April 26, 2008

"Obama, can this really be your friend..."

Great play on "Oh, mama, can this really be the end" in this Dylanesque riff on Obama's Jeremiah Wright problem.

Sorry for all the Obama-Jeremiah material today. That's just the way the blogging cards played out on this slow news Saturday. I'm not anti-Obama. If I were not sworn to cruel neutrality, I might rank him first of the 3 imperfect characters we much choose from. But he's running for President and he must be tested.


1jpb said...

I have a totally different angle on Wright and the Moyers thing.

Much of Wright's view of world politics, which he specifically links to scripture could very well be based on Sun Tzu. Why reinvent the wheel? There is a lot to be said for a foriegn policy that focuses on the minds of the enemy, so says the bible and Sun Tzu (and American history, which seems to be forgotten every generation or so--introspection is good.)

For the record, Rumsfeld had claimed that Sun Tzu was his favorite. And, the Iraqi invasion did follow a Sun Tzu strategy. But the Iraqi occupation completely ignored Sun Tzu's advice.

ballyfager said...

Something's changed here. You used to be as dead set against Clinton as anyone. Lately you, G. Reynolds & T. Maguire all publish a lot of negative stuff about Obama while giving Clinton a base-on-balls.

Is this just a coinkydink or is something afoot?

1jpb said...


Bible, with cap "B."

I'm deeply religious, including having gone to religious schools. That's a bad mistake.

Ann Althouse said...

Bally, I'm just reacting to what's in the news, as usual.

OldGrouchy said...

Enjoyed the Video but Johnny Mac will be callin soon to say: "That's not allowed!" He's the sheriff of all that allowed in this year's political races.

Is Hillary picking that video up for her campaign?

BTW, next time change the positioning of your videos, I'm an old white guy too easily distracted by photos of women.

George said...

Idiot wind.

You'll find out when you reach the top, you're on the bottom.


My prediction: The way this month is going for Sen. Obama, someone with a cell will secretly film him having a smoke. Digital analysis will reveal it's neither a Kool or a Marlboro but a Gitanes.

Chet said...

Professor Althouse was negative towards Hillary Clinton when she was winning. Once she started losing, that's when Althouse started defending her.

Lisa said...

I disagree that Wright constitutes "news." What's newsy about him? The issue has been out there for weeks and nothing new has occurred.

You are a LAW professor. Focus on something that matters, for God's sake. Habeas corpus, for instance.

Jennifer said...

You, a LAW professor! Tee hee. Love it.

Ann Althouse said...

Ha ha. Haven't had a full out "you a law professor" in a while.

Finn Kristiansen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Finn Kristiansen said...

"Zeus, let me but push this one forward. What say you? Will it bring 109 visitors or 50 to my temple?"
"My dear, but I so love the flowers. Why don't we go with the pretty little flowers."
"But they don't come alive at the site of flowers. It's the blood. Nothing but the blood."
"But they all get so frenzied, as though it matters" he says.
"That is what delights. There must be blood."

Kirk Parker said...

Good catch, Jennifer!

Someone a while back attempted to define Althouse's Law, but it never caught on, probably because the definition was overly complicated.

So I'd like to propose a new candidate:

1. As a discussion at Althouse grows longer, the probability of someone saying "You, a law professor!" approaches one.

2. When that happens, the discussion is over.

jeff said...

"I might rank him first of the 3 imperfect characters we much choose from."

How so?

Crimso said...

"Habeas corpus, for instance."

You mean we got it back after Lincoln?

Fen said...

I think she wants to talk about extending our civil rights to illegal enemy combatants.

Fen said...

Or we could talk about Jimmy Carter's recent "talkie-talk" in the Middle East. Its a preview of what we can expect from a Democrat administration.

Lisa said...

Uh, Fen, it's the "Democratic" party.

If you don't know that, I don't see any point in wasting time explaining to you why due process is important.

Anonymous said...

"If you don't know that, I don't see any point in wasting time explaining to you why due process is important."

Due process is important. So is oxygen. Still we are allowed to talk about other things.

Fen said...

Uh, Fen, it's the "Democratic" party.

Nope. I prefer "Democrat" party, to avoid any implication [which you seek] that your party is "democratic". Which reminds me, when are your super-delegate elites going to pick your nominee?

I don't see any point in wasting time explaining to you why due process is important.

Due process for Al Queda terrorists? Please try to explain. If for nothing more than the entertainment value.

Lisa said...

Fen, I can't say it any better than Anthony Romero:


I know you'll make fun of this, but am posting it on the off chance that you may wake up one day, or that someone who actually cares about the Constitution may read it.

Fen said...

Yah, we've been over this several times on this blog.

Why do you refuse to defend it in your own words? Too embarrassing? Or do you not really understand the material?

or that someone who actually cares about the Constitution may read it.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

OldGrouchy said...

Lisa, I must agree with Fen in that the ACLU's position is not credible given that facts and the situation about the military commissions charged with trying the Gitmo prisoners. The feelings you have, the emotions you experience, are not at all justified by the facts in these cases.

Of course, one alternative to what you suggest is to summarily execute each so-called detainee as they are captured on this battlefield upon which the GWOT is being waged. Then, there would not be an issue with what to do about battlefield detainee's as there would be none. It would also cut down on the need for welfare for those persons. A great costs savings, eh?

More than any other aspect of this new kind of global war on terrorism, what to do about prisoners is troubling to many concerned persons. Please remember that at the end of WWII, international tribunals were instituted only for some of the most major cases. In the Pacific Theater, there were cases of military tribunals carrying out trials. Justice may have been rough in some incidents but it was justice.

Are you one of those who would go quietly, and peacefully, to the gas chambers or the head-chopping plazas of the Islamo-Fascists? If so, please be a parade of one with no one else in that hideous line. That is what you are asking for, may you be alone in that cry for martyrdom!

Fen said...

You are a LAW professor. Focus on something that matters, for God's sake.

"Officer, why are you writing me a ticket when you should be out catching rapists and murderers?"

Fen said...

Lisa, here's some background info that might help you understand the issue more clearly.

Sheepman said...

About the video: clever, amusing and well done. But like many of Dylan's songs from his brilliant mid-sixties period, it goes on for a few verses too many.

M. Simon said...

Democratic Party?

Tell it to the voters in Michigan and Florida.

BTW Ann I hadn't seen the video before. So it was new. Thanks!

Meade said...

Sheepman said...
About the video...

Dude, if you think that one goes on for a few verses too many, wait until you hear Sad-Eyed Law Professor of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands

M. Simon said...

Visions of Johanna.

The ghost of electricity howls through the bones of her face.

Meade said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meade said...

With your Alito mouth and your New York times,
And your eyes on breasts and your prayers for mimes,
And your tulip shots , and your vortex crimes,
Oh, who among them do they think could bear your vow of cruel neutrality?