In 2000, the smear artists kept hitting Gore with the "Love Story" fabrication and the "invented the internet" hoax. Even after the lies were exposed, sheer dogged repetition kept them alive.
Same shit, different party. The Obamabots and the Kossacks continue to spread the fib that Bill Clinton called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale."
Nope. He used that term to describe how Obama falsified his own history on the Iraq war. Everything Clinton said was justified. Here is the video:
Now here's how the disgusting progs have twisted those words:
Example 1: "Obama can't handle pressure or Obama is a fairy tale character..I mean, the list is endless."
Example 2: "Bill Clinton and the Obama "fairy tale" what a "desperate" attack. I'd just laugh it off and say Mr Clinton... your whole life is based upon "fairy tales"... both in business as well as "personal".."
Example 3 (and this is really disgusting): "One comment was the fairy tale comment that was made by mr. bill. It was not that comment alone, but the entire context that needs to be analyzed. The thrust basically was that he was the uppity african-american with no experience, he was a kid who could give a good speech, he was "shucking and jiving."
The Obama campaign itself was behind this Rovian misrepresentation of Clinton's words. See here:
The Obama campaign's "fairy tale" gambit was particularly transparent. Commenting on Obama's explanation of why he is more against the war in Iraq than Hillary Clinton, and disturbed by the news media's failure to report Obama's actual voting record on Iraq in the Senate, the former president referred to what had become the conventional wisdom as a "fairy tale" concocted by Obama and his supporters. Time to play the race-baiter card! One of Obama's most prominent backers, the mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, stretched Clinton's remarks and implied that he had called Obama's entire candidacy a fairy tale.Jackson, I am convinced, knew full well that she was being deceitful.
The fact is that, in his 2004 convention speech (available on YouTube), Obama did not criticize the decision to go to war. He said that Bush didn't send in enough troops.
If someone had told Tolstoy "Napoleon's problem was that he didn't send enough troops into Russia," the author of War and Peace probably would have made an uncharitable reply.
By the way -- one speaker at that convention did denounce Bush for attacking Iraq: Bill Clinton.
24 comments:
For some reason, so-called progressives have got on the anti-Clinton bandwagon, or were on it already. Most likely they favored Anyone But Clinton because we already had a Clinton administration and it didn't really accomplish much other than some key Republican goals.
My complaint is that they were dumb enough to get on the Obama bandwagon. I don't want Hillary Clinton as President, but I see no reason to think that Obama would be any better.
What I do see now is the right-wing media suddenly coming up with video of speeches Obama's former pastor gave who knows how long ago and harping on them as though they were a real campaign issue. Who do you think dredged these up? Why do you think they did it?
Without asking those important questions, some mainstream Democrats are following right in line with the Scarboroughs and Hannitys to tar Obama with the Wright brush. That's pretty sick too.
This kind of stupidity has to stop. The Republicans are drooling over this crap and watching the Dems self-destruct again. So-called progressives talk shit about Clinton, so-called moderates talk shit about Obama, and the Repubs are taping every bit of it to play back in the fall. Democrats are swiftboating their own candidates, and that's truly disgusting and suicidal.
I don't give a crap about he said, or she said or whether Ferraro or Wright is a racist. Which one of these candidates would make the better President and which one is more likely to beat McCain? Those are the only issues Dems of any stripe should be talking about. Our anger and frustration needs to be directed at the John (Bush III) McCain.
That's it. You're outta here, you lying fuck. Accuse me of racism, simply because I don't like smears? Get out. Never come back.
By the way -- none of the proggers attacking Clinton on this "Fairy Tale" business ever embeddedthe actual video. I just did.
Joseph:
Clearly, you've drawn a line in the sand and are planning to stick with it, come hell or high water. But I think it's an unwise choice on your part. I think it's imperative to have a Democrat elected in the general, as did you once upon a time, even one that you now loathe.
That said, I wonder whatever happened to the 'nuance' you once did so well? You've blamed Obama for many things over which he has had little or no control, yet refuse to even acknowledge when he has attempted to make the necessary amends. For example, you've excoriated him for the comments of his pastor and used provocative language to ASSUME that he must be in agreement with those comments:
"He cannot claim ignorance. The media did not "cherry pick" Wright's statements;"
Yet, apparently, Wright is NOT given to making such statements all the time. If you've bothered to read Obama's response, you'll see that he categorically denies having ever heard any such thing from Wright, and uses the most clearly worded language to reject, denounce, repudiate, disagree, etc. etc. Once, I would have expected to see you at least acknowledge such from Obama, but apparently you are now a different man. Now, you are somehow capable of prejudging these things:
"Obama may think that he can undo the damage by finding the right mollifying words, but those words do not and never will exist. Actions speak louder than. Obama attended that church for twenty years.
Yes, he did, and never once heard Wright say anything of the sort. This is not a new issue, because Obama had already repudiated the comments about a year ago. I am surprised that you didn't know this, just as I am surprised that you have chosen to prejudge any comment from Obama as insufficient before the comment is even made. Were this attitude expressed by anyone other than Joe Cannon, I'd be inclined to suspect there was a game afoot: let's lynch the Negro and THEN have the trial. You seem to ASSUME far too much based on far too little.
You make much of the fact that Obama didn't use his 2004 convention speech to critique Bush's war, and then mock his contention that too few troops had been sent initially. Well, Joseph, where I come from, that IS a critique, and he was not alone in making it. Numerous Pentagon generals had already said the same thing. You cannot have it both ways, I'm afraid.
If the so-called "surge" has bought even so little as a reduced level of violence, that is something that could have been bought earlier, and saved God knows how many lives, Yanqui and Iraqi. All that was needed was the number of troops the Pentagon had initially required, which Bush and Rumsfeld denied, and for which Obama rightly chastized them.
More to the point, however, let us recall that in the '04 general, the Democratic standard-bearers had voted FOR the war. Had Obama stood and announced his opposition to the war, rather than simply critique the way it was prosecuted, he would have undercut the Kerry-Edwards ticket, because he would have then denounced THEM too. Is THAT what you would have welcomed from him then? Or is that what you disingenuously demand from him now?
In '04, he was a team player, trying to support the Democratic ticket. In retrospect, you think this was wrong. Again, you'd like it both ways, and it doesn't go unnoticed by your readers that you've lost your touch for parsing the details the way you once did.
If I read you correctly - which is no longer as simple to do as it once was - you seem to posit that Obama introduced race into the campaign in order to galvanize all that black support he now enjoys away from Hillary and toward him.
Yet, from my own point of view, that has happened anyway, not because of any great race debate, but for a far simpler reason:
Clinton was the marquee "name" candidate, and even black voters thought Obama's chances were slim to nil, as did most whites and others. When he took Iowa, ALL voters had to take a longer, closer, harder look at this candidate. Once it appeared that a vote for Obama was no longer guaranteed to be a WASTED vote, he drew them by the legions. Had nothing to do with the race card; had to do with the appearance of electibility, which is when the wheels fell off Hillary's wagon on the way to her coronation.
I see a rather stark double standard in the way your employ logic these days, Joseph, and based upon the comments you now receive, I am not alone. Hillary's surrogates are NOT receiving their orders from her play-book, but Obama's surrogates ARE doing what their candidate instructs them to do. I see no basis for this, but recently you've chosen to ASSUME what you wish, rather than deduce what you must. It isn't a service to you, your cause, or the Democrats.
Saddest of all, to my eyes at least, is that you shed crocodile tears for the Dems' prospects in the general under Obama, again ASSUMING facts not in evidence:
"Barack Obama will never be president. Even if I still wanted him to achieve that office, I would have to admit that his past bars him from it."
Perhaps if you spent more time instructing the Dems on how they can neutralize the anticipated Republican onslaught, rather than FEEDING the Republicans with what you ASSUME will be their most potent weapons, we'd all be happier, yourself included.
McCain is not invincible. He panders to a stone-age xenophobic fundamentalist base that he cannot win over, and in so doing will alienate the moderates and independents without whom he cannot win. He is too "liberal" for the extremists, and by courting them, makes himself too extremist for the moderates.
You've prognosticated much recently, Joseph. Allow me to make a predication or two of my own.
Barring something criminal and presently unforeseen, Barack Obama will become the nominee, will win a hard-fought general election against a weakened Republican candidate, and will prove to be the best President in decades [which is actually to damn him with faint praise.] Will he prove to be an earth-shattering Messianic break from all prior political practices, as some believe? I doubt it. But he'll be a dramatic improvement on what's been too wrong for too long.
Isn't that what we all want?
If that should happen, we'll all accept your apology.
"If you've bothered to read Obama's response, you'll see that he categorically denies having ever heard any such thing from Wright..."
I haven't finished my response to this response, but I HAVE done the graphic. Photoshopping the fire onto Obama's pants was fun.
Your only counter-argument is to ask me to believe Obama. Why should I?
"Yes, he did, and never once heard Wright say anything of the sort."
Utterly unbelievable. Look at the ABC video. They didn't have much trouble finding lots of clips. Are you trying to tell me that Obama missed ALL of those sermons?
You trying to tell me that he didn't go to church after 9/11 -- a time when nearly EVERYONE was going to church, even the not-terribly-religious?
Come off it. Wright SELLS those videos! He obviously considers it his best work.
Look, would you believe me if I said "Yes, I airbrushed the logos for Fat Dog Productions and Las Vegas Video -- but I had NO IDEA that they produced pornography"?
C'mon, JFK guy. If you believe THAT crap, then perhaps you also think Dave Ferrie really went goose-hunting.
"You make much of the fact that Obama didn't use his 2004 convention speech to critique Bush's war, and then mock his contention that too few troops had been sent initially. Well, Joseph, where I come from, that IS a critique, and he was not alone in making it. Numerous Pentagon generals had already said the same thing."
Pentagon generals are technicians. They will tell you HOW to invade Iraq, Canada, Russia, China, Beirut, Baja California, wherever. It's not their job to rule on whether such a move makes moral or political sense.
But such an opinion IS the task of those within the political arena.
The point is, Obama did not question the decision to go to war in that speech. Clinton did. It's all on video.
Later, Obama decided that his 2004 stance was wrong. I have no problem with that. Changing one's mind can be a GOOD thing. What gets me pissed off is re-writing one's history.
"More to the point, however, let us recall that in the '04 general, the Democratic standard-bearers had voted FOR the war. Had Obama stood and announced his opposition to the war, rather than simply critique the way it was prosecuted, he would have undercut the Kerry-Edwards ticket, because he would have then denounced THEM too."
This point would have resonance if both Kerry had not questioned the very basis of the Iraq war by the time of the convention.
But he did. And that simple fact renders your observation absurd.
Here are Kerry's words from his acceptance speech:
"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."
Did Obama say that Bush had misled the nation? No. Obama said we did not send in enough guys, that we did not do enough violence.
John Kerry said that Bush misled us into war. He also said:
"Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so."
Did Obama say that?
"I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics.
And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."
THAT is John Kerry, my friend. How dare you imply that Obama would have undermined Kerry if he had said the very same things that Kerry said?
"Hillary's surrogates are NOT receiving their orders from her play-book, but Obama's surrogates ARE doing what their candidate instructs them to do. I see no basis for this..."
Did Obama fire Jesse Jackson Jr?
Is there a smoking gun memo coming form Camp Hillary?
At bottom, you have yet to admit one simple fact -- the "racist" comments ascribed to Camp Hillary simply ARE NOT RACIST. Look at the video above. Then tell me whether the prog-blog accusations of racism are justified.
(Even Ferraro's comment was more idiotic than hate-filled.)
We are seeing a re-run of 1993-2000: The Clinton enemies keep piling on the smears, in the hope that the sheer NUMBER of false accusations will cow people like you into thinking "Well, where there's smoke, there must be fire."
And if you look back at (say) old issues of the Nation or Z Magazine, you'll see that a lot of progs DID get fooled. Either that, or they lacked the courage to speak up.
I can agree on one point: McCain is not invulnerable. No-one is.
He won't pander to the fundie base in the general. He'll take them for granted.
C'mon, you know the rule: Cater to the base in the primary; veer to the center in the general. Remember Poli-Sci 101?
So how will he fetch the centrists after the convention? My guess is, he'll find some way to modify his stance on Iraq. I'm expecting some Nixonian horsecrap about a secret plan.
Or -- what the hell. Maybe he'll just say that the whole thing was a bad idea and he'll try to get out.
Will I believe those words? Nope. But I think he'll SAY 'em.
If, when he does -- Obama will be very vulnerable indeed.
Joe, I think that comment in response to JFK guy says the kinds of things you should be turning into posts. The Wright situation has real potential to sink his candidacy. comparing Kerry's speech to Obama's really demonstrates this campaign's misdirections. I know you've touched on both subjects in posts, but you (clearly) could say a bit more, and I think it would behoove you more than the petty-politics race-baiting stuff. (As I said in the other thread, I just don't think there's a real torpedo in that water.)
Even being a CNN junkie, I never heard too much about the fairy-tale comment or why it was considered racist (and by whom). The only blogs I read with any regularity are yours and Brad Friedman's, so I never caught the prog take on the whole matter. Somewhere I saw video of Bill's actual statement, and then I really didn't understand the flap. Looking back on it here, I'm still not sure where the racism charge comes into play, but I do appreciate chuckling at the expense of a few political hacks.
The South Carolina primary, was that the flashpoint? Why did the voters reject their Favorite Son, John Edwards? Either they didn't know who he was, or they knew too well?
Hillary grew up believing in the Divine Right of White Men to Rule, but she devoted her adult life to obliterating that mythos, and by her actions to undo as much of its damage as she could. Her record is admirable, even lovable. Barack's okay too (except when he's a schmuck and says things like firing nukes first isn't off the table), but he was only 11 or 12 (and Hillary 25 or so) when they first heard the Plastic Ono Band sing "Woman Is the Nigger of the World". Hey, do you think it should replace "Happy Days Are Here Again" at the convention?
They still fly the Stars & Bars at the State House in Columbia, SC. Columbia! Columbia - the Torch Lady - is Mrs. Uncle Sam! How could those candidates, members of the Democratic Party, allow their names on a ballot where they fly the flag of the Confederacy?
Karma laid a pox on their houses.
You underestimate the reach of McCain's base, especially along the entire South, where every (Scots/Irish) family has someone in the military. In the South the military is the mother of all mythoses. Alas, the South alone won't win the Electoral College, plus I don't think McCain will be the candidate for POTUS.
I'd feel a lot better if I wake up to find out that Pelosi is POTUS. Who should her VPOTUS be?
There's a mutiny strike at DK on account of DK's foul and ugly treatment of Hillary. You can let your shoulders sag for a while, Joseph, and get some rest. Good job, dude!
Kos having its own divisiveness.http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/14/writers-strike-at-dailykos/ It is worth noting.
A little off topic at this time, I know, but with regards to something you wrote earlier this week - that Robert Reich is now opposed to NAFTA - could you perhaps point me in the direction of such info? A recent article of his suggests differently. More on topic now, it will be interesting to see what he - and Brad Friedman - have to say about Obama now that the Rev's "sermon" has hit the airwaves.
You know, this is a more interesting question than I thought it would be.
There's an article here called "Former Labor Secretary blasts NAFTA."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5517600/Former-labor-secretary-blasts-NAFTA.html
But the title is all you can see without paying.
Then there's this, which chides Reich for having supported NAFTA once then latterly attacking free trade:
http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2006/04/robert_reich_ca.html
Then there is Reich's own blog, which is kind of...confusing:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-and-barack-afta-nafta.html
He accuses Hillary of always supporting NAFTA, from his own recollected experience. There may be some truth in this:
"The answer is HRC didn't want the Administration to move forward with NAFTA, but not because she was opposed to NAFTA as a policy. She opposed NAFTA because of its timing. She wanted her health-care plan to be voted on first. She feared that the fight over NAFTA would use up so much of the White House's political capital that there wouldn't be enough left when it came to pushing for health care. In retrospect, she was probably right."
Reich himself blows hot and cold on free trade.
"It’s a shame the Democratic candidates for president feel they have to make trade – specifically NAFTA – the enemy of blue-collar workers and the putative cause of their difficulties. NAFTA is not to blame."
He goes on to say that the benefits of free trade far exceed the costs, but that there will be losers and they need a social safety net.
Personally, I felt -- and I remember actually saying this to someone during that Gore/Perot debate -- that NATA was a snake that wouldn't bite us for ten or twenty years.
I also feel that Reich is trying to play both sides of the street.
Most likely they favored Anyone But Clinton because we already had a Clinton administration and it didn't really accomplish much other than some key Republican goals.
My goodness, yes, that peace and prosperity time, thank God we're through with all that!
How about that 3.9% unemployment rate? (That's correct-- under 4%.) How about DOUBLING the Earned Income Tax Credit? How about 3 years of surplus and paying off some $500 billion in publicly held national debt, on a track to retire the publicly held national debt in a decade?
...sofla
"Your only counter-argument is to ask me to believe Obama. Why should I?
Oh, I don't know. Presumption of innocence, maybe. Habeas corpus and all that Magna Carta mumbo jumbo that is so unfashionable these days in the world's great democracy. Or maybe I'm still counting on your own inherent decency to spur you into providing proof for assertions, rather than just assertions themselves. I'm quite naive in that way, willing to believe the best about you, and all.
Utterly unbelievable. Look at the ABC video. They didn't have much trouble finding lots of clips. Are you trying to tell me that Obama missed ALL of those sermons?
You trying to tell me that he didn't go to church after 9/11 -- a time when nearly EVERYONE was going to church, even the not-terribly-religious?
Come off it. Wright SELLS those videos! He obviously considers it his best work.
I'm not trying to tell you anything, Joseph. I noted only that Obama had denied hearing any such sermons and vigorously denounced them, and not for the first time. And I'm glad I did, for you certainly haven't drawn attention to either fact.
So, in terms of actual proof that Obama has lied about never hearing Wright say the incendiary things that are the cause of this recent trouble, you have nothing more than mockery and invective? Is that what now suffices in your world?
You know, I can recall a time when those who made the assertion bore the burden of proving it. How nice that you've dispensed with all that unnecessary effort.
You are correct about Wright selling his videos, and that ABC had no trouble locating them. In which case, it should be child's play for you to determine which of those sermons Senator Obama was present to hear. Were you to find such proof that Obama lied, you'd be doing your new candidate a great service. Yet I see no effort expended in doing so. Only derision. Is that really your best shot?
It seems to me that when others make baseless charges against the Clintons, you demand the proof. Yet, here you have reached a conclusion - via nothing more than your personal assumption - and feel no compulsion to offer proof for your contention.
I agree it is counter-intuitive to believe Obama's denial. But if you're actually going to prove that he lied - rather than simply assume it - you'll have to be a lot less morally and intellectually lazy, and a bit more proactive in living up to your own ideals and criteria. Failing that, you're no better than the "bots" and "tards" you so deride, because you traffick in the self-same currency they do, baseless assumptions founded solely on their own deductions.
"Pentagon generals are technicians. They will tell you HOW to invade Iraq, Canada, Russia, China, Beirut, Baja California, wherever. It's not their job to rule on whether such a move makes moral or political sense.
This doesn't argue against anything I said, but reinforces it. The Pentagon required more troops than the White House provided, and Obama said so. I don't recall there being much condemnation of him for stating the obvious then.
Obama stood at the convention and insisted more troops were necessary to do [what he thought was] a very wrong thing in the right way. He was only a few years ahead of McCain on this, a fact that will come in handy for Obama in the general when McCain pulls his "I was the only one criticizing the President's conduct of the war" routine. Hillary may not have been with McCain on this, but Obama was years ahead of him. He can say to McCain: "Senator, I'm so glad you FINALLY came to agree with me on this."
But such an opinion IS the task of those within the political arena.
The point is, Obama did not question the decision to go to war in that speech. Clinton did. It's all on video.
Later, Obama decided that his 2004 stance was wrong. I have no problem with that. Changing one's mind can be a GOOD thing. What gets me pissed off is re-writing one's history."
I've yet to see any indication that Obama changed his mind about a war he opposed from the outset, OR that his stance in '04 was somehow wrong.
I doknow that standing up at the convention and railing against the war would only have underlined the fact that both Kerry and Edwards had also supported Bush's war, along with Clinton and others. Kerry's entire campaign was predicated on "I'd do the same thing, only better." It was a loser motif last time, and it will be again this time should Hillary be the nominee.
You've dismissed these things as unimportant. That's your right, but others may disagree with your take. It doesn't make us bad people, Joseph.
"This point would have resonance if both Kerry had not questioned the very basis of the Iraq war by the time of the convention.
But he did. And that simple fact renders your observation absurd.
Here are Kerry's words from his acceptance speech:
"I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war."
Did Obama say that Bush had misled the nation? No. Obama said we did not send in enough guys, that we did not do enough violence.
John Kerry said that Bush misled us into war. He also said:
"Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so."
Did Obama say that?
"I will immediately reform the intelligence system, so policy is guided by facts and facts are never distorted by politics.
And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."
THAT is John Kerry, my friend. How dare you imply that Obama would have undermined Kerry if he had said the very same things that Kerry said?"
Here's how I "dare" imply it, Joseph: Pointing out that your own Presidential ticket gave Bush the carte blanche to start the war would only reinforce that they were no smarter, and no better, than the President who fabricated the reasons for doing so. Do you really think it would have benefitted Kerry/Edwards had Obama taken that keynote opportunity to remind the voters that the Democratic ticket was populated by a couple of guys who were so spectacularly wrong in '02, but were somehow so much smarter in '04?
That wouldn't have been a terribly bright move, in my opinion. Four years after Obama walked that tightrope - attacking Bush's prosecution of the war without mentioning the Kerry/Edwards role in authorizing it, you now think it a horrible failing. Did you say so then? Or is it only now that it has become important?
News flash: Hillary - who voted for the war - running against McCain will prove no more fruitful than did Kerry - who voted for the war - running against Bush. How many times are we condemned to sit through the same failed drama?
It might have improved both Kerry's and Hillary's electoral chances had either of them had the honesty and courage to admit their mistake and ask forgiveness. Hubris and political ambition have precluded either of them doing so, and the result this time will be no more comforting than the result the last time. At least Kerry learned enough of a lesson to back Obama, who isn't hobbled by that war baggage, rather than Hillary, who still carries that weight.
[I suspect that you and I both responded well to Edwards' admission that his vote to authorize the war had been made in error. Hillary could earn the same respect were she to grudgingly admit the same obvious defect.]
"Did Obama fire Jesse Jackson Jr?
Is there a smoking gun memo coming form Camp Hillary?
At bottom, you have yet to admit one simple fact -- the "racist" comments ascribed to Camp Hillary simply ARE NOT RACIST. Look at the video above. Then tell me whether the prog-blog accusations of racism are justified.
(Even Ferraro's comment was more idiotic than hate-filled.)
We are seeing a re-run of 1993-2000: The Clinton enemies keep piling on the smears, in the hope that the sheer NUMBER of false accusations will cow people like you into thinking "Well, where there's smoke, there must be fire."
And if you look back at (say) old issues of the Nation or Z Magazine, you'll see that a lot of progs DID get fooled. Either that, or they lacked the courage to speak up."
I have never claimed that Hillary's campaign initiated race-baiting, so perhaps you should address that toward someone who has.
I noted only that you were prepared to give Hillary a pass on whether her surrogates were covertly doing her bidding, but that you offered no such benefit of the doubt toward Obama. I pointed out that his ascension in Iowa transpired well before any of the race-based nonsense happened, and strongly doubt that his campaign sees any real benefit from this. If you can show otherwise, feel free to keep offering examples. My mind is less closed on this topic than yours seems to be.
"I can agree on one point: McCain is not invulnerable. No-one is.
He won't pander to the fundie base in the general. He'll take them for granted.
C'mon, you know the rule: Cater to the base in the primary; veer to the center in the general. Remember Poli-Sci 101?
So how will he fetch the centrists after the convention? My guess is, he'll find some way to modify his stance on Iraq. I'm expecting some Nixonian horsecrap about a secret plan.
Or -- what the hell. Maybe he'll just say that the whole thing was a bad idea and he'll try to get out.
Will I believe those words? Nope. But I think he'll SAY 'em.
If, when he does -- Obama will be very vulnerable indeed."
Ah yes, "peace with honour is at hand." I'm old enough to remember that from the last time it was used, cynically and fruitfully. I'm not holding my breath that it'll work this time, because McCain isn't facing off against George McGovern [whom I respect more than most, but whose campaign was a disaster from start to finish.]
You see a re-run of Nixon versus McGovern, whereas I see a re-run of Nixon versus Kennedy. We'll soon know which of us picked the better re-run to watch.
In the meantime, however, if you'd really like to do your new candidate a solid favour, perhaps you could remind her that if her sole campaign focus remains Barack Obama, she will continue to lose. The voters she needs to acquire will be swayed by addressing the issues, not merely slandering her opponent. Her supporters need to re-learn that lesson regularly too, I'm afraid.
At the start of this campaign, Hillary was the presumptive nominee, and the nomination was hers to lose. She has somehow managed to do this with a campaign spectacularly lacking in focus and vision, a stentorian speaking style that alienates more potential voters than it attracts, and her own unwillingness to admit her personal failings. Isn't that what we've already had in the White House these past seven years?
Oh, and just one quick question before I depart, Joseph. When Obama picks Edwards as his running mate, how will your allegiances be reconciled?
Cannon you will love this poem..after Vachel Lindseys "The Congo" Extraordinary chant and invocation.
http://www.uberhippy.com/when_baraka_blows_his_horn.shtml
JFK guy, I haven't much time to write today, and I wanted to get a post in. But let me say this...
"Oh, I don't know. Presumption of innocence, maybe."
After Jesse Jackson Jr. tried to emotionally strongarm a black Clinton supporter with the racist words "Do you want to be the one who prevented a black man from winning the White House?" -- presumption of innocence time has ended. You might as well ask me to accept the possibility that Pam Anderson is a virgin.
And all of your yammer about the 204 speech doesn't change the facts. Obama could have said that the war was a mistake. He did not. Cliton did. Kerry said that it was based on false intelligence.
At the time of the 2002 vote, the intelligence community was divided and sending very mixed signals. (Even though progs now pretend that that the intel boys were united in screaming "Don't do it!") The exposes about Feith and the OSP had yet to be written. The truth about Chalabi had yet to be exposed. The truth about hte document faking had yet to be exposed. Hell, even -- a veteran despiser of the Bush family -- could not really bring myself to believe that the administration was willing to lie THAT brazenly.
That was the situation at the time of the vote.
In 2004, these things were known, or were at least starting to come out. We had seen the exposure of Feith, of the Jessica Lynch propaganda exercise, of Abu Ghraib, of the Niger forgeries...
And still Obama refused to say that the war was based on a lie. And right after the speech, he said that we should stay in Iraq and win.
"I noted only that you were prepared to give Hillary a pass on whether her surrogates were covertly doing her bidding..."
You're still drinking the Kos Kool-AId. Your wording presumes that they did something wrong. THEY DID NOT. (With the exception of Ferraro, but even in that case -- as I said -- I think she was more foolish than bigoted. Nothing she said was nearly as bad as Jackson's flagrant appeal to race, which the progs have given a pass.)
And let me make clear: Hillary ahs said that she will stop the war in 2009, and she has backed that up with votes. The fucking progs have pretended that there is some great chasm between her stance and Obama's. There is not.
Is 2008 really 1972 or is it 1960? Neither. McGovern and JFK were both good men, and I refuse to conflate them with Obama.
And let's face it -- McCain is hardly as weird and detestable as Nixon was. At least, so it seems on the surface; we will surely learn more about the man.
JFK guy, I haven't much time to write today, and I wanted to get a post in. But let me say this...
"Oh, I don't know. Presumption of innocence, maybe."
After Jesse Jackson Jr. tried to emotionally strongarm a black Clinton supporter with the racist words "Do you want to be the one who prevented a black man from winning the White House?" -- presumption of innocence time has ended. You might as well ask me to accept the possibility that Pam Anderson is a virgin.
I'll have more to say about Wright soon. Suffice it to say, I think Obama's lies in the Huffington Post piece may eventually prove to be his undoing.
And all of your yammer about the 2004 speech doesn't change the facts. Obama could have said that the war was a mistake. He did not. Clinton did. Kerry said that the war was based on deliberately falsified intelligence.
At the time of the 2002 vote, the intelligence community was divided and sending very mixed signals. (Progs now pretend that that the intel boys were united in screaming "Don't do it!" Not so. Certainly not on Capitol Hill.) The exposes about Feith and the OSP had yet to be written. The truth about Chalabi had yet to be exposed. The truth about the document faking had yet to be exposed. Hell, even I -- a veteran despiser of the Bush family -- could not really bring myself to believe that the administration was willing to lie THAT brazenly.
That was the situation at the time of the vote.
In 2004, these things were known, or were at least starting to come out. We had seen the exposure of Feith, of the Jessica Lynch propaganda exercise, of Abu Ghraib, of the Niger forgeries...
And still Obama refused to say that the war was based on a lie. And right after the speech, he said that we should stay in Iraq and win.
"I noted only that you were prepared to give Hillary a pass on whether her surrogates were covertly doing her bidding..."
You're still drinking the Kos Kool-AId. Your wording presumes that they did something wrong. THEY DID NOT. (With the exception of Ferraro, but even in that case -- as I said -- I think she was more foolish than bigoted. Nothing she said was nearly as bad as Jackson's flagrant appeal to race, which the progs have given a pass.)
And let me make clear: Hillary ahs said that she will stop the war in 2009, and she has backed that up with votes. The fucking progs have pretended that there is some great chasm between her stance and Obama's. There is not.
Is 2008 really 1972 or is it 1960? Neither. McGovern and JFK were both good men, and I refuse to conflate them with Obama.
And let's face it -- McCain is hardly as weird and detestable as Nixon was. At least, so it seems on the surface; we will surely learn more about the man.
The Kerry/Edwards ticket won in 2004. What more could they have done? What more could the Democratic Party have done? What more could the voters have done? Why do you continue to behave as if they all failed?
You know, other blogs demand names, email addresses, and URLs.
Am I really such a monster for asking for some sort of identifier?
There is a reasonable argument to be made that the AUMF vote was correct, despite how it all turned out.
I know, it may not play to Joe Public, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't correct.
For, officially granting the president the AUTHORITY to go to war (only after certain predicates obtained) was deemed necessary as an underlying threat in order to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Few people objected to having the inspectors in there, since having the inspectors do their job was THE way not to have the war.
As the Bush adminstration emphasized and re-emphasized, this vote for authorization of war was a vote for peace, or the peaceful resolution of the situation without resort to war. And it was.
Had the Bush administration followed the meaning of the AUMF, and honored their own pledges as to their subsequent behavior, the war would have never taken place afterwards, either.
Because the way it was set up, for the AUMF to actually authorize war, Bush had to affirm in writing to the Congress that two conditions obtained: that the issue involved terrorism, and that whatever mechanisms that had been tried had been exhausted, and more was necessary to protect the security of the US. Even then, as Bush's recess-appointee UN Ambassador John Bolton admitted, the Security Council had to be convinced of the necessity of war to enforce its resolution.
Even late into the process, Bush continued to say that he'd seek a re-vote for the 'consequences' in the UN SC, just as he and his people had said all along they would do.
So, anyone who voted for the AUMF would have been voting for the only conceivable peaceful resolution of the matter, with the assurance that no war could ensue without further clearing the 3 stated and solemnly promised additional conditions for that war to commence.
I submit that it was not unreasonable to do this to get the inspectors in country, and there is ample testimony to the point that the inspectors could only have been gotten in country via this threat of war.
Who could really have predicted that the inspections regime would be cut short, and that the Bush administration would decide to unilaterally 'enforce' the UN resolutions by war, without the UN Security Council's agreement?
And, given such a pessimistic (however accurate) view of Bush's treachery, why wouldn't it be obvious that failing to get the inspectors in country would only have given Bush that much more excuse for unilateral action, and thus made war more likely than not?
...sofla
From Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report", 9/28/07:
"A newly-leaked transcript from one month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq shows President Bush was aware that Saddam Hussein offered to go into exile if he was allowed to bring one billion dollars and information on weapons of mass destruction. The disclosure is contained in a record of a meeting between President Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in Febrary 2003. The Middle East analyst Juan Cole speculates that Saddam likely wanted to bring with him information that showed Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had helped fund and support his weapons program. Possessing that information, Cole says, would have protected Saddam from future retaliation out of fear of embarrassing the White House. The transcript also shows President Bush hoped the UN Security Council would support the war in part because “[it] would save us fifty billion dollars.” The fifty billion figure was the initial estimate of what the invasion would cost. Bush also made clear he expected U.S. forces to invade Iraq within a month of the conversation regardless of UN approval. Bush and Aznar met on February 22nd -- the U.S.-led invasion began on March 19th. Bush also reportedly said Europeans are opposed to the invasion because they’re indifferent to Saddam’s atrocities. He said: “Maybe it’s because he’s dark-skinned, far away and Muslim — a lot of Europeans think he’s OK.” White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe declined comment on the transcript."
So let me get this straight. The Hillary Haters would have become fans had she only apologized for her vote to authorize? Now I get it...
I think roughly 1/2 of the Democrats voting in the primaries saw through the flim-flam either objectively or intuitively. Thanks for the objective recap. I will likely never again click on KOS, Buzzflash or watch Kieth O. They have become what they once despised...
Post a Comment