posted
Clinton said she will fight to the convention over the FL and MI votes. Geez Louise. I'm hoping this was just in response to a loaded question she couldn't answer without sounding like a quitter. But maybe she won't settle for any compromise. Though I think at this point Obama could afford to give whatever she's asking for if it will get rid of her.
quote:CROW AGENCY, Mont. (AP)—Democrat Barack Obama got a brand-new name as he courted native Americans in the West. The presidential candidate was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow nation, and given the name Awe Kooda Bilaxpak Kuuxshish that translates as "One who helps people throughout the land."
A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton said that, instead of focusing on superdelegates, Team Clinton's strategy will shift to tricking Obama into saying his new name backwards, sending him back to the 8th Dimension.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Picking a few famous people . . .
Ben Franklin was extremely impolite to many people, and also one of our most effective ambassadors. Winston Churchill pulled together one of the most divided alliances in history.
Going down the list of Presidents ranked best at foreign policy by a large number of international relations scholars: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3913
FDR, Truman, and Nixon top the list. I'm not seeing any trend towards politeness. Indeed, I'm seeing no particular correlation.
I think you are very wrong about foreign policy. I think that, while compromise is extremely important, an unwillingness to proffer carrots and wield sticks would severely undermine our international effectiveness.
I think that there is a long history showing many regimes can only be dealt with by using that strategy consistently, and that many more regimes often respond better given an accurate assessment of where we draw lines and what we will do for those who do what is in our interests.
I think that there is broad agreement in all governments of the first world that the carrot and the stick are vital tools of foreign policy, even with each other (whaling treaties, anyone?).
I think the issues many countries have with our current President's foreign policy have almost nothing to do with whether or not he employes those practices, but are often with how he does not employ them very well (for lacks of carrots, see NK and Iraq. For lacks of sticks, see Russia).
Back in Ben Franklin's time they didn't do much in the way of diplomacy avoiding "entangling alliances" and all that.
FDR, Nixon and Truman I would hardly consider "rude" reading the Henry Kissinger memoirs for example the delegation to China was extremely polite and courteous although there were no shortage of gaffes.
Why would you use a stick to refer to Russia of all places? What possible stick can you use? The US can't hurt them no matter how hard they try while Russia can cause much much harm to Europe and know it. See suspension of the Conventional Arms limitation treaty.
IP: Logged |
posted
As I mentioned in another thread, my recreational reading over the past month or so has consisted of biographies of Revolutionary leaders.
Franklin could be abrasive in his younger years - especially as a businessman. And he penned a lot of stuff in support of the revolution that probably annoyed many people.
But he was an expert schmoozer. In fact, one of the greatest complaints John Adams had about Franklin during the years in France was that Franklin was doing a lot of fun schmoozing and not so much negotiation.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:WASHINGTON—Presidential hopefuls John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced Monday their plans to form what many Beltway observers have already dubbed the "2008 Nightmare Ticket," a calculated move that political analysts say offers voters the worst of both worlds.
After nearly a year of verbal attacks and negative campaign ads, the nominees announced that, for the good of the country, they were willing to push their differences to the forefront and grant the American people the ticket they've been dreading all along.
Includes commentary from Richard Cohen:
quote: "This nightmare ticket presents the American people with an unprecedented lack of opportunity in 2008," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote Tuesday. "For just one vote, citizens will get four years of McCain's brilliant temper, the incredible inexperience of Barack Obama, and the powerful two-headed monster of Hillary and Bill Clinton."
"It will be very exciting to see what they're capable of destroying, " Cohen added.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: [QB] I do not think they are very separable. However, many of the people mentioned were successful at both despite being rude people.
"Rude" can mean many different things from having poor table manners to hurling insults and profanity at other nations. Its one thing to be blunt and another thing to use racist slurs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I've never heard of Ben Franklin calling the French "frogs". In fact from all records, Franklin's success as a diplomat in France was because he knew how to socialize and make friends with well connected people. Hardly the picture of rudeness.
Perhaps you can give me some specific examples of Franklin's rude behavior, or for that matter FDR, Truman or Nixon's rudeness. Then I might better understand your argument.
quote:Also, Bush is known for being a very (probably overly) friendly diplomat in person. But when we get into the realm where we are talking about the need to compromise, we are talking about foreign policy decisions.
You are still missing the point. The issue in diplomacy isn't about being friendly. Its about being able to find common ground, about being able to put yourself in your enemies shoes so you can seek mutually agreeable resolutions to conflicts.
My problem with McCain's apology for his racist comment is it totally misses the point. Asians weren't offended because they thought he hated all Asians. It was because he used a term that means "asian" as an insult. That indicates an inability to understand and empathize with his critics. And it wasn't just his use of the racist slur, numerous comments he has made about Muslims, Iraq and Iran and even people he's fought with in the senate indicate the same thing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to add to Rabbit's characterization of Franklin's performance as a diplomat in France:
The impression John Adams had of Franklin wasn't entirely justified. While Franklin had probably gotten much more comfortable with the luxurious upper-class lifestyle in France than he'd want to admit, his decision to spend a lot of time schmoozing and appearing to enjoy leisure was largely pragmatic.
At that time in France, it was considered rude and *common* to appear to be working to hard or to be too serious about it -- Franklin adapted.
I think the phrase he used to describe his diplomatic task was to "accomplish much while appearing to do little."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I thought everyone hated Bush because he would never apologize for anything, but no one is willing to accept McCain's apology for "gook" gate.
See, I can't figure out if I'm the "no one," because everyone except The Rabbit and Blayne seems willing to accept the apology, due to the frighteningly mitigating circumstances that comprise McCain's life and his subsequent good deeds. I just took it for granted that every US President who ever lived thought "I'm tired of dealing with these niggers," and I imagine that most of them said it aloud while in office. I think there is a substantive difference between McCain's slur and Bush joking about executing someone with the death penalty. Are you sure you aren't cooking up some conspiracy to make yourself feel better?
posted
Blayne, pooka made statements including the words "everyone" and "no one" for rhetorical effect. It only takes one person-- and it happens that me, Squicky, and fugu all happen to have forgiven him-- to show her claim is not the case.
I'd like for Obama to defeat McCain, but I'm not willing to unfairly degrade McCain in the process.
posted
I think once the Superdelegates confirm Obama by a MI/FL proof margin in June, he'll graciously offer to seat the delegates using the plans the states have come up with, which will count all their votes and give Clinton a tiny net bump in her delegate total without changing anything at all.
They aren't going to save her, they will count, as everyone is committed to that now, and I think it'll happen in June. It would happen even without Clinton's yammering, but it's the only thing she really has to yammer about with the only three votes left to cast being in MT, SD and PR. I don't see her spending a lot of the next two weeks campaigning in Helena, though she has a good excuse to go see Mt. Rushmore.
I think her campaign is winding down, even if it doesn't look like it on the surface. Insiders are already looking at how to integrate resources with the Obama campaign when this officially ends, and she has really toned down her rhetoric as of late. Once MI and FL are sat, she'll really have nothing left to complain about. Dean will rally the superdelegates with Pelosi and Reid's help, and that'll be that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Blayne, pooka made statments including the words "everyone" and "no one" for rhetorical effect. It only takes one person-- and it happens that me, Squicky, and fugu all happen to have forgiven him-- to show her claim is not the case.
I'd like for Obama to defeat McCain, but I'm not willing to unfairly degrade McCain in the process.
There are plenty of other things to degrade him over, like him being Bush 2.0
IP: Logged |
quote:See, I can't figure out if I'm the "no one," because everyone except The Rabbit and Blayne seem willing to accept the apology, due to the frighteningly mitigating circumstances that comprise McCain's life.
I think you are mischaracterizing my response. I think the extraordinary circumstance clearly excuse McCain's behavior.
But the question isn't whether or not I think his statement was excusable, its whether or not I think his behavior (excusable or not) has bearing on whether or not he will make a good President. They are two different issues.
Heck, If a person who had been tortured for years by Vietnamese completely lost it and started shooting at people on the street who looked Vietnamese, I think it would be excusable and forgivable but I would still want them locked up in a maximum security mental facility for the safety of others.
**Note that I did not mean to imply that McCain's statement was in any way comparable to shooting people because of their race.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm thinking it was just a really dumb mistake. The bigger mistake is not immediately giving a satisfactory apology. The "I'm sorry if people took offense", apology is just lame.
And to anyone who thinks, it is a stupid comparision anyway. When the California primary is held in June, of course the nomination process will last till then. Not so much with SD, Montana and Puerto Rico.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The comments came in a meeting Mrs Clinton was having with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper.
Responding to those who had called on her to withdraw from the Democratic Party's presidential race, Mrs Clinton said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
I think this is one of those times where the, "I'm sorry if people took offense" apology is warranted. She didn't say anything wrong. She was making a point and a point that was germane. The '92 convention went until June, and the '68 convention could have very easily gone all the way but for an assassination.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just that everyone has been hyper-careful to avoid mentioning assassination, since that is the greatest fear for Sen. Obama. It is almost like trying to jinx him. He has had so many death threats, his Secret Service detail has been greatly enlarged. Colin Powell actually wanted to run back when he was asked a number of years ago, after he retired from the military, but his wife told him she would leave him if he ran, because she was sure he would be assassinated by some White Supremacist crazie.
Sen. Clinton may not have actually meant to wish Obama ill, but she did betray a lack of delicacy, of awareness of the things thoughtful people are supposed to be aware of without talking about it. Like she wasn't quite "clued in" enough.
Clinton would probably make a better president than Obama, because Obama is so naive and inexperienced and so extremely liberal. But Clinton is naive in her own way, too.
Clinton's gaffe also evokes a very faint echo of something she would probably prefer not be re-awakened, and that is the legend of how many dozens of people in a position to hurt the Clintons over the years have turned up dead in mysterious circumstances. If I were Obama, I would not want Clinton to be my veep. It would be like Caeser having Cassius for his heir-apparent.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It's just that everyone has been hyper-careful to avoid mentioning assassination, since that is the greatest fear for Sen. Obama. It is almost like trying to jinx him. He has had so many death threats, his Secret Service detail has been greatly enlarged. Colin Powell actually wanted to run back when he was asked a number of years ago, after he retired from the military, but his wife told him she would leave him if he ran, because she was sure he would be assassinated by some White Supremacist crazie.
Sen. Clinton may not have actually meant to wish Obama ill, but she did betray a lack of delicacy, of awareness of the things thoughtful people are supposed to be aware of without talking about it. Like she wasn't quite "clued in" enough.
Clinton would probably make a better president than Obama, because Obama is so naive and inexperienced and so extremely liberal. But Clinton is naive in her own way, too.
Clinton's gaffe also evokes a very faint echo of something she would probably prefer not be re-awakened, and that is the legend of how many dozens of people in a position to hurt the Clintons over the years have turned up dead in mysterious circumstances. If I were Obama, I would not want Clinton to be my veep. It would be like Caeser having Cassius for his heir-apparent.
I highly doubt that story of Colin Powell, considered maybe, turned it down due to the possibility of death threats? No General would run from a challenge if that were so, remeber he was a GENERAL int he US Army.
Now, how does one decide "better president" we (the royal "we")and a large majority of people believe Obama would be the better President BECAUSE of his lack of "experience" playing dirty politics, the American people want someone who can shake things up kick out the lobbyists and restore the Dream.
Next Obama isn't extremely Liberal he is to the right of the Conservative Party if we look at Canadian politics, your ideas of "Left" and "Right" are absurd. Liberal Does not connote bad it is simply a different system of ethics, Libertarianism as contrasted to Utilitarianism as an example.
Next, to save Obama is naive is like calling the Germans inefficient, I will let you sort that one out.
quote: Clinton's gaffe also evokes a very faint echo of something she would probably prefer not be re-awakened, and that is the legend of how many dozens of people in a position to hurt the Clintons over the years have turned up dead in mysterious circumstances.
Complete conspiracy theorist bullsh*t and crackpotery, give even the slightest shred of proof that this is the case.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: kmbboots,
quote: The comments came in a meeting Mrs Clinton was having with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper.
Responding to those who had called on her to withdraw from the Democratic Party's presidential race, Mrs Clinton said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
I think this is one of those times where the, "I'm sorry if people took offense" apology is warranted. She didn't say anything wrong. She was making a point and a point that was germane. The '92 convention went until June, and the '68 convention could have very easily gone all the way but for an assassination.
The '92 nomination was sewn up months before June. IIRC, Tsongas dropped out in March, and Brown would have needed 90%+ of the remaining delegates to snatch the nomination from Bill Clinton. Clinton's own senior staff had declared outright victory long before California voted.
Furthermore, as has been noted elsewhere, this isn't the first time Clinton has made use of RFK as an example:
quote: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months." -Hillary Clinton, TIME magazine, March 6, 2008
So her mealy-mouthed "apology" about having Ted Kennedy's condition on her mind when she made her remarks to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader holds no water.
Edited to add: It should also be pointed out that the 1968 primary didn't even *start* until March 12. So Hillary's use of it as a talking point to supported her thesis that long primaries are nothing new is flawed on that level as well.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I highly doubt that story of Colin Powell, considered maybe, turned it down due to the possibility of death threats? No General would run from a challenge if that were so, remeber he was a GENERAL int he US Army.
Blayne, it was widely reported at the time that Alma Powell opposed her husband running for president, both because she feared assassination attempts and because she did not want to be first lady. When he gave his speech saying he wasn't going to run, he flat-out stated it was because he didn't have the passion for it that was necessary and that his family mattered more to him. There were claims later that she told him that she'd leave him if he ran, I don't think either of them have actually substantiated them, but he definitely considered it and she was definitely against the idea. That is a matter of public record.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Next Obama isn't extremely Liberal he is to the right of the Conservative Party if we look at Canadian politics, your ideas of "Left" and "Right" are absurd. Liberal Does not connote bad it is simply a different system of ethics, Libertarianism as contrasted to Utilitarianism as an example.
I agree with your general response to Ron but please realize that "Left" and "Right" are relative terms. As such it doesn't make sense to call our usage of the terms "absurd."
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Irami on this one. It does indeed seem to be a case where "I'm sorry people were offended" was appropriate.
It would have been better, in my opinion, if she had done a bit more to show acknowledgement and understanding of why people were offended such as "It has come to my attention that some people thought my reference to RFK's assassination implied a threat against Senator Obama. This was the furthest thing from my intentions and I am very sorry my statements were misunderstood in this way"
Of course, publicly acknowledging the Obama assassination thing might have been misconstrued even worse than the original statement so I can't fault her for the apology. Some time its best just to leave well enough alone.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Clinton's gaffe also evokes a very faint echo of something she would probably prefer not be re-awakened, and that is the legend of how many dozens of people in a position to hurt the Clintons over the years have turned up dead in mysterious circumstances. If I were Obama, I would not want Clinton to be my veep. It would be like Caeser having Cassius for his heir-apparent."
Wow. That last sentence was dumb, Ron, pure unadulterated dumbness. Anyone who disagrees is on the idiot list, automatically.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Olberman shreds Clinton over the Kennedy assassination remark. He really rips into her and lets her have it. It's a sight to see.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. I can easily see the point she was trying to make, she was saying that RFK was campaigning in June, that he hadn't wrapped it up yet.
But I can't imagine for a moment that she'd be naive enough or stupid and careless enough to not realize the outrage that that specific reference would bring out in THIS of all elections. She's a smart woman, and I won't list all the reasons why that was a dumb reference, I think most of them are probably easily relevent to anyone posting in or reading this thread.
So while I don't think she was specifically saying "Obama could die next month," I don't for a moment think that she was blindsided by the response her words engendered. She knew what she was doing and saying.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 1968 primaries started in March rather than January so her point that they are running later is pretty nonsensical. When the Cailfornia primary isn't until June it is a different situation than when the only primaryies left to hold at SD, MT, and Puerto Rico.
Is she so stupid she doesn't get that or does she just assume we are?
posted
I guess we should all check with Keith Olberman - what, bi-weekly, maybe? - to see which words are okay to use and which aren't. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so maybe part of her sentiment was, "I'm half waiting around to see if he gets shot." But there are large problems in the world and I'm still not convinced that Clinton's gaffe is one of them.
If asassination is such a concern, I'd like to think that political dialogue would be robust enough to handle it in the open and not avoid our inconvenient historical incidents. Obermann was frothing like talk of asassination was "The Event that Must Not Be Named," and I'm not sure such censorship is appropriate to a free democracy. He could have said, "I would not ever vote for a candidate who would stay in a race, waiting for her opponent get shot."
posted
His list of the things for which Clinton has been "forgiven" was pretty damning. I don't necessarily share his level of outrage about what she said- in a large part because Obama, graciously, has let it slide- but I understand his outrage and think he's entitled to it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: His list of the things for which Clinton has been "forgiven" was pretty damning. I don't necessarily share his level of outrage about what she said- in a large part because Obama, graciously, has let it slide- but I understand his outrage and think he's entitled to it.
Two thoughts his list of things for which Clinton has been forgiven. First, despite his emotive appeal, I find every single thing on that list worse, most of them significantly worst, than her latest statement.
Second, there is something highly disingenuous in giving a long list of all the things we've supposedly "forgiven" her. If we've forgiven her why bring them up. "Forgiveness" is a particularly slimy excuse for lising all the reasons we should be pissed at her.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Sterling: [qb] Second, there is something highly disingenuous in giving a long list of all the things we've supposedly "forgiven" her. If we've forgiven her why bring them up. "Forgiveness" is a particularly slimy excuse for lising all the reasons we should be pissed at her.
Part of why I feel that Olbermann is entitled to feel as he does, even though I don't, is that he was alive when JFK, King, Malcolm X, and RFK were assassinated, and I was not. He undoubtedly sees this in a different light than I (or you?) do. So to him, and perhaps others of his (and Clinton's) generation, this might well exceed the other items he mentioned.
As far as "forgiveness", I have two thoughts: one, as a commentator, he can reasonably observe that the public has "forgiven" Clinton in the sense that the earlier matters are no longer active topics of discussion, nor do they continue to be front-page material for the news media. They have been allowed to slip into the past. Second, in both that sense of "forgiveness" and the sense that one no longer holds antipathy towards someone for their past actions, one can forgive and still hold awareness of someone's past acts in regarding present transgressions. That doesn't necessarily mean a reignition of the feelings with regard to those past acts, but it may mean recognition of a pattern and an overall evaluation of the person with regard to the present.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expected someone else to point this out, but no one has. Maybe you're all like me, and didn't believe Olberman REALLY said it:
quote:...this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy is political assassination.
Really? I've appreciated some of Olberman's other special comments, but this is patently absurd. And frankly, insulting.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think we have worse crimes and what not, but I think the major assasinations that have taken place in our past, Lincoln, MLK, the Kennedys are a subject of deep national shame and sadness. We've had iconic, nation moving and changing figures, who've attempted to redefine the very nature of a generation's worth of people, and they were assasinated for what the stood for as much as for what they actually did.
Deepest? Most enduring? No, I think slavery and indian genocide probably win those awards. But I think it's on the list.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deepest? Most enduring? No, I think slavery and indian genocide probably win those awards.
Exactly the problem. He overstates his case to an astounding degree - in a way that trivializes a whole host of events - and simply to score points against Clinton. That's ugly.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On April 14th, 1943, special naval intelligence in the Pacific intercepted coded Japanese intelligence that revealed the itinerary of Admiral Yamamoto. When presented with this intelligence, FDR told his commanders to go get him, and Rex Barber piloted the plane that would eventually down Yamamoto's plane in Buin, Papua New Guinea.
That could be something he is referring too or it could be the numerous times we tried to assassinate Castro. Even with our own leaders we don't have the best track record with regard to political assassinations. In fact, JFK is probably one of the defining moments of American history in the 20th century, and that single act seems to take our distrust in government to a new level that would only be exacerbated by LBJ, Nixon, and others. JFK was the beginning, I think, of the level of general distrust and melancholy that we feel today, and it's an act that deeply shames us because of those feelings.
I can see his point, but I agree it takes a long way to get there. I don't think he does it just to score points against Clinton and I don't think he was unjustified in bringing up those assassinations, but I do agree that "deepest" and "most enduring" are probably the wrong words to use here.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that Olberman's entire argument is a straw man, yeah I think he's trying to score points.
Clinton brought up an event that most people in the US would remember or recognize as an example of a primary contest that went undecided into June. She didn't "invoke" anything. She DID, as kmbboots* pointed out, mischaracterize the length of that election. And pointing that out would have been a fair criticism.
Instead, Olberman trivialized a great many national tragedies, and even worse, in my opinion, attempts to set himself up as arbiter of the word "assassination." Yes, it's an ugly part of our past, but how exactly does barring it from use help in any way?
*Speaking of which, I mentally stumble over "kmbboots." I've wondered for a while if I can call you "boots" or if there's another nickname you prefer?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think that part of the sensitivity over the word is that very real fear of assassination in this particular election. Many of us "of a certain age" or older are already practically holding or collective breath every time we see Senator Obama in front of a crowd.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Jux, it wasn't a straw man, it was a real reaction I think to Clinton's basically admitting -- even if accidentally -- that she's staying in and waiting around in case Obama gets shot. Which is something a lot of people are very, very afraid of.
Clinton touched a real nerve with that one, and I can't believe that she was really just mentioning the RFK assassination as time line, with out understanding it's significance to this years campaign. If she didn't understand the significance, she's incredibly dumb. If she did, then, as Olbermann points out, that's not a reason to stay in. She could easily jump back in -- having dropped out -- in the case that something happened.
Also I don't think Olbermann's getting that worked up over the assassination thing, I think it was sorta the straw that broke the camel's back for him. I feel similarly, as the campaign's gone on I've been getting more and more pissed at Clinton for all the things she's done that he listed there -- and more. His rant (and that's really what it was -- it wasn't a reasoned argument at all) really resonated with me, because I've felt like reacting to that almost every time Clinton opened her mouth for most of March and April. Before Iowa I could stomach her, even felt that I'd be okay with it if she won, though disappointed. After Iowa she attempting to co-opt Obama's change message, and did it really, really badly. She clearly showed that she didn't understand it, didn't really believe it, and was just trying to win -- she could see that something in the change message was working and so she wanted it. Since then she's done similar things, time and again. Wielding messages she clearly doesn't believe in, doesn't even understanding, just cause she desperately wants to win. That's all she cares about. And then she started going negative. And... well Olbermann already layed it out, so you get the picture.
So you take that existing anger, and pile on that she just said "I could still be president, it could still happen, Obama could get shot!" No that's not what she said, but when you take into account the other things that she's been saying that's what got communicated to many of us. And it appears that that is her reasoning for staying in the race. And that existing anger could very easily boil over.
And aside from the over the top, enraged rant, the list he gives of all the things to be pissed at her for is true.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Believe me, I fear for Obama's safety as well. Perhaps I have underestimated just how gripping that fear is for others, though, and I'll try to consider that.
I still think it is unfair, however, to use even a very real and justified fear to put words into someone's mouth, even unintentionally. The "maybe something will happen to Obama" interpretation really only works if you're willing to ignore the context of her statement. Otherwise, we'd need to explain why she also secretly hopes for her husband's demise as well.
Perhaps this all comes down to a difference in willingness to extend the benefit of the doubt. I haven't exactly been a fan of a lot of the things Clinton has done recently. A lot of that list resonated with me as well, but I have a hard time believing she'd publicly express a wish, however passive, for Obama's death. If she knew it would be interpreted that way, she wouldn't have said it, plain and simple. It would have been dumb on a level several orders of magnitude greater than trying to make a point about the historic length of the primary season and picking an insensitive example.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of that list resonated with me as well, but I have a hard time believing she'd publicly express a wish, however passive, for Obama's death. If she knew it would be interpreted that way, she wouldn't have said it, plain and simple.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. I still think it would have been wise for Hillary to explicitly address this in her apology. Instead, her apology seems directed toward the Kennedy family rather than Obama. As it stands, it seems like she is either still clueless about the issue or that she did wish to make people think about the risks of nominating a black candidate.
When, however, there are people like Olberman around saying anything more about the issue is just as likely to dig her into a deeper whole.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now, the entire Clinton campaign should be praying hard for Obama's safety.
If there is so much as a feable attempt on Obama's life before the Democratic convention (or even the General Election), the Clinton haters will have a hay day with it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think she meant it that way either; I don't think that Olbermann does either. But when you have made such an blatent faux pas on such a tender subject, your apology should be extravagant. Hers was meager.
But, again, what annoys me more is the fact that she doesn't believe that the electorate can read calendars or that she is aiming her remarks at those who don't. Like with the gas tax holiday issue, she is trying to win over the folks who aren't willing or able to really understand.
I am tired of the politics that tries to take advantage of a disengaged electorate. I want politicians who are interested in explaining nuanced positions and who believe that we, as a people, are able and willing to understand them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Should be interesting if that happens.
I'm not entirely sure if the people ARE willing or able to understand them.
I don't know, I think Obama has made significant strides toward's that in his campaign. I think that is one reason he's winning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that we're starting to finally see a real back and forth between McCain and Obama, I think he's taking as many body blows as he is landing with his style of campaign. McCain I think is largely playing by the typical playbook of landing attacks that sound good but aren't really accurate or honest. The gas tax holiday is the perfect example of this.
I wonder how many more gas tax holiday type discussions we'll have before this is over. The current foreign policy debate certainly isn't being honestly debated on both sides. Obama inches closer to having a good coherent message every time be discusses the topic, but McCain is sticking to his "implacable foe" rhetoric. That kind of rhetoric is simple, and easy to understand, whereas Obama's really counts on analysis and reason.
I hope that it goes the way you think, I really do. But the last few years have really degraded my faith in the electorate's ability to use reason and analysis in these kinds of debates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
