-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/obama-puts-bush-and-mccain-on-blast/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Check out my blog at www.blackpoliticalthought.com</br>
The old ways will not do, and Senator Obama is changing the political calculus. Hagel represents the vanguard of Republicans who are sensible and don't need controversial cultural issues to provide legitimacy. Also with a distinguished Vietnam War record of his own, Hagel is the perfect counter to McCain. Additionally, unlike Wesley Clark, Hagel has the proven skill for tough negotiation which is critical in Washington.
As tough as the primary was, this fall campaign will prove to be more arduous. This is no time for political neophytes like Clark or servile adherence to a safe, little known Midwestern Democrat. Obama needs the big joker to win this thing. Only a bold choice like Hagel will solidly confirm Obama's vision and suck the oxygen from McCain. Obama/Hagel '08.
@ submariner, he doesn't need Hagel. He is quite capable of sucking McCain's oxygen supply as he proved today.
I guess UN Resolution 1441 doesn't count, huh?
He's a badass.
The politics of personal destruction is so yesterday.
It's rusty artillery in a new war.
The GOP is fucked. And it knows it.
It's trying to build a new "brand."
Ha.
Well, Peggy Noonan is having none of it.
Pity Party
And I think this affirms Obama's point that once Sen. Clinton was handled the "nice guy" thing was going to be put on the shelf as well.
Over 70% of this country believes we are headed in the wrong direction, everytime McCain/Bush speaks Obama is going to remind them of that.
Huckabbe jokes about Obama ducking a gunman
What is driving this response? Probably the belief by Obama that he’s vulnerable to being portrayed as weak on national security matters and he wants to prove that he can’t be “swift-boated.” But Obama’s response will achieve neither aim and, in fact, it makes Obama look thin-skinned, a bit rattled, and prickly. Indeed, Obama’s response seems so 1990s. His words and the words of the campaign could have come straight from the lips of Paul Begala or other former Clinton attack dogs.
Obama and the Democrat’s DefCon 1 response to the president’s speech to the Knesset is a perfect illustration of the kind of tiresome “old politics” we really don’t need. The early media reports I heard of Bush’s speech didn’t even mention the appeasement line; it was only after Obama’s campaign and other Democrats exploded in (manufactured) fury that it became a political issue at all. Or, perhaps more accurately, a “distraction.” Which is exactly what I thought Obama was trying to move us away from.
Iran will start(or should I say escalate) war at the place and time of its choosing and there is nothing we can do to stop them. Threat of retaliation(if they even believe we have the will to make good on the threat) means little to a leader and a culture which embraces martyrdom and apocolyptic visions of the future.
Negotiation implies that the involved parties want to resolve their differences. when has Iran ever stated its desire to do anything other than destroy Israel?
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
And just what are these "legitimate claims" that Obama mentions in talking with David Brooks of the New York Times?
Is it that the existence of Israel is a catastrophe?
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe." (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.)
The co-founder of the Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department.
Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, at which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Ah, the Woods Fund. Where Barak served with his domestic terrorist friend, Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, who along with his domestic terrorist (and Charles Manson fan) wife, Bernardine Dohrn, helped kick off Obama's political career at their house.
Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state, and says (in part):
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Somehow, I don't think that is a change most Americans or Israelis can believe in.
But what about Hezbollah?
...Hezbollah's ideology is inspired by Khomeini, the original leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to "The Hezbollah Program", a document that specifies Hezbollah's ideology, Hezbollah's main goals are to fight against "western imperialism", achieve the destruction of Israel, and establish Islamic rule in Jerusalem. It also supports the transformation of Lebanon into an Islamic state in the same spirit as Iran, which Hezbollah takes as the model of an Islamic state. In addition, the party glorifies suicide bombers as martyrs. It promotes violent resistance as a means to an end and teaches that "each of us is a fighting soldier". This ideology—which includes anti-Semitic, anti-western and anti-democratic dogma—is indoctrinated in Hezbollah's schools and kindergartens, which are free for all of Hezbollah's Shi'a supporters.
I'd really like to know what is legitimate about the claims two terrorist organizations dedicated to the obliteration of Israel in the eyes of Barack Obama.
Please, Barack... do tell.
Obama suggested that White resentment (aka White Backlash - i.e. white resistance to change) had a "legitimate" basis.
At least he's consistent but my guess is you're not. I know I missed you calling on Obama to "tell" you what was up with that bs he had to say about White resentment in his speech on race, privileging it and painting them poor White folk as hapless VICTIMS excusing how they "scapegoat" both in that speech and in bitter-gate.
But while we're posing questions about legitimate claims... I'd really like to know what is legitimate about Israel's claims.
That Bible stuff don't count.
This is the sad legacy of the current president. Not merely the confluence of international and domestic disturbances which are arguably beyond his control. But the Rove doctrine of using every implement to advance partisan objectives. We saw the same thing in the actions of the Justice Department to target Democrats in public office. Bush certainly has a right and duty to lead his party to victory. However, that should not be done at the expense of inciting a global conflict which is what he did.
As for my friends who think that Obama is immune to the politics of personal destruction, you are sadly mistaken. Karl Rove's greatest contribution was that you attack your enemy's strengths. So a tremendous intellect like Gore is mutated into a geek or a decorated war veteran like Kerry is called into doubt about the bona fides of said service. Conversely, your candidate's weaknesses become virtues. So G.W. Bush's inexperience and inarticulateness makes him more connected with the common man.
At JJP it is all too easy to become enthralled with Obama's strengths and not see how they could be used against him. No doubt the political landscape is being realigned but don't become too carried away and think that Obama's considerable charm or guile will simply disarm his opponent. What will bring Obama victory is winning over Independents and disillusioned Republicans. Certainly Obama can and will compete nationally but Appalachia and Florida are probably out of reach. This means he needs to break into Republican strongholds and that will not happen because Barack is the man.
There's no indication that Israel wants to do that. The are Israelis who openly state that the expulsion of Palestinians was necessary for the existence of the state of Israel to come into existence.
Now, something about your culture might find that acceptable. Some "Americans" have that same attitude about Native Americans -- the trail of tears, the whole nine yards. But that's your bankrupt culture.
"Sacrosanct" is not enough.
But the electorate might have developed some pretty powerful antibodies over the last 8 years.
We'll find out.
I think if anything has been learned from the Wright debacle (and the Swiftboat affair and Al Gore invention the internet), you have to face this type of thing head on. The Gov of NY had the right idea, admit any wrongdoing before someone can use it against you.
I can't wait till Barack debates McBush head to head. If McBush gets through it without calling Barack a name, I'll be surprised.
bush's zionist appeasement rant took the focus off mccsame's dreamer speech. hoping the msm will take a closer look at it this weekend. talk about pie in the sky without any nuts and bolts.
For all the talk about Rovian tactic, Bush "won" both of his elections by thin margins even with all the swift boating, race baiting and gay baiting and voter suppression that took place during the last two elections.
Since many of us know the Supreme Court handed Bush his first term and Ken Blackwell his second, Rovian politics may not be able to overcome the surge of the electorate this time out.
The GOP is doing what it knows how to do (which isn't much) and they are hoping they'll get the same result.
Hardheaded.