategic vision, simply don't cut it; and 2) she hasn't even undone the damage she did with the "threshold" bullshit (and was still peddling "ready on day one" BS in that speech). Sorry, not even close to good enough. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on March 19, 2008 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK 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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKWhat 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. Posted by: Mary on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKKevin -- for comparison's sake, what's your rating/critiques of Hillary's major policy speech on Iraq? Posted by: Sebastian on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINKRather 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. Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKAnd 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. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on March 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKHate 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. Posted by: fafner1 on March 19, 2008 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKI'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. Posted by: Quinn on March 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK"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. 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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKOr 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. Posted by: ExBrit on March 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKClinton 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. Obama fired back during a town-hall meeting in Pennsylvania. 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] 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. Posted by: TR on March 19, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK"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. Posted by: GOD on March 19, 2008 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINKI, 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. Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK"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. Posted by: Uli Kunkel on March 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKSorry, I didn't realize you meant it facetiously. Posted by: Quinn on March 19, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKThe last sentence WAS clever. The lie he told in the third sentence was ALSO clever ... IF you let him get away with it. Posted by: RonK, Seattle on March 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINKMike, 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. Posted by: Steve LaBonne on March 19, 2008 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK….Think Republicans are still so giddy about the prospects of facing him? …. NHCt at 2:35 PMYup. Beware of White Men Bearing Gifts ….And what has Clinton done that HE has not?….Steve LaBonne at 2:42 PMCame out for withdrawal in 2005 and taken a firm stand without equivocating to withdraw now. Hillary linked herself to McCain when she praised him over Obama as qualified to be president. fafner1 at 2:43 PMWhine that to the 31% of Americans who think McCain stronger leader than Obama …But whether Clinton or Obama emerges with the nomination, McCain will be a force to reckon with. 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).
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. Posted by: Mike in KS on March 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINKSteve 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? Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKGOD: "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? Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK"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. Posted by: Uli Kunkel on March 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKActually that was Donald I meant to refer to. Whatevs, this is getting pretty dumb-ass (as usual). Posted by: Uli Kunkel on March 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINKI 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.) Posted by: Steve LaBonne on March 19, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINKHere'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. Posted by: Mike in KS on March 19, 2008 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK[You need to give it a rest. You consistently make me sufficiently annoyed] Posted by: Swan on March 19, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKActually, 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. Posted by: Mark D on March 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKDonald. 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. Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKKennedy-Vietnam Nixon-Cambodia Reagan-South America Obama claims to be their heir! Yeah, thats great! Posted by: Rob on March 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKWhat 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. Posted by: Da5id on March 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINKUli 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? Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINKDonald, how's saying you're more shrill a personal insult? I hope you're not that sensitive. 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. Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK
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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK"….And what has Clinton done that HE has not?….Steve LaBonne at 2:42 PM 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. Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINKThe moderator at 3:42 gets my vote for "comment of the thread." Posted by: on March 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINKRather, 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. Posted by: Mark D on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINKGOD: "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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINKI'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? Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 19, 2008 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINKMedia 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. Posted by: abc55 on March 19, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINKMark 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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKObama 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? Posted by: Mark D on March 19, 2008 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKSeems 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. 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. Posted by: markg8 on March 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKPlease, 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. Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on March 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKLet'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. Posted by: Mark D on March 19, 2008 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKWhen 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. Posted by: Pug on March 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK….Talking about personality traits and character wrt Barack can't work in Hillary's favour. GOD at 3:46 PMLet's see ....just to name a few: Obama flat out lies about his ant-war position, his NAFTA stance, his war withdrawal commitment. Then there is his political funding from a slumlord while taking a community activists stance, his reprehensible use of Harry&Louise attacks against Clinton, his dishonest claims that his plan covers all, his dishonest claim that he won't cover all because of expense [he has made both], his mocking of Edwards, He flipping on his pledge on re-voting in Michigan because the party rules forbid voting by Republicans or Independents in a Democratic primary, his 20-year attendance in a church that featured racist hate speech. So, yes, when it comes to character issues, Obama is clearly lacking. Like an old sleazy pol, he will say and do anything to win. As pointed out above, his favorite technique is to claim that his positions are being distorted while distorting his opponent's. …..Obama is the right man, at the right time, with the right message. …..Da5id on March 19, 2008 at 3:44 PMOnly in your imagination. His plans and policies are center-right. His message is typical political attacks. His commitment to universal health care is non-existent. But then message is all he has; in his record, deeds are few. ….It would be nice if they could just come out say "Jive Turkey"…. enozinho at 3:48 PMWhen racist remarks don't exist, 'bamaist just create 'em. What did The One say? “We have a choice in this country. …. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter [or, to be properly inclusive, any statement by any critic] as evidence that she’s playing the race card…." 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. Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINKKevin, 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. Posted by: optical weenie on March 19, 2008 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKI love Phish Food. Rainforest Crunch was my all-time favorite but they discontinued it. Posted by: on March 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKOkay, one more speech: on the economy this time ... Posted by: RS on March 19, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKKennedy-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 PMIt does when your number one adviser actually did the job for eight years. you watch your team scramble to subvert the rules ….markg8 at 4:11 PMObama said he would be “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing. Only now Obama is backing out. Obama only wants to play when he can win. Actually, Clinton's papers will show how active a first lady she was. No one in the US have as many tax returns in the public as the Clinton's certainly not the Obama's. ….I think they're scared to death of him…. MeLoseBrain? on March 19, 2008 at 4:11 PMYeah, think again. You should check out The strange case of conservative pundits and their love for Barack Obama …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. 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. Posted by: AJ on March 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINKMy favorite is Phish Food. Phish?! You dirty fucking hippie ... ;-P (Fan of Carmel Sutra.) Posted by: Mark D on March 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINKHow did that not put my name in the comment at 4:37pm above? Usually, that is an automatic reject. Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINKDonald 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? Posted by: grape_crush on March 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKObama only wants to play when he can win. And that seperates him from other politicians...how? Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on March 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKMark 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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINKThis 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. Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKFrom 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. 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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKWhatever 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! Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on March 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINKJoe: "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. Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINKBrojo: "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 ... Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINKDon (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. Posted by: Uli Kunkel on March 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINKTurning 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. Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK 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? Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKBlue 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. Posted by: grape_crush on March 19, 2008 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINKenozhino, 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." Posted by: thersites on March 19, 2008 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINKDonald 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. Posted by: grape_crush on March 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINKNice of me to mis-spell your handle while correcting your English. shithead. (saving you the trouble) Posted by: thersites on March 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKJesus 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. Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKI 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. Posted by: ABQkevin on March 19, 2008 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINKDonald: 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. Posted by: shortstop on March 19, 2008 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINKIsn'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! Posted by: aline on March 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINKI 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. Posted by: Ron Byers on March 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINKthersites: (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... Posted by: shortstop on March 19, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINKTake it easy on Donald from Hawaii guys, I'll admit I find him a sincere Democratic poster. Posted by: Boorring on March 19, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINKshortstop's the comedy boss today. Good work. Posted by: thersites the blackguard on March 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKShortstop: I got nothing, shithead. Posted by: enozinho on March 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINKshortstop's the comedy boss today. Good work. Too late to suck up to me now, Mr. Sassy Mouth! I got nothing, shithead. LOLOL. Posted by: shortstop on March 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINKIn 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?" Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 19, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKThe 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. Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINKI 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. Posted by: thersites on March 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINKYou 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. Posted by: lobbygow on March 19, 2008 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINKWhat 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. Posted by: rea on March 19, 2008 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINKI 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. Posted by: Brojo on March 19, 2008 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINKBut 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..... Posted by: Stefan on March 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINKObama: "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. Posted by: Don Bacon on March 19, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK | |