Thanks for the link (I’lll have to bookmark this guy).
I thought this was on the money regarding questions about Obama’s patriotism, as well as using his middle name as a taunt and a signifier, suggesting he’s Muslim (as far as one knows), and asking him to account for the politics and philosophies of everyone he’s ever known:
“. . . – do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense?” (emphasis mine)
Please, please, please challenge him on any of inadequacies you may see when it comes to his qualifications to be president, but this utter bullshit needs to stop.
Apologies if this is not the place for it, but this article in the 4/7 New Yorker, paints a pretty even-handed picture of Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church and the history of “liberation theology.” And they are clearly more pro-Clinton than anything.
I’m shocked at the breadth and consistency of the response that this debacle has generated. It makes me a bit hopeful that a turning point has been reached - that finally, the establishment media has revealed itself to be so repulsively out of touch that perhaps real change, and real journalism, may result.
I’m sure this will last something less than one day, but it’s nice to have a moment of hope, however fleeting it is.
Well, as the column linked above points out, the New York Times gave the moderators an A for their performance, so we shouldn’t be so hasty in glorying that people have seen the light. (A large number of people will read the Times article without themselves having seen the debate, and their perceptions will no doubt be shaped accordingly.)
Nice! You ought to email this one to the Obama campaign as suggested verbiage for the next time this retarded question comes up!
The goddamned flag pin thing was about the most insanely ridiculous waste of network time I’ve ever seen. I noticed that HRC’s lapels were conspicously absent of any sort of flag paraphernalia whatsoever, yet nobody thought to interrogate her about it. Could I get a barrel of :rolleyes: on aisle two, please?
Or better yet:
Nicely played, sir or madam!
A minor quibble here–the candidates, plural, were not interrupted–by my count only Obama was ever interrupted. After all, why would the “moderators” interrupt HRC in the middle of an answer they’d already coached each other on? I’m sorry, and I’ve wrestled with my paranoia on this, but she looked scripted. She was WAY too quick on the Ayers thing for my liking. Speaking of that, since the “issue” was association with known terrorists, why didn’t anybody ask her any pointed questions about the FALN terrorists who were granted clemency by her hubby while she was fixing to run for Senate in a state with a significant Hispanic population? It’s interesting that generally people have to REQUEST clemency in order to even have it considered, but none of the FALN terrorists every made the request. Hmmm.
I guess Clinton supporters would say “that’s different,” and they’d sure be right about that. Obama lived near and worked with a “distinguished professor of education” who, although he was once a member of the Weathermen, was never convicted. Oh, and got a $200 Senate campaign contribution from. Of course the fact that Bill pardoned two CONVICTED Weather Underground terrorists is a mere bagatelle and in no way as damning as Obama’s connection.
Again, another barrel of :rolleyes: please–shit, just back the semi up to the loading dock and save us all some time!
Can’t we have the League of Women Voters back to hold and moderate debates? Please? Can we have some discussion of actual, you know, ISSUES? If I wanted shit flavored cotton candy I’d go to the goddamned carnival, sheesh.
As much as I hate to defend Hillary, I don’t think it’s fair to bring up things her husband did while president. I know, I know, she tends to take some credit for the good things he did, but let’s just call her on that. I’m going to judge her by what she has done, not by what Bill did. If she had some personal relationship with Weather Underground types, then throw it back at her.
I would agree if she was running on her own record. But she wants to take every good thing from her husband’s administration as part of her “experience”. Since she chose to run on her husband’s record, it is only fair that she take the bad with the good.
I think this is fair game for good things or bad. If she gained so much of her experience by being a bedroom, after-hours advisor on major issues, as she herself says, then she should be questioned about her husband’s daytime political decisions.
As much as Obama’s feet should be heard to the fire regarding tangential relationships anyway.
They both should be questioned on direct, relevant relationships with proven Weather Undeground types, which it appears Obama did not have with his WU guy.
I agree, I think there is the implicit promise in the HIllary campaign that a vote for her is a 2-for-1. Not that he would be co-President, so to speak, but you get his experience and input if you vote for her.
That’s true, and yet another good point that gets lost in the shuffle of the media burning out the over-parsing in general that causes people to just roll their eyes at any and ALL critiques as mere ‘distractions’ (as if ‘distractions’ can’t cause a nominee to lose the general election…again; which is the whole point of this race to see who can better survive a general).
Comparing the actions in one’s official capacity such as pardoning to one’s personal associates and campaign donors isn’t the same thing; this is a very good tactic that Obama uses again and again, to assert that EVERYTHING is a wash. He does it well because I think he really believes that he’s a guy with no fatal flaws. He enjoys the taste of his own Kool Aid apparently. Elsewhere, it’s called ‘marking out’ for yourself.
He equates Ferraro with Wright.
He equates his white grandmother to Wright.
He equates his personal association with a domestic terrorist that was in hiding until 1980 to President Clinton issuing pardons…while married to Hillary. A wash.
He compares his liberal progressive, elitist sentiments about working class folks to sexism in Hillary being attacked for not being enough of a ‘woman’ (you know, like a monster…like Obama’s folks have done themselves in this campaign) and making her ‘cookie’ remark (which he obviously didn’t see at the time and think what he claims to have thought at what, the age of 29?). A wash.
He compares Ayers to the conservative that he’s courted/courted him in his official political capacity during a campaign because he previously said he favors a law to make abortion doctors guilty of murder. One is the advocacy of a political (extreme) position by an elected official that supports him. The other is being part of a group that made bombs in a townhouse to blow up the Pentagon and going into hiding for a decade. Yeah, that’s the same thing. Another wash.
The entire race speech, instead of being a defense of what he was accused of doing wrong (20-year association with the fan of Farrakhan whose church gave him a lifetime achievement award and to whose church Obama donates even now and even after he rescinded the invitation to kick off his campaign) was instead used to turn the light on everyone else and look at themselves. A wash.
It’s a very good tactic and as he said to Jewish leaders last week “I’m a darn good politician.” His hubris is showing more every day, but he’s right about that. He’s good.
Obama could’ve been better. Should’ve been better. And I think this, more than any other single campaign event, gave him a taste of what the next 7 months portend. I believe he’s up to the task, but he showed how destabilizing it can be if he’s not prepared for that sort of negativity tidal wave.
But there was no excuse for the way ABC conducted itself. Absolutely pathetic.
Agreed. They should both be questioned on direct, relevant relationships. Ayers donated money to Obama’s 2001 campaign. Obama was introduced to Ayers and his wife in their home when first running in Illinois. That’s direct, that’s personal, that’s relevant. Is it enough to keep someone from being POTUS? I don’t think so in and of itself. But his answers were prickly and testy and it has to be seen in addition – not as an isolated consideration – to the support of Farrakhan for Obama, the support of the New Black Panthers for Obama, his Wright relationship, his claim that he didn’t hear of Wright’s 9/11 remarks even though they were well-publicized and he attends that church and he was planning a presidential run, the specific comments that he did hear of Wright that caused him to rescind the invitation to launch his campaign but that nonetheless caused him to keep Wright on the advisory board until after the media shed light on it (will this be his MO in the White House too? keep controversial types on board until someone points it out? what could go wrong there?), his ‘typical white person’ remark, his not wearing a flag pin, his not putting his hand over his heart and explaining it as the same as others at a game, his wife being proud of the US for the ‘first time’ just now, his campaign’s accusations of racism against anyone who dares criticize him (that’ll do wonders for race relations if he’s POTUS), and so on and so on.
Each of those is just one thing by itself. Taken together, in considering who may have serious issues that will be exploited by the Pubs in the general, it’s worth considering. As HRC said, her baggage has been thoroughly rummaged through. We’re discovering his (rightly or wrongly) the same year of the election and being African-American is a mixed bag in this country (once you get out of earshot of white liberal progressives on the SDMB).
Try the next 4-8 years will be like if he wins. He seems to really find it annoying and it brings out the worst in him when he’s asked questions that he deems not worth asking or he feels he shouldn’t have to answer. He seems to feel needled.
That’s a giant, grasping leap. All politicians meet and shake hands with peopl all the time. It doesn’t mean shit. The Ayers thing is as fatuous as the flag pin. He has a neighbor that used to bbe a hippie 40 years ago. That’s all it adds up to.
As well they should be, he was dealing with some pretty frivolous questions.
[quote]
and it has to be seen in addition – not as an isolated consideration – to the support of Farrakhan for Obama, the support of the New Black Panthers for Obama[/qupte]
He has rejected both Farrakhan’s and the NBP endorsement, so why do you think their unsolicited endorsements are relevant?
What’s wrong with Wright?
,
Cite that he did?
Cite?
So?
Wow, you really bite on every worm, don’t you. You really care about the flag pin?
And every bit of the Obama stuff is well-known too and it’s barely caused a flutter in his polling. The largely negative public reacrtion to the debate questions last night shows that people don’t care about the gotcha yas. They care about Iraq, about their jobs, about gas prices and about health care. If the Republicans really try to focus on something as asinine as the flag pin or tangential relationships with neigbors who used to be hippies, then Obama will win in a walk.
If these things concern you than you were never in danger of casting a vote for Obama in the first place. You’re free to choose your own criteria for who to vote for, personally I think these are as silly as I’ve ever seen.