PDA

View Full Version : Denouncing All Wrights


Bloggingheads
04-30-2008, 10:00 AM

Rich
04-30-2008, 10:46 AM
So Mickey's wrong to associate himself with Ann Coulter because she used and "ethnic slur" [against a non-ethnic group, by this account], but Obama's okey-dokey because he only associates himself with someone who actually performed terroristic acts and only regrets not having done more? Mickey's right: that IS a principled stand, Bob. Bob is a wonderful example of the insulated academic mind, seemingly incapable of processing information that doesn't conform to its pre-existing notions.

tickknob
04-30-2008, 11:05 AM
Carpet bombing was a tatic developed by the RAF to support ground troops who were attacking entrenched posiions. It was used in Normandy and it worked. It also caused many friendly fire problems and was not used again. Nobody has carpet bombed anybody since.

graz
04-30-2008, 11:12 AM
Rich:
Quote:
"Bob is a wonderful example of the insulated academic mind, seemingly incapable of processing information that doesn't conform to its pre-existing notions."

Bob's case may be a bit precious. But Mickey's continued ruse of promoting guilt by association - while discrediting attempts to separate and begging for Obama to turn into an angry black man to satisfy his needs for gossip and fodder for democratic failure stinks no less than the PPP polls.

claymisher
04-30-2008, 12:20 PM
Yeah, I'm not even going to listen to this, looking at the topics. This is clearly going to be Mickey being a jerk full-time.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
04-30-2008, 12:20 PM
I'm not sure of the merit of arguing over what constitutes "carpet" bombing but for the record, what the U.S. did do in Cambodia:

Exceeding the World War II Payload



The data released by Clinton shows the total payload dropped during these years to be nearly five times greater than the generally accepted figure. To put the revised total of 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15,000 and 20,000 tons, respectively. Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history.

"The Bombing Database


"The still-incomplete database (it has several "dark" periods) reveals that from October 4, 1965, to August 15, 1973, the United States dropped far more ordnance on Cambodia than was previously believed: 2,756,941 tons' worth, dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites. Just over 10 percent of this bombing was indiscriminate, with 3,580 of the sites listed as having "unknown" targets and another 8,238 sites having no target listed at all. Even if the latter may arguably be oversights, the former suggest explicit knowledge of indiscretion.


"A single B-52d "Big Belly" payload consists of up to 108 225-kilogram or 42 340-kilogram bombs, which are dropped on a target area of approximately 500 by 1,500 metres. In many cases, Cambodian villages were hit with dozens of payloads over the course of several hours. The result was near-total destruction. One US official stated at the time, "We had been told, as had everybody . . . that those carpetbombing attacks by B-52s were totally devastating, that nothing could survive." Previously, it was estimated that between 50,000 and 150,000 Cambodian civilians were killed by the bombing. Given the fivefold increase in tonnage revealed by the database, the number of casualties is surely higher."

Quotes from "Bombs over Cambodia: New Light on U.S. Air War" by Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan

Japan Focus http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2420

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

DWAnderson
04-30-2008, 12:24 PM
BTW, the story with Hillary's cattle futures trades (see WP story here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm)) was that they appeared to be a mechanism for transferring $100K to her. The broker REFCO has a very shady history of allocating trades with the benefit of hindsight so that favored clients got better pricing. It would not surprise me if that is part of what happened here.

graz
04-30-2008, 12:56 PM
The comedy sketch at the end of the diavlog reinforces why Mickey has redeemable qualities. I think Bob wiggled Mickey into agreeing that some of the so called terrorism of the sixties helped to bring the war to an end. Which could allow one to argue that Mickey has come around to Wonderment's way of thinking... imagine that.

Joel_Cairo
04-30-2008, 01:08 PM
re: this comment (http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10652?in=00:48:01&out=00:48:10), I think the picture in question is this one. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg)

Boring Commenter
04-30-2008, 01:15 PM
Actually, Bill Ayer's wife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn) is also a terrorist who more or less got away with it due to prosecutoral misconduct. She's just not a publicity starved author, so doesn't say stupid things in public. Mr. Wright's broader point is correct, Obama's guilt by association here is nonsensical, but this shows his unfortunate habit of peddling his assumptions as knowledge.

The Dingalink (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10652?in=00:12:15&out=00:12:29). Watching it again, it's possible that he knows he's been lured out of his areas of expertise.

graz
04-30-2008, 01:17 PM
re: this comment (http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10652?in=00:48:01&out=00:48:10), I think the picture in question is this one. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg)

Another case of Bob giving Mickey material for his blog/innuendo/gossip mill.

Ooga-Booga
04-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Somebody has to: Bill is not the devil, or a vicious so-and-so. He may still be controversial, but not an a--hole.

look
04-30-2008, 01:41 PM
Another case of Bob giving Mickey material for his blog/innuendo/gossip mill.
It seems such a small thing to put your hand over your heart when running for president of the United States. Why would he make such a point of it?

Anyuser
04-30-2008, 02:34 PM
Speaking as an Obama supporter, I think he would have done well to wave the flag, to specifically contradict the most blatant anti-American statements by Wright. This would have been better than a display of anger. For a preview of the November election, compare Obama's reaction to Wright to McCain's ("he said the United State Marines are like the Roman soldiers that crucified our savior!"). The majority of voters, Democrats and Republicans, want a red, white and blue president.

Cain
04-30-2008, 02:46 PM
I tend to agree with Wright most of the time, and think Kaus is a knuckle-dragging, look-at-me-I'm-a-contrarian-Democrat-who-blogs-for-Slate, but Bob sometimes angrily overstates matters. I saw the clip where McCain, according to the media, loses it on the airplane at the detestable NYT reporter Elisabeth Bumiller. If this is the incident to which he refers, then no screaming took place. Now, you probably had to be there and know the guy's general attitude to truly feel the awkwardness and contempt in the cabin, but again, there was no screaming of any kind.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y2D_mhqDRBY

Anyuser
04-30-2008, 02:55 PM
I agree with pretty much all of what Bob says in principle on this topic (I disagree with his view that Saudi Arabia is even capable of modernization), but I would add another factor: it is usually not in our power to foster Western human rights in other countries. I would go further and say therefore we are not morally compelled to try.

Re Tibet, why are Americans supposed to care in the first place? Seriously. Just because Richard Gere and Sharon Stone think the Dali Lama is cute? How do we know China hasn't improved Tibet, and will continue to do so?

graz
04-30-2008, 03:23 PM
It seems such a small thing to put your hand over your heart when running for president of the United States. Why would he make such a point of it?

Giving that fuller consideration, I take your point. And at the risk of abusing the "context" notion, I simply can't know if it was premeditated? I agree that it would be a small thing and a go a long way towards embracing the sentiment of others. But, to be frank, I have attended too many basesball games and always was unsure and self-conscious about where to put my hands, hat, where to focus, etc... during the Anthem, let alone the pledge, which I only vaguely remember from elementary school. A civics course was not part of the curriculum.
About the pledge, I have advised my sons to think through the words if they are ever asked to recite it. They should let freedom reign, but be mindful of the implications.

graz
04-30-2008, 03:41 PM
I tend to agree with Wright most of the time, and think Kaus is a knuckle-dragging, look-at-me-I'm-a-contrarian-Democrat-who-blogs-for-Slate, but Bob sometimes angrily overstates matters. I saw the clip where McCain, according to the media, loses it on the airplane at the detestable NYT reporter Elisabeth Bumiller. If this is the incident to which he refers, then no screaming took place. Now, you probably had to be there and know the guy's general attitude to truly feel the awkwardness and contempt in the cabin, but again, there was no screaming of any kind.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y2D_mhqDRBY

You are correct. The unfairness and stupidity of some particular examples of a meme is evidenced by Bob's parroting of this example. I'm guessing that he is too busy to have vetted this particular case.
My point is that McCain's anger is a legitimate issue, but this cherry-picked case is far from conclusive and hardly yelling.
Just a tiny whack at the Bob Wright pedestal for me ... I believe he will survive this one though. On the other hand - Mickey championing the weather underground. Alert the media. Wink.

graz
04-30-2008, 03:50 PM
I agree with pretty much all of what Bob says in principle on this topic (I disagree with his view that Saudi Arabia is even capable of modernization), but I would add another factor: it is usually not in our power to foster Western human rights in other countries. I would go further and say therefore we are not morally compelled to try.

Re Tibet, why are Americans supposed to care in the first place? Seriously. Just because Richard Gere and Sharon Stone think the Dali Lama is cute? How do we know China hasn't improved Tibet, and will continue to do so?

And some of the Four Horseman are supportive of China.
http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/2008/04/christopher-hitchens-endorses-chinese.html

DoctorMoney
04-30-2008, 04:13 PM
So, since Bob totally botched his answer to Mickey's question about the White Folks' Greed charge, let me give a much less complicated shot at it.

Here's the quote:

"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, aprtheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere ... That's the world! On which hope sits."

So, the real question is: is this a wrong point of view, or merely outdated?
What Wright said has been true in his own lifetime. The man is 66! Of course that's been true.

Now, there's a whole other question of whether it is a useful observation, too reductive, leans on a rhyme instead of being rigorous and careful. And I'm assuming that everyone's going to come up with the same characterization. Reverand Wright is a sloppy thinker. The rhetoric is empty and slick. Totally non-illuminating.

But it sure as hell isn't non-factual. Which means it certainly can't be a slur, can it? A slur (blacks are lazy, jews are greedy, etc.) has to be a gratuitous mischaracterization. Those things are all manifestly untrue.

But any human being who lived in the 20th century is going to have to own up to the fact that White Greed, in fact, had an effect on our world. Again, it's reductive and simplistic and probably not a very helpful way of seeing things. But it's totally not a slur by any definition I've ever heard of.

otto
04-30-2008, 04:25 PM
Bob asks at 19.25: Is it seriously conceivable that the superdelegates will take the election away from a black man who leads in pledged delegates?

The answer is obviously: yes. The point about the politics of racial minorities is that the majority group tends to treat them poorly. So yes, the sort of politician who would have the election taken away from them in these circumstances is, indeed, a black man. No surprise at all.

piscivorous
04-30-2008, 04:56 PM
I guess the secret is out! There exists greed in the world and it's all whitie's fault. I guess that black greed , brown greed , yellow greed... don't exist, never have existed and if they did that wouldn't have been a problem nor would it be a problem today. So when members of one black tribe waged war on a another black tribe and then kept the captives as slaves that was OK. But sell them to the Spanish or Portuguese it was all the fault of the white man. Never mind that the whites weren't necessarily the only customers. There were other black tribes that bought or bartered for slaves, the Arabs and Persians were in this market too. May have been some Oriental customers to but that market wasn't very accessible. It was easier for the Orientals to get to get slave locally from the regional conflicts in their area.

graz
04-30-2008, 05:24 PM
I guess the secret is out! There exists greed in the world and it's all whitie's fault. I guess that black greed , brown greed , yellow greed... don't exist, never have existed and if they did that wouldn't have been a problem nor would it be a problem today. So when members of one black tribe waged war on a another black tribe and then kept the captives as slaves that was OK. But sell them to the Spanish or Portuguese it was all the fault of the white man. Never mind that the whites weren't necessarily the only customers. There were other black tribes that bought or bartered for slaves, the Arabs and Persians were in this market too. May have been some Oriental customers to but that market wasn't very accessible. It was easier for the Orientals to get to get slave locally from the regional conflicts in their area.

And your point highlights the limit of Wright's black lens. The issues he focuses on are not exclusive to the black community, but this would be his prerogative. Obama was handed another opportunity to distance himself and that is what he did. Was it masterful? No. Was it clear and concise? Yes. Will it close the talking points pipeline determined to project Wright's name?
Hell no.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 05:25 PM
But, to be frank, I have attended too many basesball games and always was unsure and self-conscious about where to put my hands, hat, where to focus, etc... during the Anthem, let alone the pledge, which I only vaguely remember from elementary school.

And, as noted, you are not running for president. It's a disgrace Obama didn't respect the anthem and the flag. Either way, it doesn't play well. Did Obama not know what he was supposed to? Did he know and refuse? This man wants to be president and he doesn't even know he's supposed put his hand over his heart during the anthem? I don't buy that. I think he refused to respect the anthem and the flag in the same way he said he "won't wear that pin."

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 05:28 PM
That's good advice. But Obama wasn't angry about his comments, he was angry that Wright couldn't shut up until after the election, like a good friend would do. He feels betrayed because Wright is hurting his campaign; whether or not he disagrees with any of Wright's insane musings is quite obviously secondary.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 05:33 PM
Hans:

It's a disgrace Obama didn't respect the anthem and the flag.

Almost no one puts his or her hand over the heart during the singing of the national anthem. There is no "supposed to" about it. The tendency to do so may have grown a bit in the past couple of years, but in all my visits to sporting events over the course of a fairly long life, about the only people I saw who put their hands over their hearts were those holding hats. Except for soldiers and cops, of course, who would hold a salute instead of removing their hats.

I also don't think not wearing a lapel pin is disrespecting the flag. I think I've said this before elsewhere, but I remind you that until very recently, it was considered disrespectful to render the Stars and Stripes in any way except as a flag or symbol on a government vessel.

The whole thing is ridiculous, anyway. This obsession over ritual and symbolism has nothing to do with how much someone respects what the flag stands for. It's like worshiping an icon, to the exclusion of living in accordance with a religion's teachings. Or being obsessed with a painting of a historical figure, while remaining ignorant of what that person did while alive. Or thinking "supporting our troops" begins and ends with placing a bumper sticker on one's car.

graz
04-30-2008, 05:33 PM
And, as noted, you are not running for president. It's a disgrace Obama didn't respect the anthem and the flag. Either way, it doesn't play well. Did Obama not know what he was supposed to? Did he know and refuse? This man wants to be president and he doesn't even know he's supposed put his hand over his heart during the anthem? I don't buy that. I think he refused to respect the anthem and the flag in the same way he said he "won't wear that pin."
You illustrate my point about confusion, the reference is the pledge not the anthem. And neither you or I know what he was thinking. Should he know the protocol? I guess... but for which - the anthem or the pledge? As you are welcome to buy it or not, let the facts inform your full impression - or not.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 05:39 PM
It seems such a small thing to put your hand over your heart when running for president of the United States. Why would he make such a point of it?

I don't think Obama "made a point" of not putting his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem. He is about my age, and I was not brought up to do this. When I am at a ballpark, it does not occur to me to do this, for example. It's during the Pledge of Allegiance, only, when I instinctively put my hand over my heart.

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 05:44 PM
I also don't think not wearing a lapel pin is disrespecting the flag.

In fact, I'd assert this unconditionally. The kind of "respect" indicated by this sort fetishistic treatment of overt symbols trivializes the issues it's supposed to highlight. Wearing pins, e.g., is easy. Upholding the ideals implicit in the symbols is the only way to show the sort of inherent respect that this kind of reflexive genuflecting glosses over completely.

The real test, in my opinion, is somebody's attitude toward the legal status of flag-burning. Enforcing outward demonstrations of "respect" for a symbol whose signal meaning is freedom is a perfect, ironic, denigration of that ideal.

piscivorous
04-30-2008, 06:01 PM
Perhaps this is also part of the picture that the good reverend cant see. Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. (http://books.google.com/books?id=tPIphu2kr9wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=black+slave+owners#PPA20,M1) Least you think it's a joke there is the actual U.S. census data , for South Carolina. But it's all fault of the white man's greed! I mean do we pay reparations to the descendent's of blacks that were slave owners?

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:01 PM
Almost no one puts his or her hand over the heart during the singing of the national anthem. There is no "supposed to" about it.

You are completely wrong. There is an established protocol on what to do and every other candidate on that stage at least covered their heart, observant and respectful of our anthem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo) Obama is the only candidate on the stage not to. Clinton, Richardson, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd all somehow were aware of this obscure factoid! Did you really not know you were supposed to cover your heart during the anthem? Really? You are also supposed to face the flag if one is present, which you will observe about half of the candidates (Dodd, Edwards, Biden) even take notice to that.

So, I ask once again, did Obama really not know what he was supposed to do (the only candidate not to know)? Or did he know and refuse? Neither scenario will sit well with the American people, especially combined with his wife's comments, his refusal to wear a flag pin, and his association with the anti-American Rev. Wright. It's not any single event, it's a consistent pattern from the Obama campaign, which projects at the very minimum an uneasiness with patriotism.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:06 PM
You guys just don't get the flag pin issue. Nobody cares if he wears or doesn't wear one. It's that he rejected wearing one out of hand which seemed so odd to people. Then he doesn't place his hand over his heart during the anthem. And his wife says she has never been proud of her country. And then the full extent of his friend and pastor's anti-Americanism becomes evident. Add. It. Up.

graz
04-30-2008, 06:08 PM
You are completely wrong. There is an established protocol on what to do and every other candidate on that stage at least covered their heart, observant and respectful of our anthem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo) Obama is the only candidate on the stage not to. Clinton, Richardson, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd all somehow were aware of this obscure factoid! Did you really not know you were supposed to cover your heart during the anthem? Really? You are also supposed to face the flag if one is present, which you will observe about half of the candidates (Dodd, Edwards, Biden) even take notice to that.

So, I ask once again, did Obama really not know what he was supposed to do (the only candidate not to know)? Or did he know and refuse? Neither scenario will sit well with the American people, especially combined with his wife's comments, his refusal to wear a flag pin, and his association with the anti-American Rev. Wright. It's not any single event, it's a consistent pattern from the Obama campaign, which projects at the very minimum an uneasiness with patriotism.

I disagree, a fair percentage (guessing just like you) of Americans are at peace with Obama's explicit expression of love for his country. Appearances matter, but not superficialities. Unless He claims otherwise, "we" are satisfied with his bona fides.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:10 PM
You illustrate my point about confusion, the reference is the pledge not the anthem.

That picture and video? No, it's the anthem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo) People circulated the picture saying it was during the pledge but it was during the anthem.

graz
04-30-2008, 06:12 PM
You guys just don't get the flag pin issue...
Add. It. Up.

I choose to subtract (-) your obsession with an ephemeral quality that you hope to resuscitate incessantly. The more you say it... the less I hear it. Even though I do believe your arguing in good faith.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:13 PM
Appearances matter, but not superficialities. Unless He claims otherwise, "we" are satisfied with his bona fides.

Normally, that'd probably be the case. But we're not talking about an isolated incident. Obama's wife says she's never been proud of her country. Add to that, Obama's friend, counselor, and pastor of 20 years screams "God Damn America" from the pulpit. His refusal to wear a flag pin or properly respect the anthem looks much worse in the broader context of his campaign and associates.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:16 PM
The more you say it... the less I hear it.

That's one way to deal with cognitive dissonance. =)

graz
04-30-2008, 06:19 PM
Normally, that'd probably be the case. But we're not talking about an isolated incident. Obama's wife says she's never been proud of her country. Add to that, Obama's friend, counselor, and pastor of 20 years screams "God Damn America" from the pulpit. His refusal to wear a flag pin or properly respect the anthem looks much worse in the broader context of his campaign and associates.

And now I would like to retrieve my last credit to you.
Michelle's comment - you mischaracterize and misquote.
Pastor - does not equal Obama.
Oh no , help me, I'm falling into the trap, My head is spinning from the back and forth.

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 06:24 PM
Conservative semiotics isn't the only lens through which this stuff can be judged. One of the problems most partisans is that we tend to confuse what we believe about the world with what's true about the world. You're characterizing various observation about Obama through a filter that some people share with you. But the test of strength of that point of view isn't your fervent belief; it'll be objectively tested through the election process.

In the meantime, I could say the same thing to you: you don't get it; there are a lot of people who don't share your view of events, either factually or in terms of their meaning.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:24 PM
Michelle's comment - you mischaracterize and misquote.

Um, no. She said it twice on the same day. "For the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country."

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 06:29 PM
One of the problems most partisans is that we tend to confuse what we believe about the world with what's true about the world. You're characterizing various observation about Obama through a filter that some people share with you. But the test of strength of that point of view isn't your fervent belief; it'll be objectively tested through the election process.

That's true. The test will come to see how he performs against McCain in a year that should be a sure win for Democrats.

I have a question for you, though. Do you think that Obama would be the nominee if people would have known about Rev. Wright one year ago? To the extent that Obama has been able to weather this and other controversies, it's because people are relucant to rethink their positions (and hopes and dreams, in the case of Obama).

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 06:32 PM
You guys just don't get the flag pin issue. Nobody cares if he wears or doesn't wear one. It's that he rejected wearing one out of hand which seemed so odd to people. Then he doesn't place his hand over his heart during the anthem. And his wife says she has never been proud of her country. And then the full extent of his friend and pastor's anti-Americanism becomes evident. Add. It. Up.

I'll add to graz's reply to say that I am aware that these things mean more to you than to me. I would ask that you try to understand where I am coming from -- that making a big deal about blind and lockstep reverence for a symbol is silly.

I think it's unfair to just say that Obama rejected wearing a lapel pin. You should bear in mind his thinking, which mirrors mine, which says that too many people think wearing a lapel pin is the end of it, just as too many people think sporting a bumper sticker on their cars is the end of it. I think Obama is also rejecting, as do I, this notion of people imposing these made-up purity tests. To say that Obama does not love America, its ideals, or even what The Flag (in a Platonic sense) stands for, just because he doesn't want to wear a piece of jewelry, is crazy. It also fails to consider what he's really saying: that many people (not you) who obsess about wearing this pin are hypocritical, since they have shown by their actions to be quite willing to trample on many of the ideals of the American way.

To toss in Obama's wife's remarks -- which I think you're misinterpreting, but won't argue about -- and his pastor into this discussion suggests to me that you just don't like Obama, and you're casting about for concrete reasons to justify your feeling. Nothing wrong with your not preferring him as a candidate, but I really hope these things that I see as trivial aren't really your whole basis for disliking him. There must be at least a thousand things more important to consider when evaluating a candidate. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

I maintain that Obama's love for his country his quite clear, and is made evident by reading his words, reviewing his actions and career choices, and looking at his policy positions. At base, someone who dislikes his country is hardly going to participate in the system the way he has, and is. I also maintain that one can love one's country without blindly applauding everything its current leaders happen to be doing at the moment, and that it's more than fair -- in fact, mature -- to recognize that America is not perfect, and could be made better. There is a tendency for all of us to give voice to things we don't like, but it's important also to remember that the much larger collection of things that aren't being mentioned are, in all likelihood, things we're happy about.

Wonderment
04-30-2008, 06:34 PM
I thank Bob for his thoughtful response to my question on human rights and for discussing my views on the Weather Underground as well.

Bob discusses two kinds of governmental action: rhetorical and economic pressure/sanctions.

He questions "rhetorical" involvement because he fears any moral judgment coming from the USA may be counterproductive. It's true that people in other countries resent US hypocrisy on human rights. And of course, nowadays, we are in no position to lecture other nations on subjects like torture. But that is just a tragedy of the Bush administration; such considerations shouldn't affect future policy.

President Obama, for example, would have a great bully pulpit to preach the message of racial/ethnic integration and to reduce tribalism around the world. President H. Clinton could be a wonderful advocate for women's rights.

Rhetoric has its limits, of course, and there are other diplomatic considerations that may, as Bob suggests, be paramount.

For example, Bob says that civilization may be in too much peril to make such a big deal of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. I agree that President Hillary should not spend all her time in Riyadh protesting the ban on drivers licenses for women. But she should make her feminist views abundantly clear to the Saudis. Pres. Obama needs to help Israel avoid nuclear war, but he also needs to make it crystal clear that an Apartheid regime in the West Bank is morally repugnant.

I am much more reluctant, however, to impose economic pressures and sanctions. I trust governments less when it comes to economic sanctions -- too many ulterior motives and too much potential collateral damage to real human beings. (The disastrous Iraq sanctions come to mind. On the other hand, if sanctions are coordinated with the victims of abuse as in the case of South African Apartheid, collateral damage to the population may be minimized. It's still tricky though.)

At the end of the day, human rights advocay needs to come from the grassroots and from the most prestigious and credible NGOs (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc.). But governments must help.

Think about our own human rights shortcomings. As an American, I want other governments to help us in our struggles. When a hundred nations or so protest our executions of prisoners, it moves us toward positive change (Note that the Supreme Court adopted "evolving standards" regarding the execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded, given international pressure). When other nations reject our policies on torture or gay marriage, it strengthens the resolve and the clout of our human rights organizations.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 06:45 PM
Wonderment:

First, congratulations on well-deserved recognition for your earlier comments.

A quibble about your most recent post:

It's true that people in other countries resent US hypocrisy on human rights. And of course, nowadays, we are in no position to lecture other nations on subjects like torture. But that is just a tragedy of the Bush administration; such considerations shouldn't affect future policy.

I'll go along with blaming Bush on the torture thing, but in just about every other area, the hypocrisy of the US on human rights goes much farther back. Whether one thinks the accusation of hypocrisy is/was justified, or is just how people in other countries see it, or even is just how they spin it, my point is that this reality is not all Bush's fault. It's been around ever since we've been a player on the world stage.

Overall: I am torn between your view and Bob's on this matter, in policy terms. I agree with you that ideals and principles are important, and sorely wish my country would do the right thing more often, even if it costs us something. But I also buy the view that Bob puts forth, that it can be counterproductive to the very goals we seek to put too much emphasis on something, or to insist upon too rapid a change. I don't like having to accept human suffering, but it often seems to be the case that trying to do something about it, at least with some approaches, just makes the suffering worse.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 06:46 PM
Um, no. She said it twice on the same day. "For the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country."

In the immortal word of Dick Cheney: "So?"

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 06:48 PM
Do you think that Obama would be the nominee if people would have known about Rev. Wright one year ago? To the extent that Obama has been able to weather this and other controversies, it's because people are relucant to rethink their positions (and hopes and dreams, in the case of Obama).

Regarding the first part of that I honestly don't know. I feel pretty strongly that it's a baseless, and mostly dishonest attack. That's not meant tendentiously, I just don't know how to subtract that feeling from my point of view well enough to step back to a neutral standpoint. To the second part, and stipulating my bias, I think that if Obama survives (and it's still hard to see how he doesn't, at least as far as becoming the nominee) it will have more to do with the chess game, with his skill as a player, than anything else. I tend toward the point of view that Wright has the most effect on people who were never likely to be strong Obama supporters. By definition, if those folks were willing to get behind him, they weren't that unlikely to rethink their positions in the first place.

handle
04-30-2008, 06:57 PM
So if that's doesn't fall under the definition of "carpet bombing", maybe we need a new term. How about "indiscriminate near mass destruction bombing".
I have always wondered, if that tactic of parallel destruction of a non combatant country, may have given the rest of the world the idea that the US was a little crazy, and extremely dangerous, and may have not only kept them at bay for many years subsequent, but contributed to the demise of the Iron curtain regimes. Or not...

I think I just gave a bizarre rationale for the invasion of Iraq.. ooops!

Of course that line of logic leads us to one of the most horrendous mass murders in human history, which, without the "not carpet bombing", probably wouldn't have happened.
Maybe this is actually a rationale for learning from history. If there is one thing I hope the "new and improved" politics can accomplish, that would be it... aside from successfully taking office of course.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 07:05 PM
In the immortal word of Dick Cheney: "So?"

So, she meant what she said (twice!) and she said she'd never been proud of her country in her entire adult life.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 07:15 PM
Regarding the first part of that I honestly don't know. I feel pretty strongly that it's a baseless, and mostly dishonest attack.

I can imagine a lot of far left people agree with Wright. But how is pointing out Wright's radicalism "dishonest"? And this isn't some tangential relationship, Obama attended this church for 20 years. His book title was inspired by one of his sermons. He described him as a friend, counselor, and a great leader. He married him and baptized his children. He often sought his political advice.

If McCain's pastor was a neo-Nazi, would that be a baseless or dishonest attack to point that out? No, no. I don't think you really mean it's dishonest. You just don't know what the big deal over Wright is, because most of his radicalism doesn't offend you. You would, I am quite sure, think it quite legitimate if McCain had a friend and pastor of 20 years who was an obvious racist. What the real point of difference is, I think, that you actually agree with a considerable portion of the "controversial" statements uttered or at least aren't particularly offended by them.

So, what I say is: Let the American people judge. Show them Rev. Wright and let them decide if his views were radical enough that Obama should have left long ago. Deep down you know that the vast majority of Americans (and Democrats) wouldn't attend a church like Wright's, and find it objectionable that it was in fact Obama's choice for the last 20 years, where he even brought his children to listen to Wright's hatred and lies. A lot of people might still vote for him. And he may even win the general election. But can we please dispense with the notion that the whole Wright issue is dishonest and illegitmate?

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 07:29 PM
I'll add to graz's reply to say that I am aware that these things mean more to you than to me. I would ask that you try to understand where I am coming from -- that making a big deal about blind and lockstep reverence for a symbol is silly.

The American flag is a "silly" symbol? The National Anthem is a "silly" symbol? Do you really believe that? If you do, I'm hopeful that you at least recognize that for Obama to say anything like that would be political suicide.

Anyuser
04-30-2008, 07:35 PM
In the immortal word of Dick Cheney: "So?"

This isn't about only your opinion. Hans Gruber is making a point about the electorate. The Republicans are going to beat Obama around the head and neck with Michelle's statement through the November election. The TV ads write themselves: "Do you want a first lady that is not proud of the United States of America?" If you're Obama's age, you must remember Dukakis. The first Bush beat him silly with arguments about the pledge of allegiance. Regardless of whether you and your ilk think it's silly, the Obamas are weak on going through patriotic motions, and I'm afraid it will hurt them in November. John McCain is a virtual Yankee Doodle Dandy.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 07:39 PM
The American flag is a "silly" symbol? The National Anthem is a "silly" symbol? Do you really believe that? If you do, I'm hopeful that you at least recognize that for Obama to say anything like that would be political suicide.

No. I meant the "requirement" that one wear a flag lapel pin, or hold one's hand in a specified position during the playing of the National Anthem, as though doing so, or not doing so, expresses the totality of one's feelings about America. That's what I meant by "silly."

It reminds me of being told that I'd go to hell if I didn't kneel at the right time during mass, when what should have been important to the scolder was that I was there in the first place, and what should have been even more important was how I was living in accordance with general Catholic principles.

Look, Hans, I think you're making too big a deal out of this, and I also think you're now at the point where you're being purposefully obtuse in reading and answering my comments. I know you're smarter than your last couple of responses would suggest. I think the obsession over these issues causes those (not just you) who can't let them go to miss many larger points, but I can't seem to get that sense across, so I'll say no more about it. Have the last word, if you like.

cragger
04-30-2008, 07:51 PM
Having attended a number of professional sporting events preceeded by the playing of a recording of the anthem I can offer an observational data point that of the hundreds of thousands of folks in attendance overall, the vast majority stood but neither held hands over hearts nor removed headwear. An obviously unscientific survey, but I would estimate well into the 90%+ range. Alas, I failed to gather data regarding the body parts nearest either hand at the time, being unaware of the importance.

Having been led to the light, I am eager to learn however just why one is "supposed to" do so, and what the correlation is between the performance of such arbitrary rituals, and belief in and adherence to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Indepdance and the Constitution.

ps. Is it more patriotic to wear 13 pieces of flag jewelry or 50?

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 07:56 PM
No. I meant the "requirement" that one wear a flag lapel pin, or hold one's hand in a specified position during the playing of the National Anthem, as though doing so, or not doing so, expresses the totality of one's feelings about America. That's what I meant by "silly."

If those symbols are not silly, then shouldn't he treat them with the respect and formality that they deserve (especially as a presidential candidate)? And nobody ever said that his strange aversion to public displays of patriotism represents the totality of his feelings about this country. But they are absolutely an indication of what feelings he may have. I take issue with your implication that I'm playing dumb and I think it's revealing how you feel about patriotism. Many liberals view patriotism as the vice of the dumb and uneducated. So to point out Obama's aversion to patriotic displays is to mark one as dumb and uneducated.

Maybe I'm a wild-eyed yahoo, but I think our president should be proud of his country, proud enough that he (or she!) doesn't shrink from showing that affection by paying proper homage to the symbols that represent it.

Bobby G
04-30-2008, 07:58 PM
I certainly don't think there's anything unpatriotic about refusing to wear a flag lapel pin. However, a (I imagine) large segment does see wearing one as a kind of respect. You might think that this is silly, no one thought so in the past. But look: that's the past; nowadays, a lot of people think wearing this symbol is important, at least for politicians. It's like any other ritual. If you grew up in a time when shaking hands started to become a way of greeting another, but you thought the practice was not only unnecessary for greeting others, but also unhygenic, and so refused to shake hands, you could see why people would be offended, wouldn't you?

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 08:08 PM
But how is pointing out Wright's radicalism "dishonest"? And this isn't some tangential relationship, Obama attended this church for 20 years. His book title was inspired by one of his sermons. He described him as a friend, counselor, and a great leader. He married him and baptized his children. He often sought his political advice.

Firstly analogizing Black Liberation Theology with Nazism, or even with White Supremists doesn't constitute a valid argument. When Wright and his cohorts are in a position to do more than rant, then there might be cause for worry. BLT may be be rhetorically over-the-top, but in historical context doesn't seem disproportionate to what it reacts to.

I don't have a problem with pointing out Wright's "radicalism." I'd argue that, as a reportedly doctrinaire preacher of a message that's pretty common throughout urban black churches, that "radical" isn't a very good adjective, but I'll happily allow that the message is shocking to most white folks. My understanding of Chicago politics suggests that an ambitious black pol like Obama is pretty wise to associate with such a church. There's no evidence that Obama holds any of wackier ideas in BLT within his own beliefs. In fact his background generally argues otherwise. There's plenty of evidence that Obama likes and respects Wright - but, so what? The dishonesty is about cherry-picking a couple of details from a larger history, and ignoring all of the evidence contradicting the politically useful conclusions drawn from that. As part of a balanced picture of somebody, the details are important. When only the details instrumental in advancing a cynical portrait of the guy are repeatedly hammered without even an acknowledgment of the complexity of the actual picture, then it's dishonest.

graz
04-30-2008, 08:14 PM
proper [/I]homage to the symbols that represent it.

Returning after dinner... I wish to express my respect for your intelligence. And I wish I could more clearly express my unsympathetic attitude towards this idea of reverence for symbols. I find it comforting to latch on to the evo-psych model of temperament by design. My best illustration is that even though my parents sent me to church and modeled properly - it just didn't stick. So regardless of the majority rule or inclination, I ain't buyin' it.
But I really do respect your reverence for it, except when it bleeds into your litmus test for electability.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 08:18 PM
Bobby:

If you grew up in a time when shaking hands started to become a way of greeting another, but you thought the practice was not only unnecessary for greeting others, but also unhygenic, and so refused to shake hands, you could see why people would be offended, wouldn't you?

Good point. On the other hand, I do know people who do not shake hands for this very reason, or because they come from a different background, and I am not put off by it. I would say it startled me the first couple of times I heard the cultural explanation, and I think it borders on hypochondria for anyone with a normal immune system to play the hygiene card, but in neither case do I think less of a person overall for preferring not to participate in this ritual.

So, yes, I can see why other people might be offended, at first, but I would also say that if they heard the reasons why someone didn't want to shake hands, and refused to move past this, and the person who didn't want to shake hands displayed other signs of warmth and respect, then I'd say those people were being silly, too.

So, in the flag pin case, if the only thing you knew about Obama was he didn't want to wear a lapel pin, that'd be one thing. But given that there is so much other information available to use in judging how he feels about this country, I think it's ridiculous to let the lapel pin thing outweigh all the rest. It's myopic to do so, and suggests a lack of understanding of the importance of all the other issues that we face.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 08:21 PM
Firstly analogizing Black Liberation Theology with Nazism, or even with White Supremists doesn't constitute a valid argument. When Wright and his cohorts are in a position to do more than rant, then there might be cause for worry.

White supremacists in America are utterly without power or influence. So I guess we'll let them slide from now on? The idea that racism is only racism if there's power behind is just stupid. Racism from any group can do plenty of damage whether or not a majority agrees or condones that racism. Is it a fair comparison? Here's James Cone, founder of BLT:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

And isn't David Duke a fair comparison to Farrakhan? Wright's church has given Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award, saying that he "epitomized greatness". If McCain's church of 20 years gave Duke an award, would it be a legitimate issue?

I don't have a problem with pointing out Wright's "radicalism." I'd argue that, as a reportedly doctrinaire preacher of a message that's pretty common throughout urban black churches, that "radical" isn't a very good adjective, but I'll happily allow that the message is shocking to most white folks.

I consider it an insult to impute the black community generally with the beliefs of Wright, though it's obviously true that Wright's views are more common among blacks than whites. I'd imagine you have some sympathy for Wright's contention that an attack on him is really an attack on the black church?

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 08:28 PM
But given that there is so much other information available to use in judging how he feels about this country, I think it's ridiculous to let the lapel pin thing outweigh all the rest.

But all that other information doesn't vindicate him. His wife's comments. His association with Rev. "God Damn America" Wright. His previous avowed radicalism. His coziness with former domestic terrorists. You have got to acknowledge that there is a whole lot of questionable behavior and associations in his past. It's not like people are freaking out about a flag pin and nothing else. The flag pin issue (admittedly the smallest gaffe in those listed) reinforces an impression which is well supported.

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 08:32 PM
White supremacists in America are utterly without power or influence. So I guess we'll let them slide from now on? The idea that racism is only racism if there's power behind is just stupid. Racism from any group can do plenty of damage whether or not a majority agrees or condones that racism.

Context matters. My argument isn't just that they have no power, but that I can't blame people for an imperfect reaction to the enormity of institutionalized racism and slavery. They get some slack, because they deserve our sympathy and respect, Farrakhan notwithstanding. Nazis and White Supremacists don't.


I'd imagine you have some sympathy for Wright's contention that an attack on him is really an attack on the black church?

I'd say he's pretty good at self-promotion.

graz
04-30-2008, 08:36 PM
[QUOTE=hans gruber; But all that other information doesn't vindicate him. [/QUOTE]

But he doesn't need vindication.
For what and from whom?

look
04-30-2008, 08:37 PM
Giving that fuller consideration, I take your point. And at the risk of abusing the "context" notion, I simply can't know if it was premeditated? I agree that it would be a small thing and a go a long way towards embracing the sentiment of others. But, to be frank, I have attended too many basesball games and always was unsure and self-conscious about where to put my hands, hat, where to focus, etc... during the Anthem, let alone the pledge, which I only vaguely remember from elementary school. A civics course was not part of the curriculum.
About the pledge, I have advised my sons to think through the words if they are ever asked to recite it. They should let freedom reign, but be mindful of the implications.

Well, as far as I know, it's standard practice to place your hand over your heart during the Pledge, and many people do during the Anthem. But the picture is of the Pledge, and I'd say it'd have to have been a conscious decision, and it seems politically unsound...just one more thing to explain. He's got his base. It's the swing voters he needs to impress.

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 08:41 PM
I'd say it'd have to have been a conscious decision, and it seems politically unsound...just one more thing to explain.

I dunno. Most people learn about this stuff in grade school. It's at least plausible that the detail escaped his notice. I can say that in my adult life, this might be the second time the placement of somebody's hands in this context has come up.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 08:41 PM
I think that picture is mislabeled. It's the anthem. Youtube video of it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo)

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 08:44 PM
look:

But the picture is of the Pledge ...

No. It isn't. If we're thinking of the same picture (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html), it was taken while the National Anthem was being played.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 08:48 PM
Anyuser:

... going through patriotic motions ...

My point exactly.

I am not trying to say that other people don't place more importance on these things than I do. I am just saying I don't, and I think people who do are ignoring more important considerations. But, you're right. The voters will decide in the end.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 08:53 PM
So, she meant what she said (twice!) and she said she'd never been proud of her country in her entire adult life.

Again, I say, so? To me, she's not the one running for president. Also, I think she has a right to say how she feels. Also, I think a black woman has considerable justification for saying so.

If this is what you're basing your vote on, so be it. But I maintain that you weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. That's another reason why I say "so?" And the final reason is this: no matter how much you harp on this and the other trivialities, it's not going to change my mind that Obama is the best choice.

Again, I'll let you have the last word on this.

look
04-30-2008, 08:56 PM
Thanks, Hans and Brendan. The first pic I saw in this thread had it labeled Pledge. And the Anthem is indeed optional.

But, Jeff, come on, kids say it every school day for twelve years. I don't think anyone forgets the hand on heart thing. And he was born around 1964. In those days, it wasn't an option.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 08:59 PM
The first pic I saw in this thread had it labeled Pledge. And the Anthem is indeed optional

Not really. But, yeah, you're not going to be thrown into the gulag for not doing it the proper way.

look
04-30-2008, 09:03 PM
Not really. But, yeah, you're not going to be thrown into the gulag for not doing it the proper way.Are you saying it's 'required' during the Anthem? Because that's not my understanding. But you do need to stand take your hat off.

hans gruber
04-30-2008, 09:10 PM
Well, it's not required. As a private citizen he can do whatever he wants. But, yes, it's supposed to be done. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/36/subtitles/i/parts/a/chapters/3/sections/section_301.html)

Section 301. National anthem

(a) Designation. - The composition consisting of the words and
music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing. - During a rendition of the national
anthem -
(1) when the flag is displayed -
(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at
attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;
(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with
their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder,
the hand being over the heart; and
(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at
the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until
the last note; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face
toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the
flag were displayed.

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 09:10 PM
Thanks, Hans and Brendan. The first pic I saw in this thread had it labeled Pledge. And the Anthem is indeed optional.

But, Jeff, come on, kids say it every school day for twelve years. I don't think anyone forgets the hand on heart thing. And he was born around 1964. In those days, it wasn't an option.

He was about ten when he returned to Honolulu from Jakarta. And assuming we're discussing the Anthem - I'm only a couple of years older than Obama and I honestly don't remember too many events that included it after early grade school. Granted, I wasn't much into sports, there's a lot I might have missed in that regard.

bkjazfan
04-30-2008, 09:35 PM
Has anyone read "Prairie Fire?" When I lived in San Francisco in the 70's I spotted a few people reading it. I think it's a Weather Underground equivalent to the militia's "Turner Diaries." Sort of a manual for civil insurrection or something like that.

John

Anyuser
04-30-2008, 09:36 PM
Again, I say, so? To me, she's not the one running for president. Also, I think she has a right to say how she feels. Also, I think a black woman has considerable justification for saying so.

Jesus god. And people wonder how the Democrats could lose to Bush twice. Brace yourself for President McCain.

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 09:45 PM
Well, it's not required. As a private citizen he can do whatever he wants. But, yes, it's supposed to be done. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/36/subtitles/i/parts/a/chapters/3/sections/section_301.html)

I thought conservatives were against needless laws.

handle
04-30-2008, 09:55 PM
If the righties (not Wrighties) are smart, they will vote for us, so they can say the chaos caused by leaving Iraq was all on those "cut and run" elitist lefties.
and we won't have to "not carpet bomb" Iran.
Plus, they can blame the economy on Bill Clinton or Hillary, or Barack, or Paulie Shore.
Or maybe no one will listen to the buck-stops-over-there baloney.

look
04-30-2008, 10:18 PM
Hans, Jeff, Brendan...very interesting. But I did think we were talking about the Pledge at first, so, apologies.

Yes, Jeff, he wouldn't have been as thoroughly indoctrinated.

Watch your Ps and Qs, Brendan, Jeff, Graz...I'll sneak up on you when you least expect it and perform a citizen's arrest.

(There's a lot of old people around here ;-) )

AemJeff
04-30-2008, 10:23 PM
Watch your Ps and Qs, Brendan, Jeff, Graz...I'll sneak up on you when you least expect it and perform a citizen's arrest.

(There's a lot of old people around here ;-) )

Just don't get within walker-swinging range, look!

gigyoung
04-30-2008, 10:37 PM
I do appreciate an honest man. So few progressives and liberals want to mention "white greed". They like to dance around and touch on it, bu they seldom come right out and say it.

So tell me, what makes greed "white"? Or is it not so much that greed is "white" but that white people have a special kind of greed, sort of like anti-Semitism, that they carry through the generations like some racial blight. And when do you figure that the little white babies begin to display this taint? Or is it something else?

Now that white people accept their innate evilness and have decided to go extinct, do you consider their atonement complete? Does extinction justify them? Or should they do something more?

My now-sterile sister, for example, studied nursing late in life so she could take care of indigent little brown and black babies in rural Colorado rather than have her own. As a white socialist and feminist, she recognized on a fairly deep level that her own offspring were tainted somehow.

I do appreciate your honesty and willingness to talk about something that most black folks, (and especially Obama) like to pretend they do not really believe down deep in their heart of hearts.

look
04-30-2008, 10:40 PM
Just don't get within walker-swinging range, look!

Well, maybe we could have a walker race...I'm three years older than Obama. Sigh. (I just checked, he was born in 1961.)

Wonderment
04-30-2008, 10:41 PM
I'll go along with blaming Bush on the torture thing, but in just about every other area, the hypocrisy of the US on human rights goes much farther back.

I agree. It has never been easy for the US to preach human rights. Slavery, segregation, Hiroshima anyone? Still, better to speak up than shut up, even at the risk of being open to charges of hypocrisy.

I lived in Latin America during the Carter (and Reagan) administration(s), and Carter's rhetoric about human rights was greeted with widespread skepticism, even scorn, among the Latin American intelligentsia. People were all too familiar with the infamy of US support for dozens of brutal dictators, torturers and sundry imperial enterprises. Journalists made fun of Carter's goofy Spanish accent (he actually speaks Spanish quite well), his folksy religion and his roots in the Deep South. But guess what? He was serious and he backed up the rhetoric with policy changes and support for real reform. His record wasn't perfect, but it made a difference, and not all of it could be undone, not even by the worst thugs of the Reagan administration.

__________________

bjkeefe
04-30-2008, 11:12 PM
Wonderment:

Yes, Carter was a good president in that regard, and continues to be a force for human rights. It says a lot about the US that he became so unpopular during his presidency and continues to be a figure of derision and controversy among so many, particularly on the right, while Reagan is practically a saint to these same people.

Whatfur
04-30-2008, 11:40 PM
Sorry kids, but I still disagree vehemently with the concept that the violence perpetrated by terrorists like Ayers and his ilk added anything to either the shortening of the war or the reduction in the loss of life. Peaceful (even loud) demonstrations turned some rational heads in that direction , but I would argue, as others have...(see my quotes in response to Wonderment's previous offing) that the violence turned most of the American public to further disgust with even non-violent demonstrators... actually negating some of the war-ending affects they had started to achieve. I would further argue that the disgust with what happened then has carried through to the inability of the anti-war crowd today to gain any kind of footing.

And life saving??? Come on Bob!! If you want to make that weak of an argument then I would counter that success in Vietnam would have saved millions of lives in Cambodia and Vietnam. You know, lives killed by militant communists which is exactly who the Weathermen were throwing in with.

And the only reason Ayers can make ANY kind of statements about his terrorism without the loss of life is because they were such screw ups that when they were getting ready to actually kill people at a military dance at Dix they blew themselves up. Not to forget that the Brinks job killing were former Weatherman people as well as a graduate student killed in Wisc by the SDS using the same tactics.

This group was made up of a bunch of doped-up pukes whose roots were not just anti-Vietnam war, but anti-American. There is like 430 pages of FBI documents on this gang of sleezeballs, their communist (Cuba an more) connections and their classic one-world communist BS.

So yeah, feel free to prop up Wonderment to ease his naivety brought on by obvious problems dealing with his own service, but don't prop up this failed gang of communist thugs and murderers as positive forces to ending the war.

p.s. I found it funny my 'F U' was removed when far worse was left behind, but I guess those 2 letters did carry some punch. ;o)

p.s.s I too was a vegetarian for 4 years in my college years and beyond and I too had developed the illusion that nothing could be better than tofu and such until I was invited for dinner at my new employers home and he served prime rib without knowing my persuasion...and...well the rest is history and now when I meet vegans and such I generally point to my canine teeth and let them know they are not there to tear arugula.

p.s.s.s. And Wonderment, Hiroshima...Do you have any idea what the Japanese were in the process of doing in China during that time period...They have no moral high ground.

rgajria
05-01-2008, 12:18 AM
01 May, 2008
“An Irrevocable Break”

Andy Borowitz is at his best here:

In an act that campaign insiders said indicated an irrevocable break with his former pastor, Sen. Barack Obama today de-friended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Facebook.[...]

At a press conference in Gary, Indiana, chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said that Sen. Obama had to de-friend the Rev. Wright on Facebook “because he was getting really annoying.”

“Every day, Rev. Wright was sending Sen. Obama new Facebook applications like ‘What Superhero Are You?’ and ‘What 1980’s Toy Are You?’” Mr. Axelrod said. “After awhile, enough is enough.”

I love the way the piece ends.

(Link via email from Salil.)

Digg This! • Subscribe to this feed • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

Posted by Amit Varma in Politics

hans gruber
05-01-2008, 12:21 AM
I found it funny my 'F U' was removed when far worse was left behind.

They moderate content on this forum (beyond removing malicious links and spam and whatnot)?

Markos
05-01-2008, 01:57 AM
Here's what I think happened in the silly flag non-salute "issue." Obama stood in front of Richardson. Richardson saluted the flag, but Obama didn't see him saluting. Hillary stood behind Richardson. Hillary saw Richardson saluting and she then also saluted. If Obama had known that the other two were choosing to salute the flag, I think Obama would have saluted. That choice to salute the flag is completely optional and oftentimes an unnecessary formality.

Wonderment
05-01-2008, 03:51 AM
So yeah, feel free to prop up Wonderment to ease his naivety brought on by obvious problems dealing with his own service,

¿Puedes decir eso en inglés, por favor?

p.s. I found it funny my 'F U' was removed when far worse was left behind, but I guess those 2 letters did carry some punch. ;o)

Don't taz me, bro!

p.s.s.s. And Wonderment, Hiroshima...Do you have any idea what the Japanese were in the process of doing in China during that time period...They have no moral high ground.

Ba-ba-ba-Japan.

Whatfur
05-01-2008, 06:29 AM
Another wake up call from the ba-ba-ba Weathermen...

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.] ...the rest from the source (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html)

Also as mentioned earlier, even the Panther's wanted nothing to do with these wannabe scumbags. So yeah, pin a star on this group in hopes that the "glow" on Obama is a warm one. More examples of wise choices by followers of the "Bad Judgement" candidate.

"Buscan la paz por el fuego". Usted señor es un hipócrita que arde.

johnmarzan
05-01-2008, 08:26 AM
hillary is one upping barack by also appearing on fox's oreilly after obama's interview with chris wallace.

Ooga-Booga
05-01-2008, 01:41 PM
Just get Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn on BHTV to dialovlog with someone!!

piscivorous
05-01-2008, 01:46 PM
Yea and Mr Wright would be the fair and impartial interviewer I suppose?

Ooga-Booga
05-01-2008, 02:06 PM
Just have him on. It doesn't matter who he talks to.

AemJeff
05-01-2008, 02:13 PM
Yea and Mr Wright would be the fair and impartial interviewer I suppose?

Are you suggesting that he's ever been unfair to a BHTV participant? When?

Bloggin' Noggin
05-01-2008, 02:28 PM
Well, maybe we could have a walker race...I'm three years older than Obama. Sigh. (I just checked, he was born in 1961.)

I'm younger than Obama -- but I won't say how much...

DoctorMoney
05-01-2008, 02:31 PM
I do appreciate an honest man. So few progressives and liberals want to mention "white greed". They like to dance around and touch on it, bu they seldom come right out and say it.

So tell me, what makes greed "white"? Or is it not so much that greed is "white" but that white people have a special kind of greed, sort of like anti-Semitism, that they carry through the generations like some racial blight. And when do you figure that the little white babies begin to display this taint? Or is it something else?

Now that white people accept their innate evilness and have decided to go extinct, do you consider their atonement complete? Does extinction justify them? Or should they do something more?

My now-sterile sister, for example, studied nursing late in life so she could take care of indigent little brown and black babies in rural Colorado rather than have her own. As a white socialist and feminist, she recognized on a fairly deep level that her own offspring were tainted somehow.

I do appreciate your honesty and willingness to talk about something that most black folks, (and especially Obama) like to pretend they do not really believe down deep in their heart of hearts.

Hey, if you wanna go way over the top and way past anything I've said, feel free.

Hell, we all should know that race is a complete social construction, and not much more real than ether, or social darwinism, or phrenology, or any other discredited theory.

So let me repeat: by the commonly understood definition, white people's greed has historically had a role in exacerbating the suffering of blacks. Exclusively? No. But if you want to refute this most unbelievably basic fact of human history, be my guest.

Just because your family has done nice things recently doesn't mean you get to pretend that history happened some way other than how it did. We're not talking about you personally, we're talking about how the world has been through much of the 20th century.

I don't think saying that White Greed (or European greed? Or 1st world greed?) is at all a slur. It is a part of the story, and it's nutty to say otherwise, even if you yourself believe that race, as commonly understood, is a myth.

Happy Hominid
05-01-2008, 02:35 PM
...for being a cut above in the area of intellect. He should be disheartened by this comment thread. I have just wasted 10 precious minutes of life to read the back and forth on flag pins and salutes. Even Bob and Mickey fall victim to it, so I guess I can't blame you people. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad than some people took the time to point out what absurdity this non-issue is (and I say non-issue well appraised of the fact that it's major news). It's very discouraging, but I blog on....

deebee
05-01-2008, 02:57 PM
Hans Gruber: Do you think that Obama would be the nominee if people would have known about Rev. Wright one year ago? To the extent that Obama has been able to weather this and other controversies, it's because people are relucant to rethink their positions (and hopes and dreams, in the case of Obama).

When Wolf Blitzer rrecently asked influential black South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn if the primary winner will be determined by the final Delegate count, he replied -- not necessarily -- it will depend on a variety of factors including popular vote, electability issues, polls, etc. Since Clyburn has been quite critical of the Clintons (especially Bill) I was surprised to hear him say this.

I believe that this reflects the Dem's realization that the start of the primary was a long time ago and a lot has happened since then and a lot may still happen -- as a result many of them are still playing the wait-and-see game.

uncle ebeneezer
05-01-2008, 03:12 PM
Here's one thing I have never understood about the Patriotism thing. Republicans place a high importance on Patriotism, the flag, the pledge, the anthem, flag-lapels etc., etc. Fine. I don't. They are just symbols to me. I love America and try to do my best to make America great in whatever small way that I can. I support our troops by telling them they are heros and thanking them for their service when I see them, and voting for benefits increases for them as payment for their honorable duty. If my governement does something that I think is wrong (like torture "enemy combatants") I speak out about it. This is my version of Patriotism. So some people salute the flag and others burn it. Some people put "support the troops" stickers on their cars, and others demonstrate to try to bring the troops home alive. Nobody has the moral high-ground on Patriotism. It is extremely relative. But I respect that other people DO think the anthem, pledge are important and I don't hold that against them. I just reserve the right to disagree on the importance of such symbolic gestures and expect to have these people grant me the lattitude for my own interpretation, just as I grant them theirs. Different strokes, ya know.

So here's the thing that always gets me. Our government doesn't have a draft currently. The ONLY way that our country asks us to "give back" to America is through paying taxes. And yet the flag-wavers are often the most ardent opponents of the one service the government asks from us. Indeed they base much of the foundation of their ideology around the ideal of minimizing taxation (which theoretically would lead to a nirvana scenario where Americans give NOTHING back.) And yet Liberals are the ones branded as un-patriotic because we don't want to pass flag burning amendments (except for Hillary ;-)

Eastwest
05-01-2008, 04:06 PM
When Wolf Blitzer rrecently asked influential black South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn if the primary winner will be determined by the final Delegate count, he replied -- not necessarily -- it will depend on a variety of factors including popular vote, electability issues, polls, etc.

Since Clyburn has been quite critical of the Clintons (especially Bill) I was surprised to hear him say this.

I believe that this reflects the Dem's realization that the start of the primary was a long time ago and a lot has happened since then and a lot may still happen -- as a result many of them are still playing the wait-and-see game.

There's a phrase for this: "Buyer's Remorse." There's a silent plague of it sweeping through Obama- Dem voters over thirty and also among those under thirty (such as my son) who now realize Barack can't win and so are reluctantly psychically peeling away, wondering how the hell all this came down.

EW

Tao Jones
05-01-2008, 05:10 PM
I was starting to think, isn't the horse race trend playing into spinsters who don't want the discourse to be issues? Then I realized we have reason to doubt where all of the contenders really stand on some issues. The only facts we have to cling onto are statistics and demographics. It's quite aggravating to me, personally.

Speaking of "bitter" Americans...
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7622521&ch=4226720&src=news
People's reaction doesn't portend well for the triumph of rational thought and raised consciousness in the wake of this crisis...

thprop
05-01-2008, 06:00 PM
Kathy G has an interesting blog post about (http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/2008/04/mickey-kaus-twi.html) one of the original Bloggingheads. She calls Mickey "Ann Coulter's arm candy (http://www.laist.com/2006/06/19/why_wont_ann_coulter_leave_la.php)."

Anyuser
05-01-2008, 06:30 PM
I probably would have the same personal values as you. That's beside the point I want to make. Obama's going to get my vote and the vote of every liberal out there, but I'm fearful he's less likely to get votes from the center that he needs to win unless he gets hip to patriotism. And gets Michelle to pull her head out.

kausation
05-01-2008, 06:53 PM
I'd like to like to ask Bob: could you elaborate on your geopolitical nightmare scenario, and what can be done to prevent it?

Also, a question to the public: what is your geopolitical nightmare?

harkin
05-01-2008, 07:54 PM
Whatfur,

So right.

I think I read over a hundred books on the Viet Nam war (written by everyone from troops serving in the field to Gloria Emerson) and I can't remember one instance where anyone cited the Weatherman as having any influence on the American public other than widepread condemnation from all sides.

Bob and Mickey really miss the boat here giving them credit for anything other than a wish to kill 'capitalist pigs'.

I was surprised that anyone other than Che Guevara-worshiping, revolutionary chic know-nothings could mistake the deeds of the Weatherman as accomplishing anything other than blowing up (sometimes literally) in their own faces.

As my friend Nguyen used to say about the communists of Viet Nam, "one day they came for my dad, telling him to pack a week's worth of clothes.....after two weeks, we asked why they were holding him so long, that he had been told he would only be gone a week. Their reply was "we never said when he would be back, we just told him to pack a week's worth of clothes. Dad was never seen again."


THOSE were the people who Ayers and Dohrn supported and cheered on. It looks also like they have not changed their tune one bit as they conspire to bring the same sort of revolutionary thought to our schools that had children sending their own parents to the death camps of Viet Nam and Cambodia.

Rejoice in the Ayers and Dohrns of the world, as Wonderment would say, true people of peace.

uncle ebeneezer
05-01-2008, 08:00 PM
Anyuser. For the good of the country I hope Obama wins. But on principle, I'm glad that he's refusing to buy into the flag lapel silliness and I'm glad he's pointing it out. If it upsets alot of Americans and makes him lose the election then that will be a sad statement about our values as Americans, but I'd rather him be himself rather than pander to public opinion or pretend this is really a serious "issue." It only takes one leader to break a mold, and I don't see any other way to get there besides somebody finally stepping up and telling the American people that flags and pledges have NOTHING to do with loving your country and serving it, even at the highest office in the land. The over-emphasis on "patriotism" is almost as bad as the ridiculous notion that we force our politicians to be "religious" because God-forbid an Atheist couldn't possibly be a great President.

Though I realize calling BS on these issues is a serious political gamble, it is one that I have been waiting for some brave politician to make, even if it results in damage to their career. It is precisely our lapdog responses to anything red, white and blue that was used against us by the current administration after 9/11 to get us to turn a blind eye to the Patriot Act, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, Abu Graib, Iraq's imminent threat, etc., etc. I just wish the American people would wise up to the way that politicians use appeals to their Patriotic instincts, against their very own interests. But that's kinda hard to see for people who are obsessed with flag lapels and loyalty oaths. The only way to ever get Pavlov's dogs to stop salivating, is for someone to have the courage to stop ringing the bell.

harkin
05-01-2008, 08:14 PM
From Mark Rudd of The Weathermen:

"My discussion of the actual results of the Weather Underground usually consists of enumerating three terrible consequences.

First, three of our comrades were killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse bomb accident. These were three intelligent, vibrant, beautiful friends, the same as those of us who survived, no more deserving of losing their lives than us. This loss can’t possibly be written off as a necessary consequence of war. The film does recognize the tragedy of Teddy Gold, Diana Oughten, and Terry Robbins’ deaths, and for that I am thankful

Second, we in the leadership of Weatherman (predecessor to the Weather Underground Organization) made a historically criminal decision at the end of 1969 to scuttle Students for a Democratic Society, the largest student anti-war and radical organization, with over 300 chapters on college campuses and high schools. We mistakenly believed that we could bring into existence a revolutionary movement, led by an underground revolutionary army; SDS, with its purely legal above-ground existence and its reform agenda, was seen as an impediment to the growth of the revolutionary army.

Our faction was in control of the national and regional offices of the organization, plus its newspaper. I remember sometime in January, 1970, dumping the membership lists of the New York Regional Office into a garbage barge at the W. 14th St. pier. How could we have done the FBI’s work better for them?

Many people object to this point by arguing that the centrifugal forces causing SDS to break apart were so great that there is nothing we in the national leadership could have done to keep it together. Perhaps this is true, but the fact remains that we didn’t even try to keep the organization together, that we were part of the problem. We argued for its demise, as if that were a step forward. Only Ted Gold, ironically, tried to keep SDS in existence and was overruled by “the leadership.”

Last, and probably most important, the Weather Underground forced a debilitating ideological debate in the much larger anti-war movement over the “necessity” of engaging in armed “revolutionary” actions. In the summer of 1969 Weather-organized actions even disrupted the Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam (”Mobe”) mass anti-war events and demonstrations. People became demoralized and left the anti-war movement because they didn’t want any part of an armed revolution."

harkin
05-01-2008, 08:24 PM
And more.

From Salon on the WU:



"But Rudd's mentality at the time, and the group's, was entirely different. He remembers thinking, "'We've got to carry this through. We've got to carry out armed attacks against the imperialist enemy.' I guess it must have been a terrorist state of mind."

When asked the obvious question -- whether his experience offers him any insight into the thinking of people who blow themselves up in Tel Aviv supermarkets, or fly airplanes into crowded buildings -- Rudd laughs in a way that lets you know he isn't actually amused. "I don't think insight is the right word," he says. "I think it's more like, do I think I could ever be that twisted? ............

..........Perhaps because they're coddled by institutional life and surrounded by like-minded people, perhaps for some other reason, neither Dohrn nor Ayers displays even the faintest evidence of penitence or apology, nor any consciousness of the fact that almost everybody else in America -- left, right or center -- thinks they were completely out to lunch. (Dohrn now insists she was kidding when she praised the Manson family for "offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives," although no one who knew her at the time seems to believe that.) Even in the wake of Ayers' self-mythologizing memoir, "Fugitive Days," which had the unique karmic misfortune to be published in September 2001, they seem to lack any rational perspective on the troubling role they played in 20th century American history. (In what may have been the worst timing in journalistic history, an adulatory interview with Ayers appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, under the headline, "No Regrets for a Love of Explosives.") ."

johncohen
05-01-2008, 10:17 PM
So Bob says:

There's any number of sentences you can begin with, "The trouble with men is...," and it's a little dicier, and least certainly in liberal circles, to begin with, "The trouble with women is..." And that's fine...

Well, I'm not so sure "that's fine," so I wrote a blog post about it (http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2008/05/paternalistic-liberal-gender-double.html).

piscivorous
05-01-2008, 11:16 PM
The peace that William Ayers, and his weatherman buddies and those of similar ilk help bring to Southeast Asia (http://cynyr.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/communism_by_rapierwitt.jpg).

johnmarzan
05-02-2008, 12:27 AM
Just get Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn on BHTV to dialovlog with someone!!

bill ayers vs. jeremiah wright!

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 12:31 AM
When it comes to political issues Mr Wright is no more than a left wing hack. Other wise it would not aggravate him, nearly as much as it does, that Mr Kaus deviates from the script.

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 12:33 AM
Might as well be!

AemJeff
05-02-2008, 01:51 AM
When it comes to political issues Mr Wright is no more than a left wing hack. Other wise it would not aggravate him, nearly as much as it does, that Mr Kaus deviates from the script.

Pisc, I have a strong feeling that you completely misunderstand what the "script," in fact, is. BHTV was founded on the friendly tension inherent in the well honed sparring by those two close friends. You seem to labor under the mistaken assumption that disagreement is equivalent to disapproval. Mickey Kaus currently has two main outlets for expressing his particular view of the world; and Bob Wright is responsible for providing the vehicle carrying one of them. Tell me you really do understand this.

TwinSwords
05-02-2008, 02:06 AM
bill ayers vs. jeremiah wright!

That would be truly hilarious.

Sort of a political version of Frankenstein vs. The Zombie

piscivorous
05-02-2008, 08:22 AM
Pisc, I have a strong feeling that you completely misunderstand what the "script," in fact, is. BHTV was founded on the friendly tension inherent in the well honed sparring by those two close friends. You seem to labor under the mistaken assumption that disagreement is equivalent to disapproval. Mickey Kaus currently has two main outlets for expressing his particular view of the world; and Bob Wright is responsible for providing the vehicle carrying one of them. Tell me you really do understand this.Now that you have diagnosed my particular delusional misinterpretation of your perceived reality I feel so much better informed. As I have been watching the two of them almost from the inception, of the site, I believe that I understand the premise of the format fairly well. But feel free to offer your perceptions of what you think I do or do not believe as long as you send me no bill.

look
05-02-2008, 08:52 AM
I'm younger than Obama -- but I won't say how much...
I'm reminded of a scene from The Golden Girls. A friend of Dorothy has just arrived with a much younger escort, and when Sophia comments, she looks at her coldly and says, "Spiritually, we're the same age."

On the other hand, you once said you were in high school during the Reagan Administration...

uncle ebeneezer
05-02-2008, 12:01 PM
http://clownalley.blogspot.com/2007/12/willard-scott-as-ronald.html

Happy Friday!!

deebee
05-02-2008, 01:59 PM
I totally agree with EastWest re: Buyers Remorse. We got to this scary impasse due to a weird confluence of events, the first of which was the MSM's determination of who is a First Tier candidate (see recent Eliz. Edwards op-ed http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html)
their unabashed boosterism of an Obama candidacy and reluctance to look into his skeletons. Add in Florida/Michigan which could have changed the entire narrative and the outright or implied endorsements by Party Elders and here we are.

It's obvious that some element of personal jealously played into the Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd and Richardson choice due to their own unrealized presidential ambitions i.e. why should the Clintons get two bites of the apple?
Strange how these old hands didn't discern the inherent value of experience.

As it now stands, it will take a miracle to change the dynamic of this race -- its a good thing that I believe in those....

uncle ebeneezer
05-02-2008, 03:23 PM
Deebee, I'm not sure that "buyer's remorse" would be an accurate phrase here. Aside from the quote you mentioned, all the talk about buyer's remorse has been put forth by Hillary and McCain supporters, or the media. I haven't heard too many Obama supporters say that the last two weeks of incessant focus on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayer's have suddenly convinced them that Hillary would be a better president or even have a better chance against McCain. The truth of the situation is that all of the attacks, all of the focus, all the negativity is being directed at Obama because he is the front-runner. Is he perfect, no. Is he squeaky clean? Come on, he's a politician. Every front-runner comes under fire and has to react. While Obama's reactions in some cases don't make everybody happy, it doesn't feel like he's "unelectable." My instinct has always been that IF Clinton supporters and all Dems unite behind Obama, then he has more than a fighting chance to be the next president, then he doesn't. He has enough appeal to Independents, that with Dems on board he should be able to take the prize, even in a tight General. Unfortunately, the people he needs to support him are currently saying he's "unelectable" because frankly, that is the last resort they have to get their candidate (Hillary) elected. A year ago, nobody thought the race would be close and EVERYONE assumed Hillary would be the nominee. If the situation was reversed and Hillary was the front-runner, and the media, McCainiacs, Obamabots etc., were all making it their job to focus on Hillary's skeletons, do you really have any doubt that her "electability" would be called into question. One of the most frequent reasons people sight for not wanting Hillary to be the candidate is the worry that SHE is unelectable. (whether it's true or not.) That perception by many Americans is why many Dems were looking for someone, ANYONE else to go against McCain.

Last I read, Obama picked up 5 superdelegates this week to Hillary's 4 (I think those were the #'s, if not, my apologies) so regardless, it is hardly a tidal wave breaking in Hillary's favor. The fact that NC and Indiana look to be close races, tells us that...this is a close race, with two good candidates. Anything beyond that is spin and tea-leaf reading.

Also, is it completely inconceivable to you that Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson etc., simply believe that Obama would be a better president? Bloggin Noggin', BJKeefe, Bob Reich, Josh Cohen etc., have all laid out very thoughtful and detailed reasoning behind why Obama would be a better president. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning, is it that hard to believe that politicians with a lifetime of experience might be supporting Obama because they care about the Dem Party and America? The assumption that jealousy plays a role, may have some merit, but I can't help notice that if a similiar charge was thrown at Hillary that her supporters would be crying foul because people were branding her as "cold and calculating" etc. After all, one could make the argument that trailing in delegates, popular vote etc., the only reason she stayed in this long is because she's jealous of Obama and wants to ruin his candidacy. I doubt it, but it's one of those unproveable yet irrefutable "theories."

bjkeefe
05-02-2008, 04:53 PM
deebee:

It's obvious that some element of personal jealously played into the Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd and Richardson choice due to their own unrealized presidential ambitions i.e. why should the Clintons get two bites of the apple?

That's an interesting thought. I don't know that I agree with it, but there may be something to it. Another part could be the result of those senators being tired of the Clintons from past dealings.

Oh, and speaking of buyer's remorse ... (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=1996)

Anyuser
05-03-2008, 04:15 PM
There is a NY Times story today about flag pins, patriotisms, symbols, etc. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/us/politics/04memo.html?pagewanted=2&hp.

Allan
05-03-2008, 11:10 PM
Wow it was just breath-taking!
to hear Robert Wright justify the terrorism of the Weathermen
using the argument so beloved to the great revolutionary leaders,
Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot:
"The End justifies the Means".