Still, he’s at a Democratic fund raiser. Why would he need to say this to those who are already committed enough to the Obama/Biden ticket to actually go to a fund raiser?
Don’t they (the political fund raisers, dinners, rallies, and the like) primarily draw from the “already converted”?
I can see him saying this to the undecided, or even those opposed to his ticket, but to warn his owns supporters that “unpopular decisions” might be in their future, is a… different style than I am used to seeing.
Biden’s judgment with that comment is very questionable because it’s open to too many interpretations and misinterpretations. But the versions you’re giving here aren’t accurate.
The thing about Joe Biden, and God bless the man, is that, and most people don’t know this, but he has Yogi Berra as a speechwriter. He’s not always the clearest in his public statements.
Obama has placed an order with Amazon for TWO copies of “My Pet Goat” so that he will be doubly prepared to deal with the impending crisis.
Seriously, is this an issue? There is bound to be a crisis. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, all the shit that goes down in Africa, China/Taiwan, a reemerging Soviet Union, Iran, Homeland :rolleyes: Security, etc., etc.
Go back and review the first year of the Kennedy administration. A lot of things happened in a very short period of time.
All that being said, when the shit hits the fan, who would you rather have in your corner, Biden or Palin? Be honest. Now ask yourself, based on realistic health and actuarial data, who would you rather have deal with a crisis, Obama or Palin?
Clue: Palin would give a classic Bushism, “Go shopping.”
I’m just guessing (as is everybody here) that this new kind of sliced bread is going to get extra-scrutinized by everybody, including the base, for a variety of reasons – the leap of faith we’re taking, the country’s drastic domestic situation, the turmoil to be dealt with out there, the uniqueness of it all (;)), etc.
Biden knows this and ineptly tried to open up the dialogue about it ahead of time – and ahead of any plans Obama might have had to do so at all.
Uh, members of Al Qaeda and Bill Ayers are both terrorists. Al Qaeda, like Ayers are both subsets of "terrorists. And he didn’t say Al Qaeda, you did. And then you sought to make them synonymous. You have a strange manner of thinking.
You may be trying to simply get in a shot here, but let’s examine this more closely.
Obama has worked with someone (Ayres) who, as a youth, was quite militant in his political thinking before he became a university professor, speaker, and generally a tool of “The Man” I put little credence in the “terrorist” meme, but acknowledge (as does Obama), that he did some stupid, ill thought out things in his past. Obama knows people like this. He understands their mindsets. He has spoken with them, and is therefore able to “know the enemy”. He will be able to understand what makes a “terrorist” tick. And with understanding, comes victory.
McCain on the other hand, has been more sheltered, along with other right wing ideologues. He does not really have any first hand knowledge about what disgruntled anarchist-types are really like. He just “knows” that we should never talk to enemies. Enemies broke his arms. Enemies are bastards. Don’t talk to them. Don’t even try to understand what makes them tick so that you can be victorious over them. Just fight them. And somehow win, without understanding.
So, what do you think Shodan? Send you an Obama button?
You keep referring to Bill Ayers as a terrorist (present-tense), even though he hasn’t been involved in any “terroristic” activities in nearly 40 years. By that definition, can we refer to John McCain as an adulterer or George W Bush as a drunk? I’ll hang up and listen to your answer.
Yes, Al Qaeda is terrorist, but not the Vietnamese who held McCain (he refers to in breaking arms). The comment has no sense if he is not trying suggest that somehow either the Ayers man or the vietnamese have some relevance to your big terrorist threat, the Al Qaeda. It is logical, but his comment is illogical.
I believe that his comments are self serving. Since Obama has no experience with foreign policy (and before you puke out that he lived as a child over in Indonesia…give me a break) Joe will be the one actually dealing with any international crisis while Obama watches TV.
That explanation might’ve worked if he hadn’t drawn the comparison to JFK, another youthful senator criticized for a lack of experience, and mentioned Obama’s age (47). Biden is specifically making the point that Obama will be tested because of his youth (and perceived inexperience), and I say that as a pretty strong Obama voter.
