Obama '08?

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I didn't complain about the illustration on the cover of the magazine. I was complaining 'bout the word 'worshiper.'

Cycloptichorn

Lighten up. It's just a figure of speech, and it was used in good humor to make a characterization.

I don't think it was in good humor at all, but okay, I'll take your advice

Cycloptichorn

It has been apparent for quite some time, cyclops, that many of Obama's supporters have a fervency above the normal level

and he has been characterized as a rock star, one that is idolized by many of his followers.

I would call that worship, and some of his followers as worshipers.

The anti-Obama numbnuts who understand the cover enough to believe it already believe it. Otherwise they would not understand the cover and it will have no effect.

Those who know it is a satirical caricature know it is untrue; most of those who know Obama know it is untrue and, if they don't understand the cover, will make the effort to find out what it is all about. No harm. No foul.

Sooooo, in my opinion, the only net effect that the cover will have is in the perception of either justifiable indignation and/or exaggerated indignation with Obama staying above the fray to make him look good. His worshipers will worship him even more. Those who see him as something of a fraud on that score will simply feel the opinion they already hold is reinforced. Again little real net effect.

Obama: "I Strongly Stand By My Plan To End This War"
By Greg Sargent - July 15, 2008, 12:06PM

Now that Barack Obama has just wrapped up his big Iraq speech, it's worth noting how big a gamble he's taken at key moments during this race -- by insisting on elevating the discussion to a higher plane than the ordinary tit-for-tat of campaigns.

When Obama was under fire for Reverend Wright, Obama gave a speech in which he asked his audience to think bigger, to rise above the narrow, gaffe-driven debate about Wright and have a real and meaningful discussion about the larger social and historical forces at play.

Now Obama has again done something very similar on Iraq.

John McCain wants the debate between the two men about Iraq to be framed around three narrow assertions: One, he was right about the surge, which has succeeded. Two, that success proves that we can "win" with "honor," rather than "surrender." And three, Obama has "flip-flopped" because he can't guarantee that withdrawal from Iraq won't take 30 seconds longer than his proposed 16 months.

Today, Obama insisted on a much broader framing of the discussion, in multiple ways.

In response to McCain's desire to focus the discussion on who was right about the surge, he asked his audience to imagine what our nation could have accomplished in the days after 9/11, if we hadn't squandered our post-9/11 global good will with an unnecessary invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. He pointed out that we could have devoted all of our force to hunting down the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and their networks and invested hundreds of billions in seeking alternative energy sources.

In response to McCain's insistence that we can "win" with "honor," rather than "surrender," Obama refused to cede the definition of these terms to his foe.

Quote:

"They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops `surrender,' even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government -- not to a terrorist enemy," Obama said, adding that the "accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy."

And in what may have been the biggest gamble of all, he asked his audience to stop thinking about what lies ahead in Iraq as a straight choice between victory and defeat...

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave -- General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April.

In fact, true success in Iraq -- victory in Iraq -- will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

And finally, in response to McCain's claim that Obama has flip-flopped on whether to leave, Obama reiterated his support for withdrawal in 16-months, adding: "I strongly stand by my plan to end this war."

Obama did not back off his commitment to withdrawal one bit today. Rather, he doubled down on it. In a big, big way.

What is Obama saying that is so different from McCain? Only placing a public timetable which I strongly disagree with. Other than that, Obama has again taken McCain's position and is trying to make it his own.

woiyo wrote:

What is Obama saying that is so different from McCain? Only placing a public timetable which I strongly disagree with. Other than that, Obama has again taken McCain's position and is trying to make it his own.

Hmm, can you show us how Obama's position has changed? 'cause it doesn't seem to have changed much to me.

Cycloptichorn

Here is the salient quote:

True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

What is so different about that, and how does that lend itself to a specific date of withdrawal? Maybe cyclops and fellow Obamaites have been confused about what the mission has been from the very beginning?

Maybe cyclops and fellow Obamaites have been confused about what the mission has been from the very beginning?

okie wrote:

Maybe cyclops and fellow Obamaites have been confused about what the mission has been from the very beginning?

Finding the WMD?

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:

Maybe cyclops and fellow Obamaites have been confused about what the mission has been from the very beginning?

Finding the WMD?

As the saying goes, ignorance is correctable. Dumb is forever.

WMD????

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:

Maybe cyclops and fellow Obamaites have been confused about what the mission has been from the very beginning?

Finding the WMD?

As the saying goes, ignorance is correctable. Dumb is forever.

WMD????

As I recall it was 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellow cake that they just shipped out of Iraq to Canada? Proof of WMD? Nope. Proof of capability to devleop WMD coupled with, according to the Duelfer report, intent? Absolutely.

If Obama wants to be taken seriously as our future Commander in Chief with sufficient savvy for national defense and national security as well as understanding of the war on terrorism, he would at least acknowledge that all that uranium could very likely have become a serious problem.

So now, you can be convicted of a crime on "intent?"