"It was interesting in the debate, Sen. Clinton saying 'don't feed the American people false hopes. Get a reality check, you know?' I mean, you can picture JFK saying, 'we can't go to the moon, it's a false hope. Let's get a reality check.' It's not, sort of, I think, what our tradition has been."
Can't go to the moon = think of me as the new Kennedy.
Posts
71 comments:
...but without the Kennedy family...
I'd feel a little better if, at least, he had a brother he could appoint to high office.
Hillary's undoubtedly got a team of investigators working to find out who's the new Marilyn Monroe.
"Hillary's undoubtedly got a team of investigators working to find out who's the new Marilyn Monroe."
Well, sure, but just because JFK and her husband had sex with just about any willing (and sometimes unwilling) female doesn't mean Obama does as well. Also, this also assumes Democrat primary voters actually care about something like that, when all contemporary evidence suggests Obama would probably benefit from an accusation of adultery in a Democrat primary.
In the general election, of course, not so much.
Maybe this is the place to mention the rumor that Druge is pushing that Hillary is thinking of dropping out.
Let me add though that I don't believe a word of it - mostly because it would be totally out of character. She is a fighter, and whenever her husband thought of giving up, she is the one who would kick him in the rear end, and then come out swinging.
Hillary's undoubtedly got a team of investigators working to find out who's the new Marilyn Monroe.
No doubt. But the fact that her big find thus far has been a kindergarten essay in which Obama said he wanted to be president suggests that Obama really is scandal free.
Which makes Obama likely even better than JFK in a lot of respects. My guess is that Michelle Obama would not put up with the kind of straying that Hillary and Jackie put up with.
On the other side, one big weakness with Obama is that people are more worried about another version of the Bay of Pigs.
What would be the contemporary version of the space race that would excite people's hopes? Or are we supposed to yearn for a vague hope?
Ah, Blogger now works again.
My previous (lost) post was that Americans, esp. those on the left love dreamers and hopers. I think that this is quite attractive for Obama, esp. in comparison with Hillary!, and I expect that this contrast between them to work well to his advantage.
Now, from a Conservative's point of view, I find policy based on hope over reality to be counter-productive, and is one of my big gripes with the Democratic Party, starting with FDR, and extending through at least LBJ. So, I can't find myself supporting him, but I still like the guy, and don't expect that I will ever have the visceral hatred of him that many do of Hillary! And, thus, if we have to have a Democratic president next, I would rather it be Obama, despite my discomfort with his policy pronouncements.
The mud is coming sports fans. Get ready. You ain't seen nothing yet. It remains to be seen how far down the Clintons will go. I bet they go down low if you know what I mean. Good for Obama. He seems like a decent sort. Inexperienced but without malice. Bland but with a lot of natural political talent. Sort of the Tim Duncan of politics. He's about to post up Bill Laimbeer. The faint of heart should avert their eyes.
Someone should remind Obama that going to the moon is not the same as shoot the moon in Hearts.
American went to the moon. Obama is capable of playing a card game.
I can't find myself supporting him, but I still like the guy, and don't expect that I will ever have the visceral hatred of him that many do of Hillary!
I have the same sentiment. The only problem I have with Obama is his politics, but as a person, I think he's a swell fellow. Granted this is just from seeing him on tv but first impressions are what they are.
It would also be a great change from the Montagues and the Capulets. Let's give Othello a shot.
Is there a Bobby Obama? Will Halle Berry sing 'Happy Birthday' to him?
Of course the Republicans are running King Lear, Titus Andronicus, a Falstaff who was on trim-spa and Bill Hendrickson. Quite a motley crew.
He is the new JFK! Seriously.
I know it's hard for conservatives to see this because they don't like his policies, but it's true. I don't much like his policies either (removing the cap on the payroll tax -- ugh!), but I can see him for what he is: The smartest and most charismatic politician in a long, long time.
Well, sure, but just because JFK and her husband had sex with just about any willing (and sometimes unwilling) female doesn't mean Obama does as well.
Won't stop Hillary from trying, though!
I have heard it said that Bill Clinton only ran in '92 to get his name known, and did not expect to win the prinary, much less the general election (no Dem did).
Is it possible Obama was doing the same thing, and it may translate into his winning in November because of Hillary's implosion?
As far as the JFK comparison, although I do see some similaities, three big things that are missing are Obama's lack of a powerful family behind him (unless I just am not aware of it); his record from prior to public office (JFK was an actual war hero, which was a big deal in '60), and he was the first of his generation to have a shot at the Presidentcy.
As any Boston Celtic fan will tell you, the new JFK was Joe Kleine.
(I am trying to turn this into a basketball thread).
He is the new JFK! Seriously.
I know it's hard for conservatives to see this because they don't like his policies, but it's true.
To be frank, as a conservative, I'd take JFK in a heartbeat right now. Tax cutter, strong on national defense, not afraid to show strength in the face of a murderous enemy. Yeah, I'll take that all day long.
Unfortunately Obama as well as the rest of the Democratic slate seem to run on the counter Kennedy slogan of 'don't ask what you can do for your country, demand that your country can provide for you.'
As far as the JFK comparison, although I do see some similaities, three big things that are missing are Obama's lack of a powerful family behind him (unless I just am not aware of it); his record from prior to public office (JFK was an actual war hero, which was a big deal in '60), and he was the first of his generation to have a shot at the Presidentcy.
Forget the record prior to public office, Obama doesn't even have much of a record in public office.
Kennedy had been a representative in the House for six years and a senator for eight years before he became president, and was a leading figure in the Senate during that time (he was considered as a vice presidential candidate in 1956, for example).
Obama's been a senator for what, three years? And before that he was just a state senator.
not afraid to show strength in the face of a murderous enemy
If only the current administration could be described that way. Instead, when attached by a muderous enemy (Bin Laden), we let him go and attacked someone else! That's not showing strength, it's showing stupidity. And that's the whole point of Obama's talk about getting Bin Laden in Pakistan. He is saying that Bush et al. are not strong on national defense. They are weak and scared, running away from the hard fight to avoid looking like failures.
Mitt Romney is the Danny Ainge of politics.
we let him go and attacked someone else!
Um, Afghanistan? We toppled the Taliban and have been attacking Al Qaeda for quite a while. Iraq is "in addition to" not "instead of". Bin Laden isn't exactly sitting in a palace or making visits to various nations. He's in hiding, and that's because he's a target.
You've no clothes, Emp.
Is Fred Thompson the Chuck Nevitt of politics?
Is Chris Dodd the Chris Dudley of politics?
We toppled the Taliban and have been attacking Al Qaeda for quite a while. Iraq is "in addition to" not "instead of". Bin Laden isn't exactly sitting in a palace or making visits to various nations. He's in hiding, and that's because he's a target.
Wow, we "toppled the Taliban"! That was bold. And we've been "attacking Al Qaeda." Very impressive. And Bin Laden is a "target."
If we gave the Administration 6 more years, they might actually locate Bin Laden! And then they could topple the Taliban again after they've regained power! And they could continue to "attack Al Qaeda" the whole time!
It's certainly a "strong" failure, but it's a failure nonetheless.
Yes to both questions. Of course Joe Biden is the Granville Waiters of politics.
Ann, by highlighting the Kennedy reference, I think you distract from the brilliant jujutsu of Obama's counter. In very few words he exposes the void at the Clinton campaign.
Bruce, I'd rather Obama referenced Reagan's fight against Communism than Kennedy's moonshot, but he's right. A president should have a big idea about America.
If we gave the Administration 6 more years, they might actually locate Bin Laden!
can we quote this back to you 6 years into Obama's administration?
can we quote this back to you 6 years into Obama's administration?
Absolutely! I promise Obama will find him within 6 months! ;) Seriously, though, he may not find him, but he will at least spend some time looking.
Wow, we "toppled the Taliban"! That was bold. And we've been "attacking Al Qaeda." Very impressive.
It is if you were part of the Taliban. And it is indeed attacking the murderous enemy, even if you're slighting it for political purposes.
It is very impressive really. Russia couldn't do it at the height of their Cold War prowess.
And Obama would do nothing at all different with Pakistan than what is going on presently, or he will do less. He will speak big and carry a soft stick.
Whatever happened to "pay any price, bear any burden" to secure freedom and liberty from the godless communists? Charisma only goes so far.
Personally, I'mn glad Shylock beat back the loonies in Connecticut for U.S. Senate.
Russia couldn't do it at the height of their Cold War prowess.
Maybe not, but they had a good excluse: The Taliban was not in power then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
I suppose it is "attacking the murderous enemy." But it's kind of like prosecuting the Manson family but letting Charlie go free.
Fagin said
Whatever happened to "pay any price, bear any burden" to secure freedom and liberty from the godless communists? Charisma only goes so far.
Hillary changed that to pay any price and bear any burden to secure more tax money to secure financing of more failures.
There are plenty of big things that we can stand some inspiration on.
1. Start with yes, the war on terror. After 9/11 Americans were united, and virtually nobody opposed (or frankly for the most part still opposes) the Afghan war. However the Iraq war was so divisive (and in the minds of many it actually strengthened al-Qaeda by giving them a breather in Afghanistan and also creating a whole new battlefield/training ground/recruiting ground/place to kill Americans) that it will take a visionary to refocus America on what we do have to do in terms of al-Qaeda. The revelations about torture also undermined support for the war. We beat the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese and the communists (all of who routinely tortured people) by being better people than they were. We didn't have to torture anybody to win any of those wars. We could beat these guys, and do it without having to violate the Geneva Conventions, but we need someone who can unite us and lead, not just try to make sure he has 51%.
2. Global warming and energy independence. Instead of arguing about what nitpicking steps we can take to reduce emissions and/or our dependence on foreign oil (which in fact strengthens the same enemy we are trying to defeat in the war on terror since they still get a lot of money from oil-rich donors), isn't America good enough anymore that if we set our minds to becoming energy independent by, say, 2025, we could do it? And that would probably reduce our emissions to levels in keeping with the recently agreed-to Bali roadmap even if we didn't specifically commit to it.
3. The biggest success in the past ten years scientifically has been the Human Genome Project. It was a big government project, but it was not funded by our government but primarily by foreign (especially the British governments) with some contributions from private industry (but with the proviso that every single bit of information would be in the public domain, where anyone could access it for a nominal fee designed to cover the cost of storage, maintenance and retrieval of the information only.) The most promising opportunity that is provided by the Genome project is that someday we might be able to find a cure for cancer. Why not now? Isn't America up to the task?
4. Let's look at space. Since the end of the Apollo mission we've slashed NASA's budget and limited what we do to sending up shuttles carrying eighth grade science experiments. It took about ten years to go to the moon, but we've done far, far less in the past forty than we did in ten. The moonshot was compared to Columbus, but within forty years of Columbus, several colonies had been established in the Caribbean, the Aztecs had been vanquished, the Incas were in the process of being vanquished, explorers had mapped out most of the coasts as well as significant portions of the continental interior of the new world, and Magellan's expedition had sailed around the world.
And we've done eighth grade science experiments on the space shuttle. We can't even find the money to fix the Hubble. Un-friggin-believable.
Why not build permanent scientific bases (maybe even resorts, or communities like L-5) on the moon, in orbit, and on Mars? Are you saying that America can't?
They are weak and scared, running away from the hard fight to avoid looking like failures.
It's a bit ironic that the Democrats, after whining that Bush doesn't respect international conventions and the sovereinty of independent nations, are now falling for a candidate with rhetoric even more militaristic than Bush II. I mean, the man has repeatedly said he'll invade a nominally allied country. It's been left to Clinton II to make the commonsensical point that maybe we ought to talk things through with the government of Pakistan before going all gung-ho and violating the territorial sovereignty of a country with nuclear arms and a recent history of violent conflict with its neighbours.
A moon for every child.
This slogan is still available.
Is Ron Paul the Denis Rodman of politics?
All I know is that Brett Favre is the Brett Favre of quarterbacks.
If only the current administration could be described that way. Instead, when attached by a muderous enemy (Bin Laden), we let him go and attacked someone else! That's not showing strength, it's showing stupidity.
Yeah, ok. Then again I am looking for a candidate that will show strength and the 'current administration' is not on the slate of contenders.
Is there some reason that a President who is not up for re-election has to be used as a litmus test to judge the crop of candidates that are? If Bush is a failure how about we raise the bar of expectations rather than simply want to go from failure to somewhat mediocre.
And that's the whole point of Obama's talk about getting Bin Laden in Pakistan.
You'll excuse me if I find the concept of Obama launching military operations in Pakistan credible.
Ron Paul is actually the Charles Barkley of politics.
The Taliban was not in power then.
The Taliban weren't foreign fighters. They were Afghans. Russia invaded Afghanistan.
And it's not like letting Charlie go, more like getting the whole family while Charlie had run away and was living in a tree house in the middle of North Carolina, scrounging for food in dumpsters.
We beat the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese and the communists (all of who routinely tortured people) by being better people than they were.
Any thoughts on why that same strategy didn't work for people like the Poles, French, and Filipinos? Perhaps all that money we spent on tanks, aircraft carriers, and missiles wasn't a total waste after all.
Eli said: We beat the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese and the communists (all of who routinely tortured people) by being better people than they were. We didn't have to torture anybody to win any of those wars. We could beat these guys, and do it without having to violate the Geneva Conventions,
Well for the first two, we may not have ‘tortured’ them but we bombed the living shit out of them. Very few people have any idea or concept of the amount of devastation we visited on Germany and Japan via the Army Air Corps. Hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, cities gone. Don’t get me wrong, it was absolutely necessary to win the war but I don’t believe for a NY minute that the American people in 2008 would ever support such action today. The point is that when you use our WW2 victory as a model by which to follow the current war, keep in mind we did a lot of things to win that war that by today’s standards make water boarding look like bobbing for apples.
Instead of arguing about what nitpicking steps we can take to reduce emissions and/or our dependence on foreign oil (which in fact strengthens the same enemy we are trying to defeat in the war on terror since they still get a lot of money from oil-rich donors), isn't America good enough anymore that if we set our minds to becoming energy independent by, say, 2025,
How about opening up ANWAR as well as our oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico while at the same time working on fuel cell or hydrogen technology? Nuclear power maybe? Fact of the matter is, oil is the standard fuel resource and will continue to be until the last drop is pumped out. So while I am all for exploring new tech, lets use what we have in the meantime rather than forcing me into an oversized cup holder with radial tires.
Why not build permanent scientific bases (maybe even resorts, or communities like L-5) on the moon, in orbit, and on Mars? Are you saying that America can't?
Eli I am with you on this 100%. I think had NASA been given the appropriate funding since the moon landing, we would have been there by now. I think for far too many people this smacks of sci-fi and don’t take it seriously, however, as you referenced Columbus and Magellan, they proved man could accomplish what most thought was impossible at the time.
It is the worst type of inauthentic crap – the inability to admit you have large dreams because you are scared others won’t believe you can pull them off.
Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich are the Washington Generals of politics.
Rudy is the Ernie DeGregorio of politics. He could be the Shawn Kemp, but he didn't have a kid with broad he banged. So a fast mouth chucker who had everyone back on their heels seems about right.
it will take a visionary to refocus America on what we do have to do in terms of al-Qaeda.
Well, I can only accept our lack of focus as the lesser evil, since I don't think even a visionary can remedy it; the only thing that can refocus us is another big domestic attack.
Shylock?!?
Mulligan stew?
Irony is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Sometimes there's a mote in that eye, but waddaya gonna do?
With that name, reader he has to be a sock puppet, so lets just move along, nothing to see here, ya know what I mean?
Yeah, reader_iam I noticed that too. A little uncomfortable to call Lieberman "Shylock" isn't it?
Re: Eli Blake:
Why not build permanent scientific bases (maybe even resorts, or communities like L-5) on the moon, in orbit, and on Mars? Are you saying that America can't?
The next generation of terrorists will drop space colonies on Sydney! Or drop giant rocks on the earth for massive damage!
Sorry.
Can't we just talk about b-ball
and keep Shakespeare out of it?
Besides Willie Shakespeare was a football player for the Steelers anyway, not a baller.
Palladian: I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand your comment. Are you suggesting that I'm Richard Fagin?
Instead, when attached by a muderous enemy (Bin Laden), we let him go and attacked someone else!
Bin Laden didn't attack us. Al Qaeda -- bin Laden's organization -- attacked us. We responded by going after Al Qaeda and its allies.
So bin Laden got away. Big deal. The important thing is that he's impotent now.
Why not build permanent scientific bases (maybe even resorts, or communities like L-5) on the moon, in orbit, and on Mars? Are you saying that America can't?
Its not that we can't, its that establishing permanent human settlements in space, on the moon, or worst of all on Mars, serves no purpose other than the "coolness" value of being able to say we did it.
We sent men to the Moon to one-up the Soviets. Now that we're the undisputed #1 nation on Earth already, what have we got left to prove?
Trooper: Bill Bradley was the Bill Bradley of politics, FTW!
So bin Laden got away. Big deal. The important thing is that he's impotent now.
It was short-sighted to have let him escape. OBL himself may be impotent -- but what has his organization done? It's adapted with the times without him. Would it have been able to do that if he'd been killed way back when? Well, that's a question to which the answer is unknown, but it would have been nice to test to see if the answer would have been no.
I still think he's dead, btw. Recent videos notwithstanding -- good impersonators to be sure. But OBL is playing hide the salami with Satan.
OBL is playing hide-the-salami with Satan?
What about poor Saddam Hussein?!
Giuliani is the John Bender of politics.
(Hey, if Trooper can turn this into a basketball thread, I can turn it into a "Breakfast Club" thread.)
reader_iam
Relax; I think Paladian is agreeing with you.
I think I would call R Fagin here "cedarford".
BTW Did you see Hillary referring to Obama as one who had not done the necessary “spadework”? Spade? Yes I'm against the PC police making things up, but can you imagine the MSM hissy fits if a Republican had used that word about a Black-American candidate? The hard liners would flat-out argue: “it was on purpose, & racist & QED, inexcusable”; the more nuanced would ooze: "granted it was a Freudian Slip, yet, for exactly that reason, ultimately inexcusable."
Blake,
"OBL is playing hide-the-salami with Satan?
What about poor Saddam Hussein?!"
I suppose they have to take turns.
I wasn't particularly exercised, just puzzled. Also, best to know these things, if that had been the intent.
Well that makes Bill Richardson the Emilio Estevez of politics.(Phony Mexican).
Did someone say “L-5?”
Well, Fly Me To The Moon.
Tripod sucks!
(When will I ever learn? Oh, when will I ever learn?)
Former law student, you the man.
Nothing like decades old clichés to liven up a party.
I hear Tripod was Obama's nickname in college when he was on the track team. But that must be just a racist rumor spread by the Clintons. It has to piss Bill off though, don't ya think?
Nice, Biss. Yeah, let's talk about guitars....
Hey, Trooper,
We got Giuliani as Judd Nelson, Richardson as Estevez...and Huma as Ally Sheedy!
Hillary--Anthony Michael Hall? In his pre-buff, nerdy phase? Nah, actually, she'd be...Paul Gleason? The principal who goes on to screw up the hostage situaiton at the Nakatomi Towers?
OBL himself may be impotent -- but what has his organization done? It's adapted with the times without him. Would it have been able to do that if he'd been killed way back when?
Why wouldn't it? Israel has been whacking Hamas and Hezbollah leaders for years and those organizations are still going strong. There are countless nutty Muslims in the world with the minimum qualifications it takes to run a terrorist organization. Osama's not a James Bond supervillain, he's just a guy who was in the right place at the right time.
I still think he's dead, btw.
I agree. Personally I think he's been dead since late 2001 or early 2002, but who knows.
Hillary Clinton is the Scottie Pippen of politics. Not the Steve Kerr.
Actually, Hillary is the Billie Jean King of politics. That might make John McCain the Bobby Riggs.
Post a Comment