PREVIEW: Obama takes hits from all sides as Clinton seeks resurgence
US News
Mar 1, 2008, 7:20 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1 2
That is the pinnacle of ridicule;Bush saying that Obama lacks understanding of the Iraqi situation.Is it lack of shame that makes for such a reproach from the man that mishandled the foreign politics of the USA ?The whole Iraqi quagmire is riddled with failure to understand the complex reality of Iraqi politics.But who was in charge of the White House ,protecting Rumsfeld when it was already crystal clear to the entire world,minus the usual neocons of course,that continuing to apply a policy that yields no results will never produce ....results?So much for the pot and the kettle.
Just keep the faith, baby! There is nothing wrong with having a solid belief system, especially if it is the Evangelical faith, and only true one. It it way past time to be Rapture ready. Heretics and infidels will be vanquished to burn in hell during the coming armageddon. Only Evangelicals will survive, and be lifted to eternal life in heaven by Jesus, with one of the best and brightest evangelicals, George W. Bush right by his side. All the terrorists will be smitten, along with the rest of the cursed ones- the muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, confuscians, nativists, heathens, atheists, barbarians, misfits, and misc. riff raff. Everyone left will have the same faith based belief. That's when the war on terrorism will finally be won.
Sure....in a party where they will vote for withdrawl before they vote against it, why do you think they only define failure, and have no definition of success?
Since when has one democrat defined what success ever was supposed to be?
Never. Even in the face of running Al Queda out of Iraq, getting the parties dealing, violence about equal to Pakistan, they can hold up defeat because they can never define success.
The reason: They wanted Saddam gone and got either dumb ol GW or smart ol GW to do it for them.
Take your pick! You see, the dems are faced with this:
Either Bush hornswaggled half of them with the WMD thing, and they are actually dumber than him...
or
They decided to fund this war to get ol GW to clean up Saddam for them, after they languished for 8 years and failed to do so, and they got dumb ol GW to do it for them.
Take your pick. One thing is for sure, no dem ever defines success, because once they do, THEY will be stuck with it when they get into office. Then again, their sheeplike constituants seem to forget who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, don't they?
..just watch the Clintons take this from Barak...Can you imagine what the convention wil be like?
youtube.com/watch?v=8xtNr5-up0U
'A Clinton campaign commercial released Friday asked: 'It's 3 am and your children are safe and asleep ... who do you want answering the phone' in the White House?'
Do you want this guy:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
A dangerously naive, inexperienced fool who has already shown lousy judgment and corruption answering ANY phone other then the one that promises your Pizza in 20 minutes or less?
'The disarmament agenda he spews in this video is classic George Soros theory aimed at knocking America into a second-world country, putting us at grave risk to tyrannical regimes around the world.'
Hillary Clinton... has managed to force Obama to talk a little more specifically about policy. That apparently has cost Obama some ground, according to Rasmussen, although not so much against Hillary. His negatives have risen seven points in the last month, and now are ten points higher than those of John McCain:
Thirty-four percent (34%) of all voters say they will definitely vote for John McCain if he is on the ballot this November. Thirty-three percent (33%) will definitely vote against him while 29% say their support hinges on who his opponent is.
Barack Obama has the same number who will definitely vote for him--34%. But, more people are committed to voting against him than McCain. Forty-three percent (43%) say they will definitely reject him at the ballot box. For 18%, their support depends on his opponent.
For Hillary Clinton, 32% will definitely vote for her if she is on the ballot and 46% will definitely vote against. Core opposition to Clinton, the best-known of the candidates as the long campaign season began, hovered in the high 40s through most of the past year.
The excitement of Obama has not resonated across the political spectrum as once thought. While he has undoubtedly gained momentum among Democrats, it has slowed in the general electorate. He has only picked up five points in committed voters while gaining seven points among opposed voters and now has a negative balance.
John McCain, on the other hand, appears to have much more momentum than Obama. He has gained 12 points in the same period, while not adding any opposed voters at all. His balance is a +1, while Obama's is a -7.
The crosstabs show a few surprises. McCain actually does slightly better among younger voters (54%) than Obama (51%), and much better among seniors (44%, 24% for Obama). He does better in the 'Other' and 'White' ethnic categories, but Obama hasn't locked up as much of the black vote as he'll need. Only 60% say they will definitely vote for him, while 19% say they will definitely vote against him. McCain gets 9% of the black vote -- about what Republicans normally get -- but 37% will wait to see who runs against him, and another 8% aren't sure.
This data looks somewhat different than the media portrayals of a huge national movement coalescing behind Obama. It may be more likely that the activists have turned out in force for Obama, and that the enthusiasm we see now will remain limited to that subset on the Left.
www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017119.php
Greg Sheridan: “I think an Obama ascendancy could cause war in the Middle East.”
Add Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of the Australian, to the list of members of the foreign press who worry about a President Obama.
In a column in the Australian, “This is no time for a celebrity in the Oval Office,” Sheridan reasoned that far from calming the Middle East, a President Obama might trigger a a new Middle East war.
Sheridan joins Gerard Baker of the Times of London and Gabor Steingart of Der Spiegel in warning Americans that this is not Amateur Hour when it comes to foreign policy.
The civilized world looks to America for leadership and intestinal fortitude when it comes to standing up to evil — not fealty and Kumbaya when dealing with tyranny in the world.
Australia:
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286699-7583,00.html
'' is something a little weird about the Obama phenomenon. It's a bit like the Princess Di obsession. His is a candidacy of celebrity and identity. But we live in a world of celebrity and identity, and for a time the world probably would fall in love with president Obama.
At a deeper level, Obama's soaring rhetoric seems to serve no purpose beyond itself. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt used magnificent speeches to argue specific causes: ending slavery, defeating Nazism. Obama's cadences are superbly non-specific: 'Yes, we can!'
Nonetheless, Obama does have a record and it places him generally on the Left of the Democratic Party, although he has often used centrist and sometimes even hawkish rhetoric. But his closest advisers all come from the Left of the party.
[snip]
Iraq has faded as an issue because the US strategy there is now working. There is a real chance the US could prevail in Iraq. This is what Clinton was worried about when she earlier hedged her bets on Iraq. But Obama, playing not least for the Hollywood Bush haters, has left little room to manoeuvre as president on Iraq. A sudden US withdrawal from Iraq could be catastrophic for the Middle East, and for US standing generally. Obama is all over the place on foreign policy. He has threatened to bomb Pakistan to kill terrorists (imagine if Bush or McCain had said such a thing) but also to journey to Tehran to fix a grand bargain with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His rhetoric on foreign policy, apart from Iraq, is scattered, which is a sure sign that he's never given the matter any serious thought.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article341254 0.ece
The UK
Obama: is America ready for this dangerous left winger?
...And surely even critics of the US could scarcely deny that there have been real causes for American pride in the past 25 years: the fall of the Berlin Wall; the victory in the first Gulf War in 1991; the nation's unity in grief and resolve after September 11. Heck, I suspect most Americans got a small buzz of patriotic pride this week when they heard that one of their multimillion-dollar missiles had shot a dead but dangerous satellite travelling at 17,000 miles per hour out of the sky so that it fell harmlessly to Earth.
But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.
This, even by the astonishingly self-absorbed standards of politicians and their families, is a remarkably narrow view of what makes a country great. And though she later half-heartedly tried to retract the remark it was a statement pregnant with meaning for the presidential election campaign.
Now, to be fair to Mrs Obama, she would surely have a point if she had said that it was a source of incomparable pride to her and all African-Americans that in a country with a long and baleful history of racial discrimination, one of their own was within serious range of becoming president. All but the most irredeemably racist Americans would surely agree with that.
But that was not what she said. She said this was the only time in her adult life that she had felt pride in America.
It was instructive for two reasons. First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry.
Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.
There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.
But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point.
There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education. He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it. He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US. He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch.
While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.
Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article341254 0.ece
Dems like Obama because he's the same as Hillary...but He's NOT Hillary!
Think about it: Outside of the war, they are identical, politically. That being the case, why bother with the shrew?
So, who CARES who wins?
'So, who CARES who wins?'
I do. I believe Hillary would do less damage then Obama on the off chance either of them were elected. I honestly do not see how we can salvage things with either of them in power as we are heading for a series of daunting challenges that the country is just living in denial about.
Our national debt is huge yet we are talking about piling on more entitlement programs that will absolutely tank us.
Our economy is losing jobs yet we are talking about taxing cooperations out of the country.
Oil is at over $100 a barrel yet we are talking about abandoning the middle east to al Qaeda and Iran. Want to see what price oil goes for when the Strait of Hormuz is shut down? Additionally, we have idiots picking a fight with Canada over NAFTA which they would just LOVE to 'renegotiate' because we get most of our oil from them and they could get more for it elsewhere.
We are facing a resurgent Russia and China yet we have people talking about systematically disassembling our military.
I honestly can not begin to understand how anyone with enough intelligence to be able to put food in their own mouths could seriously consider either of them. However, I believe Obama would be the worse of the 2.
The only upside is that the damage caused by 1 term of Obama will kill off the far leftist, socialist mindset in this country forever. The down side is that it will be a much harsher country, with much diminished prospects, and much less standing because of it.
...their voting records are almost identical. That being the case, what are we to conclude other than Hillary is about the same as Obama. Both of them are running the playbook: Grievance.
Dems need this culture of grievance to succeed. They PASSED nafta in the 1990's and now pose as opponents of free trade. The sick part is that these constituents of their believe it.
So now they parade themselves in front of the unions as the enemy of Nafta, in an increasingly globalized world. Obama and Hillary are two peas in a pod: They pimp a 45 year old view of the world while the Bush's of this world get out the mop and bucket to clean up the slime these posers enabled for decades.
So who cares which one gets the nod?
My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 11:02 AM
Iraq continues to be a serious problem, and the Bush administration has done nothing but increase the problem and cause unnecessary deaths. It is a mess, but I have a solution: I would never have gone there.
The Iraq War will be a big problem to inherit, but it would not be if we hadn't have gone there. That's why that is my solution. People ask me, 'Won't leaving Iraq now be abandoning the Iraqi people?' Well, it wouldn't be abandoning them if we hadn't had gone there. 'What about a civil war?' others ask, to which I say there would be no civil war if Saddam were still in charge because we didn't go to Iraq. As you can see, not having gone to Iraq easily solves all these problems.
'I do have experience: Experience at not going to war.'
As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, I don't think they would be a problem if we hadn't had gone. Maybe they already were there and working with some support from Saddam, but I still think not having gone there is a risk worth taking. You may worry about all the terrorists there and whether they have intentions for attacking America, but you wouldn't if we hadn't had gone.
Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.
A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words for you: Hope. Change. The future.
That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, 'We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.'
Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator from Illinois who enjoys nap time and finger painting. He is running for president.
www.imao.us
'So, who CARES who wins? I do.'
So do I, but I have arrived at the opposite of your conclusion.
RE:'I believe Hillary would do less damage then Obama on the off chance either of them were elected. I honestly do not see how we can salvage things with either of them in power as we are heading for a series of daunting challenges that the country is just living in denial about.'
I agree, the challenges are here and they do threaten to overwhelm us. There is nothing new about that. Take a hard look at what happened during FDR's time. I believe that the Clintons would do far more damage than Barak Obama because they would likely stay in the White House for eight years. If someone slips too much cyanide into your food, you will throw it up before it can do too much damage. If, on the other hand, the use the right amount it will get into your bloodstream and kill you before anything can be done for you. I see no chance of Senator Obama being in office for more than four years. More importantly, I think he is far less likely to win the general election than current appearances would suggest.
RE:'Our national debt is huge yet we are talking about piling on more entitlement programs that will absolutely tank us.'
If we do not make changes to the 'entitlement' programs now in existence we are already tanked.
RE:'Our economy is losing jobs yet we are talking about taxing cooperations out of the country.'
What do mean 'we', Kimosabe? Both the Clntions and Senator Obama are talking about this, but not all of us and certainly not John McCain. Americans like to gripe about the big corporations, but most of the DO understand who gives them jobs and where their money comes from. There are two major causes for corporate migration. One is corporate taxes. The other, far more important cause is that our government has driven the true cost of labor out of sight in the United States. Both of these problems need to be addressed. Simply reducing corporate tax rates will not stop the hemorrhaging.
RE:'Oil is at over $100 a barrel yet we are talking about abandoning the middle east to al Qaeda and Iran. Want to see what price oil goes for when the Strait of Hormuz is shut down? Additionally, we have idiots picking a fight with Canada over NAFTA which they would just LOVE to 'renegotiate' because we get most of our oil from them and they could get more for it elsewhere.'
While I that simply abandoning Iraq is a horrific idea, we must face up to the fact that we are at war with Islam. The war with Islam is not, strictly speaking, a military fight, but a philosophical battle that we are ill-equipped to tackle. If we continue with our current strategy there will be serious bloodshed in the Middle East. So far, the bloodshed there has been relatively minor. The only military solution we have to this situation is too horrible to contemplate. The far better strategy is to start a crash program aimed at reducing the value of the region.
Many will complain loud and long about such a program, but what is the alternative? Do we keep fighting on the ground there until we rung out of nineteen year old recruits? Or do we resort to a truly murderous air campaign? The latter option would work, but no one will like the pictures that will come from it. Countries like Iran get away with their behavior because they are confident that we will never pull out all the stops.
RE:'We are facing a resurgent Russia and China yet we have people talking about systematically disassembling our military.'
I would not mind a 'resurgent' Russia or China, provided they had also made significant changes in their polities. Unfortunately, the changes in their polities are not for the better and both countries are economically resurgent owing in large part to our foolish belief in 'trade' as a panacea. I agree with you that we need a large and positively vicious military.
RE;'I honestly can not begin to understand how anyone with enough intelligence to be able to put food in their own mouths could seriously consider either of them. However, I believe Obama would be the worse of the 2.'
Why would Senator Obama necessarily be the worst of the two? I cannot follow you thinking on this point.
RE:'The only upside is that the damage caused by 1 term of Obama will kill off the far leftist, socialist mindset in this country forever. The down side is that it will be a much harsher country, with much diminished prospects, and much less standing because of it.'
I think the upside as you describe it would be well worth the price you suggest we would pay. Think about it. How hard could it possibly get compared to what will happen if we maintain our current course? We are headed down the same road all socialist countries have followed, with the only difference being is that we are doing it in half-steps.
Let's take our medicine and be done with it.
Stuff waiting in the wings:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article3466827.ece
snippet:'As a former friend and neighbour of Rezko, Obama was also a political beneficiary of the Syrian-born millionaire’s extensive fundraising operations. Central to the prosecution’s case against Rezko is a $375,000 (£187,500) payoff - called a “finder’s fee” - that is alleged to have been skimmed illegally from investment fees paid by the Illinois state teachers’ pension fund.'
There ain't no need for panic just yet.
'..the solution was to never have gone there in the first place...' Barak Obama (maybe?)
Too late for that old chestnut Senator.
Interesting, this man who says he's about the future and THAT was his response....
This is not everything I was hoping for, but politics is a game in which you take what you can get when you can get it. There will always be another chance for another grab:
www.exploremccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1 297872571ed.htm
I said that with Bush 2....
How's that working, so far....?
RE:'How's that working, so far....?'
Not nearly so well as any one of us would like. What else is new?
..not these candidates, that's for sure.
' I believe that the Clintons would do far more damage than Barak Obama because they would likely stay in the White House for eight years.'
I do not think they could get in in the first place.
'If someone slips too much cyanide into your food, you will throw it up before it can do too much damage.'
I get the analogy but the whole idea is to avoid getting poisoned.
'I see no chance of Senator Obama being in office for more than four years.
Never underestimate the potential of the average person to be had and had again.
' More importantly, I think he is far less likely to win the general election than current appearances would suggest.'
Less likely perhaps, but again he has a core of support that is very motivated. Hillary does not.
'If we do not make changes to the 'entitlement' programs now in existence we are already tanked. '
At this point, yes. A pity because it didn't need to come to that. Can you imagine adding more?
'Americans like to gripe about the big corporations, but most of the DO understand who gives them jobs and where their money comes from. '
Do they?
'The other, far more important cause is that our government has driven the true cost of labor out of sight in the United States. '
This is where I diverge from the 'free trade is always good' line of thinking. I don't think we should be giving completely equal access to companies that ship their industries overseas and assemble their products under inhumane conditions and taking advantage of currencies that are deliberately kept undervalued. To me those are unfair subsidies that should be addressed.
At the very least, the country of origin of every product that we buy should be printed on the price tag.
'we must face up to the fact that we are at war with Islam.'
I disagree. That is not a war that we want nor one hat we could win without engaging the enemy in a way that makes Genghis Kahn look like Mr.Rogers.
'ut a philosophical battle that we are ill-equipped to tackle.'
The 'philosophical battle' is one that we can win hands down. Time and time again people have chosen western, secularist, modernism over backward, abusive, dogmatic, totalitarian, soul crushing theocracy. That is basically why the islamists have pushed back so hard. They see their control, their absolute control being washed away on a wave of western pop culture and consumerism that their message of blind 'submission' to them couldn't begin to compete with.
'If we continue with our current strategy there will be serious bloodshed in the Middle East.'
I do not agree. (unless Iran nukes Israel or the Israelis launch a preemptive strike) Indeed, the situation in Sunni Iraq has provided insight in to how to deal with these thugs. After getting to know al Qaeda close up and personal the Sunnis were more then happy to switch over to the American alternative. What will be the lesson to the rest of the region if we just pack up and leave the Sunnis who have sided with us against aL Qaeda to be slaughtered by them? Anyone with a brain in their heads will see that Americans are fickle and can't be trusted. Al Qaeda will have demonstrated that they can out last us and that the only other alternative to them is a bullet in the head.
'The far better strategy is to start a crash program aimed at reducing the value of the region.'
It wouldn't be necessary (or even proper) if there were a viable alternative provided. Iran and Iraq were once relatively cosmopolitan countries, even when they were populated by 'Muslims'. When political islam came in and took over (via the Muslim brotherhood and the Iranian revolution and the Saudi Salafis/Wahabists.) the very first thing they do is to consolidate their control by perusing the old totalitarian methods of punishing individualism and independence of thought. Do that for a few generations and it becomes ingrained in their psyche.
'I would not mind a 'resurgent' Russia or China, provided they had also made significant changes in their polities.'
Their politics are predicated on taking on us.
'Why would Senator Obama necessarily be the worst of the two? '
It is a matter of degrees. As you have pointed out he is further to the end of the spectrum in most of his ideas. His policies are going to cost more. He wants to get them done faster. It is the difference between shooting yourself in one foot and figuring out that it hurts and shooting yourself in both feet at once before the reaction can set in.
'I think the upside as you describe it would be well worth the price you suggest we would pay.'
I actually see democracy as a battle of ideas. I would not like to see an overreaction towards the right any more then I want to see an over reaction to the left. In my perfect little world people would examine a problem and the consequences of their decisions and reason it out to the best of their ability then take action. I do not want people doing something because the 'right' tribe wants to beat the 'left' tribe or vice versa. I do not want to see the pendulum swinging toward the extreme on either side.
So no; capitulation to islamists and a collapsed economy for stifled creativity and a bunch of morality pests wagging their fingers, not to mention having to dig our way out of a much deeper mess is not the way I would like to put an end to the infantile streak in our society that seeks to replace individual responsibility with a nanny state. Ideally I could just mock them all to death on the internet. ;-)
'Let's take our medicine and be done with it.'
Remember your cyanide analogy?
page: 1 2
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: On Obama's election anniversary, Republicans claim victory
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (Roundup)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (3rd Lead)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (2nd Lead)
- Republicans take Virginia in first election test for Obama (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood shooting investigation turns to possible terrorism ties
- 2. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
- 3. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (2nd Roundup)
- 4. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (Roundup)
- 5. Senior US senator demands 'terrorism' probe into army killings
USA
Your Talkback on this Story