Speaking smoothly and comfortably...But don't say articulately!
... Mr. Obama offered a generational call to arms, portraying his campaign less as a candidacy and more as a movement. “Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s needed to be done,” he said. “Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call.”I await the substance. I want to hear what he says when he metaphorically takes off the gloves:
It was the latest step in a journey rich with historic possibilities and symbolism. Thousands of people packed the town square to witness it, shivering in the single-digit frostiness until Mr. Obama appeared, trailed by his wife, Michelle, and two young daughters. (“I wasn’t too cold,” Mr. Obama said later, grinning as he acknowledged a heating device had been positioned at his feet, out of the audience’s view.)Who knows what other devices he is using to create the impression of superhumanness people keep getting?
Anyway, Obama took the stage around 10 a.m., and the temperature there was 12°, according to the official reports. Yeah, it was 0° for you wind-chill sissies.
Mr. Obama has glided to his position in his party with a demeanor and series of eloquent...Don't say articulate!
... speeches that have won him comparisons to the Kennedy brothers and put him in a position where his status as a black man with a chance to win the White House is only part of the excitement generated by his candidacy.So he's got one issue he's willing to talk about: Dropping our commitments in Iraq quickly. Build a believable position on national security out of that (and your shocking lack of experience with foreign affairs).
But with perhaps one major exception, his plan to disengage forces in Iraq, he has avoided offering the kind of specific ideas that his own advisers acknowledge could open him up to attack by opponents or alienate supporters initially drawn by his more thematic appeals.
Mr. Obama went so far as to tell Democrats in Washington last week that voters were looking for a message of hope, and disparaged the notion that a presidential campaign should be built on a foundation of position papers or details.Translation: Don't you realize how dumb people are? I do.
“There are those who don’t believe in talking about hope: they say, well, we want specifics, we want details, we want white papers, we want plans,” he said then. “We’ve had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we’ve had is a shortage of hope.”
In an interview before he left for Illinois, Mr. Obama said he realized his powerful appeal as a campaigner would take him only so far...So... some kind of netroots vibe will carry him beyond the pure personality thing?
“If a campaign is premised on personality, then no, I don’t think you can stay fresh for a year,” he said. “But if the campaign is built from the ground up and there is a sense of ownership among people who want to see significant change, then absolutely. It can build and grow.”
“That is why this campaign can’t only be about me,” Mr. Obama said. “It must be about us. It must be about what we can do together.”Translation: I am here to help you emotive dummies feel your way to the voting booth.
Posts
78 comments:
Oh God, it's happening.
Althouse is devolving into a one-stop shop for Obama hatred.
Keep fighting the good fight, you hack.
I was there; my friends and I had been standing outside since at least 8:30. Maybe it wasn't cold for a Wisconsin morning. but we were plenty chilled :).
The speech failed to impress me also. I thought all the Lincoln comparisons were a little incongruent with his message of being a uniter and a peace bringer.
So he's got one issue he's willing to talk about: Dropping our commitments in Iraq quickly. Build a believable position on national security out of that
It's just as believable as the current policy.
This is a news article?
Apple press releases have less fawning praise than this.
He may be willing to talk about dropping those commitments in Iraq, but even that has an important caveat. Nearly two weeks ago, Senator Obama made a splashy speech about how he had introduced a bill to pull the troops out. Nearly two weeks later, the text of that bill is still not available, and the no-show of the substance is starting to seem emblematic of Obama's strengths and weaknesses: strong of the whizbang speech, but on the detail and follow-through? not so much.
Doyle, when did skepticism of a person's qualifications to be President of the United States, and an unwillingness to swallow - hook line and sinker - the every empty gesture of a hollow campaign, become personal hatred? Methinks it's you who is projecting. It's generallythe left that can't distinguish political disagreement from personal hatred, exemplified by their treatment of the Bush administration.
Simon, come on. Could you really maintain a straight face when you wrote "skepticism of a person's qualifications"?
This is just garbage. She's just accusing him of being a condescending bastard, by interspersing the press account with not-so-clever "translations."
Yes, she refers to his "shocking" lack of experience in foreign affairs, but he has more experience in national office than Bush did, and he was right about Iraq.
I saw the first 6 minutes of Obama's speech yesterday at the Washington Post link in
this post.
He mentioned God more times in the first six minutes than Bush has in the past 6 months of major speeches.
That the NY Times failed to mention that leaves me shocked, SCHOCKED! I tell you.
Oh, I guess I forgot to give Ann credit for raising the key issue: whether or not he was wearing gloves in very cold weather.
Clearly, his failure to do exposes him for the cynical, elitist menace Ann makes him out to be.
Hey, somebody has to fact check the NYT. They said single-digit, and it was 12! Aha!
Actually, I think there's some superficial flattery in the article but it's actually quite hard on him. Read the last page.
[i]Doyle, when did skepticism of a person's qualifications to be President of the United States, and an unwillingness to swallow - hook line and sinker - the every empty gesture of a hollow campaign, become personal hatred?[/i] I think it's only right and proper to be skeptical of all Presidential candidates, and I've appreciated Althouse's ongoing critique of the media love affair with the politically talented but relatively inexperienced Senator Obama.
However, I am a bit surprised she's treated Giuliani with kid-gloves. He has been canonized by the media in much the same way Obama has, and he too has a "shocking" lack of foreign policy experience. But aside from a careful and fairly generous parsing of his remarks on abortion, I've seen very little skepticism of the man. I think he's due a little.
I think this post is more about how articles fawning over Sen. Obama in language that would have made editors of Teen Beat back in Bobby Sherman's hey-day think was too adoring, have been popping up all over the place.
It seems to be more of a print thing than a TV thing, on TV, Sen. Obama simply comes off as a gangly, overly sincere, somewhat geeky fella with big ears.
All the purple prose in his adoration/sanctification/veneration from the Washington Post or New York Times won't get voters to ignore their own eyes and ears.
For a more substantive take on what Sen. Obama presidency would mean for this country, I'll go with the Prime Minister of Australia.
Look, it's a rock star - no, a Lincoln - no, it's SuperObama!
The media fawning has now completely turned me off. Done. I would vote for Jeb Bush rather than him.
PatCA: there was indeed a Superman like doll being waved around at the speech! I'm going to upload my pictures of the event to Flickr later today... I think I have a (distant) back shot of someone waving the doll.
Doyle, I find it pretty hard to keep a straight face when writing anything about Obama. He is a c-list candidate promoted against all reason to the a-list by a media that grew tired of fellating John McCain about two years ago and went looking for someone else to fill the void.
Robert, if I may venture a guess as to why Ann has no quarrel with the adoration of Rudy: it's because she likes him.
Sure, his current job title is "consultant" and he has never served even at the state level. But as mayor of New York, he mixed authoritarian rule with tolerance of homosexuals, and that's what Ann's in the market for.
Also, he's part of the iconography of 9/11, even though on one of the biggest issues he actually had control over (when to declare the air safe to breathe) he was wrong.
I can certainly understand the Repubican distrust of anyone who speaks in complete sentences and can think generally. It must be awfully unnerving.
The rap is he is black. The genius of his speech and his approach is that his hope is his goal and he DOESN'T offer the hope of a black man for America but hope generally. The GOP looks at him and paints him black first and then wonders what he has to say. You see him characterized and listed first as black and then...senator, smart, articulate (yes he is and if comparisons between obama and my pet goat are needed please let me know).
the Simonites decry his "lack of experience" as if 6 years of a feckless idiot with NO experience was heretofore a hinderance...not joking when Bush was asked about Europe he thought it was a golf expression meaning you go next (sound it out in a dumb Texan drawl..you'll get it).
The left likes Obama because he brings hope to the table and doesn't apologize for brains. It is so refreshing after years of doom and threat, fear and division and above all a 22 calibre mind in a 357 world.
Simon -
C-list candidate promoted by the media, huh? Well the media must be doing a bang-up job promoting him, because he keeps drawing enormous crowds wherever he goes.
Of course, that argument smacks of the same kind of condescension Ann is accusing him of in this brilliant piece of work.
And the media love affair with John McCain lasted years longer than it should have. I mean it's fine to support him on the grounds that he's an uber-hawk on foreign policy, but not that he's a "straight talker" who pays no heed to his political positioning. There's no better evidence of that than his current weaseling away from the escalation by saying it's too small.
"Yes, she refers to his "shocking" lack of experience in foreign affairs, but he has more experience in national office than Bush did, and he was right about Iraq."
(1) Obama was NOT right about Iraq.
(2) I'm not sure where you get the idea that I agree with Ann on everything. I'm not especially bothered by his lack of foreign policy experience, although it bears noting that you haven't even adequately engaged with Ann's point - Bush was elected before 9/11. As ever, you're trying to live in a 9/10 world, without recognizing that subsequent events may have changed what was once an acceptable lack of foreign-policy experience into a dealbreaker. My problem with him is that I think he's too smart to believe his rhetoric, and that makes him profoundly dishonest. I'm disgusted by his dishonesty, by the mismatch between his "I'm above the partisan fray" rhetoric and the complete absence of anything - anything to suggest deviation in even the slightest sense from a boilerplate liberal worldview. He talks of compromise, but what he means is "stop struggling."
Thomas Brackett Reed once said that the best way to run the House was for one party to govern and the other paty to watch - and on balance, he'd prefer his party to govern and the other party to watch. When Obama says "[w]e have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans," he means precisely the same thing as Reed - but at least Reed was honest about it.
hdhouse said...
"I can certainly understand the Repubican distrust of anyone who speaks in complete sentences and can think generally. It must be awfully unnerving."
Which is why my two favorite living conservatives are Antonin Scalia and Newt Gingrich, both noted for their complete incapacity to speak complete paragraphs. There's a current of anti-intellectualism in the GOP, just as there is in the Democratic party, but the difference is that not every Republican has been swept away with it.
One can readily see in HDH's post precisely the drivel that the left intends to push for the next two years: anyone who doesn't agree with Obama, or who doesn't like him, is a racist. We don't like him because he's black, will be the cry; hell, let's follow the logic: every American who votes against Barack Obama might as well be walking around in white sheets, it's so obvious that they're a racist.
My God, it's going to cut you idiots to the core if Michael Steele is our Veep nominee.
The MSM love for this guy is approaching insanity.
Broder on MTM just stated he was a black JFK. Oh, and if we don't make him President we're just a bunch of racist meanies.
Even more absurd is having white liberals like Joe Klein and Kurtz discussing whether he is "black" enough. I guess talking to their black maids makes them experts on the subject.
Doyle said...
"[T]he media must be doing a bang-up job promoting him, because he keeps drawing enormous crowds wherever he goes."
People are always ready for some emotive generalities that tell them what they want to hear. That got Bill Clinton very nearly half the vote - twice! I'll give you that Obama is a very good speaker. Spellbinding, even. But unfortunately, when he's done speaking, when that powerful spell wears off and you actually read the transcript, you start to realize that nothing's actually been said.
Simon, in an earlier comment which he links to as evidence of Obama NOT having been right about Iraq:
Obama is totally wrong that "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east."
I know your position is that no matter how big a disaster Iraq is, it's impossible to attribute the disaster to the decision to go to war. You can, if you like, maintain that better execution would have produced a more desirable result.
However, we DID invade Iraq without a clear rationale or international support, and it DID fan the flames of the Middle East. So on that score he does look prescient.
Anyone who thinks running NYC is small time needs to look at this list of the states in order of population and remember that the population of NYC is more than 8 million.
The population of Arkansas, btw, is less than 4 million.
"And in his speech here on Saturday, Mr. Obama... presented his campaign as an effort “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.”
Transform a nation? How? In what way? Who says the nation needs transformation, and that the federal government is the body to accomplish it? What the F*** does he mean, exactly? The US will be transformed by electing a wealthy Harvard lawyer president?
you start to realize that nothing's actually been said.
I know! I don't dispute this. He's pretty short on policy proposals, and I commend you for calling to my attention that the text of his "March '08" bill is still a mystery.
But I take comfort in the right-wing bleatings that he's a hardcore liberal underneath his eminently centrist exterior.
I do need to see some more proof of that before I vote for him, but in the meantime I'm glad he's presenting a small target to the haters.
Just look at Ann! She's got nothing to go on but his choice of handwear and his website logo.
Thanks Ann, I live in New York city. It's big. It's multicultural, but there's still not much of a foreign policy component.
"comparisons to the Kennedy brothers": bloody hell, he can't be that bad. He's clean, for a start. He's not known to have cheated in exams, had his undergraduate thesis ghost-written, faked his way to a literary award, cavorted with harlots, drowned a girl, invaded Cuba, started a shambles in Vietnam or otherwise adopted the mores of Clan Kennedy.
Running New York City is one of the hardest jobs in the nation. I don't think anyone will deny that Rudy is much more experienced than Obama in that regard. However, if you're looking for candidates with the right skill-set and background, isn't Bill Richardson the very obvious winner here?
Robert -
On foreign policy? Sure, he has more credentials than anyone else in the field (from either party). But that's why he should be Secretary of State, if Michael Lind is unavailable.
I'm no expert on Richardson, but a) I don't think he has a realistic shot at the presidency and b) I found this line from his Wiki entry quite disturbing:
While Governor, Richardson has been lauded by traditionally right-leaning publications and organizations such as Forbes Magazine and the CATO Institute for reforming New Mexico's economy.
Hmmmmm....
"I know your position is that no matter how big a disaster Iraq is, it's impossible to attribute the disaster to the decision to go to war. You can, if you like, maintain that better execution would have produced a more desirable result."
Doyle, I'll readily accept that you (and Obama) are absolutely correct that the decision to go to war was the cause of the problems that we have had there, vs. mistakes made by the administration during and after the initial liberation, as long as you'll accept that by the same logic, the decision to build the World Trade Center was the cause of its untimely collapse, vs. two planes hitting it.
Obama was right all along if you're willing to accept an extremely attenuated standard of causation: obviously, if we hadn't liberated Iraq, the mistakes that fed the growth of the insurgency wouldn't have been made, because we wouldn't have been there and so the decisions would not have been required. But it's a non sequitur to say that because we "invade[d] Iraq without a clear rationale or international support" that action "fan[ned] the flames of the Middle East," because that supposes that the conflagration proceded directly from the decision to go to war without any intermediary decisions that might have fanned the flames, and that is what I reject.
I suppose that you and I at least agree on this much: one or more serious mistakes by the Bush administration -- mistakes that, even if not made personally by Bush personally are his responsibility by virtue of the Unitary Executive -- have created a serious problem in Iraq. The extent of our disagreement basically turns on what that (or those) mistakes was (or were).
"Althouse is devolving into a one-stop shop for Obama hatred."
Hatred or exaggerated, yet astute, observation? Cutting through the embarrassing orgasmic fawning by the media, what has Mr. Obama actually told us? Answer: Zero to nothing important. He and his handlers know full well that he can get away with being nothing more than a visual and a sound. They know that any substance would require at least some grudging examination and that would be coitus interuptus for the media. Right now the writing about Mr. Obama is a breathless, before-the-fold exercise in stringing together synonyms for the word articulate - and he is making the most of the situation. He is certainly not volunteering any more than the thin, attractive veneer and deep, resonant sound that the media craves.
This amusing letter appeared in today's NY Times...
In “The Racial Politics of Speaking Well” (Week in Review, Feb. 4), about Senator Joe Biden’s use of the word “articulate” to describe Senator Barack Obama, Lynette Clemetson suggests the following rule: “Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person.”
During the recent hearings on Iraq that Senator Biden presided over as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he referred to the following people as “articulate”:
Leslie H. Gelb
Edward N. Luttwak
Lawrence J. Korb
Robert Malley
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Peter W. Galbraith
Frederick W. Kagan
Ted Galen Carpenter
Gen. Jack Keane
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
While Senator Biden has expressed his regret that anyone was offended by his words, we wanted to make it clear that his reference to Senator Obama was sincerely intended as a compliment.
Alan L. Hoffman
Washington, Feb. 9, 2007
The writer is the chief of staff for Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Simon -
If you want to narrow the broad and growing category of "Bush foreign policy mistakes" down to one, it was invading Iraq.
The lack of rationale for invasion was clear enough at the time, for those not bullied by the right wing and "serious" pundits like Richard Cohen and Tom Friedman.
That Obama is (sadly) the only one of the major presidential candidates who falls into this group is a major asset for him.
Doyle- There were several rationales for invading Iraq at the time, although I agree with you that the Bush administration never articulated the one I had in mind, and has tacked back and forth in ways that have hurt its credibility. On the other hand, your side have continued to repeat the meme that "Bush lied," despite clear evidence to the contrary, and despite it having become abundantly clear that there was no single reason for liberating Iraq, but rather, several, the most politically salable of which being the one given in public.
Re Biden's chief of staff's letter, Biden did nothing wrong (for once), and has nothing to apologize for in regard to the incident. That he thinks that he does is even more tedious than the original NYT storm in a teacup.
Simon -
Justification for war is supposed to be a fairly high standard. It had to be sold as an act of self-defense, and the two major legs of that argument were the likelihood that Iraq had or was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, and that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It was only branded "Operation Iraqi Freedom" once the bombs had started dropping.
Both of the claims which would have provided a plausible rationale were unsubstantiated at the time, as the Bush administration was aware. They, shall we say, misled the American people into thinking that both were true.
This is less left-wing conspiracy theory than established fact. You yourself admit that the case for war was at least partly disingenuous, but you seem (a la Jon Chait) to be saying that this would have been okay had the deception borne positive results, which it obviously hasn't.
Doyle,
This is a minor point, but it wasn't nuclear weapons specifically, it was WMD in general. And no, it is not established that the Bush administration was aware at the time that their claims were overblown, although I'll grant you that there is a strong argument that they should have been, and that the administration fundamentally failed to move evidence to the President that contradicted what he wanted to hear. I actually accept the left's charge that Bush is intellectually incurious, and that he's a worse President for it.
Still, that doesn't bother me, because I didn't support the war because of those reasons, and there is no reason at all to believe that the administration premised the war solely on those reasons. There were, as there are in many if not most important decisions, several factors feeding the consensus to liberate Iraq. They sold it to the public on the rationale they thought would be easiest to explain, and I think that was a mistake - if they'd forthrightly explained the more important factors animating the decision, the real neocon rationale that was being expressed by Adelman, Perle et al (and me, although fewer people were listening), that would have deprived you guys of a talking point, and might have helped sustain public trust. But lookit, if you're a movie studio and you've got Scarlett Johansson topless in your movie, that's the line you use to get people to go see the movie, even if it isn't the only attraction, or even the main attraction in the context of the whole shooting match.
I actually accept the left's charge that Bush is intellectually incurious
Wow, that's mighty big of you. Was it the fact that he sounds like an idiot that tipped you off?
if they'd forthrightly explained the more important factors animating the decision, the real neocon rationale that was being expressed by Adelman, Perle et al (and me, although fewer people were listening)
The real neocon rationale, eh? As voiced by Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman? Gee, I can't imagine why they doubted its ability to win everyone over.
So you must be in favor of invading Iran too, right?
And nuclear weapons are the only variety of WMD that are really that scary. Remember Condi's "mushroom cloud" imagery? Chemical weapons don't make those. And the only chemical weapons they did find (which Rick Santorum hilariously flacked to death) had lost pretty much all of their lethality.
"So you must be in favor of invading Iran too, right?"
Not right now, no. I think other kinds of pressure can more profitably be brought to bear on Iran, not the least of which would have been a democratic Iraq (this being one of the reasons why liberating Iraq was considered a good idea: it would put pressure on surrounding regimes). I have some confidence that Iran will figure itself out in due course.
I don't know about you, but chemical and biological weapons strike me as being no less frightening than nukes. I think Rice was just embellishing.
All this talk about yesterday and Iraq.
We're going to have a major military presence in Iraq (or elsewhere in the Middle East) for the next 30 or 50 years, so long as the region is vital to our interests and Sunnis and Shiites and Israelis are at each others throats.
I believe Sen. Clinton when she says she'd get us out of Iraq if she's elected in 2009. I suspect we'd leave sometime around 2016 -- around the time she's leaving office. Nixon made similar promises.
Doyle: How many Black chicks have you dated? Married?
You must be racist.
Peace, Maxine
Maxine,
Excuse me?
Peace, Doyle
Sure. Because Bush, Reagan and Clinton NEVER appealed to the voters' emotions.
The more I see how frightened Obama makes moronic brownshirt fucks like you feel, the more I think I could support him...
Dave,
The antecedent of "you" is who?
Is your last name Marcotte?
Obama was not articulate and I suppose we can kiss that description of him, or any black person now, goodbye.
However, Obama did grin:
...grinning as he acknowledged a heating device had been positioned at his feet...
And that goes back to my pet peeve of writers always liking to find moments to point out grinning black people (usually atheletes though). Blacks never merely smile, which connotates a more restrained and calculated use of facial muscles.
Hmmm, I might be obsessing.
As for any lack of substance, I would suggest that any candidate who articulates too detailed a set of positions on two many subjects this early is, politically speaking, quite stupid. It's the equivalent of waging a war by letting your enemy see you setting up your armaments and battle plan.
Or it's like dating. You don't tell that hot chick (the voter...sort of) sitting across from you that you work at at top hedge fund as a janitor, or that you didn't go to THE Harvard, but rather, to a Harvard College of Idaho, or that because of your excess fat, your testosterone count has fallen and your penis is nearly invisible.
No, no, no. You wait until she has done some things with you, walked a bit on the journey. And once you have gotten her in bed, and she is clearly beyond liking you and addicted, THEN you tell her about your wacky plan to fix healthcare or change the tax code, or that you have not clearly thought out pulling troops out of Iraq prematurely but that you are keeping your fingers crossed.
He's not La Clinton, nor slimy Edwards and he was right about Iraq. Not a bad start.
In addition to the race dilemma, he also has a religion issue. Obama belongs to a church that, if this article is true, sounds truly creepy. After apostating out of Islam, he should have picked something a bit more mainstream. It may help his cred with Sharpton, et al., but not mainstream people.
Hey, great logo, though!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090009
However, if you're looking for candidates with the right skill-set and background, isn't Bill Richardson the very obvious winner here?
Yes! Either party.
Simon said...
"Which is why my two favorite living conservatives are Antonin Scalia and Newt Gingrich"
Awwwww Newt who uttered that infamous line "Sweetie, I know you are dying of cancer but while you in that bed all tied up to drip tubes, I just have to tell ya' that I'm leaving you for another woman"....That Newt? The one who had to resign Newt? That guy? The one who thinks its ok to give up freedom of speech a little for the short term? That asshole?
Just curious...and you can't mean Scalia? Trigger Dick's hunting buddy? That guy? Mr. No Conflict?
Just curious.
Must be awful to be a republic(an) party hack. Its like finding turds in the punchbowl and dipping near the one that is least offensive.
hahahaha...god you guys are sooo easy.
and simple simon continues to supply the left with endless material:
Simon said...
"So you must be in favor of invading Iran too, right?"
Not right now, no. will figure itself out in due course.
" some sand flea whisper something in your ear? Dick Cheney send you a mailgram? Perhaps George read some code in my pet goat?" ohhhh and this one....
God has to love you Simon...
"I don't know about you, but chemical and biological weapons strike me as being no less frightening than nukes. I think Rice was just embellishing."
Ahhhh its called LYING simon....Rice was LYING. as in LIAR. a mushroom shaped nerve gas cloud perhaps? Was that gapped toothed nitwit thinking of firing some of the Santorum Nerve Heads back at us?
I may be drunk and you may be stupid but tomorrow I'll wake up from the GOP nightmare and be sober...unfortunately you will still be...."
"God has to love you Simon..."
Lately I'm counting on it.
"I may be drunk and you may be stupid but tomorrow I'll wake up from the GOP nightmare and be sober...unfortunately you will still be [stupid]."
I think Winston Churchill would have punched people like you on the nose, but setting that aside, the really funny part is that you'll wake up tommorow from your GOP nightmare, and you know what you're going to find? A Republican will still be President, and our enemies will still hate us. Stay asleep and dream of unilateral surrender, HDH...
BTW - learn how to use an elipsis would you? Sheesh.
Unlike you Simon and of course your GOP buddies who still believe (I believe, I believe, its silly but I believe...STOP the CAR!!)... my share of constitutional righst are not either for sale or for loan. They belong to me and what has taken a couple centuries to evolve is, on my part, guarded and coveted.
No. I will not wake up under the GOP rule in a couple years because Mr. Bush has sought to break this country every bit as much as he as broken Iraq. This thread, Mr. Obama's words and his actions, address that directly.
You collective fools on the right who have supported this birdbrain and his administration - one who Frank Rich so adequately describes as "having never met the truth" - don't get it. The left and the majority from slightly right of center through the left AND THAT IS THE MAJORITY have caught on to the stream of lies and selfserving propaganda and the Obamas are calling you on it.
It is funny how some have reacted here in this meandering thread. Empty suit to traitor if I read correctly. Yet you gleefully support all manner of acts and actions that in a normal world - a world not filled with paranoia, hatred and fear - would pass for traitorous actions on their own.
Nixon was impeached and frankly should have served jail time not only for some aspects of his prosecution of the war but mainly for his blatant disregard of rights of citizens. You trample on one you trample on us all.
I'm sorry you don't see the larger picture. It is regetable and I pity you your ignorance and myopia.
Barack used the word "generation" at least 12 times in his 20 minute announcement. This generational pitch was predictable and it will be effective motivating a traditionally under-represented demographic. But this pitch cuts both ways and his use of it tells me that he is running for Vice President.
The “Greatest Generation” had a - um- “Great” presidential run: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41). Even Nixon, the one unambiguous black spot in the “Greatest” presidential record can claim the opening of China as a moment of truly historical import. What do we boomers have? Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Give me a break. The first impeached president since Andrew Johnson, and arguably the “worst president in history”. That’s it? That is supposed to represent the boomer generation? After these two clowns we are going to skip the Boomers and move on to Generation X? I don’t think so. Let us not forget the impact of the Baby Boom generation: “Baby boomers presently make up the lion’s share of the political, cultural, industrial and academic leadership class in the United States… To date, baby boomers also have the highest median household incomes in the United States.” Some have claimed that the Boomer generation tends to be narcissistic. I prefer to think of us simply as "The Only Generation that Matters.” The fact is, it is only half-time in our generational political football game, and boomers are just not going to be satisfied with “two and out” in the Oval Office. Won’t happen.
Full Disclosure: I am a Boomer. We are not done with the the White House yet.
hdhouse:"The GOP looks at him and paints him black first and then wonders what he has to say"
Oh please. The ONLY reason the Left is in love with Obama is because he's black, and not a race-hustler like Sharpton or Jackson. If he was white, the MSM wouldn't give him the time of day. He's a lightweight - a celebrity candidate without executive experience. No foreign policy exp either [he also recently insulted our Aussie allies].
hdhouse: "a 22 calibre mind in a 357 world."
And if you're going to steal lines from Sorkin, at least cite him. Plagerism is bad, m'kay?
hdhouse: "Nixon was impeached and -"
Nixon was not impeached.
[....]
But please continue with your little entertaining mythology...
hdhouse:"The GOP looks at him and paints him black first and then wonders what he has to say"
fen: Oh please. The ONLY reason the Left is in love with Obama is because he's black
Truth is somewhere in the middle.
I have to say I stopped reading the article when it said it was 12 and frigid. Wimpy NYTimes reporter and Illinoisians.
Mr. Obama has glided to his position in his party with a demeanor and series of eloquent speeches that have won him comparisons to the Kennedy brothers...
Doesn't Teddy's oratory "gifts" cancel out the abilities of the other two?
...and put him in a position where his status as a black man with a chance to win the White House is only part of the excitement generated by his candidacy.
So the other half is - that he is young?
oh please...
you goppiglets drop the racial card when in your interest to do so and with your standing in the black community, the latino community and just about all communities that is often and without regard.
true nixon wasn't impeached. pardoned and resigned. good catch. that puts him right up there with who?...
you dislike obama, namecall him forevermore and for what? why?
because you have zero going for you. thats why. you have bush who can't read or write. you have cheney who grunts between target practice and beer. you have libby...hey guys..one of you...who looks like the poster childer for liars. you have rice...words don't describe....you have...oh gosh..soooo many to pick from...
you have zip. your arguments and spewed-crap are zip.
try again..k?
"you goppiglets drop the racial card when in your interest to do so"
We don't drop the racial card. You do. Note that you are already devolving into ad hom with "piglet"
"true nixon wasn't impeached. pardoned and resigned. good catch."
Not really. You guys spout falsehoods rapid-fire. Your side falsely assert that Bush lied, even that he dodged the draft. Too many lies from you to contest at one sitting, but every now and then we do so. I only picked out Nixon to reveal how distorted the rest of your rant was. Its amazing how many Lefties still believe Nixon was impeached. Gee, wonder where they got that load of bs from?
Liberalism: Its not just a religion, its a mythology. We just make stuff up as we go along, repeat it often enough, and BAMN its conventional wisdom
"you dislike obama, namecall him forevermore and for what? why?"
Sigh. Don't dislike obama, never namecalled him. Go stroke your strawman somewhere else. You are a shrill partisan.
I don't know enough about Obama to like/dislike him. I don't even know where he stands on the issues [other than Iraq]. Thats the point - the MSM has been lauding him with unsupported assertions, glorifying him with false laurels. To date, he reminds me of the Clintonian "I feel your pain" - all talk and no action. He's a celebrity candidate - sweet on the outside, but empty within. And it sounds like he already has your vote merely because he's popular.
But then, you maintain Nixon was impeached. So forgive me for not placing much stock in your analysis...
BTW, please don't plagerize Sorkin again. Not that many would bother to question your integrity again... but its just wrong.
hdhouse has this cyclical pattern of sense becoming nonsense, of thrust-and-parry becoming wild flailing.
It used to piss me off, but now it seems like some pointless performance art, or a bit of lefty church ritual, where instead of the Litany of the Saints he reads from the First Book of Democraticus Illogicus (revised), calling out all their demons as a form of exorcism.
Re: "GOP! Spirit of Grief! Spirit of Destruction! I bind you with chains of iron! I bind you - be bound in heaven! Lessen your hold and come out of her now!
Start blowing out, sister... Out... Out, GOP! Come out now! Go ahead... Out in the name of Marx! Come on Destruction! Come on Grief! GOP, you're gonna listen to me! GOP! Go ahead sister, keep blowing... GOP, you have no right to be here! Out, GOP! Out! Out! And Marx said: "... That's right, I'm gonna break your power GOP! "
Glittering Generalities: This was the term I heard in a social studies class, way back when they actually taught, to describe political speeches that are all fluff and no substance. We studied several historical speeches and analyized them for the technique. I have never forgot that class in critical thinking.
Glittering Generalities is a propaganda technique used to sway people, to sell soap and to get people to emotionally buy into a cause without actually having to think.
This is what I thought about Obama's speech. Very well done. Sounded extemporaneous and contained so many Glittering Generalities that it was not worth much. Like most politicians (of all persuasions) he is throwing everything he can up against the wall to see what sticks. I was impressed with his style. Not impressed with what he had to say since it was mostly hot air.
Fen - Plagiarism is bad, but so is not knowing how to spell.
So what if Obama lacks foreign policy experiece? How much foreign policy experience did 43 have when he began his presidential campaign? As for experience, it is difficult to imagine two politicians with more relevant foreign policy experience than Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and yet they have both proven to be unmitigated disasters.
Furthermore, Obama does not have anything like this in his background: http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg
I, for one, am not particularly concerned about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience; that kind of experience, not unlike "combat experience," simply is hard to come by and should not be a factor. Plus, were Obama to be elected, he would have all of the capabilities of the Department of State and Director of Intelligence at his disposal to make good decisions... Oh, wait. /sarcasm off
Wade_Garrett: Plagiarism is bad, but so is not knowing how to spell
oooh. A spelling flame. And you managed to draw equivalence to theft as well...
roger: Plus, were Obama to be elected, he would have all of the capabilities of the Department of State and Director of Intelligence at his disposal to make good decisions
Thats fair. I would want to know what Obama would do if, say, British/French/German/Russian/Israeli intelligence, as well as CIA/NSA, advised a President Obama that Iran was months away from completing their WMD program, and had revealed a pattern of handing wpns off to terrorists for proxy attacks.
Would Obama have the balls to take direct action, even if it meant an unpopular war? Or would he Clintonize us with platitudes [perhaps even an "Iranian Liberation Act"] while he kicked the can down the road.
Moot point. Hillary will thrash Obama in the primaries. He's a lightweight. The media sensation will fade and they will turn on him, same way they did Dean. He won't be able to live up to expectations. Too bad, because I'd rather have him than her.
I'm beginning to not care anymore. Bring the troops home, because the Left is intent on sabatoging their mission anyway, even if it means a higher body count. Let the terrorists follow us here: metropolitan "blue" city-states are their primary targets. Maybe we need to lose NY, LA, and Boston for the Left to wake up and realize that Radical Islam is more dangerous than those Evangelical Christians.
Pogo: hdhouse has this cyclical pattern of sense becoming nonsense, of thrust-and-parry becoming wild flailing.
I've been away for awhile, but I remember hd as being more lucid. Perhaps he's enraged that his Dems ran on promises to end the war, and all they've mustered is non-binding nonsense. Or maybe he's just out of weed? Regardless, he's frothing and should be ignored.
Hope you guys are well. I miss posting here, but it looks like Victoria covers all my points better than I could.
Semper Fi
fen fen fen...
so few brains. obviously so much time.
hd house: so few brains. obviously so much time.
Uh-huh. Perhaps you could enlignten us:
Iran is supplying Shia forces in Iraq with advanced weaponry [helo's shot down with shoulder SAMs, armored convoys shreded with shaped-charged IEDs]. Iran is also researching a primitive nuke that has too many commonalities to be "finger-printed" [ie. radiation signature can't be traced back to Iran if they hand it off to terrorists for a proxy attack].
What would you do about Iran? Please, show us this vaunted intellect you keep boasting about.
fen fen the prince among men...
bush must love you. he can toss out any number of buffalo chips and you'll catch them and try and shine them to look like gold.
i love what you say with such certainty...that little snippet about the nuclear weapon was choice. did you read that on drudge or Talon News? Jeff Ganon pay you a visit?
As to Iran...tell you what. Give me a date certain when President Bonehead stops doing that voodoo that he do so well...I mean when he calls a halt to whatever it is he is doing...on that day we will take a snapshot and figure out a way out of the mess. Right now we are literally screaming at him to stop running deeper into the swamp but he is, as Custer said, "the decider" and short of grabbing him by his scrawny neck, the commander in chief. No one is following him but he is hell bent on walking into more quicksand carrying our flag.
The literate world has been telling Bush that the solutions are to be found in diplomacy and political accords and he won't listen. Iran, if you remember (doubtful) was cooperative in the period right after 9-11...remember? then what? did they go loony or did we? little of both certainly but bush has lead the charge into the asylum and seems content to live there pulling specks of lint off his flightsuit.
you've been sold a bill of goods and you keep buying. that is the real puzzle.
hd: As to Iran...real puzzle
Such leadership and intellect! I give you a hypothetical scenario and your solution is to bash me and bash Bush.
At least you didn't kick it to the UN...
Or call for frivolous sanctions...
But thank you for representing the foreign policy of the Left. You made my point.
fen fen fen....i'll try and keep this simple for you.
you hire an architect to come over and put an addition on your home. he shows up and you tell him what you want. on inspection, the architect notices that the house is sliding down a small hillside...moving at some rate but in motion...so he says "first, get the house to stop moving" then, "i'll see what we can do".
get it?
thought not.
get it? thought not.
Still evading the questiion, I see. Fine, you have a problem with [factual] info re primitive nukes not being finger-printed with 100% accuracy, we'll change it for you...
You refuse to take pre-emptive action on Iran's WMD program, so:
A yemeneese freighter drops anchor a half-mile outside the port of Wilmington, NC. Its cargo is unregistered. Before Coast Guard can intercept and sink it, suicide bombers detonate the 20 megaton nuke. The city is decimated, and a radioactive cloud floats along weather patterns towards Boston and New York.
Terrorist group claims responsibility, demanding US stop interferring with Middle East, but your intel says its Iranian. 6 million Americans are dead, another 26 million face radiation poisoning. Are you going to retaliate against Tehran, incerating 7 million innocents b/c of one madmad?
Oh yeah, the UN wants you to show "restraint", France and CIA are disputing claims that it was an Iranian nuke [no 100% for you], and the Paki government fears a coup if you retaliate against Iran.
What will you do? Would you prefer to go back to a time when pre-emption was on the table?
How can he be qualified. Like (say) Duyba!
fen
you are utterly insane. i saw that movie but it was charleston sc not wilmington.
what possible "proof" do you cite for the neutral source 20 meg weapon?...
look putz...you bomb iran or get israel to do it for you and you will have an impeached president by the end of the day, total war in the middle east, the entire rest of the world looking at us like morons or worse...
but you would like that. its kinda a john wayne movie to you. again. you are utterly insane and i mean it. you are one scary dud(e).
Post a Comment