(Via Josh Marshall.)
ADDED: More on Khalidi here:
Mr. Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia, was born in Manhattan in 1948....I don't know what the whole quote was, but I see subtlety in that statement. Obama is speaking at an event honoring a colleague, so it's no time for insults. Obama gracefully uses self-deprecation as he speaks of his own flaws, which Khalidi reminded him to see. We don't know from that whether Khalidi successfully argued that Obama had blind spots and biases or whether Khalidi served as an example of blind spots and biases. I think we see a polite and circumspect man -- perhaps even a man who follows the teaching of Jesus:
He taught at universities in Lebanon until the mid-’80s, and some critics accuse him of having been a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mr. Khalidi has denied working for the group, and says he was consulted as an expert by reporters seeking to understand it.
He was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during Middle East peace talks from 1991 to 1993. From 1987 until 2003, he was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he became friends with Mr. Obama.
At Mr. Khalidi’s farewell party in 2003, according to the Los Angeles Times article, Mr. Obama fondly recalled their many conversations, saying they provided “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.”
Matthew 7
1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Posts
292 comments:
1 – 200 of 292 Newer› Newest»Given that Judis wrote a book shortly before the 2004 election talking about how there's an incipient Democratic majority, he has a vested interest in this election coming out the opposite way to the last one, and as with many of McCain's critics, one must assume that much of his reaction to daily events is confirmation bias. He doesn't like McCain, so all new information about McCain confirms that McCain's a rat. Ditto those of us on the other side of the fence about Obama. As Bob said yesterday, "I sense we increasing hate our Presidents and have started to do so at an earlier point in their term. Not disapprove, but hate." And in this instance, before the term has even begun. The other side hates McCain. They really, really hate Palin. Quite a few on our side hate Obama, and I really really hate Biden. How wonderful this new era of non-divisive politics is!
I mean, for all the reasons one might decide to vote one way or the other on Tuesday, for the sake of your later sanity, don't do it because you think that politics is too rancorous and that somehow after this election things will be friendlier, more civilized, and less divided!
Our politics aren't divisive. We are. Our politicians are divided because the country is (indeed, in a basically democratic system, something would seem wrong if the people were divided and the politicians homogenous!), and that isn't going to change just because the President has a different name and might have a different letter after his name.
What do you expect from a truly desperate campaign? I mean, what else can McCain do? Run on his grasp of the Economy?
"Beyond dirty campaigning... to something truly dishonorable."
Yes, much more dishonorable than questioning the parentage of the vice President's disabled infant!
"that isn't going to change just because the President has a different name and might have a different letter after his name."
Sure it will, Simon! When Obama wins, there will be unity, harmony and bliss because the press will say there is, and nothing will be allowed through to dispute that vision! It's that simple!
Our politicians are divided because the country is
And I unfortunately I see it getting worse after this election. If McCain somehow pulls the rabbit out of the hat, the next four years will make the BDS we witnessed look like a 10 year old on Ritalin. If Obama wins, it will take the Democrats four years just to get over the gloating as they proceed to exact retribution on those who were foolish enough to put Bush in office twice.
How would Judis know what honor is?
He's find 'subtle' racist overtones in the 'Pledge of Allegiance'.
Simon, it seems like you're conflating disagreement with division. McCain isn't offering a policy position, something that we can agree to disagree on.
He's attacking Obama for his "associations" with a man who has an Arab name.
And Palladian, did Obama do that? I thought that was Andrew Sullivan. If we're comparing fringes, you get the skinhead neo-nazis.
dishonorable
McCain?!
You know, despite my differences with McCain, I could never call him that. Nor would I call his opponent that, and I deeply dislike him.
It's a purely emotional comment, but I don't think I'll ever get over the way the media has portrayed this American hero. Yes, we have a real hero on the Presidential ballot. Who would know?
Dishonorable.
Shameful.
As an addendum, I would caution our Democrat friends not to repeat the GOP's fatal error and that's thinking you can run around like a bull in a china closet. The GOP is in the dog house soley because they abandoned the conservative principles that propelled them there in the first place. It would be a big mistake to think think that eight years of Bush means everyone is ready for us to become Sweden. The smartest thing Obama can do is govern like Clinton did.
How many shady characters must a man pall around with before they call him a man?
The answer my friends.. ;)
Obama is speaking at an event honoring a colleague, so it's no time for insults.
Trent Lott could not be reached for comment (for the record, I was thrilled to see Lott go).
Because of that one(of 400,000) anonymous blogger on DailyKos that posted a rumor that came straight from Alaska that means anything goes man. And if Obama had rolled over at McCain's feet and fetched his slippers and submit to his terms of the debating format, he would have run a respectful campaign. Duh.
"On November 4th, Barack Obama just might win the presidential election. But regardless of whether he wins or loses, the vast majority of his supporters will lose. If McCain wins the election, they will feel the sting of watching the candidate they placed all their hopes in be defeated. But it stands to be much worse for them if their candidate wins.
By placing their hopes and aspirations in the hands of Obama, they have in effect transferred the individual faith they have in themselves to another person. A person who has promised to make their dreams come true for them. No longer will they have to fight, or struggle, or even work to achieve their dreams; Obama promises to do it all for them. But sooner, rather than later, they will realize that Obama can never deliver on this impossible promise. It is then when they will experience a pain much greater than they can imagine; the pain of realizing that you gave up not only your most sacred dreams and hopes to someone else, but that you gave up hope on yourself so that someone else can do it for you."
Indeed
"A person who has promised to make their dreams come true for them."
Anyone who actually believes that hasn't been listening.
Oh tripe. Isn't there a limit on the number of times you can say "implied" or "subtle" before your thesis becomes so subliminal as to completely vanish?
If McCain did call Khalidi a neo-Nazi, that was profoundly stupid and probably dishonorable (I don't know enough about Khalidi to verify the accuracy of the slur, and I doubt McCain does either).
But if Judis wants to prove his point, he needs more than one inept statement to pair with his vaporous portfolio of perceived implications.
Obama is speaking at an event honoring a colleague, so it's no time for insults. Obama gracefully uses self-deprecation as he speaks of his own flaws, which Khalidi reminded him to see.
If you take the LA Times description of the event at face value, you are 100% right.
The fact that they won't release the tape, though, suggests that their summary is incomplete. Their excuse of confidentiality sounds like bullshit...if the video would compromise their informant, why not release the audio track or even a complete transcript? They don't want us to know everything that was said at this event. Why?
Do you really trust the LA Times to summarize something like this fairly and objectively?
"A person who has promised to make their dreams come true for them."
Anyone who actually believes that hasn't been listening.
Interestingly enough, I'd say quite a few of his supporters haven't been paying attention otherwise this wouldn't be necessary.
But Henry, what is John McCain doing? Why are we talking about Khalidi a week before the election? Who cares?
It's very witch-hunty.
What is Khalidi's crime again? He supports a two-state solution, but doesn't think Israel is infallible?
And then, to bring it back to Obama, what did he do, now? Failed to disrespect someone in public?
This is what people mean by divisive politics. This is how McCain is losing the middle.
Matthew 7:3. Ann, is that your advice to Judis?
Arturius said...
"The GOP is in the dog house soley because they abandoned the conservative principles that propelled them there in the first place."
Seems ironic that the voters seem poised to punish the GOP for acting like democrats (i.e. corrupt big government types) by electing... actual democrats. Funny old world.
garage mahal said...
"Because of that one(of 400,000) anonymous blogger on DailyKos that posted a rumor that came straight from Alaska that means anything goes man."
The trouble with anonymous posters is that the Obama campaign can never credibly promise us that it wasn't one of their staff who did it. Certainly their campaign was the beneficiary. But look, this isn't an isolated incident. Jane Hamsher's putting Joe Lieberman in blackface wasn't an isolated incident. We've seen how the left has conducted itself over the last eight years vis-a-vis the current President and his supporters, and that sets a new baseline. I'm not saying that the GOP should pick up the same vile act that your side has practiced, but if we did, all that can really be said is that turnabout's fair play. You've set the precedent. Tell us why the President and anyone who works for him aren't fair game for us when they were for you - or do you propose (doffing my cap to AGS) that your side of the debate should be allowed to fight freestyle, while mine must follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules?
Ann, what is with all the Bible quotes and attempting to prove that Obama is behaving the way a Christian should? It's disturbing. You've said in the past, and I agree with you, that Obama is not a deeply religious person, and that he joined Rev. Wright's church to please his wife and to gain credibility in the black community. Obama is not now and has never been motivated by religious impulses, at least according to his memoirs and observable behavior. Are you dragging up the Bible quotes to try and provoke a big response?
As for the Khalidi-tape kerfuffle, I think we should know what Obama said at the dinner. If Trent Lott could be judged by what he said to Strom Thurmond, so we should at least have the opportunity to judge Obama by his behavior around a bunch of anti-Israeli academics. We do not know the full extent of Obama's remarks, only those described in the LAT account. Don't you want to know what he said, and how he reacted to what everyone else said? Can't we infer something about the man by his reactions (or non-reactions) to vitriolic speech about our ally, Israel? We've already seen evidence that Obama is two-faced when he feels as if he is around friends. I'm very curious to see what he said, and didn't say, at that party.
Do you really want to play the "what would Jesus say" game, with the Biblical quotes?
Because if so, you're on.
Roost on the Moon said...
"Simon, it seems like you're conflating disagreement with division."
You're slicing that hair awfully thin, Roost. When two groups of people are in passionate disagreement over a terrifically important question on which one group or the other will prevail, calling them divided does not seem an abuse of the term.
He was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during Middle East peace talks from 1991 to 1993.
And what a smashing success that was.
By placing their hopes and aspirations in the hands of Obama, they have in effect transferred the individual faith they have in themselves to another person. A person who has promised to make their dreams come true for them.
You mean like this? We're gonna pay for her gas and her mortgage. Maybe they want us to come and do the dishes too?
it's the play for Florida to make the Jews as scared of Muslim Americans as much as some Americans are of Jews.
It's only race baiting when you're scaring white folk with tales of black men. It's ok to scare Jewish floridians with tales of duplicitous muslims from Michigan
I think the complaint is bogus. Its not about Khalidi's "Arab name", it's about his politics, which are of a piece with several associates of Obama about whom voters have reasonable concerns. The far-left view of the I/P conflict increasingly frames it as a simple matter of racism - but only against Palestinians. The bogus use of the apartheid analogy is common currency on the left, and is as dishonorable and dishonest as it gets. Rev. Wright was all over that narrative.
I was fascinated to watch this bloggingheads video, where Glenn Loury talks about how Obama's campaign positions probably won't reflect his governing. He asserts that he'll be less protectionist, more likely to base decisions in Iraq on military advice... then remarkably concludes that he will not be so even-handed on the Middle East as he has been during the campaign. (Jackson recently made the same assertion.) Go to about 30 minutes in.
as Steven colbert put it, we have, on McCains team "joe the plumber" and now "joe the McCarthy".
Roost, I don't have much respect for McCain's guilt by association tactics. I personally hold no brief with the theory of a Wright/Ayers/Khalidi triumvirate of influence. I think it's quite normal that someone, even a politician, would avoid the social fallout of shunning someone in his circle of friends and acquaintances.
Now, I do draw some conclusions about Obama's laziness and opportunism from these associations and they way he cast them off, but I don't ascribe anything more sinister than that. (As an aside, "phlegmatic" was often used in 19th century discourse as a nice way to say "lazy.")
And I also draw some conclusions about the McCain campaign's lack of depth and capability when this is the best they come up with to attack the man.
But on the other hand, this is politics, not screenwriting (to make a McCarthy era reference). Politics is all about who you associate with. That's why Obama has gone to town for six months associating McCain with Bush.
Guilt by association turns the other way as well. One of Obama's virtues is what you might call smarts by association. I give him credit for having Austen Goolsbee on his side. That credit is simply the flip card of questioning his more radical associates.
In the end, it's not some watershed of dirty campaigning; it's just a wash. Just another day in politics.
(for the record, I was thrilled to see Lott go).
I am thrilled to see any incumbent Senator (or Representative) resign in disgrace.
The Republicans want to lose. McCain's campaign has been awful.
They want to give Obama a 4 year disaster and then have Mitt Romney and maybe Pawlenty run and hope to pick up some big wins in the congress.
There is no possible way the Republicans really want to win based on selecting first McCain and then Palin and then running one of the weakest campaigns in US history.
McCain and the White Republicans are totally terrified of the black guy. Let's get right to the point. They have wasted time with Ayers and now this Khalidi nothing but have totally avoiding hitting Obama on his 20 year personal involvement with Rev. Wright. A person most Americans know nothing about.
Mitt Romney and Tom Ridge would own this election right now. And Romney's team would have beat the crap out of Obama on Wright.
Anyone else get the feeling Ann is mocking us Bible reading, gun toting rubes who don't get nuance and subtlety? Is she more irritating by quoting a non-KJV?
Have you all seen the video of the woman who is excited that she won't have to worry about filling up her gas tank or paying her mortgage now?
It's been widely reported that Khalidi was "close to" the PLO. Same difference.
He taught poli. sci. in Beirut when the PLO controlled the city and was killing dissident professors left and right, and he just happened to be somehow speaking on the PLO's behalf. But not officially of course. (Funny how you don't find his American University in Beirut teaching stint on his Wiki page.)
Interesting that he was also involved in a teacher training program in NYC until 2005.
NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein issued a statement that saying “Considering his past statements, Rashid Khalidi should not have been included in a program that provided professional development for [Department of Education] teachers and he won't be participating in the future."
These folks love to insinuate themselves into education.
Jesus hung out with scoundels. He was Jesus.
Obama hung out with terrorist and their sympathizers. He is not Jesus.
As someone mentioned above...we haven't seen this video...we have only had a description of what is on the video. Not a transcript. And by the LA Times. Geez, it's not rocket science that there is probably something Obama's adoring media doesn't want the public to see.
But carry on calling John McCain dishonorable for suggesting we should make up our own minds.
And thank you, Joan, for your comment above. I agree with your thoughts completely
Seems ironic that the voters seem poised to punish the GOP for acting like democrats (i.e. corrupt big government types) by electing... actual democrats. Funny old world
Not so much ironic as not having much of a choice. If conservatives go to the polls and return those wayward GOP politicians to their seats, we're sending a message that we approve of their performance and their behavior doesn't change. Gingrich's contract with America galvanized conservatives in the 1990s and swept the Republicans in power. Unfortunately, that was abandoned after a couple of laps and no one is around to pick up the relay stick.
"Yes, much more dishonorable than questioning the parentage of the vice President's disabled infant!"
Was this the Obama campaign who said that? Or was Andrew Sullivan appointed to Obama's campaign team while I wasnt looking?
Althouse, deranged, finds Jesus in Obama.
When asked for a reason: "Because I wanna."
"Althouse, deranged, finds Jesus in Obama.
When asked for a reason: "Because I wanna."
Aaah yes that old chesnut- people only vote for Obama because they see him as 'the messiah.' Presumably they can only prove their rationality by voting for Mccain. Comments like that make me wish Obama wins the election in a landslide
Boy, the unseen video must be really, really, really awful for Obama, if they're trotting out defenders even before the public has seen it. Worse still if they're blaming his opponent for what's on it.
And I mean it must be a fucking bombshell of badness.
Although it won't be released until after the election, the damage will be even worse then than if produced now, because he'll be President and untrustworthy about Israel and these violent Arabs, and we'll be stuck with him, his reputation tarnished.
The cover up compounds the crime.
No worries, though, because we'll all be able to line up for free gas and stop paying our mortgages.
They want to give Obama a 4 year disaster and then have Mitt Romney and maybe Pawlenty run and hope to pick up some big wins in the congress.
You must be joking.
There is no possible way the Republicans really want to win based on selecting first McCain and then Palin and then running one of the weakest campaigns in US history.
The Republicans didn't really "pick" McCain. He was rammed down our throats by a process of elimination orchestrated by the media drumming out all of the more qualified candidates. The Palin pick was energizing for the base, because at least she is a conservative and seems to have more balls than any of the other 3 guys running on either side.
There is nothing racist about noting the transfer of wealth committment that Obama has expressed. Nor is it racist to remark on the welfare system that takes money from the working and gives is to the non working. That is just a statment of fact.
Why would any party want to win? The mess that will have to be cleaned up in the next 4 years -- a mess created by (maybe that's too blaming -- how about 'that occurred while') the outgoing Republican administration dithered is enormous in scope, and there will be plenty of blame in 2 years and 4 years if the ship of state isn't mostly righted.
I am again reminded of WI in the early 80s, when Tony Earl was elected after LSD had spent the state into bankruptcy. Earl was blamed for just about everything in the subsequent gubernatorial race was put on his shoulders. That's the future for whomever is elected on Tuesday.
Much as I love split power, I think a full Democratic sweep might be good because it would compel Democrats to actually govern in the next two years -- something that is sorely needed -- rather than fingerpoint, which is something that they have relied on/ become way too good at in the past 8 years.
From cruel neutrality to Pope Althouse in a mere snap of the fingers.
How come Judis gets to judge McCain but we don't get to judge Khalidi?
How convenient--it was merely a colleagues party. Remember when Trent Lott went to Strom Thurmond's farewell bash and the media went into a frenzy. Lott had to resign his position with the Senate leadership. This is no different. The treatment of liberal candidates is vastly preferential.
"The Palin pick was energizing for the base, because at least she is a conservative and seems to have more balls than any of the other 3 guys running on either side."
She's got balls alright...some of the things she's said, you need balls of steel to think you can say them and get away with it. 'The neighbour to Russia' argument, the 'You are the real America' shtick...not that Biden is much better. Im amazed that Obama and Mccain picked two of the most gaffe-prone people in the country to be their VP's.
Minzo said...
"Was this the Obama campaign who said that?"
What is the real identity of the person who originally started the rumor at Daily Kos?
"Or was Andrew Sullivan appointed to Obama's campaign team while I wasnt looking?"
Like much of the media, he's been an adjunct to the Obama campaign for months. I don't know if he's actually on the payroll, but he's certainly on the organizational chart, so to speak.
The trouble with anonymous posters is that the Obama campaign can never credibly promise us that it wasn't one of their staff who did it.
Oh Jesus. Does Atlas Shrugs represent everyone on the right, or the MSM when she alleges Obama is Malcom X illegitimate son?
If you had read the post or poem with any care, Minzo, you would have seen that I wasn't saying that Althouse equated Obama with the Messiah, only that she discerned in Obama's words evidence that he was following Jesus' precepts. No such thing of course, but Althouse has every right to misread Obama, as have you.
Goodness, with your quotation of Matthew, you're just dragging us into mote court, Professor Althouse.
"Obama gracefully uses self-deprecation as he speaks of his own flaws"
...but venom when mocking Joe the Plumber in his speeches.
Just like Jesus!
"If you had read the post or poem with any care, Minzo, you would have seen that I wasn't saying that Althouse equated Obama with the Messiah, only that she discerned in Obama's words evidence that he was following Jesus' precepts. No such thing of course, but Althouse has every right to misread Obama, as have you"
Oooops- sorry for misrepresenting you. apologies.
"Remember when Trent Lott went to Strom Thurmond's farewell bash and the media went into a frenzy. Lott had to resign his position with the Senate leadership."
Thats a tad disingenuous. Presumably you've forgotten to mention what he said at said event?
Simon, 'divided' is fine then, but I mean to make a distinction between being divided on policy opinions and being divided about whether one candidate is a shifty socialist who consorts with terrorists and will bring death to Israel.
The latter kind of discussion is the kind John McCain wants to have, and it divides the country in a way that creates fear, anger, and hate. The dark side, yo. Luckily for Obama, it divides the country in a way that he gets the bigger piece. But still, it's bad for the country.
Bad for the GOP, too. All of this tagging Obama with scary names and "associates" has served to paint a pretty picture of a devious and sinister man in the minds of the conservative base. But as your first post on confirmation bias hinted at, it only works if you are predisposed to dislike Obama.
The Cato Institute's Brink Lindsay knows what's up in today's Bloggingheads.
Hey!
Obama has his own Judis!
developing.....
Thinking the best of others isn't big in this election, or any election.
Thats a tad disingenuous. Presumably you've forgotten to mention what he said at said event?
At least we were allowed to hear/know what he said instead of keeping it a deep dark secret.
Do no judge lest ye be judged?
I waiting, you know, for the charma backlash for all the times Obama "implied" that people were racist.
On the other hand... we could take that verse and determine that democracy itself is unchristian due to the necessity to judge and chose between candidates.
It would be a nuanced position... very Christ-like.
I think a full Democratic sweep might be good because it would compel Democrats to actually govern in the next two years -- something that is sorely needed -- rather than fingerpoint
I suggest you lay off the LSD, MM.
"What is the real identity of the person who originally started the rumor at Daily Kos?"
Well almost certainly an Obama supporter, but how do we know its from the campaign? Or are we starting from the position that we assume its the campaign unless they can conclusively prove otherwise? Because if so, we will have to apply the same standard to the the nutty stuff coming from the right and assume it was Mccain's campaign who started it unless they can prove otherwise.
MadisonMan said...
"Much as I love split power, I think a full Democratic sweep might be good because it would compel Democrats to actually govern in the next two years -- something that is sorely needed -- rather than fingerpoint, which is something that they have relied on/ become way too good at in the past 8 years."
Heh. In 1997, the Labour party swept to power in Britain after a long period of Tory dominance. They spent years pointing the finger at the previous administration for anything and everything - even after the next election. Indeed, we have already seen that after taking control of Congress in 2006, the Dems have continued to blame the GOP for all manner of things, credibly vel non (the President's veto, for example, is used as an excuse not for why they couldn't enact a law, but why they didn't even try). If you don't think that the Democrats are going to spend the next two years blaming the GOP for everything that is wrong, was wrong, could be wrong and will be wrong, with all due respect, that's pollyannaish at best and rationalization at worst.
They believe that everything was going swimmingly up until Nixon won and the country went wildly off track. They're going to pick up exactly where they feel that they left off - party like it's 1969. Unfortunately, we're all going to wake up with the hangover.
Actually, I thought the NAACP ad just before the 2000 election - the one that associated W with race-based murders in Texas by showing a truck dragging chains behind it - was the dirtiest campaign ad I've ever seen. But Judis probably only counts hits against Dems.
The only McCain quote I've seen regarding Khalidi that mentions Neo-Nazi's doesn't call him to a Neo-Nazi. It says that the press would be all over this if there was an old tape of McCain talking to Neo-Nazis. Perhaps he should have used the example of Alaskan secessionists.
I'd be more sympathetic to the claim that Khalidi is just a respected scholar if it wasn't for the fact that various subgroups in academia have managed to confer that honorific on the likes of Ayers and Ward Churchill. There are nutjob "respected scholars" on the right too, of course.
I'm currently agnostic about whether Khalidi is being unfairly tarred or not. Martin Kramer probably counts as a "respected scholar", who thinks the shoe fits. I'm also agnostic about Kramer, who has vocal critics of his own. The content of the tape could possibly resolve some of this ambiguity.
If I was an Obama supporter, that the LA times fears for the safety of the person who gave the tape to them wouldn't fill me with confidence about its contents.
There is no possible way the Republicans really want to win based on selecting first McCain and then Palin
As DBQ said, parties don't pick candidates anymore. I'm of the opinion that if they still did, we'd have better candidates.
"I suggest you lay off the LSD, MM."
Frankly I think LSD is a very handy tool to get through this election.
mccains camp doesn't push wright because he's not part of the Muslim/terrorist meme. They only have time for one more and they already tried scary black man.
Joe wurtzelbacher real America
Joe kahlidi "the other"
Minzo said...
"Well almost certainly an Obama supporter, but how do we know its from the campaign?"
We don't. For all we know, it was a false flag operation, posted by Karl Rove. Or it could have been posted by David Axelrod or one of his brute squad. We have no way of knowing. That's the point. What we do know is that the Obama campaign were the beneficiaries, because it set the tone going forward: the media picked it up and ran with it (some of them being artful enough to run non-coverage coverage ("we're not running this story, and to explain why we're not running this story, let us tell you all about it")), and it became the opening salvo in the war on Palin conducted by Obama staffers, surrogates and supporters. (Whether the media classify themselves as surrogates or supporters is of little operational significance, but to the extent they answer directly to the Obama chain of command, I tend to include them in the former class.) I remember that weekend very well, thank you.
Dust Bunny Queen said:
At least we were allowed to hear/know what he said instead of keeping it a deep dark secret.
Exactly. We always see the video when it is a Republican, as we should. I think this one is buried for good.
Sooo...defenders. Why don't we at least have a transcript? Maybe a bit of a clue, there?
And LOL, Pogo!
And I mean it must be a fucking bombshell of badness
Yup. :)
Frankly I think LSD is a very handy tool to get through this election.
Except he died at the beginning of the year.
May his red vest never fade.
They believe that everything was going swimmingly up until Nixon won and the country went wildly off track. They're going to pick up exactly where they feel that they left off - party like it's 1969. Unfortunately, we're all going to wake up with the hangover.
Well, if we're going to party like it's 1969, I suggest we all pick some Mr. Natural blotters and Sensimilla. I'm breaking out the lps that I have from teh 60's and 70's and checking to see if they still make Annie Green Springs.
Might as well drop out and enjoy the ride to oblivion.
The reason why Obama's assocations are fair game and need to be discussed is that there is a difference between simply knowing someone who happened to be either a Marxist, Revolutionary, Domestic Terrorist, Anti-White racist or American hater and quite another to actively seek out such people because of those attributes.
That is the story we want to know and deserve to know.
Yes, much more dishonorable than questioning the parentage of the vice President's disabled infant!
Now, if only the Obama campaign had actually done that, then you might have a strong argument that they've been just as dishonorable as the McCain campaign.
They believe that everything was going swimmingly up until Nixon won and the country went wildly off track. They're going to pick up exactly where they feel that they left off - party like it's 1969. Unfortunately, we're all going to wake up with the hangover.
Sex, drugs and rock and roll. Welcome back! We missed you.
Get real.
According to Rush Limbaugh Obama can't win unless he is 10 points ahead, and he is only averaging 6. Tuesday is going to be very exciting. Even more so if "Jabba The Hut" Limbaugh is wrong.
Gobama!
John Althouse Cohen said...
Yes, much more dishonorable than questioning the parentage of the vice President's disabled infant!
Now, if only the Obama campaign had actually done that, then you might have a strong argument that they've been just as dishonorable as the McCain campaign
Can you say with assurance that they are not behind that and the other 100 or so low blows Palin endured?
The GOP can't rely on friendly press to scoop up every morsel of dirt available on Democrats. Republicans have to actually say things themselves or they never see the light of day.
What will probably make me happiest if Obama wins is imagining Rush Limbaugh's face- or if Im especially lucky, his expression gets caught on TV when the election is announced. That'll give me a nice warm feeling aside. I'll also be happy that the Palin 'Gosh-darn-im-just-one-of-you-real-America- shtick will be defeated. She may yet turn out to be a viable and capable candidate in her own right, but her patronizing spiel during this election was cringeworthy and transparent.
"That'll give me a nice warm feeling aside."
It's always better if that nice warm feeling is inside.
Otherwise check your pants leg and see a urologist.
Joan --
"Are you dragging up the Bible quotes to try and provoke a big response?"
Vortex. It's called a vortex.
Integrity, what is your sense of what will happen -- I'm asking what the "Gobama!" crowd will do -- if, hypothetically, Obama loses? If he loses narrowly? Broadly? Or (worst case scenario) wins the popular vote but loses because McCain won key states by narrow margins?
UWS guy - oh please, who could be a bigger exploiter of race-hatreds than Wright? He portrays Jesus as a "poor black man who lived in a country controlled by rich white people" one minute, but when that construct doesn't suit his purposes, Jews (specifically Israelis) are equated with white South Africa the next, and only Palestinians are "black". The guy is a freaking idiot.
I mean, what does Wednesday morning look like if that happens, is what I'm asking.
Echo DBP.
Aren't Obama's politics enough? I don't think it's McCain that's made this not about Obama's politics but about who Obama *is*. Obama did that. Obama is an Idea.
We've got his "supporters" telling us that he will change after elected and will understand that he can't do what he's said he will do. He'll suddenly see the reality and react appropriately to foreign policy issues and the economy and everything else.
His politics are far left. I don't know how anyone can argue that they're not.
His job experience is next to nothing and we're not supposed to judge him on that, either, because what experience he's got is working as a "community organizer" which we've come to understand means "showing people how to ask the government for more money" and working in academia with people like Khalidi and Ayers, and behaving *in that environment* in a way most people would find appropriate, and a few years as a State Senator, but we're not supposed to get too excited about his votes there either. We're not supposed to question his calls to behave in a "christian" manner but take our scoldings to heart at the same time we graciously don't question his own apparent disinterest in the church he attended... seeing as he never quite *noticed* what the preacher, his good friend and mentor, was preaching about.
And at the end of all of that, we aren't supposed to care that he distances himself from a man that he claimed was important in his life for 20 years... he can't even offer a reasonable defense of him. He can't offer a reasonable defense of any of his associations...
... possibly because he doesn't want to suggest to us that someone can be very wrong about one thing and right about other things, or worth working with despite their blind spots. We're either good or evil, can't disagree, can't be forgiven for our sins and praised for our virtues, can't be met where we are.
And he can't articulate where he disagrees with any of them. He makes vague murmurings about "despicable acts" when he mentions Ayers but can't say where he disagrees or agrees with Ayers' ideas about education or about the role of government... he can't even (or won't) say what he learned worked or didn't work in education concerning the Annenburg funds he administered.
Obama seems very good at making everyone feel like he agrees with them. He's on everyone's side.
He thinks health care is a Right... which has to make some people happy, unless you are the sort who takes the word "Right" seriously. And he thinks the 2nd Amendment is an individual Right... which has to make other people happy, unless they notice that he seems to think a "Right" is something sort of squishy and has failed completely to convince the gun control lobby that he's not on their side.
Obama is on everyone's side.
It's a talent.
In the end it might be better if he wins... if nothing else we avoid the tantrum if he loses... I hope Michelle likes the White House. But don't lets pretend that Obama isn't who he is.
Roost asked: "Why are we talking about Khalidi a week before the election?"
Because many are afraid that if Senator Obama is elected he will abandon our friends in Israel. We fear this because some of the Senator's friends and coworkers are more favorable toward Palestenians than Israel.
"Who cares?"
Millions of Christians and Jews and Muslims who vote.
Got it?
Trey
What will probably make me happiest if Obama wins is imagining Rush Limbaugh's face- or if Im especially lucky, his expression gets caught on TV when the election is announced.
What?
Glee?
Obama wins and Rush Limbaugh takes it to the bank.
I don't doubt that Rush's politics are genuine, but what part of his being in business do you not understand?
No doubt Jesus would have taken a light hand with the anti-Israel crowd... just like he did with the money changers in the temple...
I mean, what does Wednesday morning look like if that happens, is what I'm asking
More interesting is what will Tuesday night in Chicago at Obama's big party if he doesn't win. One million pissed off and angry Obamabots.
I wouldn't want to be holding stock in the insurance companies that will have to pay the claims.
"...the other 100 or so low blows Palin endured..."
!!!
And you guys pretend Obama supporters have Messiah issues... Sheesh, it's the Passion of the Palin.
"I don't doubt that Rush's politics are genuine, but what part of his being in business do you not understand?"
I see your point but Im still pretty sure he'll be pissed off if Obama wins. Its not like he'll run out of material if Obama loses...
I didn't Althouse was a theologian?
I wander what would Althouse say about 2 Thessalonians Chapter 3
8 Nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you.
9 ... Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us.
10 In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.
That one ;)
Because many are afraid that if Senator Obama is elected he will abandon our friends in Israel. We fear this because some of the Senator's friends and coworkers are more favorable toward Palestenians than Israel.
Polls show US Jews prefer Obama.
A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday found Floridian Jews back Obama over Republican rival John McCain by a rate of 77 percent to 20%. And a Gallup survey found that nationwide, Jews prefer Obama by 74% to McCain's 22%.
"Because many are afraid that if Senator Obama is elected he will abandon our friends in Israel. We fear this because some of the Senator's friends and coworkers are more favorable toward Palestenians than Israel."
Didnt Obama take some flack for a speech he gave a few months ago which was rabidly pro-Israeli and people said he was trying to pander to the Jewish vote?
Because many are afraid that if Senator Obama is elected he will abandon our friends in Israel. We fear this because some of the Senator's friends and coworkers are more favorable toward Palestenians than Israel.
They didn't fear it two weeks ago. They fear it now because the McCain campaign got desperate and whipped up some bogus fear. Every reputable poll has Obama winning the Jewish vote by wide margin.
Simon: Echo DBP
You're smarter than that. With such logic any anonymous action can be attributed to the villian of your choice with not evidence at all.
(Note that the non-anonymous Andrew Sullivan, while a cretinous hack, is not associated with the Obama campaign.)
For all we know, somone from the McCain campaign posted those remarks on KOS as a honey-trop to help the Kids discredit themselves. Prove it isn't so!
Simon said...
Integrity, what is your sense of what will happen -- I'm asking what the "Gobama!" crowd will do -- if, hypothetically, Obama loses? If he loses narrowly? Broadly? Or (worst case scenario) wins the popular vote but loses because McCain won key states by narrow margins?
I don't know. I'm not sure if the inner city will explode, I don't think it will. But people will think that the corporate and political establishment in some way stopped him. Even europeans have said the illusive "they" will never let Obama get in. The perception will be awful, and perhaps very damaging to this country for a long time to come.
My own reaction will be that we had a real uphill battle from the start. Obama appeared to be a very risky choice, and it will have turned out that he was. And perhaps a little relief that Obama will not have to deal with a real economic disaster and take any blame for it.
It is impoosible to gauge anything where race(not racism) is involved. But progress on that front will have been made.
I think the nuances of an Obama loss will not be of import, only that he lost after running a fantastic campaign.
I think all the perceived race-baiting regarding Ayers, Wright et al will also be a source of long term resentment and could create even more disastrous polarization in the country. Worse than Bush. And McCain will be hated more than Bush, and could have a very hard time getting anything from a democratic congress should the congress remain dem. They would probably be very hostile, to say the least after the nasty tone of his campaign.
The one thing that could mitigate the bad reaction would be that Obama would have inherited a disaster, now the toxic hot potato called the economy would sit in the hands of McCain.
I was always told that passage in Matthew was about judging someone's salvation. Passages like Luke 17:3 clearly say to call your brother out if he sins. We are perfectly ok to say someone is bad or good, just don't say they are going to hell.
Not that we shouldn't be careful about pointing out others' faults but who in their right mind is concerned at this point (t-4 days). "wooo, he's calling me names"
What will probably make me happiest if Obama wins is imagining Rush Limbaugh's face
You really haven't thought this through, have you? 8 years of Obama is the best thing that could happen to him. When Obama wins, his face, in private, will be sporting a huge grin. Imagine that.
This man who is Barack's buddy is a muzzie. That is all I need to know. They are all terrorists and so is Obama.
Thank you.
Don't forget to join me for the Gays for Palin rally today at 8th and 23rd.
Synova said...
"Aren't Obama's politics enough?"
You might think so, but apparently not!
"We've got his 'supporters' telling us that he will change after elected and will understand that he can't do what he's said he will do. He'll suddenly see the reality and react appropriately to foreign policy issues and the economy and everything else."
I don't think it's primarily his supporters who are doing that. It's the people who know better and who are voting for him anyway who offer that up as a rationalization - Buckley is a high profile example who's been explicit on the point.
It's an idiotic notion, but I suppose that they have to justify it to themselves somehow. There's a variety of ways that the choice is being rationalized by people who know better: assuming a sudden 180 on taking office; "blaming the bitch" as Integrity well-put it yesterday; taking Kaus' advice and saying it's the tone of McCain's campaign; and so on. What all these arguments have in common is what they don't have between them: intellectual honesty and good faith. They aren't reasons (still less reasoned), they're rationalizations.
I've lost respect for a lot of people this season because they won't say (or can't see) what's really motivating their decision. I won't presume to say what their motives really are, but I have my suspicions. Well, alright, one example, because it's so obvious: George Will has absolutely loathed McCain for years, and not unjustifiably so; he'd been "wanting" (in the sense that plants "want" water) a reason to vote against McCain since the nomination was sewn up. For others (I won't name names), it is absolutely nose-on-your-face obvious that they just can't stand the thought of having voted against the first black President. There's all sorts of reasons -- some of them even legitimate; I mean, if you're a liberal, gosh, this candidate must be the best thing to happen since the Resurrection -- but what drives me batty is the people who won't be honest with themselves about why they're doing what they're about to do.
Speaking at Gays for Palin rally today will be her fashion consultant Marcel, from Niemies.
Marcel will be speaking about what is new in the fall color paint chart.
He taught at universities in Lebanon until the mid-’80s, and some critics accuse him of having been a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization.
"Some critics", in this case, being "those people who actually paid attention to what the man was saying".
"What all these arguments have in common is what they don't have between them: intellectual honesty and good faith. They aren't reasons (still less reasoned), they're rationalizations."
Surely you cant know for sure what motivates them? Unless you are some kind of mind reader you cant just assert with full confidence that you know why they are voting for Obama. Plus some of your examples dont hold up- the tone of Mccain's campaign is a perfectly valid reason to turn against him. Thats actually what put me off him as I used to admire him immensely.
DustBunnyQueen, I had them in mind when asking.
Lem said...
"I didn't Althouse was a theologian?"
Any stick to beat a dog, Lem. ;)
Henry said...
"You're smarter than that. With such logic any anonymous action can be attributed to the villian of your choice with not evidence at all."
I apologize for not being clear: I was echoing the observation that unlike the Obama campaign, "[t]he GOP can't rely on friendly press to scoop up every morsel of dirt available on Democrats. Republicans have to actually say things themselves or they never see the light of day."
"Note that the non-anonymous Andrew Sullivan, while a cretinous hack, is not associated with the Obama campaign."
Yes he is. You mean he isn't on their payroll, and maybe that's true (I have no idea whether he is or isn't), but he is absolutely associated with them. He's been their pet attack dog, venting the id that the campaign can't spout itself.
"Some critics", in this case, being "those people who actually paid attention to what the man was saying"."
Presumably you are one of them? If so, please do enlighten us...
Marcel will also be bringing with him cosmetoligist "Dug".
"Dug" will speak with Gays for Palin and what he did to accentuate Sarah Palin's cheek bones.
Dug will be autographing pictures of Palin from the Republican Convention. Dug is especially proud of his work from that night.
And lastly hair stylist Claude will be also attending the rally and doing some Palin makeovers for those in attendance.
Minzo said...
"Surely you cant know for sure what motivates them?"
I can know what doesn't motivate them when their claimed motivations are idiotic and the people offering them aren't idiotic enough to really believe it in more than a half-hearted instrumental sense.
You offer up the example of people who claim to be disgusted by McCain's campaign. The claim is absurd on its face; McCain has run a surprisingly tame election by any standards, recent or modern, including (at risk of devolving into tu quoque) by comparison to Obama's campaign. So, you know, you say that the campaign has put you off him, but the claim's ridiculous. I just don't believe you.
I'll be honest about my motivations. I'll tell anyone who asks: for me, the President's role in appointing judges trumps not just anything else but everything else in sum. Even if McCain that his first act in office was going to be something predictably disastrous - I don't know, to surrender in Iraq and have the troops out by February, perhaps - I'm still obliged to prefer him over Obama.
ricpic says,
Althouse, deranged, finds Jesus in Obama.
When asked for a reason: "Because I wanna."
Amen!
Sorry, I said "recent or modern" where I obviously meant "recent or long term" or similar.
As much as I dislike Palin's rhetoric, Im pretty sure we wont see a VP that hot in a long,long time...
The man was a PLO spokesman!
Nothing else need be said
"You offer up the example of people who claim to be disgusted by McCain's campaign. The claim is absurd on its face; McCain has run a surprisingly tame election by any standards, recent or modern, including (at risk of devolving into tu quoque) by comparison to Obama's campaign. So, you know, you say that the campaign has put you off him, but the claim's ridiculous. I just don't believe you"
Its ridiculous to claim that 'Mccain run a very negative' campaign is 'absurd on its face'. it might be to you, but overall its a fairly subjective assesment. Obama fans might think he did and Mccain fans will almost certainly see Obama's campaign as the real villain rather than Mccain's. Our biases colour our judgement so dont make us believe that 'Mccain run a tame campaign' is an objective reality because its certainly debatable (just like it is for Obama)
What will probably make me happiest if Obama wins is imagining Rush Limbaugh's face- or if Im especially lucky, his expression gets caught on TV when the election is announced.
Why? If anything an Obama win gives Rush another four years of solid anti-liberal material to run with. Don't spend too much time gloating, predictions of Rush's demise when Clinton won in 1992 were short lived. I think too many liberals buy into the conventional wisdom that Rush is a true ideologue rather than the reality that he's an entertainer.
dbp said...
Can you say with assurance that [the Obama campaign is] not behind that and the other 100 or so low blows Palin endured?
Can you say with with assurance that McCain's campaign is not behind the poster on Kos who raised the parentage matter? You can't.
I think it is most likely that the post was put up by a loony lefty who thought they were smarter than they actually are and thought they were on to something. But between the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign, I think the McCain folks had far more motivation to post the theory. What does the Obama campaign gain by suggesting that a mother of a down's child isn't actually the mother? It represents a lack of discipline and focus that I haven't seen out of the Obama campaign.
The McCain campaign on the other hand got the following out of the matter: (1)It introduced Palin to many people by saying "you might not know much about her but the evil Kos kids hate her and are being exceptionally vile"; (2)One of the great strengths of Daily Kos -- its openness -- is show as a great shortcoming; and (3)The campaign was able to talk about the fact that Palin's daughter was pregnant.
As I said, I think the most likely culprit is some idiot Kos kid.
"Why? If anything an Obama win gives Rush another four years of solid anti-liberal material to run with. Don't spend too much time gloating, predictions of Rush's demise when Clinton won in 1992 were short lived. I think too many liberals buy into the conventional wisdom that Rush is a true ideologue rather than the reality that he's an entertainer."
Yes, yes several people have pointed this out to me now. Consider me duly chastened :)
No such tolerance was shown to Trent Lott.
Look - I've had it with the excuses made for all these really BAD guys, Ayres and Dohrn murdered people.
Imagine the Skinheads who were just arrested for plotting to kill Obama - thirty years from now being feted as model citizens, given a professorship, given control over Foundation money, launching an up and coming politician in their living room...
Ludicrous!
Has everyone gone blind and mad?
Obama is surrounded by thugs, murderers, advocates of violence, of overthrowing our government. Facts. NO matter how much they try to hide it.
Integrity said...
"It is impoosible to gauge anything where race(not racism) is involved. But progress on that front will have been made."
I'm not inclined to think that it has. If anything, I would have thought that race relations have taken a serious hit in this election season. The Obama campaign and its media surrogates have consistently sought to inject race into the campaign and to smear his critics with the racism charge. I thought his Philadelphia speech was the most appalling thing thing I'd ever seen, just unbelievably egregious, but they quickly found new depths to plumb ("they're going to tell you that he doesn't look like" yadda yadda yadda; comparing McCain to George Wallace; etc.).
"I think all the perceived race-baiting regarding Ayers, Wright et al will also be a source of long term resentment and could create even more disastrous polarization in the country."
Which is unfortunate, but amusing in a way since it's so obviously built on projection. The racism and race-baiting has come overwhelmingly from the dems, but I suppose it'd be very tough for them to acknowledge that, so they just say that the GOP did it.
"[Congress] would probably be very hostile, to say the least after the nasty tone of his campaign."
A dem Congress would have been hostile no matter what the tone of McCain's campaign, and the tone hasn't been particularly "nasty." Back in that third debate, when Obama whined that Palin had charged him with palling around with terrorists, I really wanted McCain to tell him: if you don't want Sarah saying you pal around with terrorists, here's a tip that'll help: quit palling around with terrorists. I cannot understand how McCain is taking a hit for pointing out indefensible behavior by Obama while Obama is treated as a saint for defending the indefensible.
"The one thing that could mitigate the bad reaction would be that Obama would have inherited a disaster, now the toxic hot potato called the economy would sit in the hands of McCain."
Well, sure, except if it's not as toxic as you think. If McCain is right about the fundamentals of the economy remaining strong - and people like Gary Becker have argued that he is, IIRC - and the financial "crisis" turns out to be as transient as the gas price "crisis," he's going to be in good shape. Of course, the difference is that if Obama wins, the media will proclaim the economy recovered, even though it will almost certainly be in an actual recession for the first time since they started claiming it was, four or five quarters ago, whereas if McCain wins, the media will continue to tell us how it's all going to the dogs.
Even europeans have said the illusive "they" will never let Obama get in.
I suppose when the Europeans elect their first non-white head of state among their growing non-white population I might actually care what they have to say about our electing a black man for president.
Don't forget to join me for the Gays for Palin rally today at 8th and 23rd.
Take pictures, please.
Rose said...
"No such tolerance was shown to Trent Lott."
And nor should it have been. And yet, when John Lewis says something almost as bad (not as bad), he's given a pass.
"Look - I've had it with the excuses made for all these really BAD guys, Ayres and Dohrn murdered people.
"Imagine the Skinheads who were just arrested for plotting to kill Obama - thirty years from now being feted as model citizens, given a professorship, given control over Foundation money, launching an up and coming politician in their living room..."
And saying that their only regret was that they didn't do more. Don't forget that part. That's the problem: Obama can legitimately say that the bombings happened when he was a kid, but Ayers is not a past tense proposition. He doesn't regret what he did, and so far as I can tell, the only thing that has changed since then are his tactics. Nowadays he wants to poison the minds of children instead of blowing up the Pentagon - hard-pressed to see how that's more honorable.
At the rally today we will be giving out Gays for Palin buttons, t shirts, water bottles, and cookies.
Please join us.
Thank you so much.
Guys, I am talking about WE, not them. We are the Evangelical Christians and conservative Jews. They are the liberal Christians and Jews. Support for Israel is a huge issue to US, not so much for THEM.
See, all Jews and Christians and Muslims are not alike. While the vast majority of Jews support Senator Obama, not all of them would if they had information that Senator Obama was more favorable to Palensinians than Israel.
One of the rumours surrounding the tape is that Senator Obama made statements suggesting that Jesse Jackson (Hymie Town Jesse) made concerning Senator Obama's international policy will favor Israel's enemies are accurate. I bet that information would lose Obama some Jewish votes. Considering Ayers' and Kahlidi's (sp?) and Jackson's and Farrakhan's and Wright's history of supporting Palestenians over Israel, I think we have reason to be concerned.
That is the logic. Did you guys have trouble with the logic, or are you avoiding a decent concversation by looking for talking points?
Trey
Simon wrote: I apologize for not being clear...
Sorry. My apologies in return. I saw the second paragraph of DBP's 10:57 comment, thought of rebutting it, but decided it wasn't worth the effort. It was still on my mind when I saw your response.
So, McCain stated the obvious (that if he, McCain, had associated with a neo-nazi, the press would have buried him, but Obama can pal around with PLO spokesmen and skate); so this little turd Judis calls McCain "dishonorable".
Do I have that right?
McCain, who's taken one more bayonet to the groin in defense of our country than Judis has, or I have, or Althouse has, for that matter...dishonorable.
And so Althouse links to this and doesn't point out the outrageous nature of Judis' slander; but instead compares Obama to Jesus, and praises him for his subtlety, graceful self-deprecation, etc.
We'll probably never see the video of Obama at this dinner, but reportedly he stated that "Israel has no right to Palestinian territory". Which is tantamount to stating that they have no right to exist. I'm not sure if Jesus, a Jew, would have endorsed this position.
And I'm no biblical scholar (far, far from it), but from what little I know of Jesus, I really doubt that he would approve of Obama's "subtlety" of saying one thing to one crowd, and the opposite to another crowd. At this dinner, Obama almost certainly either said things, or granted them a soft endorsement through his silence, that he would not have said in front of Jewish voters in Florida. He demonstrated this same "grace" and "subtlety" in San Francisco, when he spoke of white people in Western Pennsylvania as a bunch of bitter gun-clingers.
I think Jesus would have called Obama a hypocrite and a coward. Are there any commenters who know more about Jesus than I do, who want to set me straight on that one?
re this post
Obama lied to us about the depth of his relationship with Ayers. LAT has lied to us multiple times.
Why would we now say, about Rashid Khalidi: "Nothing to see here, nothing to be concerned about, Obama and LAT deserve the benefit of the doubt."
Let's be honest: Obama also lied to us about the racist ideology Reverend Wright's entire church was based upon. It's impossible that Obama was unaware.
Why would we now say, about Rashid Khalidi: "Obama and LAT deserve the benefit of the doubt."
"We've got his 'supporters' telling us that he will change after elected and will understand that he can't do what he's said he will do. He'll suddenly see the reality and react appropriately to foreign policy issues and the economy and everything else."
So. What you are saying is that the man is a bald faced liar who is pandering and making promises to the rubes that he never intends to keep. Once in power he plans to dump all over the voters that he bamboozled into voting for him.
Nice ethics on the part of Obama and his supporters.
Just imagine how disappointed that poor woman will be when she finds out that she does have to pay her own gas and mortgage bill. Oh....the humanity. :-)
I think all the perceived race-baiting regarding Ayers, Wright et al will also be a source of long term resentment and could create even more disastrous polarization in the country.
I'm not quite sure why questioning Obama's relationship with Ayers can be categorized as race-baiting. Last time I looked, Ayres and his wife are white. I think his relationship with Wright should have send him packing a long time ago and was what sent me from disagreeing with Obama on policy to complete disgust with him as an individual person. Being a member of a church that considers 70% of the population of this country as snail feces tells me he's not the racial bridge this country needs.
Also you may wish to keep in mind that Obama's campaign were accusing more than a few prominent Democrats as racists during the primaries. The only person playing the race card in this election has been Obama.
Kit Bond doesn't like "the gay" and as a result the Gays for Palin will not be supporting Kit Bond.
And that is unfortunate. He is such a wonderful senator. And nice on the eyes.
Too many jims said...
"What does the Obama campaign gain by suggesting that a mother of a down's child isn't actually the mother?"
It offered them the chance to brand a woman that mainstream America hitherto knew nothing about as a liar, right out of the gate. They - they being the Obama campaign and its media subdivision - set out to poison Palin's public image from minute one, because if you can bombard America with a relentless stream of negative stories about someone they know almost nothing about, you are going to push down their approval figures. That's why people who say "oh, her approval figures have dropped since 8/29" come across as utterly cynical or total idiots, depending on whether they seem to know what they're doing. There was a deliberate campaign waged to destroy her, and so far, it seems to have worked. That's the power that Obama has: he has an incredible amount of money and the media solidly in his corner. They can suck up every atom of oxygen in the national conversation and present their preferred narrative to the exclusion of all else.
The way Kit Bond's head leans to one side is sexually arousing to "the gay".
If I was in bed with Kit Bond I would say to him.
Have you been a bad little Kitty Witty. Let me hear you purrrrrrrrr
Just got back from a drive to Smith Implement in Downing, WI, a distance of 33 miles. 14 McCain/Palin signs, 8 Obama/Biden.
Kit Bond doesn't like "the gay".
I'm not quite sure why questioning Obama's relationship with Ayers can be categorized as race-baiting. Last time I looked, Ayres and his wife are white.
It is categorized that way because Obama is black and left-wing. Any criticism of a black left-winger is race-baiting at least, and outright racism at worst.
That's how it works.
The republican senators from Oklahoma don't like "the gay" either.
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins love "the gay" though.
Its ridiculous to claim that 'Mccain run a very negative' campaign is 'absurd on its face'. it might be to you, but overall its a fairly subjective assesment. Obama fans might think he did and Mccain fans will almost certainly see Obama's campaign as the real villain rather than Mccain's.
This is seriously caveman logic. In Texas, some Obama fans think Obama will be a better President and some McCain fans think that McCain will. Do you see the foolishness of that equivocation. The fact is just like in Texas where MORE people think that McCain should be President, in every poll taken over the past 2 months significantly more people think that McCain has run a dirty campaign. These numbers have far outstripped Obama's lead for President so its not just Obama fans. I'm sure that all of the people in your 'subjective' bubble think its Obama with his unfair jabs at McCain's health care policy that is the negative one, but overall its 'objectively' not even close. Unless, obviously we discount polls and reality for having a liberal bias.
Simon, to make my division-vs-disagreement point more clearly, I submit this video.
You've probably seen it, it's the one where McCain gets booed by his own supporters for suggesting that Obama isn't literally dangerous.
This is what I mean, at least, when I talk about divisive politics. The McCain crowd can't even acknowledge that Obama isn't a BAD MAN.
They can't because they NEED Obama to be a bad man. Without that, all of this Muslim/Rezko/Wright/Ayers/Khalidi stuff doesn't amount to much.
So, McCain stated the obvious (that if he, McCain, had associated with a neo-nazi, the press would have buried him, but Obama can pal around with PLO spokesmen and skate); so this little turd Judis calls McCain "dishonorable".
Do I have that right?
Yes you do. What you seem to be missing is that you can't just compare people to neo-Nazis unless they, ya know, have really offensive views which Khalidi doesn't. He just has a name that's offensive to the bigoted wingnuts McCain's hoping can keep him from total humiliation on Tuesday.
Simon,
That is a fine and good point but how does pushing a story where she is not shown to be lying advance that narrative? Obama gained zero from the parentage question and McCain's camp gained sympathy. I still see no reason for Obama's campaign to have pushed that story.
I know that you are suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome and I further realize that you think your soul has been saved by Palin (PBUH), but at some point I hope you can reflect on the fact that some of the dip in her approval ratings is due to her actual shortcomings and not due to the evil liberal elite media. Can you really expalin the shift in Douthat's view (as one example) simply by saying he is an idiot or utterly cynical?
So you're going to accept the LAT's excerpt of Obama's toast, without the the rest of what Obama said, and without the context of what all of the Israel-haters speaking there said, and judge that this is "truly dishonorable"?
That's extraordinarily convenient. Once again, you cite Bible verses--apparently that's Althouse's last refuge in support of a scoundrel.
What did Barack Obama say about this officer of the PLO? What anti-Israel tirades did Obama sit through, and smile at, or otherwise say nothing about? Why is that unfair?
If McCain was hanging out with an officer from a pro-Apartheid terrorist movement, praising the spokesman, I'd want to know about. I would want to know what he said. And so would you. You wouldn't accept it if the NY Post plucked one sentence from the entire speech.
If we had a single sentence Obama's speech that seemed to praise the PLO, you would demand the whole context. If a right-winger provided only a single sentence, and said that it proved Obama's entire speech was violent and evil, you would not accept that. You'd probably start quoting Bible verses or something.
Remove the mote from your own eye, Althouse.
People have been cowed into the idea that any criticism of Obama's political and intellectual allies is not only racist, but puts his life at risk. That's a truly fucked-up, dangerous game. The only outrage expressed on the bulk of the tv networks is directed at statements from McCain/Palin. Did you hear pundits shout Obama down when he preemptively described all of the racist things the GOP would say about him, or when he lied about McCain wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 yrs? The media has watched years of unmitigated rage from the left, comparing Bush to Hitler, on and on, but now speaks as if any anger from the right is incitement. Talk about offensive.
Roost, I'm not sure that that video helps your case. It doesn't even show what you suggest ("McCain gets booed by his own supporters for suggesting that Obama isn't literally dangerous"); the questioner says that he's scared of an Obama Presidency, that he's worried about someone who "cohorts with" people like Ayers making appointments to the Supreme Court, and McCain tells the crowd that they don't have to be scared. Why? Because Obama's a decent man. Well, bully for him, but so what? There is every reason to be scared of an Obama presidency and what it would mean for the Supreme Court and the federal bench generally. Obama and McCain represent two fundamentally different ways of looking at an incredibly important issue - indeed, the most important issue of all.
And, by the way, if you want to talk about divisiveness, notice that the video you linked to is posted as a response to this one. That just struck me as amusing given your protestations that McCain supporters need to hate Obama; I don't know if there's some personal need for Obama's supporters to hate and demonize Palin, but I understand the partisan utility of doing so.
Forget Ayers past - how about his present?
Can someone provide a link to Obama's explanation of why he chose to join with an avowed 'little c' communist who supports the "struggle" in the US and the world and work with him on efforts to reform education in Chicago?
I'm sure Obama has explained fully to the American people why he chose as he did.
The man was a PLO spokesman!
Not according to the linked video, in which Judis says Khalidi was the go-to guy for the press who therefore got quoted about the PLO a lot -- a somewhat different spin on spokesman. I rather doubt Khalidi was on the PLO payroll. But I don't know for sure which statement is the most correct, yours or Judis' (Does anyone?)
No such tolerance was shown to Trent Lott.
Sorry, politicians' faux pas should not be tolerated, especially if they somehow show the monster below the shiny veneer.
What you seem to be missing is that you can't just compare people to neo-Nazis unless they, ya know, have really offensive views which Khalidi doesn't. He just has a name that's offensive to the bigoted wingnuts McCain's hoping can keep him from total humiliation on Tuesday.
Speak for yourself, doyle. I've listened to Khalidi on Charlie Rose any number of times and he has offended the hell out of me. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. He says just enough "reasonable" things to get into the room, and minutes later he is wading in it.
...and that was posted in response to this one. There is a lot of smut on the internet.
That crowd was front and center at a McCain rally, not broadcasting from a basement.
You lost me at "Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia".
I should care about this guy's opinion, WHY?
Speak for yourself, doyle. I've listened to Khalidi on Charlie Rose any number of times and he has offended the hell out of me.
By saying what?
Also, isn't the very fact that he was invited on Charlie Rose pretty good prima facie evidence that he's not equivalent to a neo-Nazi?
You cannot critisize Obama without some label of racism attached to it.
Obama wants to redistribute the wealth for the sake of fairness.
Call it what it is, socialism, and you will be labeled a racist.
What if I said that Barack Obama was merely being Christian in his support for the former unofficial spokesman of the PLO?
Wouldn't that be outrageous? How would we absorb that?
Last summer, Obama showed up at a meeting of Israeli news editors and a few people high in their government - to answer questions. By himself. The Jerusalem Post said he did spectacularly well, showing a good understanding of the issues and awareness of the perspectives of not just Israel, but the Palestinians and other Arab parties.
McCain showed up later. The Post reported that McCain was more into talking about his character and making statements of support. When asked specifics, he leaned on Sen Joe Lieberman, who had come along to the meeting. The meeting participants thought McCain wasn't too impressive, was very vague..
Part of the explaination for that meeting is that Obama has studied the ME as an undergrad, then not only had wealthy Jewish mentors like the Crowns and Klutzniks prominent in Israel affairs (Klutznik Sr. headed the World Jewish Federation), but he also had long contact with Rashid Khalidi and other ME scholars to get the other side of ME affairs, and learn how the Muslim countries work outside the Israel controversy.
That seems to position Obama very well.
And Rashid Khalidi happens to be one of America's leading ME scholars, educated at Yale and Oxford..significant scholarly publications, with texts of his standard in most ME Studies Programs. And Khalili's Institute got grant money from both Republicans (including McCain) and Democrats. He is an American, born in New York to a Palestinian Muslim UN diplomat and a Lebanese Christian mom. He attended Christian-denominated schools, is a secularist.
He is pro-Palestinian.
Obama also has friends and associates with views 180 out from him, active Zionists or pro-Israel.
Like his other displays of moving comfortably between people of different ideologies, he has top ME scholars he has known for years on both sides.
That is a strength to me, not a weakness.
And perhaps a reason he has 60% of the vote of Arab-Americans and 74% of the Jewish vote. And is favored by 75% of Israelis.
As for McCain and Palin - they seem to be using their last days of campaigning in a stupid game of guilt by association - given the Jewish support of Obama is rock-solid. Even stupider when you consider what Palin calls "a terrorist" was getting grant money from John McCain and has been at the White House and Camp David for policy summits attended by Cheney and Bush, as well as meetings with Clinton in the 90s.
Stupider still given voters want to know who is the best person to fix things - and McCain and Palin blew 2 weeks tying to pump up the "Obama-Ayers" tie.
And know that people don't care, because it didn't do anything to affect McCains drop in the polls.
Now he goes from an actual radical bad guy to one of the country's best scholars - supported by top people from both Parties? Idiots!
**********************
DBQ - The Palin pick was energizing for the base, because at least she is a conservative and seems to have more balls than any of the other 3 guys running on either side.
The world is full of people with more balls than brains.
I presume Palin has brains, based on her being a popular governor. But I haven't seen any of her brains on display since McCain picked her - just her stringing together "red meat" slogans and talking points at stump speeches. If you wish to characterize her brainless "rah rah!" act as having balls, be free...
No one has seen her actually think about something asked of her...It remains to be seen if she can run with the right wingers that see her as a Goddess propping her up in 4 years, without having the sort of cognitive meltdowns that doomed Kucinich, George Allen, and Bill Richardson.
Too many jims said...
"That is a fine and good point but how does pushing a story where she is not shown to be lying advance that narrative?"
You're assuming that when they pushed that story, they knew it was false. Moreover, even if they knew better, they also know that first impressions last. There's a reason why newspapers' errata sections are so widely-mocked - a lie in a headline is apologized for in the small print on page nine a month after the event, and which sticks in the mind, the lie or the retraction? And so here we are, two months later, and Andrew Sullivan is still demanding the medical records to disprove the lie. Do you think that Andrew is the only person in the entire country who still believes this claptrap, who's impression of Palin was influenced by this?
"I know that you are suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome and I further realize that you think your soul has been saved by Palin (PBUH)"
Not sure which claim is sillier, to be honest.
"at some point I hope you can reflect on the fact that some of the dip in her approval ratings is due to her actual shortcomings and not due to the evil liberal elite media."
I'll certainly concede that it's due in significant part to public perception of her shortcomings, but that brings us back to the media's presentation. For example, it was relentlessly hammered home that Palin must be an idiot because, when Charlie Gibson asked her what the Bush doctrine was, she asked him to clarify what he meant by that. That the person who coined the term "Bush doctrine" pointed out that her reaction was perfectly reasonable since there are at least four distinct concepts routinely labelled "the Bush doctrine," and that the definition Gibson came out with when pressed wasn't and never has been one of them, was not something that the media conveyed. It was silly, factually-flawed gotcha journalism, and even though erudite observers realize that the question actually made Gibson look like a fool, not Palin, it was sold to the public as an example of Palin's shortcomings. And let's not even get into stuff like the editing room trickery. Has Palin said dumb things on the trail? Yes. So have the other three, but you don't so often hear about Biden's routine foot-in-mouth moments.
"Can you really expalin the shift in Douthat's view (as one example) simply by saying he is an idiot or utterly cynical?"
I can't honestly offer an opinion on this; at this point, I don't read him regularly enough to know what he's said about anything.
No such tolerance was shown to Trent Lott.
Considering that the Democrats are the party with a former KKK member in the Senate, their outrage over Lott praising some fossil who ran on the anti-segregationist ticket was humorous for anyone with a sense of irony.
Obama wants to redistribute the wealth for the sake of fairness.
That's what the federal government does! Rich people have paid more in taxes forever. The American people know this and they favor a tax structure which goes easier on the middle class and harder on the rich.
Call it what it is, socialism, and you will be labeled a racist.
No just stupid or dishonest, unless you're a racist too.
Doyle said...
"isn't the very fact that he was invited on Charlie Rose pretty good prima facie evidence that he's not equivalent to a neo-Nazi?"
I have a google alert on Scalia's name, and an appearance on Charlie Rose's show hasn't stopped your side from calling him a fascist and any number of other epithets.
doyle,
Khalidi, like Ayers, found legitimacy via academia. He appears on CR as a"Columbia University Prof." That doesn't mean his ideas are necessarily legit or unoffensive. His entire thesis is that Palestinian behavior flows from "the occupation", and believes that if only Israel were to make a rapid withdrawal to pre '67 borders, end all roadblocks, etc. peace would miraculously become possible.
It's ahistorical, infantalizing of the Palestinians themselves, lets Hamas off the hook, and would burden Israel with all of the risk with so little guarantee of peace as to be laughable.
Yes you hear lots of Democratic candidates opposing their Republican opponents of being "known associates" of Justice Antonin Scalia.
His entire thesis is that Palestinian behavior flows from "the occupation", and believes that if only Israel were to make a rapid withdrawal to pre '67 borders, end all roadblocks, etc. peace would miraculously become possible.
Doesn't sound like he favors systematic extermination of Jews.
The is a long and sad history of black anti-Semitism, and Rev. Wright is of a piece with Al Sharpton and his ilk. Obama learned about his views on Jews from his pastor and his friends like Khalidi's. Secular Jews choose to ignore this because of their liberalism, but they are in for a rude awakening. Luckily the Israeli's can take care of themselves and will do so as soon as Obama is elected. They will make their move while Bush is still in office, since they know that Obama and the Kos kids will stand by and vote present while they are put in the cattle cars.
I put "the occupation" in quotes, not to imply it's unreal, only because I'm never entirely sure how much land people are talking about when they refer to it. Khalidi always talks as if we can ignore the millions of people in the Arab world for whom "the occupation" means all of Palestine, and for whom any retreat would be regarded as an insufficient appetizer.
Doesn't sound like he favors systematic extermination of Jews.
Wow, your standards are really high doyle.
Well neo-Nazis are pretty bad, Jen.
You see the Israeli’s know that the Middle East is about to turn into Crown Heights and Mayor Dinkins is going to let the Palestinians “vent.”
We have seen this movie before.
I was also making fun of you. I mean it's good that you give his position a fair description but it's pretty thin gruel for the kind of accusation the McCain camp is making.
Even Marty Peretz finds the attacks on Khalidi despicable.
Does Obama like tennis?
OT: Obama at 51-43 in new Gallup.
I bet Obama looks good in a tuxedo.
I'm not sure I heard Obama disavow Michael Vick or Wesley Snipes either, so that pretty much rules him out in my book.
One reason this campaign has been so annoying is the offensiveness sweepstakes. Whoever is the most offended wins! And whereas it is deemed acceptable to be offended by questions about Obama's associations with a domestic terrorist, it is unacceptable to be offended that he would be distributing hundreds of thousands of non-profit bucks to Khalidi, Wright, Ayers, ACORN, etc. via the Woods or Annenberg foundations. I'm not going to stop looking into that stuff because Marty is offended by my interest, sorry.
Titus, will you stop the tease. A while back you posted you were gay for Obama. Today you're gay for Palin.
Come down off those twinkletoes, willya?
Jen, it sounds like his campaign has offended you.
I pop in and see my prior concerns verified. It was obvious that Ann, for all the wonderfulness of her past blog, was on the road to Sullivanville. Next stop Kostown.
jdeeripper - Mitt Romney and Tom Ridge would own this election right now. And Romney's team would have beat the crap out of Obama on Wright.
Romney chewed McCain up in debates. If not for bigotry against his faith by the Religious Right Fundies, he would have made it as the eventual nominee. They killed him in Iowa, S Carolina, Florida - with NH being it's usual oddball self giving McCain the vote because they liked him back in 2000.
Yeah, he would have had Obama pressed hard, and would have been going all through the northern industrial states with a coherent vision to bring them back...
There was a good chance that he wouldn't have picked Tom Ridge as VP. That campaign really had the hots for Kay Bailey Hutchinson, of Texas - the hugely popular senior female Republican Senator. McCain supposedly disliked her a lot, and Hutchinson is opposed to banning all abortions, while wanting the end of discretionary partial birth abortion and parental notification - which made her "unacceptable" to certain fanatics in the Base. Thus, the newbie Palin over the well-liked, well-seasoned in military and economy matters, 4-term Hutchinson.
Romney would have taken the risk - taking Hutchinson for what she would do for him in the South, North, and Midwest non-Fundie fanatics - and figured the Religious Right would have to eventually come around & back him.
Hutchinsons one shot, unfortunately. She'll be 69 in 2012.
Romney has a couple more shots. Hopefully, Republicans will feel as Democrats did Nov 4th, 2004 after going with the incoherent Kerry and his newbie Silky Pony-Boy, the charismatic Edwards.
2008 was not to be, unfortunately. The Republicans got the 2 candidates they deserved.
I'm not going to stop looking into that stuff because Marty is offended by my interest, sorry.
I shudder at all the damning evidence you're going to produce before Tuesday.
The treatment of Khalidi is now beyond dirty campaigning only because it benefits Judis to say so (right now).
God, you're confused doyle. I'm a freaking painter, not a reporter. It's about a personal interest in getting information, which shouldn't be a partisan wish. I don't consider it racist fear-mongering to ask the Times to release a tape they considered newsworthy enough to mention in the first place. But now I'm supposed to be "ashamed" to criticize them for withholding it. Well screw that, is my feeling.
I don't consider it racist fear-mongering to ask the Times to release a tape they considered newsworthy enough to mention in the first place.
Why not? You really should. It is racist fearmongering. The presumption of scary anti-American goings on is pure McCarthyite wingnut fantasy.
But now I'm supposed to be "ashamed" to criticize them for withholding it.
Hey you're free to be as shameless as you want.
And their reason for not releasing it (i.e. that it was obtained on the condition of not doing so) seems eminently sound.
Way too late in the thread here, but the Bible verse you have chosen has been hideously mutilated by attempts at modern translation. "Judge not lest ye be judged" manifestly does not mean "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." It means "Don't judge unless you are willing to be judged yourself also, by God."
This is a vital distinction. Please make a note of it.
And their reason for not releasing it (i.e. that it was obtained on the condition of not doing so) seems eminently sound.
To which they've added this twist: that it would put the source in jeopardy if they released it.
I thought Ayers was a washed-up terrorist! I thought Khalidi was a former PLO associate! Surely they and their friends still aren't dangerous, right?
madisonman, no - it is the self-righteous posturing and double standards of the media that offend me. It is the Big Brother aspect of their telling me what is "appropriate" for me to ask or know; the hyperbolic comparisons to Wallace being shrugged away, while any comparisons from the right (calling Ayers a "terrorist" - as opposed to what, "a white guy who stands by his use of violence to achieve a political agenda"??) are supposedly a moral nadir with no precedent in political history. How many times can I ask if these guys are f-cking kidding me?
From Andrew McCarthy at NRO on the LA Times and Khalidi:
Even if you accept for argument’s sake the bunk about honoring the “source’s” supposed wishes, the newspaper wouldn’t need to release the tape in order to give us a more comprehensive account of what happened that evening. So it’s not that the Times is simply withholding the tape. The Times is trying to suppress the story. Not the story as Wallsten spun it back in April. The full story.
The full story couldn’t be more relevant. Barack Obama says he is a staunch supporter of Israel. The importance of the Khalidi festivities isn’t simply that Obama lavished praise on a man who was an Arafat apologist — although that is troubling in itself. What also matters is that many speakers (no doubt including Obama’s good friend Khalidi himself) said extremely provocative things about Israel and American policy.
While that went on, Obama apparently sat there in tacit acceptance, if not approval. He didn’t get up to leave. He wasn’t roused to a defense of his country. He didn’t deliver a spirited condemnation of Islamic terror. He just sat there. And when it came his turn to speak, he spoke ... glowingly ... about Khalidi. He was clearly comfortable around the agitators and, equally crucial, they were clearly comfortable spewing their bile in front of him — confident that they were certainly not giving offense.
Why would the Times think it’s not newsworthy to tell us in detail what Obama sat through and chose not to refute? He says he supports Israel, but shouldn’t we get a peek at what he actually does when Israel is under attack? After all, he wants to be in charge and soon the attacks may be more than just verbal.
All of that could be made known by the publication of a transcript, without breaching any purported promise to the purported source.
But, the Times sputters, we’ve already done that news story back in April. The material facts have already been publicized thanks to our crack reporting.
Really?
the hyperbolic comparisons to Wallace being shrugged away
That comparison wasn't made by Obama or the Obama campaign!
Check this out: the WaPo said: " But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis — or even to Mr. Ayers — is a vile smear."
Hmm. That's odd. It would be a vile smear to compare Khaladi to some guy in Obama's neighborhood? A distinguished professor? An education reformer? A fellow board member?
And the objection to the Ayers bullshit isn't primarily a semantic objection to the use of the word "terrorist," it's that Obama isn't responsible for what Ayers did or said.
Basically the criticism of Obama is that he isn't angry enough at Ayers to refuse to sit on any boards on which Ayers sits. The idea that this makes him questionably anti-American is just agonizingly stupid.
doyle's comment to me above is a classic example - I am supposed to take his word for it that a desire to see the tape is racist fear-mongering for reasons he can't articulate.
And no doyle, there is no presumption of "scary anti-American goings on". There is presumption (based on the original Times story) of anti-Israeli statements being made that were either ignored or applauded by a presidential nominee. If Obama let pass anyone equating Zionism with racism or apartheid, I would like to know about it. It's news, and they should at the very least make a transcript available.
Basically the criticism of Obama is that he isn't angry enough at Ayers to refuse to sit on any boards on which Ayers sits.
Or to give his book a favorable review.
Or to launch is political career in his living room.... oh wait, that one's been denied, and independent evidence supporting it has been scrubbed from the Internets.
Or to let him babysit their kids... oh, wait, that's right, that one's been intimidated away.
Jen, as ever, the coverup bootstraps suspicions that there is something to cover up. If there's nothing on the tape, there's no reason for the LAT to not release it.
MCG wrote: To which they've added this twist: that it would put the source in jeopardy if they released it.
I thought Ayers was a washed-up terrorist! I thought Khalidi was a former PLO associate! Surely they and their friends still aren't dangerous, right?
No, the threat is that Barack Obama would do to the source what he did to "Joe the Plumber."
Obama might already know who the source is. He may have already contacted the source, and told him not to give permission to the LAT to reveal the tape, and told him what would happen to the source if the tape was revealed.
Barack Obama is the terrorist. Look at how he is already terrorizing the American public. Don't you dare ask him a question--or he will have his friends in the state government look up your private records. His friends in the government will destroy your business. His friends in the media call you a racist and drag your name through the mud.
It's un-American and we can't afford a president like that, ever.
Obviously, Obama's the one running for president, so his associations with Ayers and Dohrn in particular are an issue.
What bothers me in a larger sense is the idea that both of these kooks are not only accepted by their community but elevated to positions of some stature. There should be no place for them in polite society, much less influencing education policy. They deserve no forgiveness because they've offered no apologies, and thus they remain scum.
If there's nothing on the tape, there's no reason for the LAT to not release it.
Except, of course, for the fact that they obtained it on the condition that they wouldn't release it.
Thanks for proving my point. Vote for a Republican, ostracized. Commit a few bombings, accepted and elevated.
As Mariner said, once I saw "Edward Said professor of Arab studies ", I knew there was no reason to give a damn what he said about anything.
Arab studies is not inherently disreputable*, but Said is.
* Or at least no more disreputable than any "Studies", so I guess I mean "pretty disreputable".
Gateway Pundit has proof that Khalidi was a PLO operative, not just a "college professor"
He was an officer of the PLO.
Shame on all of you liberals (Althouse included) who accused us of racism because of his Arab name. Shame. Shame. He was an officer of a terrorist organization that gleefully murdered civilians around the world because of their religion. And you call us racist.
I've got a Bible quote for you: Ezekiel 23:20.
Republicans have done more than their share of bombings.
And your thoughts about Bill "Baby Milk Factory" Clinton, Doyle?
Simon said...
You're assuming that when they pushed that story, they knew it was false.
Yes I am. To start a narrative that she lies about things you need to know either that she lied or that it could be portrayed as a lie. I just can't believe the campaign was stupid enough or undisiciplined enough to start that ball rolling if they did not know she was lying.
Not sure which claim is sillier, to be honest.
The second was much sillier. It was also petty and I regretted posting it. My apologies. I do usually try to avoid such postings with you.
With respect to the first, I can only say that I have been diagnosed as being dreanged for suggesting that Bush and Republicans were irresponsible with the deficit and suggesting that we needed more troops in Iraq before the 2006 elections.
I'll certainly concede that it's due in significant part to public perception of her shortcomings, but that brings us back to the media's presentation.
Ok, you're not ready to acknowledge that some of the deterioration in support for her is due to her shortcomings. I'll check back some other time.
I can't honestly offer an opinion on this; at this point, I don't read him regularly enough to know what he's said about anything.
I would commend him to your attention on any number of topics. But specfically with regard to Palin, he was an early voice for her, he was giddy when she was picked, took Sullivan to task for lacking class, became concerned after the Gibson interview and moreso after the Couric interview, and he is optimistic that she has a future as a leader in the party (he has also been critical of media coverage of her and of some of the conservative commentariat that has piled on her but I didn't feel like digging through to find any of those links). Not everything at The Atlantic is bad.
You're a real Einstein, Doyle!
I didn't know Elementary School got out this early.
Post a Comment