Obama '08?

Part of what Obama is fighting against is the Clintonian 'do anything to win' mentality.

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html

Missing ballot boxes which have been holding up the New Mexico recount have been found - in the homes of Clinton supporters there who had keys to them.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Part of what Obama is fighting against is the Clintonian 'do anything to win' mentality.

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html

Missing ballot boxes which have been holding up the New Mexico recount have been found - in the homes of Clinton supporters there who had keys to them.

Cycloptichorn

Honesty and integrity in government - The Democratic strategy.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Part of what Obama is fighting against is the Clintonian 'do anything to win' mentality.

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html

Missing ballot boxes which have been holding up the New Mexico recount have been found - in the homes of Clinton supporters there who had keys to them.

Cycloptichorn

Honesty and integrity in government - The Democratic strategy.

Politics is always vera ugly. Florida?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe that even Lola is more likely to be persuaded of a defect or weakness in her preferred candidate than are most of the Obama supporters here are likely to stand still for ANY criticism of their revered and sainted leader.

Obama supporters, Cyclo included, display what appears to me as a truly dangerous and irrational belief in the power of their emotional commitment to their candidate to itself create beneficial change in the real world. It is useful to remember that the youthful commissars of Mao's cultural revolution were not forced to do their horrible duty - they did it with the enthusiasm of true believers, dedicated to the cause of their leader who promised beneficial "change" to everyone -- and set the country back a generation in the process.

This is patently false. There are things that I criticize about Obama. And have done so when asked. Repeatedly. I don't deify him, just believe he represents the best shot for fixing our national problems.

Just an attempt to marginalize those of us who have a fine candidate to support this cycle, is all.

Cyclo, in full grip of the delusion, counts any criticism of Obamaism as merely a mean-spirited attack intended to "marginalize those of us who have a fine candidate..."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Part of what Obama is fighting against is the Clintonian 'do anything to win' mentality.

http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2008/02/uncounted-rio-arriba-county-ballots.html

Missing ballot boxes which have been holding up the New Mexico recount have been found - in the homes of Clinton supporters there who had keys to them.

Cycloptichorn

Honesty and integrity in government - The Democratic strategy.

And here we are, at the height of our lives finally at a point where we're in a position to accomplish some of our greatest goals. If you think we're going to sit down and let that opportunity be taken from us by our own children before their time, you are mistaken.

This is offensive nonsense. Cyclo is right - he has repeatedly outlined what his main points of criticism are regarding Obama on threads here, even just the last few days, inviting his Hillary-supporting opponents in argument to do the same with her.

He was joined, too, by another Obama supporter - Ebrown I think - outlining what his main complaints about Obama were. But no Hillary support accepted the invitation to critically reflect on their candidate.

So in the face of that for you to maintain that those darned Obama supporters, they just dont stand for any criticism whatsoever of their "revered and sainted leader", and use that straw man as a tool to portray them as today's equivalent of a Little-Red-Book waving murderous mob, is beyond colourful hyperbole, it's just slanderous.

And Cyclo called you on that, explaining how he is perfectly able to see and articulate the weak sides of his candidate and has done so here repeatedly, and concluding that your "cultists" line of attack against him therefore is just a facile putdown. To then put even that response down again as just another "delusional" discounting of "any criticism of Obamaism" is BS, George, and I think you know it.

I mean, I know you are a partisan Republican and that you have a vested interest in fanning the flames here.. .. but, c'mon.

I agree with what you've said about Hillary above. But I would add that anyone who believes themselves to be or claims to be able to be totally "honest" about complicated problems is someone I will see as either too inexperienced to know otherwise or not honest enough to trust.

I think I take your point, and if I do, then I agree that for people who face very complex problems and have a huge burden of responsibility, honesty is not always the best policy, but Hillary's not in that position (yet), and while a US Senator does face complex problems, he or she is merely one person in a body that will decide. My point about Hillary not being honest is that I don't think she will feel compelled to stand by her current campaign promises. Nothing new for presidents, and once in the office, the picture can become clear, the circumstances can change. The difference is I think she know precisely which ones she will jettison, how she intends to explain the need, and psecifically what her "new" plan will be. I don't say this is heinous, but, if I'm right, it's something to consider when casting a vote.


And in this respect, I question the logic of what you've said. You would trust Hillary if your life depended on it because she's learned the hard practical lessons you believe to be required. Is this not integrity?

I didn't say I would trust Hillary if my life depended on it, only that I would vote for her if my life depended on voting for a Democrat. In other words if some mug says pick a Democrat or I will kill you, I will pick Hillary.

I don't know if she's learned the correct lessons from adversity, but I do know that she isn't looking at the world through rose colored glasses, and holding on to some airy notion that simply by "believeing," anything can be changed. She thinks in terms of objectives and tactics, not aspirations and the power of hope. If she believed more in the latter, perhaps she might be able to deliver better speeches. I'm sure there is no shortage of speech writers who can be hired to write elegant and uplifting speechs to match those of Obama, but I suspect that she tells them not to or that she edits that sort of fluff out herself. This is probably a good idea because she can't pull it off, and I think that's because she doesn't buy it more so than she has no skill at all with oratory. When she is being interviewed by friendly journalists she is capable of very lucid, very detailed answers that do much more to reveal her talents than her forced and uncomfortable stump speeches. When I'm really feeling mellow (thanks to one substance or another besides sunshine or a roaring fireplace) I even think I can see in her the semblance of a real person. Of someone who could genuinely cry because she was finding it such a difficult labor to make people believe she not only cares about the questions, she has all the answers. The problem is many more people then just me also believe that she is just as capable of totally staging a teary eye moment to change a political dynamic.

She has taken the responsibility to make hard decisions sometimes or often between two not so good solutions dictated by reality and she's willing to answer for them. She can explain why she made a decision (for instance her decision about the authorization to use force in Iraq). It wasn't a black or white situation at the time and the explanation for her decision is maybe too complicated for some to understand or too threatening for some who hunger for the simplicity of absolute right and wrong, or too easy to use by her opponent, to twist around and pretend that he doesn't understand her answer in order to use it against her. A political technique he claims will be part of the change he's so eager to promise. But her explanation is plausible to me and I understand what she's saying.

I would appreciate her answer on her vote, and find it much more plausible if she said something to the effect of:

"At the time, I thought Saddam was a vicious and brutal dictator who was oppressing millions of innocent people and I still believe he was. At the time I had an appreciation for how vital this part of the world is to our nation's security, and I still do. At the time I was deeply concerned that an insane monster who clearly hated and fear our country might align himself with the people that attacked us on 9/11. I still think it was a legitmate concern, even though we know know that up until that point there were no provable links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And at the time I believed, as did a very large number of world leaders, weapons experts, intelligence agencies, and my fellow Democratic colleagues in congress that Saddam had stockpiled WMDs, that he was clearly capable of using them and that he presented a threat to peace, to our strategic interests in the region, to our friends and allies, and even possibly to our homeland. So yes, even though I abhor war, and believe it should never be considered except for the most serious of threats, I felt the threat of Saddam was real and I voted for the resolution. As we now know he did not have WMD stockpiles and my belief and the belief of so many others that he did, was either the result of flawed intelligence or manipulation of that intelligence by the Bush administration (have to let her get that one). Although I had great reservations about the War I was proud of our young men and women in the military as they so swiftly defeated the armed might of Saddam. But then, tragically, Bush and Cheaney and Rumsfeld and virtually the entire Administration began to systematically reverse the achievement of our military forces through arrogant hubris, unbeliveable incompetence, and corrupt cronyism. Not only did we learn that there were no WMDs hidden anywhere, but that they had no plan at all for the insurgency that anyone could have predicted, that they were allowing horrendous situtations like Abu Gref to exist, that their handpicked Iraqi Washingtons and Jeffersons were little more than corrupt and hapless stooges, and perhaps worse than all the rest, they had failed to provide the armor and equipment to our courageous men and women in the field, so that they would stand a chance of coming home alive and in one piece.

At that early moment I realized that what I and so many others believed was a grave but necessary action to take, had all along been a neo-conservative adventure in empire building that had very little to do with erradicating the actual threat of Saddam and everything to do with reckless displays of power, and rewarding companies who had financially backed the president's campaign and provided safe havens to members of his administration. At that early moment I realized that I could not allow any more of our young men and women to be killed and maimed for nothing more than hollow jingoism and corrupt financial gains. At that early moment I became committed to ending this horrendous war and bringing our brave troops home, and when I am elected president I will..."

Instead she has attempted to obfuscate the issue with a lot of unbelieveable nonsense that she didn't think the resolution would lead to war, that Bush misled her and the American people about WMDs and his intent, and God knows what else that can point the finger at someone else.

It seems to me that all anyone is left with is the belief that

A) She was duped by George Bush, and increadibly naive about what was really happening at the time

or

B) She felt the wind blowing towards war and she wasn't about to risk her chance at the White House by leaving herself open to charges that she was weak and afraid of the tough realities of international politics come 2008

Many Democrats have developed their own revisionist history about the days leading up to and shortly after the Iraq war. The wind was blowing towards war, the American people (including no few Democrats) thought Saddam was a real threat that had to be addressed, and felt proud of our military cleaning up the Iraqi forces in a matter of days. The war at one time was popular.

I think she should have tried to recreate the moment for her audience and reminded them how they felt, what they thought. After all, as soon as she realized there were no WMDs and Bush & Co were screwing the pooch in the terms of the conduct of the war she was all against it.

There is nothing so complex or secret about this situation that she could not have plotted a more honest course in explaining her vote.

What's more, why is she so content to allow Obama the laurels for being against the war from the beginning? Why was he against it? Did he know there were no WMDs? Did he know that Rumsfeld had no plan for after Shock & Awe? Did he know Iranians would be arming and training insurgents and supplying them with ever more sophisticate IEDs? Did he know that al Qaeda would be successful in instigating sectarian violence among Sunnis and Shia? What was his reason for opposing the war?

He doesn't like wars?
He thought we should talk with Saddam some more?

If the war after Shock & Awe had gone as well as that first week or so, Obama would not be wearing his anti-war laurels based on timing. I guess it's too risky to try to use this issue against Obama, but you know McCain will.

Compare that to the responsibility Obama has taken for all those decisions for which he voted "present." He has never tried to explain this situation even though he was asked by both Edwards and Clinton. And his supporters have never required him to answer.


Very true, but you don't really expect them to challenge him on an issue that they do not believe is an issue - experience - do you? If I had been advising Hillary I'd have told her to find a way to bring it up during the last debate. Even if he has a legitimate reason for it (and I don't believe he does) he can't turn it into a good answer. The numbers speak loudly for themselves.

Hillary has been, as she describes herself, a work horse in the Senate. She's worked with a lot of people to get things done, often reaching across the aisle. She's proven herself to me and many others. But Obama has not had the opportunity or the time to prove himself. He actually has demonstrated that I have good reason to think he needs some seasoning.

I guess you have to share Hillary's postions to feel she has proven anything, but I take your point. Your feeling about Obama are not unreasonable, or for that matter, demeaning.
Anyway, thanks for your respectful reply.

Obama presents the opposite set of hopes and risks. he is clearly a gifted thinker and speaker. The concepts, complexities and inevitable tensions involved in synthesizing a broad strategy for any major issue come easily to him, and he has the rare ability to convey an impression of these tensions & contradictions while at the same time emphasizing simple, clear approaches to proposed solutions. (Some are perhaps too simple and too general, leaving room for one to wonder if he knows what he doesn't know). All this is very good, but experience in life teaches us that those so gifted often don't have the necessity of developing the habit of rigorous, self critical analysis so necessary to avoid error and self delusion. Often their shortcomings are only discovered when they get in over their heads, conveyed on by a sense (and aura) of omniscience, until things really turn to sheit and take them by surprise.

.

It is always risky to get in a dispute over the details of who wrote what, when. or any other matter. with either Nimh or Walter - the chief nit pickers of A2K.

I'm willing to stipulate that somewhere, somehow Cyclo might have conceded some shortcoming of Obama's.

I didn't make a "comparison" with the Red Brigades of Mao's Cultural Revolutuion. Instead I asserted that that there is something there that should be considered as we evaluate the enthusiasm (Obamania) we can observe among his supporters

Obama supporters, Cyclo included, display what appears to me as a truly dangerous and irrational belief in the power of their emotional commitment to their candidate to itself create beneficial change in the real world. It is useful to remember that the youthful commissars of Mao's cultural revolution were not forced to do their horrible duty - they did it with the enthusiasm of true believers, dedicated to the cause of their leader who promised beneficial "change" to everyone -- and set the country back a generation in the process.

Look, I too get a bit annoyed by the overdose of testosteron in the postings of some of Obama's supporters (hi, O'Bill and Cyclo! ). I understand Maporsche's complaint a few pages back about those posters. I'm not saying there's not a core of truth in the complaints about the zeal and oversensitivity of Obama supporters. I've noticed it (and complained about it at enough length) too - so it must be true. :wink:

It's just that you went overboard here, and were just being patently unfair now. Even as the testosteron flies here sometimes, Cyclo has also proven himself able of recognizing and articulating major weaknesses in his candidate - with no equivalent self-reflection forthcoming from the Hillary supporters.

SEATTLE (AP) - A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor Thursday could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said.
In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to Democratic Party superdelegates on her mother's behalf. Wolfson called the comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.

"I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network," he added.

Clinton and Barack Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. The Clinton campaign has pushed hard for as many debates as possible with Obama, but Wolfson said the Feb. 26 debate could be jeopardized.

Wolfson pointed to what he called a pattern of tasteless comments by MSNBC anchors about the Clinton campaign. Weeks ago, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible her husband's philandering.

MSNBC has apologized on-air for Shuster's remark, but Wolfson said neither Chelsea nor Sen. Clinton had received a phone call offering a personal apology.

An MSNBC spokeswoman did not immediately return a phone call requesting comment.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UMAS3O0&show_article=1