Bittergate
I think the controversy-let over Obama's "bitter" remarks is a sign that the primary campaign has just gone on for way too long now. It seems to me to underscore how rare it is that Republicans go after Democrats on substantive issues, as opposed to constructing bogus character narratives about them. That Hillary Clinton is buying Republican frames so readily would be disappointing if she hadn't already demonstrated a willingness to go there.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Obama
posted by honestpartisan | 7:00 AM
15 Comments:
Isn't this Hillary clinton that is beating this horse?
I know John McCain weighed in, how could he not? Look, Obama came off like a prick. He'd have been okay had he not mentioned the guns, we rednecks value the guns.
Anyway, I think his attitude on the 2nd ammendment is definitely an issue, and one more important to me than his non-role in the economy.
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said in his remarks. “ ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”
You can't really "go after" this particular Democrat on "substantive issues", Jack, because his record is so thin. Therefore, all you can do is go after his "words". And in this case, he really stepped in it, covering a lot of bases near and dear to the non-nutroot Democrats: religion, guns, immigration.
You can't be intellectually honest and still buy his weak defense of "mis-speaking" or being quoted out of context. Hillary isn't buying frames so much as she is stating the obvious: this is an inexperienced candidate who would be a disastrous president, but probably won't make it through the general election. All the wishful thinking in the world won't make this latest gaffe or the Rev. Wright go back into the box.
You can't really "go after" this particular Democrat on "substantive issues", Jack, because his record is so thin.
Obama has taken a number of positions on a number of issues as a state legislator, in the Senate, and as a candidate on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, torture, abortion, taxes, health care, climate change, securities regulation, discrimination against gays, Israel, Social Security, nuclear proliferation, bankruptcy reform, and unions. I agree with some of his positions and disagree with others.
So KP8's charge is wrong and inapposite. The non-substantive character attacks that Republican level against Democrats bear no relation to the record of the candidates; Kerry and Gore, with longer records than Obama, were subject to it, too. Anything but issues!
You can't be intellectually honest and still buy his weak defense of "mis-speaking" or being quoted out of context.
Why not?
and yet Bush can say the surge is working and the MSM doesn't challenge that at all...
Sometime you just gotta not listen or listen between the lines to hear the truth :)
Pk
Obama has taken a number of positions ...
This is both irrefutable and trivial. Anyone can write a position paper, as it is composed of ... wait for it: words.
But a legislator has to legislate, which means he constructs, sponsors or votes upon laws. Looking at Senator Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate, you might observe as Hunter S. Thompson did of Oscar Zeta Acosta, that Obama "lacked the courage of his consistently monstrous convictions." Of four votes on abortion-related issues, for example, Obama missed three of them. Don't take my word for it; examine the record yourself.
As far as your chronic lament that the Republicans are playing dirty ("anything but issues"), I don't see how anyone can enjoy politics if they can't admit the sins of their own. You must believe that crap that the DNC holds itself to a higher standard. Your tautological observation "non-substantive character attacks that Republican level against Democrats bear no relation to the record of the candidates" can easily accommodate switching the positions of the two proper nouns.
Anyone can write a position paper...
KP8's original objection was, well, we have to manufacture character narratives about Obama because there are no substantive differences to argue about because his record is so thin! Then when I point out that Obama actually has taken lots of positions on issues if you actually were interested in a substantive disagreement, KP8 moves the goalposts and says, well anyone can write a position paper.
KP8 then goes on to criticize Obama's legislative record. The votes that Obama missed were during the presidential primary. Yes, I will concede that when one runs a serious campaign for president, that campaign will crowd out a lot of Senate votes (and given that the three major candidates now in contention are sitting Senators, a criticism of all of them. Perhaps only independently wealthy people should run for president). But that still doesn't have anything to do with the bullshit character narratives the GOP strives to make.
(And by the way, Obama's got a good record of legislative work on unglamorous but important issues and an impressive legislative track record in Illinois).
As far as your chronic lament that the Republicans are playing dirty ("anything but issues"), I don't see how anyone can enjoy politics if they can't admit the sins of their own.
I think that you miss the point of the criticism of the Republicans. I don't think that the non-substantive criticisms are dirty or unfair. Rather, I think it's important to point out that they're a product of the fact that Republicans want to avoid debate on substantive issues because their side stands to lose when that becomes the focus.
Whether or not Obama has a substantive record -- and I think he does, both of opinions he's expressed and things he's done -- the fact remains that there are serious issues that need to be addressed in this country. And what's important is not whether or not Obama is an "elite" (everyone with a shot at winning is an elite) but what Obama would do about serious problems.
Those issues can and should be addressed and discussed directly. Instead we're dealing with this inconsequential nonsense and it makes my brain hurt.
I think Obama's reccord makes Obama's intentions as president clear.
He wants to raise taxes.
He wants expansive gun control and many outright bans.
He wants draconian emissions standards that are counter productive, and he defninetly wants the federal government to enfoce them.
He wants to socialize medicine.
He wants to pull out of Iraq, within one year of his ellection, contrary to the advice of every currently serving general officer in the DOD.
He is for gay marriage.
He will repeal don't ask don't tell and allow gays openly into the military.
He will fully bail out the housing crisis with tax payer dollars.
He will repeal NAFTA and NAFTA-like trade agreements.
He will cut military spending by about 6-8%
He will apoint Supreme Court Judges who are non constructionist, who legislate from the bench.
His forign policy will envolve him flying arround the world meeting with low life dictators begging them not to keep killing us. He will also spend a lot of time apologizing for America being a great country.
He will treat the war on terror as a domestic law enforcement issue.
He will leave Social Security at status quo.
I think if we Republicans highlight this (and it will be hard for you dems to argue about the above, what record Obama has is clear) Americans will reject him for a proven leader like McCain.
I will concede that when one runs a serious campaign for president, that campaign will crowd out a lot of Senate votes...
... and when you start running a serious campaign for president so soon after your arrival in D.C., there won't be too many of those Senate votes.
And if I seem like I'm moving the goalposts, it is because I misspoke, or something. I wouldn't want to constrain campaigns to mere criticisms of words. Bring the mud, the kitchen sink, and by all means let people decide whether they agree with a lightweight but clearly liberal voting record.
Lightweight? Really? How many lightweights teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago? Have you paid any attention to the things that Obama has written and said, like the speech on his foreign policy vision, or regulation of the financial markets, or race? Did you watch his questioning of Petraeus and Crocker? All of that shows someone who knows what he's talking about and thinks about these issues with sophistication, nuance, and precision. You can disagree with him on the substance of the issues (as Free does), but "lightweight" is just inaccurate, especially if you've been a Bush supporter lo these eight years.
Yeah. Lightweight. The magical spell only works on liberals. His foreign policy speech was boilerplate liberal fantasy, but I'll concede it was pretty. His recent speech on race in response to the Reverend Wright flap was disingenuous sophistry, hardly brilliance, and frankly insulting. And please do not cite the hiring imperatives of law schools as evidence of substance. His questioning of Petraeus and Crocker at least showed cunning, in that he knew that despite his fabulistic promises to pull troops out, he seemed to finally come to a sober realization that Petraeus was the only human being with the ability to save Obama's ass if he were to be so unfortunate as to be elected POTUS. Obama needs Petraeus. Realizing that is not brilliant nor nuanced nor sophisticated. But it does exceed the mental capacity of the average left wing nutcase; grant you that.
He's a lightweight. The gas under his wings will not dispel the very real problems our republic faces. He can run but he cannot govern. Hillary can't run but she can govern. McCain is unacceptable as well. They suck: we're f*cked.
Thousands of years before the birth of Christ, there was an all-powerful ruler of a kingdom by the Nile. One year the Nile flooded, famine ensued, and the people lost confidence in the god-ruler's ability to control the great river. This led another ruler, Akhenaton, to usurp the throne and replace the old ruler's impotent gods with humanity's first monotheistic religion. But of course we sophisticated moderns now know that no human can intercede with any god to control the behavior of an unpredictable system like a major river. Human herd behavior has evolved very little since then.
HP,
You have a liberal's failing in that you try to argue logically with close minded people who look only with one eye.
Obama is now at least as experienced as Lincoln was when he ran for president as a radical, backed by radical abolitionists.
McCain's (the slayer of McAbel) "experience" consists of 30 or so - you count them - years of a single repeated experience that goes something like "taxes, bad", "regulations bad", "war good", "Right Wing, tough", "Left Wing, weak".
Give yourself a break and let yahoos be yahoos. The comeuppance will happen in November. I do hope that it'll be President Obama and not President Clinton (based on the saying that a new broom sweeps clean), but it definitely will not be McCain, the slayer of McAbel.
OldTimeLefty
You say "lightweight", I deny your assertion.
You say "His recent speech on race in response to the Reverend Wright flap was disingenuous sophistry"- you say disingenuous sophistry, I deny the assertion.
You say Obama makes "fabulistic promises to pull troops out" - I say realistic.
You say McCain is unacceptable - I agree.
The main problem is that you have substituted invective and assertions for argument. What you freely assert, I just as freely deny. If you presented an argument we might be able to engage in debate. As it stands nothing you asserted is worth arguing.
OldTimeLefty
McCain's (the slayer of McAbel) "experience" consists of 30 or so - you count them - years of a single repeated experience that goes something like "taxes, bad", "regulations bad", "war good", "Right Wing, tough", "Left Wing, weak".
I think this sums up McCain's campagin very well. Its why I'm voting for him actually. Have you considered asking Big John for a job on his staff?
"They cling to"
And the whole "bittergate" showed his words to be true.
He didn't say there was a thing wrong with God, Guns, but he was correct on some of the other items fear of foreigners etc.
It's been most enlightening to see which items got picked from the bitter list for the hype and storm.
Cling they do because they are the items you can manipulate these people with.
Good honest, real people, but easily manipulated.
Post a Comment
<< Home