If Obama made a calculated decision to announce that Syrian government use of chem weapons was a red line and it later turned out to be the wrong decision, then that would not be what I’m talking about. But it seems - based on the reports of his aides and advisors - to have been an off-the-cuff remark made without consideration of the impact.
And similar for the statement about the consequences of sexual assault. And so on.
I’m sure it’s not “unique to Obama”. Hard to say for sure whether it’s more common for Obama than for other presidents. It seems that way to me, but it’s a small sample size, and also Obama is the most recent president so the details of his actions are easier to remember.
You see it that way because that would make it a racial issue and you tend to see things in racial terms. And it’s helpful if you can “read between the lines” because this way you can fill in whatever you want.
There’s an entire political party which has devoted itself to taking everything he says in the worst possible light. If you don’t try to misinterpret everything he says and does, he’s actually a pretty good statesman.
I’m sure, however, that this point will be lost on many.
Trayvon depends on what you think of that incident. A lot of people are worked up to the point where Trayvon has become some sort of saint and martyr and from that perspective Obama’s remarks are completely unremarkable. But you get the sense - or at least I do - that Obama made those remarks without an appreciation that the story was more complicated than initially presented. Similar to the Gates story.
[At least that’s been my impression. On looking around, I see reports that Obama’s comments were actually more thought out than that, and were the results of pressure from “black activists and others” to say something supportive on the matter. In that case, it wouldn’t qualify.]
I’m not sure if you’ve read the quotes I cited about the military rape story, let alone the link. Per the NYT, Obama’s remarks have led to complications in prosecuting these crimes, which is certainly not what he intended or desires.
Probably does, more or less. I’ve not claimed that Obama was the only one who does it.
But I also think you need to cut Ford some slack because he was in the middle of a debate. There’s a lot of pressure to think quickly and this tends to produce gaffes.
Yes, but the same is true of Congresscritters who have publicly commented on the military rape issue. Short of saying that the guilty should be acquitted, there’s almost nothing he could say on the matter that a defense attorney couldn’t spin as undue command influence. I guess he could have said nothing but as C-in-C I think it’s pretty unreasonable to expect him to remain silent on the biggest military news issue.
Congresspeople are outside the military chain of command.
It’s not just what some defense attorney might spin. The article quotes military law experts as saying that Obama’s remarks were unusually specific and problematic, and two judges actually ruled that these remarks had an impact.
This is not the first time issues involving potential crimes in the military have surfaced. As above, experts on this subject - of which I am not one - think the president’s remarks in this paerticular instance were too specific.
I find it interesting that previously, Obama was TOO scripted – note the plethora of jokes about him being unable to say anything without a teleprompter. And now he’s too UNSCRIPTED – needs to cut down on the extemporaneous remarks.
I think this is one of those things where a politician just can’t win. Stay on the script and people will accuse him of giving canned responses that are just doubletalk and don’t say anything. And if he says what he thinks off the cuff, he’s seen as going Bulworth.
I just don’t think this is a real issue in any way.
I was mightily disturbed by Obama’s latest foray into commenting on criminal trials. Frankly, he said a few things that did not make sense…like “Trayvon could have been me”. Do you mean, Mr. President, that you would have backtracked somebody following you, jumped him, and punched him in the face? Do you really think that you would have done this? And the bit about “soul searching”-why not “soul search” a bit about the war zone called Chicago? There are plenty of murders there-does he think that he could have been one of the victims?
I guess injecting himself into matters that are not his concern is pretty standard operating procedure-but just what was this “unscripted” speech supposed to accomplish?
Weirdly, I’ve read this same screed (almost verbatim) in a number of places recently. Either you get around, ralph, or you’re parroting something from somewhere else.
Hell, I certainly would have. If someone stalks me, I’m gonna stalk 'em right back. Don’t forget- under Florida’s SYG law, if Martin felt that his life was endangered, he would have been completely in his rights if he had killed Zimmerman.
How do you know he doesn’t? Maybe the reason he hasn’t been vocal about it is because there hasn’t been a year-long debate over Chicago’s violence?
He’s the President. Of the United States. Everything that happens here is his concern- it’s kind of his job.
This is the reason why the Republican party is becoming increasingly irrelevant, by the way. I swear, it’s like they never even read The Boy Who Cried Wolf when they were kids.
The major domestic news stories of the day are his concern. It may have escaped your notice, but he’s the duly elected President of the United States. I must have missed the thread where you called out John Boehner for commenting on the case, too.
Z This is what is so sad people like you who have absolutely no concept what it means to be black and that is shown by how you interpreted Obamas message. Yes Obama a young black male could have been jumped could have been followed has been followed only because he is black. Don’t you think it is threatening to be followed around? I really think you should open your mind Stop blaming the victim