|
Obama, for the win. (pg. 70)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
| Seriously amazing. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Seriously amazing. |
It's worth posting the Obama campaign response, which I found amusing.
| quote: | Obama Responds To McCain, Blasts His Phony "Toughness" As "Extraordinarily Naive"
By Greg Sargent - May 20, 2008, 4:13PM
CNN sends over an advance transcript of an interview Obama just got through taping with Wolf Blitzer.
In it, Obama repeatedly hits back at McCain's foreign policy attacks, and broadens his case that a McCain administration would be nothing but a continuation of Bush's failed policies. Key quote:
"John McCain essentially wants to continue George Bush's policies of not talking to leaders we don't like and not talking to countries we don't like....the bottom line here, Wolf, is that John McCain wants to pursue policies that George Bush has pursued for the last eight years with no success. When it comes to Cuba, what he is now saying is essentially the policy we've pursued for 50 years and the Cuban people are not more free.
And the notion that we would keep doing the same thing over and over and over again when it doesn't work and that somehow is a sign of toughness is extraordinarily naive, I think does a disservice to the Cuban people. That's the kind of break from the Bush administration that I want to initiate when I am president of the United States."
Given that McCain's onslaught of foreign policy criticism is unlikely to abate anytime soon, the question is this:
How much time should Obama spend in the weeds rebutting the substance (such as it is) of McCain's attacks, and how can he balance it with his efforts to steer the conversation back on to offense, back to the larger truism that McCain represents nothing but a continuation of Bush's catastrophically failed policies?
How can Obama cut through the clutter of accusations and slurs and focus the conversation on his broader effort to, in effect, change ingrained conceptions of what constitutes genuine "toughness" on foreign policy? |
And what did McCain say to that?
| quote: | Whoops! McCain Accidentally Reveals Flaw In Attack On Obama Over Iran
By Greg Sargent - May 20, 2008, 6:08PM
This is a fun one: It appears John McCain has just given an interview in which he inadvertently revealed a key flaw in his attack on Barack Obama over Iran.
McCain has been hammering Obama for supposedly being willing to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Time magazine's Joe Klein yesterday grilled McCain about this, asking why he keeps bringing up Ahmadinejad, when the leader of Iran thought to control foreign policy is supreme leader Ali Khamenei.
McCain scoffed at this, saying that the president -- Ahmadinejad-- is the leader of Iran. But here's what McCain said today when he answered a foreign policy question in an interview with Essence magazine...
"McCain: Absolutely. And President Roosevelt didn't sit across the table from Hitler and President Reagan didn't sit across from the Ayatollah Khomeini and President Kennedy didn't sit across the table from Fidel Castro. The president of Iran two days ago called Israel a stinking corpse. What are you going to talk about when you sit across from him? I don't believe Senator Obama has the experience and judgment. That is what will be the debate in this campaign."
During the 80s, Khomeini was the supreme leader of Iran. So back then, according to McCain, the leader of Iran -- the one a president would negotiate with, if he were so inclined -- was the supreme leader.
Now, suddenly, the president, not the supreme leader, is the leader of Iran -- because, conveniently, it allows McCain to link Obama to Ahmadinejad, the fellow spouting all the hateful rhetoric.
So which is it? |
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| Yeah, I think general election mode is officially engaged. |
|
|
| idoru |
| I said likewise a few days ago. The whole Clinton thing is just noise in the background at this point, imo. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| So did Obama win yet? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
So did Obama win yet? |
Obama won months ago. Everything since has been inertia (and Hillaryland finally coming to terms with defeat). As far as achieving the 50% of pledged delegates to officially be the nominee, that may happen tonight with the vote in Oregon and Kentucky -- he only needs to show up on the ballot to clinch 50% of the popular vote... the delegates will soon follow by the end of the week. |
|
|
| Clovis |
Recent blog by Hendrik Hertzberg is pretty crazy :wtf: :wtf:
| quote: | May 15, 2008
Fever Dream Tickets
That was an astounding speech John McCain delivered this morning in Columbus, Ohio. On almost every issue except Iraq, it was a ringing declaration of rhetorical (though not always substantive) independence from the Bush Administration. It contained many more attacks on the Republican incumbent, veiled though they were, than on Democrats in general or Obama in particular. Not only that, it was entirely free of culture-war bull. The speech is worth studying in detail—and worrying about, if you happen to be a Democratic strategist. But for today’s sermon let’s take just this passage as our text:
I’m not interested in partisanship that serves no other purpose than to gain a temporary advantage over our opponents. This mindless, paralyzing rancor must come to an end. We belong to different parties, not different countries. We are rivals for the same power. But we are also compatriots. We are fellow Americans, and that shared distinction means more to me than any other association.
Needless to say, McCain is a little shaky when it comes to living up to these fine words. For example, he has lately been going around calling Obama the Hamas candidate.* And the kicker on his first general-election TV spot—”The American President Americans have been waiting for”—didn’t exactly highlight the “compatriots” theme.
Still, it’s clear, to me at least, that his amour propre, his pride, depends on the image of himself projected by the passage above, the image of a decent guy committed to a civil debate in which each side takes the other’s good faith for granted. That’s why, as I wrote here the other day, I’m hoping Obama will force him to hug that image close by accepting his invitation to a series of unmoderated joint appearances.
So much for good ideas. Now here’s a nutty idea. It’s inspired by the fact, disputed as to details but pretty well established in broad outline, that in 2004 John Kerry flirted with asking McCain to join him on a fusion ticket and McCain flirted with saying yes.
One thing Obama and McCain have in common is that they each have a Vice-President problem. In both cases the choice is fraught with peril. Do you go for someone who strengthens your base or extends your appeal? Do you try for balance or amplification? How do you avoid saddling yourself with one ingrate and a dozen disgruntled spurnees?
The solution is obvious. Obama should ask McCain to be his running mate. McCain should ask Obama to be his. And both should say yes.
A campaign pitting an Obama-McCain ticket against a McCain-Obama ticket would absolutely guarantee a general-election campaign that would be about The Issues and nothing but The Issues.
Not only that, but could there be a more powerful statement that the era of hollow-point gut-shooting has ended, the era of earnest discussion begun? Could there be a more powerful token of mutual determination to avoid mindless partisanship and gratuitous character assassination? Could there be a more vivid symbol of the aspiration to make E Pluribus Unum a reality? Could there be a stronger affirmation that, while we may disagree about how to solve our problems or even what our problems are, underneath it all we are truly One Nation Under God, even though we may disagree about whom God is supporting this year or whether He exists at all or where He goes to church on Sundays?
Not only that, but in classical Greece, rival city-states that wished to avoid war without changing their distinctive ways of life would exchange hostages. Same idea here.
Not only that, but the Obama-McCain/McCain-Obama solution would be a tribute to our Founding Fathers, whose wisdom everybody agrees was beyond compare. As ABC’s Charles Gibson stupidly pointed out during the Democratic debate in Philadelphia a few weeks ago (stupidly because this particular clause of the Constitution was rendered inoperative by the 12th Amendment in 1804), the Framers decreed, in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, that
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
For the first time since 1800, we would be choosing, or chusing as the Framers might put it, the leaders of the executive branch of government in accordance with the sacred Vision of Philadelphia. Score one for originalism.
Not only that, but ….
Oh, never mind. But I still think unmediated debates would be a good idea.
_______________________
*What did McCain and Hamas say?
Late last month, in a conversation with right-wing bloggers, McCain said, “I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.” Also, “I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States.” Also, “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”
On May 10, in a May 10 interview with WABC-AM, Rush Limbaugh’s flagship radio station in New York (where “talking with terrorists” is apparently routine), Ahmed Yousef, a political adviser to the Hamas leadership in Gaza, said, “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.” Also, “I do believe that Mr. Obama is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles. He has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance.”
Why did McCain say what he said? You figure it out, but scoring a few cheap political points might have had something to do with it.
Why did the Hamas spokesman say what he said? And why did he choose to say it on New York’s most popular talk-radio station, which also happens to be a right-wing American propaganda outlet? Two reasons suggest themselves.
First, Obama (Ed Luttwak to the contrary notwithstanding) is an object of apparently friendly curiosity in the Arab and Muslim world. Perhaps Hamas sees some short-term advantage to glom onto Obama’s global popularity.
Second, Hamas (a) recognizes that it is Obama who is truly its “worst nightmare,” because Obama’s election would transform America’s image and America’s policies in ways that would make America a much more effective opponent of Islamist extremism and terrorism, and (b) understands that the best way it can do its part to keep Obama out of the White House is to pretend to favor his candidacy.
Recall that a week before the 2004 election, Osama bin Laden flooded the airwaves with a video denouncing George W. Bush. Do you suppose that bin Laden did this because he sincerely longed to see Bush replaced with a President who would extract the United States from the Iraq disaster, redirect America’s military resources to Afghanistan, reverse America’s torture-driven plunge into moral squalor, take the lead in engineering an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, and restore America’s cooperative relations with the rest of the democratic world?
I think not.
|
|
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Kind of interesting. Note that Obama is up 8 on McCain as a generic ticket. Also note that Obama choosing Chuck Hagel (Republican) would actually hurt him. Kind of strange. Would have liked to see Biden as an option, but I do like Edwards. A lot. |
|
|
| heynow |
| Polls are minus the Hilary factor which won't go away. Longer she stays in means worse consequences for Dems and that's exactly why they're trying to push the bitch out now. I love it. Fracture the Dems, so Reps got teh upper hand! |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by heynow
Polls are minus the Hilary factor which won't go away. Longer she stays in means worse consequences for Dems and that's exactly why they're trying to push the bitch out now. I love it. Fracture the Dems, so Reps got teh upper hand! |
Hey smokeape, it's been awhile. I see you didn't learn much about politics during your suspension. The "Hillary factor" is already gone. Obama secured a clear majority in delegates tonight.
Also, if you haven't been paying attention (duh) - all of Hillary's ad buys are positive pro-Democrat messages. As most analysts have noted, she's working toward re-uniting the base in order to make a graceful exit.
/primary
Game on. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by heynow
Polls are minus the Hilary factor which won't go away. Longer she stays in means worse consequences for Dems and that's exactly why they're trying to push the bitch out now. I love it. Fracture the Dems, so Reps got teh upper hand! |
Yeah, everyone talks like this in surrey! |
|
|
|
|
