This argument never makes sense to me. If I lose, then I think it's fine for people to speculate that I don't have the bloodlust. I think I'm going to win doing exactly what I'm doing. This notion that somehow the only way to succeed in politics is to try to kneecap people, distort their records, engage in underhanded maneuvers--I just don't buy it. Now, you know what, if it turns out in this campaign that I have lost, and the reason I've lost is because I wasn't willing to do things that I think are wrong, I can live with that. I don't think that's going to happen. The one thing I won't tolerate is people trying to play that stuff on me. The one thing I hope people have become very clear about, and if not I will remind them, is I won't be a punching bag for anybody. I won't have people try to engage in unfair attacks against me. And if they come at me hard, I will come back at them harder. Alright?
२९ नोव्हेंबर, २००७
"If I lose, then I think it's fine for people to speculate that I don't have the bloodlust."
TNR has an interview with Barack Obama that ends with the question: "Do you worry that people look at that and say 'Well, this guy doesn't have the thirst, the kind of bloodlust for brass-knuckle politics that you need to have?'" The answer:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१५ टिप्पण्या:
"I won't have people try to engage in unfair attacks against me. And if they come at me hard, I will come back at them harder. Alright?"
Ummm, OK with me. But what does he consider an unfair attack?
Well, it's a nice sentiment. But there's not much to it.
Other than blatant fabrications (spreading baseless rumors that a candidate's a drunk or an adulterer, say), what one candidate calls "unfair attacks" are usually just the stuff he would prefer not have to deal with. (Hillary has used the "unfair attacks" tactic with some success already.) That's especially true when the charge is that one candidate is "distorting my record." Candidates don't get to censor what rivals offer as the telling detail about a candidate's past positions that will supposedly shed light on what he will do if elected.
The part that may be more interesting to watch is whether Obama lives up to his promise that, "if they come at me hard, I will come back at them harder." That is likely to prove quite tricky, especially since Obama is trying to be the candidate who will lead us all into the promised land us of the new post-partisan politics where no one ever offers "unfair attacks" or "distorts" a rival's "record." Good luck.
Aside from that, the word "Alright" just doesn't look all right to me. I realize that it's made it into the dictionary. But I still think of it as unacceptably substandard.
Not reading any more bs from TNR until they resolve [admit to] the Scott Beauchamp mess. His unit recently rotated out of Iraq - no reason why they can't contact him now...
Can it genuinely be objectively said that Obama has always taken the high road in this campaign?
I don't know the answer. Just asking.
I think we can all look forward to seeing some dirt on Oprah come out, probably on Drudge (via the Clinton campaign), if she has much effect on the race, alright?
Manuwalde: Lisa [to his minions] They do not fear me because they do not think that an inexperienced black man would drink their blood. Well they will soon be very surprised.
Lisa: But what will you do Blackula?
Manuwalde/Blackula: They will know fear when my sister appears. She is the most powerful soul sucking vampire in the cosmos and she will show no mercy. Then they will know to fear our power.
Lisa: Well where is this horrible succubus?
Manuwalde/Blackula: Chicago.
(Scream Blackula Scream 1973)
Kacznarczik disputed Trooper York's conclusion about the use of a liquid accelerant, testifying that:
Well, as I said before, there was not a very big fire in the house. There was a lot of damage but it's relatively a small fire considering what could have 7 happened. If gasoline were used, they would have lost the house. That's my opinion. If the fire had started in the kitchen, that fire load being all wood and it was [a] really roaring ongoing fire, they wouldn't have been able to blanket it down that quickly plus the fact that the chimney effect over by the stairway, that fire would have definitely been up to the second floor with that drafting up the stairway. The fire was not really that much of a rolling fire in the kitchen.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/049005p.pdf
Obama: "The one thing I hope people have become very clear about, and if not I will remind them, is I won't be a punching bag for anybody. I won't have people try to engage in unfair attacks against me. And if they come at me hard, I will come back at them harder. Alright?"
Is anyone else thinking The Untouchables?
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"
Translation: if I lose, it's because Hillary is so mean.
That's the way losers talk. I wish Obama would show a little spine.
What could he possibly criticize Hillary about?
Bigger government and higher taxes? They agree. They're both for them.
More immigration, legal and illegal? They agree. They're both for it.
Iraq? They agree. They're both for giving up and withdrawing, if at different paces.
Health care? They agree. They both want to socialize medicine.
Appointing activist judges? They agree on fast tracking rule by the judiciary.
So why vote for Obama? Because he's a nicer progressive? Why not go with ruthless Hillary if your a Dem?
Context: Jeopardy
Clue: It does not follow.
My comment refers to the excerpt in the post, and that's all.
They both want to socialize medicine.
I never understood what this meant, or why it was a bad thing. Does it mean "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs?" How is it that all the other capitalist countries have national health care plans? Are they secretly socialist? Does free beer run form the taps in these countries?
How is socialized medicine different from socialized education or socialized education?
I meant, how does it differ from socialized drinking water or socialized education?
Former law student, I like it. How does socialized medicine differ from socialized drinking water? Won't the free market provide clearn drinking water? If you really need clean drinking water, you'll find a way to pay for it . . .
If you can't afford a drinking water, you really don't deserve it you know! And if you die from disease because you can't afford clean drinking water, well that's just the free market, more people were actually saved by the market providing clean drinking water than died from it. Creative destruction baby!:)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा