I don't read the Huffington Post often but this one caught my attention:
By cynically twisting Obama's comments about small town voters in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party, Hillary Clinton has adopted the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth. The question is, if she succeeds, what kind of Party will she be left to lead? She's burning down the village to save it -- or to prove that she would make the best fire chief. But the village won't be saved; only one house will be left standing. A house with room for just two occupants: Hill and Bill.
6 comments:
Well, they were just waiting for something...anything...to jump on him about after the Rev Wright thing...and they found it.
It won't do them any good and it really won't make any difference.
In politics, the clearer a statement, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification” when people react adversely to what was plainly said. Obama was merely being Obama. And his plain talk, albeit offensive to the right and standard fare for the left, is good. It clarifies and cuts through the fog of the media love-in to reveal what he’s actually been saying and doing for most of his life.
However inconsistent Obama’s words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He’s running as someone who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party and race, as well as solving our international problems with the sheer power of his charisma. Despite the throngs of adoring fans, there is not a crumb of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in his career. His voting record is the farthest left of anyone in the Senate and he’s sponsored no significant bipartisan legislation, nor any other significant legislation, for that matter. Senator Obama is just talk...fancy, exciting, confident talk, but still, just talk. And the talk and his associations are catching up to him.
I’ve heard ad nausea, how intelligent Obama is. An intelligent man cannot have a 30 second conversation with a radical like Jeremiah Wright or a terrorist like William Ayers and not know exactly where they’re coming from. And Obama most assuredly is a very intelligent man. So, please, let’s be clear, like Obama’s words. This race is not about unity; Obama will not be searching for a middle ground between his positions and that of the right. For Obama, this race is about change...and the change in store with an Obama Presidency is a change to a very radical ideology.
"Obama will not be searching for a middle ground between his positions"
Well, he will Dave, you just won't meet him there because you are still trapped in 2004 politics. So is Hillary Clinton for that matter. So were the supporters of Terri Bonnoff last Saturday and they got a pretty big dose of reality.
I was one of the people that made sure that she got it. The Democratic Party is not going to be the same anymore. This will be especially true if Obama gets the nomination. You can continue to mis -characterize him if you like but if you want to win in November, I would suggest a different approach.
OK, then...on which positions do you see Obama reaching a middle ground with the right and how do you see his position changing?
Iraq? Nope.
Foreign policy in general? Nope.
Taxes? Nope.
Abortion? Nope.
General social policy? Nope.
Waiting...waiting...waiting...where will the change in his position come?
McCain, as much as both you and I dislike him, can at least show bipartisan legislation to his credit.
"Iraq? Nope."
Actually, he favors leaving enough troops there to protect our embassy, hunt Al Qaeda, re-deploying troops to Afghanistan (the marines--as does their commander, last seen waving his arms and shouting...trying to get his commander in chief's attention, who was busy watching his 3 minute DVD summation of "all he really needs to know about the day's events")
He also favors increasing air strikes in Pakistan...where the people who attacked us on 9-11 actually are located. I think this covers the foreign policy question as well.
Oh, and I don't know if "middle ground" really applies when you are trying to distance yourself from a policy that emboldens our enemies and makes us weaker. I would hope that you, as a veteran, would agree.
"Taxes? Nope."
He favors rolling back tax cuts for the top 5 percent and cutting taxes for folks like you and I...unless you are in the top 5 percent these days...you should be happy.
"Abortion? Nope."
He has said all along that he is against unwanted pregnancy. You know as well as I do, dave, that means more sex education in schools. Abstinence doesn't work. Sorry to burst your bubble.
"General social policy? Nope."
He has already come out against gay marriage. Next?
"Waiting...waiting...waiting...where will the change in his position come?"
It's there if you want to see it. Try not to let your dogma trip you up on the way in.
"McCain, as much as both you and I dislike him, can at least show bipartisan legislation to his credit."
Well, yes and no. Yes, according to angry conservatives who consider him a traitor i.e. any transgression against our vill and you vill be sent to a very relaxing camp. Seig Heil!
And no, to reality, which shows him with somewhere between a 78% and 93% conservative voting record.
And I don't dislike John McCain personally...just his policies. I will say this, though.....for as much as I disagree with him he is a). qualified to be president; b). honest; c)intelligent; and d)a patriot.
Iraq: his redeployment ideas leave me cold. It’s rather akin to saying that the war in 1944 Germany was a distraction against the greater war on Nazism.
Taxes: I did my own taxes for the 1st time in about 6 years...I’m soooooo bitter right now. Democrat = taxes.
Your comments are terribly revealing, though. Why would taxation on another group make me happy unless I were looking to revel in the misfortune of others? Seriously, someone else has to pay more and that pleases you? That is the exact opposite of how I think. I’d much rather pull up the less fortunate than knock down the successful.
Abortion: talk, talk, talk; look at his record. He actually voted for a bill that (or against a bill that would have prevented) the killing of a newborn; ie, if the abortion was botched or something and the baby was alive outside the womb, he was ok that the baby be killed. He is not merely pro choice, he’s pro abortion and considers a child a “penalty”. I don’t even want to talk about it...that is sick, man.
No bubble to burst here...abstinence works every time it’s tried...just try getting a STD or pregnant without it...can’t happen, man. Look at the stats since sex-ed was pushed in schools...massive increase in unwanted pregnancy & STDs...numbers don’t lie. Of course people will still mess around, there’s no denying that, but shouldn’t they at least be provided information on the most successful method or preventing issues? Would it kill you to just mention it?
He’s against gay marriage like John Kerry was against gay marriage. Ask anyone and they’ll say, “oh, he’s just saying that to appease the middle class, but he’ll be on our side.” How’s his voting record there?
McCain: campaign finance reform and amnesty bills...I wasn’t in favor or either of those bills, but they are undeniably bipartisan. Irrefutable.
I have no idea what you’re talking about w/ the concentration camp comment...pinning leftist manifestations on the right just doesn’t fly.
Post a Comment