Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.
Now, about that VP idea...
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
Ready...set....blame!
Hillary said:
"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002"
[stop]
[rewind]
[play] Hillary said:
"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002"
[stop]
[rewind]
[play] ...
(Repeat ad nauseum).
Obama will be one of the 9/11 hijackers by the time the republicans are through with him.
Even HC's words are blamed on repubs Titus? Is the hog frustrated?
Not at all Jim I did it on the DL with a brotha last night.
Very hot.
It's fascinating that she couldn't restrain herself, despite knowing well that this would be the outcome of saying something like that.
I mean, it had to be a spontaneous outburst, right?
Right?
If Obama does tap Hill for VP, for a giggle AND to let her know from the get go just who is in charge, he should wait until one of his friends in the media tips him off that she's been drinking and is three sheets to the wind again and then offer her the slot by calling her up at 3 AM.
Obama will be one of the 9/11 hijackers by the time the republicans are through with him.
Well, he does willingly associate with known terrorists back in Chicago.
I can't help but laugh about the situation the Dems find themselves in, after all, they created the super delegate system to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, and yet here they are, repeating the mistakes of the past by nominating someone who appears to be to the left of McGovern.
Sweet!
Hillary's quote in that video is priceless and I can't wait to see how McCain's people use it.
HC made an accurate and honest assessment of both the relative security credentials of the candidates and the importance of the issue in the upcoming campaign.
The fact that it puts Obama in a poor light might be regreted by some, but the truth is the truth.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I'm glad to hear that Titus, as you are, along with the PR guys and an insanely talented clarinet player who taught my daughter for several years, held in the highest gay esteem by me. I just don't know why you're dating guys on the Disabled List.
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
[stop]
[rewind]
[play]
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
[stop]
[rewind]
[play] ...
(Repeat ad nauseum).
BO's people are polling their brains out right now to see if people who love HRC will hold their nose and vote for BO and vice versa, or will people who hate BO not care that HRC is veep, and vice versa.
It would be absurd on its face for a candidate who predicated his campaign on "change" to pick Clinton as his running mate.
He needs to take a youngish white male from a conservative-ish state that could conceivably go Democratic.
How old is Evan Byah?
Also, I have claimed in the past that it'll be Richardson and I stand by that bet.
A brotha on the disabled list, and you hang out around Fenway...
...so does Big Papi live up to his name?
Bayh endorsed and campaigned for Hillary, with the hopes of being her VP.
Also, Bayh would not give the ticket any geographical balance.
Obama needs someone from out west with conservative-lite credentials.
The best and most meaningful vice-presidential pick in modern U.S. history was Gore, from a neighboring state.
I agree that Obama -- the candidate of "change" will pick someone from the West with centrist credentials That's why I say it'll be Richardson. In theory, he brings New Mexico and foreign policy experience. In theory, raising taxes raises government revenue.
What are you saying there Jim? That the democrats will manufacture a tape to use on the Republicans? I know the media is in the bag for them, but you think they will keep that covered up?
Jims -- You are under the mistaken belief that the vast majority of Americans wish to lose the wars in which they engage. Americans just want to win.
There will be an American military presence in Iraq in 100 years, just like Germany, just like Korea, just like Italy, just like Japan, just like Cuba, just like Panama, just like, et al.
Dogwood:
And the Republicans nominated a person widely hated in his own party, a many so old that many wonder whether he can handle the Presidency, and a man who couldn’t be more strongly associated with a war that everyone knows was a mistake. (Well, everyone except Althouse and a few of her desperate groupies.) Moreover, the old guy is chomping at the bit to invade Iran.
All that in a time of terrible economic news.
Sweet.
The Dems will win big this fall and you bozos will have nothing to do but exchange idiotic comments on this blog. Extra sweet.
Y.W.C. -- Americans are not against the war. They are against losing wars and having soldiers killed in non-battles.
I would be interested to hear which states you think Obama is going to win to get to 270 electoral votes. I think McCain wins in a fair romp precisely because he's independent. I also think he's as conservative as any of the other sorry candidates the Republicans put up. And I'll be voting for him.
"It would be absurd on its face for a candidate who predicated his campaign on "change" to pick Clinton as his running mate."
And yet, his only chance of NOT losing 20% of democrat voters to McCain (the women who've said they would cross over if Obama got the nomination) is to PICK Hillary. And even THAT might not bring them back into the fold. And if it does, Hillary has been writing McCain's campaign commercials for the last year, this video is only one of many.
Oh, Howard, what a fine mess.
"and a man who couldn’t be more strongly associated with a war that everyone knows was a mistake."
You might want to check the news, lest history leave you in the dust. The tide has turned on Al Qaeda, even the NYT and the WAPO are getting with the program. We're not just killing jihadis, we're killing their ideology, which was the goal from the beginning. And everybody knows it's due to what our incredible military did to them in Iraq, in the heart of the Arab/Muslim world. We took the fight to them, rather than letting them bring it to us. McCain had the backbone to stay the course even when things looked bleak. That takes balls, especially when you plan to run for president. But unlike his democrat opponents, he'd rather lose the presidential race and win in Iraq, rather than vice versa. And unlike his democrat opponents, he knew that when you're losing, you change tactics. And you keep changing tactics until you win. What you DON'T do (unless you're a democrat) is surrender.
The "Iraq was a mistake" narrative will die a slow, agonizing death.
Howard Fineman -- Newsweek senior Washington correspondent and columnist -- says tonight that he talked to someone very close to the campaigns. He described the following Kabuki theater. Hillary is asking Barack to offer her the VP-ship, but she doesn't really want it. He says that he could do this, but she has to promise not to accept the offer.
Don't start those victory laps just yet YWC.
The 2008 presidential election was the Dems just for the taking, all they had to do was nominate a moderate candidate with a reasonable amount of experience, either legislative or state-level executive.
Instead, they nominated a leftist rookie who makes McGovern look like a John Bircher.
The Republicans were staring at a certain loss, and had to avoid nominating a hard right candidate who would secure the base but alienate everyone else.
Instead, we got McCain who is loved by everyone but the hard core GOP base, many of whom voted for the guy in the primaries anyway. Yeah, he is not the favorite of many of us, but a lot better than the alternative.
In short, to borrow Victor Davis Hanson's words, the Dems nominated the only candidate who could possibly lose, and the GOP nominated the only guy who could possibly win.
In short, a sure win for the Dems has turned into a toss up, but I like the GOP's chances.
Political junkies of all partisan stripes should be excited about the fight ahead.
That's interesting, Summer. Why do you suppose that would happen (if true)?
"Obama will be one of the 9/11 hijackers by the time the republicans are through with him."
Barack al-Sleepi, the hijacker who overslept and missed his flight...can you prove it DIDN'T happen?
I love how only Republicans drag out dirty laundry. Think of what the Democrats could do if they would just organize some opposition research.
Take George W. Bush. What with his wayward youth, I bet he probably had a drunk driving conviction or tried cocaine or something.
The fact that it puts Obama in a poor light might be regreted by some, but the truth is the truth.
Well, the bit about her having a lifetime of experience wasn't true.
Jim - not really comparable, since your version buys into an already-discredited spin. Put simply, your version draws its power from misrepresenting what McCain said, while mine draws its power from accurately reporting what Hillary said and meant.
Simon said...
Jim - not really comparable, since your version buys into an already-discredited spin. Put simply, your version draws its power from misrepresenting what McCain said, while mine draws its power from accurately reporting what Hillary said and meant.
Not comparable as to design or effect? I suspect the "100 years" is more effective and it (and its variants) will be played ad nauseum.
Already discredited spin? Sure, if you buy the spin that McCain spun. The fact of the matter is those are his words. They accurately report what he meant. Specifically, that he would be fine if the U.S. is in Iraq for 100 years.
Now, it would be fair to say that the quote and the sentiment is taken out of context. To that I would say political ads aren't fair, they take things and statements out of context quite frequently. Do you think that the Republicans and McCain will commit to not taking any quote from Obama out of context?
Further how do you add the context? He was trying to avoid answering the fundamental question (i.e. "How long will we be involved in Iraq?") by alluding to conditions that do not exist (specifically, zero U.S. casualties).
Jims -- Obama will not pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. I'm sorry to ruin your fantasy, but it won't happen.
Too many jims said...
"The fact of the matter is those are his words. They accurately report what he meant. Specifically, that he would be fine if the U.S. is in Iraq for 100 years."
I imagine that Governor Doyle might have defended a bill he created with the Frankenstein veto by saying "the fact of the matter is that those are the legislature's words." Sure. Just not all of them, in the same context and with the same meaning. The implication conjured by that clip isn't what McCain meant, and is entirely obviously not what he meant in context. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please try to run on this claim. For you guys to sink a bunch of money into something totally disingenuous and counterproductive would make it so much easier.
Simon,
McCain is willing to speak honestly about the need for U.S. involvement in Iraq for years. He has done so on several occasions. I think it is admirable that he is honest about what transforming Iraq would require.
If the current administration had been similarly honest (rather than trying to convince the American public that success would be measured in months) we would be seeing a lot more support for the effort. Unfortunately, either through ineptitude or worse the administration failed to convey the requisite committment to the American people. Many of them are exhausted by it.
If we are going to be there, I want the honesty and the competence that McCain would bring compared to the current administration. But then he shouldn't run from his committment to be there for years and decades.
I, unfortunately, just don't think that support is there now for a continued long term presence in Iraq. (On foreign affairs, I am probably a Wilsonian Democrat.) In fact, I think McCain recognizes this reality which is why he is predicting that most of the troops will be home by 2013 even if he is President.
Jims -- Most of the troops will be home in four years under any president. What you can't seem to contemplate is that there is a huge difference among a wartime footing and what we have in South Korea and what we have in Germany and what we have in Panama.
Whatever your theory is, you need to correct for the inevitable strides that the Iraqi government will make in being able to govern.
YWC:
"a man who couldn’t be more strongly associated with a war that everyone knows was a mistake. (Well, everyone except Althouse and a few of her desperate groupies.)"
I predict the "war" (actually we won the war about the time Bush rightly announced "mission accomplished, we're just finishing a long mop-up operation) will be looking mighty good come November. Heck, it's already pretty apparent that we've all but won. The fat lady sounds like she's running through her scales.
"Moreover, the old guy is chomping at the bit to invade Iran."
Or maybe just bombing. Either way, we won't do the same thing there as Iraq. Why would we? Just enough to defang and dethrone the mullahs.
"All that in a time of terrible economic news."
Hmmm. Real wages climbing, unemployment falling, profits in most industries are up, it's mostly speculators getting hurt in the housing crunch and the correction is proceeding in an orderly fashion...DUDE! WHERE'S MY DEPRESSION!!!!!??!!1
I assume too many jims knows that the 100 year quote is utterly flaccid as an attack against McCain.
The Dems don't want to tip their hands. They're just holding back on the good stuff.
One would have to assume that the world's oldest political party has a much better idea than that one.
Jims:
"I, unfortunately, just don't think that support is there now for a continued long term presence in Iraq. (On foreign affairs, I am probably a Wilsonian Democrat.) In fact, I think McCain recognizes this reality which is why he is predicting that most of the troops will be home by 2013 even if he is President."
Oh, the support is there for a long-term presence. There is NOT support for our guys getting continuously attacked by headchoppers and suicide bombers. What the Left can't seem to figure out is that that stuff will go away soon, and in fact has already begun to wind up.
And OF COURSE "most" troops will come home by 2013. I doubt any president could prevent that, mostly because there won't be a need for 100,000+ troops there in a few years.
When McCain talks about 100 years, he's recognizing the reality that there are many other countries where we have had troops stationed for at least 50 years and will likely have troops there another 50 or more. Why not a few thousand garrisoned in Iraq as well, given its strategic location and the fact that we'll probably have to advise their military (hopefully in an ever-diminishing capacity) for some years yet?
But then he shouldn't run from his committment to be there for years and decades.
He's not.
What Obama is trying to stick him with, falsely, is wanting to keep fighting a war in Iraq for 100 years. I'm sure McCain wants to end combat as much as anyone, but that can't be done on a political timetable.
Do you suppose Obama would campaign on bringing all US troops home from Europe and Asia during his first term? To be consistent, he should make that pledge, shouldn't he?
Dan -- Moreover, as I have been saying for years, having our military next to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia is the reason we are there in the first place (and the only place). All the other stuff was just gravy.
This is what Scott McClellan got absolutely correct.
Well, that was interesting! So, when does the hammer fall once again on BHO and who will he throw under the bus this time?
7,
I can contemplate the difference between a wartime footing and the kind of presence we have in, for example, Germany and Japan. To be clear, I completely agree with McCain that there is no problem if we are in Iraq for 100 years or 1,000 years if there are no U.S. casualties. I suspect that the American public is there too.
But the casualty rate is not zero.
I can take a casualty rate above zero for quite a while longer if we are going to see progress. But I'd venture a guess that my tolerance for that is higher than the average american currently.
I am willing to adjust for the "strides that the Iraqi government will make in being able to govern." I just don't think they are ievitable nor ascertainable at this point.
Jims -- I disagree stridently. I think your tolerance is far, far below the tolerance of the average American. Again, winning is what's important to Americans, not deaths.
Come on now, Jims. Are you really going to sit here and tell me that Americans agree with the war just not the deaths? Sorry, but that's just your own confused viewpoint.
Hillary is asking Barack to offer her the VP-ship, but she doesn't really want it. He says that he could do this, but she has to promise not to accept the offer.
Ha! This is notorious among law students as the "cold offer". Promising students who fail their summer tryout at a big lawfirm get one of those so they can interview their third year without having "Loser" scrawled on their foreheads. ("Yeah, I got an offer. But now I know I really want to do transactional law, and all they need right now are litigators." Or vice versa.)
We will be in Iraq for 100 years for one simple reason: so we can come to Israel's aid in case of attack.
Former -- Look at a map. It's about Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
If all this was about Israel, surely even you and the anti-Semites you have nearly put yourself in league with can understand that we would have put in a beachhead before a few years ago.
Seven -- you enumerated the parallels yourself:
There will be an American military presence in Iraq in 100 years, just like Germany,
- protect Western Europe from a Soviet invasion.
just like Korea,
- Protect South Korea from North Korean or Red Chinese invasion.
just like Italy,
- Same as Germany
just like Japan,
- Same as Korea
just like Cuba,
- piss off the Cubans, torture people we don't like
just like Panama,
- protect shipping.
Since no one gives a rat's ass about Iraq, the reason to have permanent military bases there is obvious.
Former -- A history class would help you. Or 10. And some geography lessons, too.
Our bases are where they are to protect nothing else but American interests. You are a silly twit, really, and I don't have time to explain this all to you. However, just consider: what American interests are served by having a military presence next to Iran, next to Syria, and next to Saudi Arabia, all the while exerting pressure to keep a government friendly to the United States in Iraq?
Our bases are where they are to protect nothing else but American interests.
Then why don't we have US bases in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Taiwan, China, Mexico, or Venezuela? We certainly have US interests in all those countries.
Then why don't we have US bases in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Viet Nam, Taiwan, China, Mexico, or Venezuela
We have had a long, storied history of military bases in the Philippines, much of the time when Democrats held the Congress and the presidency.
As for the other countries you mention, they do not see it in their national interest to support our national interest by having bases there. It's hard to have a military presence in another country when that country's government doesn't want it. Perhaps you can get your head around that. I know it's hard.
There is only one country, where we have a military presence that is not based on continuing agreement between the countries.
Anyway, as I say, you are a silly twit. For you, it's all about oil, I'm sure. Supplying cheap oil. No, wait. Making oil really expense. Whatever. Something bad. I'm sure it has something to do with American badness. Because no other countries act in their own interest and the USA is bad.
As for Israel, consult a map and try to use your small, slow brain. If the United States has been so desperate to protect Israel, why did it wait some 55 years to put a military base in Iraq, a country that is not contiguous with Iraq?
The USA can keep military bases in Panama, for 100 years, just to protect international shipping and its economic self-interest. By that logic it's perfectly reasonable for the USA to keep military bases in Iraq just to protect international shipping in the Persian Gulf.
why did it wait some 55 years to put a military base in Iraq, a country that is not contiguous with Iraq?
Thanks for revealing the depth of your historical, political, and geographical knowledge.
Brilliant. I missed a preposition. In.
You got me. Keep all your insight coming. Keep Jew-hating.
Keep Jew-hating.
Huh?
You put a firehouse where a fire is likely to break out. Iraq is strategically located between Iran and Israel. I don't see how characterizing strategically located military bases as protecting Israel can be construed as Jew-hating.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा