To make the netroots shudder
It’s pretty well established that John Edwards is the preferred candidate of the Democratic “netroots”, but Glenn Reynolds points to a vignette from the Iowa Democratic Caucuses that would make the netroots shudder:
He grabs his coat, but before he can leave, an Edwards campaign ambassador approaches. “What do you guys hang from the ladders at firefighters’ funerals?” he asked the men in yellow. An awkward moment ensues. “The American flag!” he answers his own question. Then, he points right at Mrs. Sorenson, and declares: “Obama doesn’t salute the American flag.” For good measure, he adds that Obama was sworn in to the Senate on the Koran. (Not true, but all’s fair in the heat of a caucus moment.)
Whoa, what’s with all this American flag jingoism and Muslim fear mongering?
Of course, from where I’m standing, the netroots really don’t believe all that stuff anyhow, they just use it to bash Republicans. Hey, since it’s worked so well for them there, who’s to say they wouldn’t use it against primary opponents?
Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers, and thanks to Glenn for linking!
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Politics
TO: Joe Tobacco
RE: Obama vs. America
It’s not that he didn’t ’salute’ the flag so much as he disrespects everything and everyone ‘behind’ that piece of bright cloth. That means he disrespects every man and woman who has died to uphold the Constitution of the United States….against all enemies; foreign and domestic.
There’s a bit more significance to this act of omission on his part than the way it is put forward in the item cited by the BlogVader.
As some intell staff-puke type in the Army might put it, “This is an interesting ‘indicator’.”
And more than that. If he suddenly begins to render proper ‘honors’ during such things as the playing of the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, he’s shown up as nothing more than a your regular, shiftless, two-faced politician.
And to think the Democrats in IOWA think well of him….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
P.S. Hi Amy!!! Happy ‘Educational’ New Year….
” ‘What do you guys hang from the ladders at firefighters’ funerals?’ he asked the men in yellow. An awkward moment ensues.”
Politicians!
Dr S.
Heh.
Chuck,
You’re talking about a separate issue, though.
Issue 1: Senator Obama’s respect (or lack thereof) for the flag and the things it represents.
Issue 2: Progressives — who mock conservatives for respecting flag and country, and who are quick to accuse conservatives of Muslim fear-mongering — indulging in flag-waving and Muslim fear-mongering when it suits their purposes.
There’s no reason why someone who’s upset about Issue 1 can’t still be disgusted by the hypocrisy of Issue 2.
TO: Martin L. Shoemaker
RE: Separate Issue?
“You’re talking about a separate issue, though.” — Martin L. Shoemaker
No. I’m talking about the same issue as was mentioned relating to flags and firemen who lost their lives in the line of duty.
Or do you split hairs so finely that men and women in the military don’t count?
From my perspective, the matter IS related.
RE: The Issues
“Issue 1: Senator Obama’s respect (or lack thereof) for the flag and the things it represents.” — Martin L. Shoemaker
I believe I was addressing that. I was using military personnel as opposed to fire departments.
“Issue 2: Progressives — who mock conservatives for respecting flag and country, and who are quick to accuse conservatives of Muslim fear-mongering — indulging in flag-waving and Muslim fear-mongering when it suits their purposes.” — Martin L. Shoemaker
I have no fear of Muslims. Nor of Obama, whether or not he’s a Muslim is another issue, in my honest opinion.
But I do agree that the so-called ‘Progressives’—a misnomer if ever I’ve seen one—will turn every word and every understanding on its head in order to promote their particular agenda. And the allegation of ‘fear-mongering’ is a perfect example of it.
Case in Point….two-faced/hypocritical ‘fear-mongering….
A while back, Colorado Progressive Coalition (CPC) attempted to hold a series of training classes in my community.
I attended a couple of these classes.
In one class, they had, what I would consider a radical prof from a local university who was bragging on the ‘brown-berets’ of the 70s. And how around 300 of them intimidated the local school board at a regularly scheduled meeting.
In a following class, they had their local honcho complaining about how, more recently, the several police officers, merely by their presence at a local school board meeting were intimidating her and her associates.
When I asked why instance #1 was good but instance #2 bad, they moved the next meeting and didn’t tell me where it was being held.
Progressives are not what they call themselves. Indeed, they are consummate liars. Just like the regular run-o-the-mill Communist.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Really, you guys need to give Obama more respect. He is a god fearing Christian Church member.
I can’t understand why so many people are tearing him down.
<>
The issue of this post is not the flags and firemen and the military. Joe Tobacco isn’t defending Senator Obama here, nor is he attacking the Senator’s critics.
The issue of this post is Progressives USING the flags and firemen as a reason to bash Senator Obama, when Progressives are typically just as disrespectful of flags and firemen and the military as they accuse him of being. Joe Tobacco is sarcastically mocking them for doing what they would criticize if done by him, or by you.
Seriously, this post is not about Senator Obama and his failings. It’s about how Senator Obama and his failings illuminate Progressive hypocrisy.
A desperate act by a desperate man.
TO: M. Simon
RE: Respect Obama! He’s ‘Christian’!
“Really, you guys need to give Obama more respect. He is a god fearing Christian Church member.” — M. Simon
Ever hear how it is okay for a Muslim to lie to your face, if you’re not a Muslim?
I’m looking forward to his nomination to the Democrat Party candidacy for the presidency. I even told Michelle that when she e-mailed me directly after I made a comment similar to item #1 (above) to their HQ after receiving an unsolicited e-mail from them.
Since then, they’ve dropped me from their one-over-the-world e-mail list….thank God. I’ve enjoyed a lowered blood-pressure since moving out of Denver….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Martin L Shoemaker
RE: Joe Tobacco and Obama and Firemen and Flags, Oh My!
“The issue of this post is not the flags and firemen and the military. Joe Tobacco isn’t defending Senator Obama here, nor is he attacking the Senator’s critics.” — Martin L Shoemaker
I think Obama, Firemen, Military and flags are related.
And, where you get the idea I think JT is defending the Senator, I have NO idea.
I’m attacking the Senator. Not Joe. Nor the Senator’s critics. I’m ONE of the Senator’s critics.
RE: The Progressive Factor
“The issue of this post is Progressives USING the flags and firemen as a reason to bash Senator Obama, when Progressives are typically just as disrespectful of flags and firemen and the military as they accuse him of being. Joe Tobacco is sarcastically mocking them for doing what they would criticize if done by him, or by you.” — Martin L Shoemaker
Was the guy who reproached the Obama rep at the caucus a ‘progressive’?
How do you know that? Or are ALL Edwards reps ‘progressives’? It could be that is the case, but I wasn’t aware of it.
If it IS the case, then it only substantiates my understanding of ‘progressives’ as being similar to yours.
So….please remind me….what’s wrong with my comments about Obama? Off-Topic? Perhaps, but only indirectly. Obama probably puts himself forward as a ‘progressive’ as well.
And, that only reminds me of Trotsky v. Stalin. It’s just a matter of who will ‘kill’ the other first. I consider all ‘progressives’ to have a ‘mad-dog’ mentality. They’ll turn on each other if it suits their purposes.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Edwards campaign ambassador? Bejus Joe. The National Review is hardly unbiased and it looks like we’re talking about one single hick from Iowa who probably believes that crap because he’s received 7000 of those dirty and false smear emails saying that stuff. Hardly fair to use it to indict Edwards. I’m surprised you took that bait.
Anyway, I just dropped in to wish you and yours a very happy new year.
Well, Martin has hit the nail on the head regarding the point of this post. Chuck brings up a good point in that it’s possible the Edwards guy wasn’t a “progressive” — I’ve certainly seen rumblings at MyDD and Kos about how Edwards has a good bit of Republican support, but I don’t buy it much. Libby calls the guy a “hick”, even though she and I are the ones who live in the South, and frowns on the source of the vignette. (BTW, Happy New Year to you too, Libby).
Nice. It’s starting to look like a by-God for real comments section around here.
“And, where you get the idea I think JT is defending the Senator, I have NO idea.”
My apologies. Your opening salvo sounded to me like you were disagreeing with Joe.
“Was the guy who reproached the Obama rep at the caucus a ‘progressive’?
How do you know that? Or are ALL Edwards reps ‘progressives’? It could be that is the case, but I wasn’t aware of it.”
It’s an assumption on which Joe’s post is based. It is, from my limited experience, an accurate assumption: Mr. Edwards seems to be aiming at two audiences, Progressives and Populists.
TO: Joe Tobacco
RE: The Democrat-Progressive Connection
It could well be that most of the field of Democrat candidates for the Democrat Party nomination for the presidency in 2008 are ‘progressive’. They certainly talk the talk.
Likewise, it’s probable that their reps at various events are progressive too.
If they are, more’s the shame. The implication is that the Democrats, having failed the nation as ‘liberals’ have decided to paint themselves with a new, and more egregious, stripe….’progressive’.
Whereas, in my opinion, the liberals were merely deliberate liars, on any occasion, the progressives are casual liars on EVERY occasion. In other words, reality and such mundane things as facts and truth, have no meaning to them. Just like with the communists.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else. -- George Bernard Shaw]
P.S. I’m reading one of Catton’s accounts of the Civil War.
Last night I came across a phrase that has stuck in my mind from the moment I read it….
He was addressing Lincoln’s thoughts in late 1863, when it looked to him that the war might be won and the Union be restored.
The thought is still with me as I go about today’s activities and I wonder at the greatness of this statement and the mind that came up with it.
Looking at the way thinks are going amongst the ‘Democrats’ of late, e.g., Kos and company, I’m wondering at how much longer until we have our second such conflict…..
P.P.S. [OT] Thoughts on thoughts in the P.S. (above)
It has just struck me how God has blessed this Nation to date.
We, as a ‘nation’, were above such thinks as ’suspicion’, ‘hatred’ and ‘revenge’ for the first 200 years. That’s how we managed to hold together the longest running government system in the recorded history of mankind.
Now….we may be ’slipping’ into the same sort of abysmal behavior other peoples and nations have experienced in the rest of history.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[America is great because America is good. When America is no longer good, it will no longer be great. -- de Tocquille]
The National Review Online — how’s their recent track record for factual accuracy?
Chuck: can you please give one example of Barack Obama disrespecting everything and everyone behind the flag of the United States of America?
twc: I guess you’re pointing at The Tank blog’s recent fiasco. That was one reporter, actually, and NRO admitted to and apologized for the error almost immediately. Refresh my memory, how long did it take TNR to disavow the Beauchamp story, and how many editors were intimately involved with it?
And you know something, I still read TNR. I think the whole mindset of pointing to a publication’s (or a news channel’s, for that matter) ideological alignment and dismissing it as “untrustworthy” is a combination of laziness and extreme partisanship that doesn’t serve any argument well.
Chuck — what a coincidence. My son bought me the new single volume reprint of all three Catton Civil War books, and as soon as I finish the work related reading I have on my plate for this week, I’m diving into it.
TO: twc
RE: Got an E-Mail Address?
“…can you please give one example of Barack Obama disrespecting everything and everyone behind the flag of the United States of America?” — twc
I’ll e-mail you the photo of him and Hillary standing on a platform.
Hillary has her hand over her heart. Obama has both of his hands at his side.
The image was sent to me by—of all things—one of Obama’s staffers; explaining that it wasn’t the Pledge of Allegiance he was refusing to ‘honor’, but the National Anthem.
Now that you bring it before me, I’m ‘impresseed’ with how stupid his staff is.
I’ll forward this e-mail to you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Joe Tobacco
RE: This ‘Catton’ Book
“what a coincidence. My son bought me the new single volume reprint of all three Catton Civil War books, and as soon as I finish the work related reading I have on my plate for this week, I’m diving into it.” — Joe Tobacco
Actually, this isn’t one of his Centennial set. It’s from This Hallowed Ground; a recount of the entire conflict.
Apparently, he’d been studying the history for quite some time, as this book was done in the mid-50s.
I’m thinking that he covers the key events of the conflict in the particular time-frame of each book. But that he includes things in one book that might not be in another.
RE: The Trilogy
I’m missing Never Call Retreat from the Centennial set.
The statement I cited was from after the fall of Vicksburg. The second book of the centennial trilogy goes up to the publishing of the Emancipation Proclamation and the near treason of McCellan. The statement about Lincoln’s thoughts about what it would take to restore the Union come from late Decmeber of 1863, several months after the proclamation was declared.
I don’t know if it is mentioned in Never Call Retreat.
Enjoy the reading…..Catton IS superb.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Martin L. Shoemaker
RE: Apology….
“My apologies. Your opening salvo sounded to me like you were disagreeing with Joe.” — Martin L. Shoemaker
….accepted.
I make such mistakes myself on occasion.
Keep that fighting spirit, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: twc
RE: Additionally
You asked me for MORE evidence supporting my allegation that Obama disrespects everything that upholds and is the meaning of the ‘flag’.
I provide (above) you with prima facia evidence of the disrespect, i.e., the photo.
However, I ask you to tell me what Obama’s position is on the War Against Terrorism.
Admittedly, this is off-topic from the thread, which is about progressive biting progressive. But, still and all, I think it is related, since Obama is one of the key players in the discussion. Who knows….maybe something we discuss will cast additional light on that idea.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck:
No need to send me the photo. I’ve seen it, thanks. His attitude was appropriate according to The Code for the National Anthem of the United States of America, adopted by the National Anthem Committee in 1942, which states that men are to remove their hats, face the flag “in an attitude of respectful attention,” and sing — which is what he was doing, as I expect you know, as he was taught by his grandfather who served in the United States Army in combat in Europe during WWII. I don’t find that to be any evidence at all of his “disrespecting everything and everyone behind” the American flag. Curiously enough, I find it to be direct and persuasive evidence of his respect for the flag and what it represents.
“I ask you to tell me what Obama’s position is on the War Against Terrorism.”
He wants to win it. He wants, for example, to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Do you agree or disagree with him on this, Chuck?
For example, here are excerpts from his remarks to the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. on August 1, 2007:
“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
…
“Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for…
The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission…
By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”
Joe: yes, I was referring to the fact that the NRO has recently been shown to publish falsehoods. I’m with you on not averting one’s eyes from publications or sources with which one disagrees ideologically. (Most of) my buds shake their heads when I mention I was listening to Rush or watching O’Reilly or Hannity. I actually no longer subscribe to TNR but that’s for other reasons (finally provoking my gag reflex on their editorial/institutional support for the war and Scooter Libby, but mostly just because I was awash in magazines I didn’t have time to read. Hell, I even let my S.I. subscription lapse — but I’m going to remedy that in time for the Detroit Tigers to march to the World Series!). I still pick up TNR and scan it on the newsstand and will pay for one if I see something really worthwhile.
But just as you probably take TNR’s reporting from the Iraqi battlefields with a grain of salt now, that’s how I look at NRO. Fool me once… (cue The Who).
TO: twc
RE: Singing??!??!!?
‘No need to send me the photo. I’ve seen it, thanks. His attitude was appropriate according to The Code for the National Anthem of the United States of America, adopted by the National Anthem Committee in 1942, which states that men are to remove their hats, face the flag “in an attitude of respectful attention,” and sing — which is what he was doing….” — twc
Why is his mouth not ‘open’? Or was he just ‘humming’ it?
Why is it that Hillary and the other guy on the stage have their hands over their heart and he doesn’t.
Are you a ‘progressive’?
“….as he was taught by his grandfather who served in the United States Army in combat in Europe during WWII.” — twc
Funny.
He doesn’t look old enough to have served in ‘combat in Europe during WWII”. Maybe you could rephrase that to make it a tad more ‘logical’.
“I don’t find that to be any evidence at all of his “disrespecting everything and everyone behind” the American flag. Curiously enough, I find it to be direct and persuasive evidence of his respect for the flag and what it represents.” — twc
Can’t help it if you’re self-blinded. It’s what one of my platoon sergeants would have identified as a ‘personal problem’.
Again….I ask you, “Are you a ‘progressive’”?
Funny think that….how I thought our discussion might shed some more light on the progressive-problem.
More later….
…right now I have to attend to the tahini.
Be back soon.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: twc
RE: Fisking, Anyone?
“Curiously enough, I find it to be direct and persuasive evidence of his respect for the flag and what it represents.” — twc
Well…
….as I stated earlier, I think you need to see a GOOD eye-doctor.
RE: Osama v. Obama
“I ask you to tell me what Obama’s position is on the War Against Terrorism.”
He wants to win it. He wants, for example, to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Do you agree or disagree with him on this, Chuck?” — twc
That’s a good start; capturing and ‘dealing with’ Osama.
But that isn’t the answer to the question I asked you.
I didn’t ask you about Osama. I asked you about the war as a whole. Not the cretin who started it.
“For example, here are excerpts from his remarks to the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. on August 1, 2007:
“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” — twc
Talk is cheap, buckie. Twenty-seven years in the infantry, starting in 1970, taught me that.
How did Obama vote on the various bills the Democrat-controlled Congress initiated to cut short the war?
[Deeds, Not Words. -- Credo of 22d Infantry Regiment, in which I had the honor of serving as a staff officer and a company commander. Last I heard they were in the thick of it in Tikrit.]
“Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for…” — twc
Look who’s talking about ‘misrepresentation’.
As for the ’small minority’, I’ve been wondering where it is that the ‘large majority’ of Muslims have remained so ’silent’ over the last seven years.
You got an answer?
If not….I do….they’re gutless wonders.
“The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission…” — twc
When did you graduate from the US Army War College? Even the Command and General Staff College?
Or are you so politically naive that you can’t see a ploy when it presents itself? Even in so many bloodied bodies of men, women and children?
Your credibility is on a VERY slippery slope here, buckie.
“By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” — twc
Bull pucky. You don’t win a war by a defensive strategy. That’s proven by the current success of the ’surge’. [Note: What was Obama's opinion of the 'surge'?]
If you doubt this, go ask Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.
‘When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.” — twc
Which ‘war’ is Obama talking about? And towards what ‘victory’?
When did Obama graduate the War College? That he is such an expert, young as he is, in the conduct of combat operations, let alone long-term war strategies?
Or, better yet, who is his ‘tutor’? Someone whose name is similar to Obama?
As I said (above), talk is cheap.
Let’s see his strategy. If it is nothing more than retreat from our established polticial/logistical bases-of-operations, he’s lying through his charming smile.
And for you to support him only indicates your complete lack of grasp of modern warfare.
Or maybe I should be asking when it is that YOU graduated from some advanced form of military training? War College? Command and General Staff College? Basic training?
Where you ever a Boy Scout?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
“Or, better yet, who is his ‘tutor’? Someone whose name is similar to Obama?”
What do you mean by this, Chuck? In what sense do you mean your implication that Osama bin Laden is Barack Obama’s “tutor”?
“Singing??!??!!?”
“I think you need to see a GOOD eye-doctor.”
etc., etc.
Chuck, have you seen the video of this?
Trust me on this.
TO: twc
RE: Tust? YOU???!?!?!
“Trust me on this.” — twc
Not on my daughters’ lives. Let alone their children.
After all….they were part and parcel of what I did for 27 years in the infantry.
Need to attend to the canner….which is coming off a ‘burn’.
More later….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck: how’s your tahini?
TO: twc
RE: Obama…Osama….Who Is Teaching ‘The Art of War’?
[Note: Back from checking the canner. It'll be another 20 minutes before the lock trips and I can fish the quarts of delicious food out of the preservation processor.]
“What do you mean by this, Chuck? In what sense do you mean your implication that Osama bin Laden is Barack Obama’s “tutor”?” — twc
In answer to your question….
….I have no idea who has been teaching Obama the Art of War. But I get the distinct impression that his ‘tutor’ is either a total ignoramus or MUCH worse.
This is based on what you’ve expressed here. Albeit complimented by what I’ve heard heretofore.
So….based on my professional military opinion….
….you propose we make a total ignoramus the Commander-In-Chief.
Why is that?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. As I recall, Jefferson Davis was rooting for McClellan to be elected President of the United States in 1864.
Is there another ‘parallel’ here?
Chuck: he’s definitely singing the anthem, although it’s not easy to sing along with this particular rendition. Not only that, but he applauds at the conclusion. Do you find that disrepectful of the anthem, the flag, and everything it stands for as well?
TO: twc
RE: Yeah….Right….
“Chuck: he’s definitely singing the anthem, although it’s not easy to sing along with this particular rendition.” — twc
I ALWAYS sing the anthem with my lips clenched tightly together. And Hillary must have been of the same tempo, to have HER lips equally tight..
Maybe you ought to send me that video of him actually opening his mouth.
You’re ’slipping’, compadre.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html
Here you go, buckie.
Chuck: He’s singing, isn’t he?
I can almost hear your old platoon sergeant now.
“You should’ve &%^#$ trusted the man, (*&%(*&%^/!”
[...] To make the netroots shudder It’s pretty well established that John Edwards is the preferred candidate of the Democratic […] [...]
[...] that has always been right below the surface. People are happy she’s going down the tubes. They don’t love Obama. That’s bullshit. Everyone knows he’s too young, too inexperienced, too naive and too [...]
Barack Obama is going to win New Hampshire, fairly easily. I expect he’ll probably be able to ride the wave to victory in Nevada, although both Hillary and John Edwards have some strength there. I think South Carolina will be the tipping point. If he can win big there he probably wins the nomination.
You’re going to see lots of scurrilous emails and rumors peddling false accusations about him being a Muslim, a radical, a secret black activist, god knows what. They probably won’t work. I think we’re going to be looking at President-elect Obama when we wake up on November 5.
I’ll take that bet should you happen to want to back it up with cash, tcw? ;)
Obama will never be elected, not this cycle, anyway, and probably won’t even get the nomination, for many reasons.
All this stuff is temporary, like the latest blog post. Why people think something in early January will hold until November is beyond me. Hillary has the money, the organization and the ability to actually win should the Republicans screw up badly enough. Obama doesn’t have the gravitas, experience or even the smarts, if you ask me, to be president yet. You’re seeing a Dean-like phenomenon mixed with the fact people despise Hillary, but will come to realize only she has a chance of winning. Wait Summer at least before you guys go off the deep end.
You couldn’t be more wrong, doc, in my opinion. Obama’s success is not about (or not much about) voters despising Hillary, or Edwards. Democratic primary voters are very satisfied with their candidates this year — with good reason, I’d say. Clinton, Edwards and Obama are all high-quality candidates, each of whom would be strong contenders in any given year. (Actually, Biden and Dodd were also pretty decent options as well, they just never came close to breaking through in this high-calber class). This particular year is Obama’s year, because of the electorate’s hunger for change and for a new kind of inspirational leadership focused less on partisanship and more on problem-solving. Republican primary voters, by contrast, are unimpressed and discouraged by their choices — again, with good reason. I suspect McCain will be the one to emerge, finally, from a long and difficult primary process and he is really the only credible potential president on the GOP side (again, obviously, my opinion). There’s a long road between here and there, and god only knows what can happen (including some possibilities that are truly awful to contemplate) but barring something extraordinary I foresee Obama winning that one in what will be, to some extent, a generational thing. With his sense of humor and maverick style McCain will have some limited appeal to voters under 40, but most will be much more impressed with Obama. It may even be an Obama blowout.
Not in the habit of betting over the internet, doc, but I’ll be happy to look back in the fall and see who was closest.
TO: twc
RE: Is He Singing?
Thanks for the link.
“Chuck: He’s singing, isn’t he?” — twc
Not very much, if even at all, based on what I saw in that video. Especially in the first part where his lips aren’t even moving. His lips do appear to be moving a tad before the camera shifts to the other side of the stage. But what he’s saying cannot be discerned, readily.
Still and all, he’s not ’saluting’. Whereas everyone else on the stage IS.
He applauds after the soloist finishes her song. No one else does, as far as I can see on the stage in that video. But that still doesn’t mitigate his failure to salute.
So…..as I was commenting earlier….he’s got a problem.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: twc
RE: Obama in New Hampsha
“Barack Obama is going to win New Hampshire, fairly easily.” — twc
Good for our side!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: docweasel
RE: Indeed
“Why people think something in early January will hold until November is beyond me.” — docweasel
Nothing is decided until the paperwork is completed. In this case, the results of the voting by the delegates at their respective national convention.
And even THEN, things may not work out quite the way the national committee chair would think.
Case in point….from Catton’s This Hallowed Ground
In 1864, the lets-keep-slavery-alive Democrats established a lets-make-peace-with-the-Confederacy plank in their platform. They also nominated former Commander of the Armies McClellan as their candidate.
McClellan accepted the nomination….but told the DNC they could take that plank and cram it up their fourth-point-of-contact….lengthwise. And he’d hammer it home with a swift, highly-polished boot.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: twc
RE: Trust? You???!?!?!
““You should’ve &%^#$ trusted the man, (*&%(*&%^/!”” — twc, thinking one of my sergeants would have said that
Too funny…..
In the first place, I don’t know you well enough to give you a 1A rating for reliability and accuracy.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. As I stated above, if NOW Obama starts rendering proper honors during such things as the National Anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance, he’s just going to come across as the typical two-faced politician.
We’ll see what happens…..
P.P.S. Out of curiosity….
….what do the Imams/Mullahs/Whathaveyous say about rendering honors to a flag or nation?
TO: All
RE: Back On-Topic
Here’s another example of how the so-called liberals/progressives are ‘mad-dog’ crazy, as I described above. And that they will turn on and attack each other with a vengeance, if it serves their political agendas.
Check out James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today……
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110011095
Pay particular attention to the item titled Obama Voted to Let Infants Die, about a third of the way down the column.
It’s just another example of how they ‘eat their own’, and the dead bodies trampled by them in the process mean nothing. Especially if they are infants….er fetuses.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
“Not very much, if even at all, based on what I saw in that video. Especially in the first part where his lips aren’t even moving. His lips do appear to be moving a tad before the camera shifts to the other side of the stage. But what he’s saying cannot be discerned, readily.”
Oh, come on, Chuck.
He’s plainly singing the national anthem, although there are portions of this particular rendition that are difficult to accompany. You’ve been proven mistaken. Admit it and move on.
And, by the way, both Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson (the other two people in the shot at that point) also applaud at the end, as plain as day.
“He applauds after the soloist finishes her song. No one else does, as far as I can see on the stage in that video.”
I suggest that you are the one who “need[s] to see a GOOD eye-doctor.”
“Out of curiosity….
….what do the Imams/Mullahs/Whathaveyous say about rendering honors to a flag or nation?”
Beats me, but I suspect the mosst radical ones were pretty ecstatic to see George W. Bush, their best recruiter and most ineffectual opponent, taking the oath of office in January, 2005. He’s their favorite.
Glad to see I’m in good company:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/47209d3a-dcce-4af4-9141-fbbb0e0c22f8
Pat Ruffini believes as I do, and for much the same reasons.
Unless we are both mis-overestimating Hillary(!)
“Experience counts.”
— Vice President Richard Nixon’s campaign slogan in his 1960 presidential race against John F. Kennedy
I don’t know what the hell that is supposed to mean. Incumbent Vice Presidents often lose (see Al Gore), often because their predecessor has worn out the American public on his party. George Bush (the elder) was an exception. If you are trying to draw some kind of parallel with Hillary and Nixon, that’s pretty thin soup that they use a similar wording. Many politicians have stressed experience and won, many more than have lost, obviously, since incumbents over-whelmingly win elections, so I don’t know wth your post is about. Experience does count, and more than not it wins.
Back to planet Earth, Jay Cost also agrees with me. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/clintons_plan_b.html
The pendulum will swing back and forth 4-5-10 more times before November, but Clinton will win. She will alienate a huge swathe of the Democrat constituency doing so (blacks and politically active kids), but she’ll win. That may force her to pick Obama as her veep. We’ll see.
I’m feeling better about my prediction when I see great political minds like Ruffini and Cost agreeing with me.
TO: twc
RE: As I Said (Above)
“He’s plainly singing the national anthem, although there are portions of this particular rendition that are difficult to accompany. You’ve been proven mistaken. Admit it and move on.” — twc
I stated exactly what I saw. You don’t like it? Tough noogies, buckie.
Furthermore, for what little movement of lips he was doing, he could have been muttering a prayer to Allah, for all you and I know. As we did not hear HIS voice.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For additional information, please re-read the message.]
“for what little movement of lips he was doing, he could have been muttering a prayer to Allah, for all you and I know.”
Chuck: by Jove, I think you’ve got it! It’s that one that goes “oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave, over the land of the free, and the home of the brave?”
You’ve nailed him, buckie, and the nation owes you a debt: conclusive proof that he disrespects everything and everyone behind our flag and every man and woman who has died to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It was there on the tape all along, hiding in plain sight. Plus evidence of the perfidy of Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton, whose failure to applaud at the anthem’s conclusion is established by your keen inspection!
TO: twc
RE: Get Off It
Neither you nor I know what Obama was mouthing….WHEN his lips were moving.
You’re obfuscating.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you can't convince them, confuse them.]
Chuck: I’m obfuscating? No. I think it is very clear from the video clip that Obama was singing the national anthem. That’s exactly what I saw. If you don’t like it, tough noogies. I also think you either didn’t watch the tape fairly, or are purposefully refusing to acknowledge what you saw.
The fact that we can’t hear his voice is a ridiculous dodge, Chuck. If he were singing, his mouth and face would move in exactly the the way that it did. The likelihood that he is saying (or singing) something else, which happens to create the exact appearance of singing the lyrics to the national anthem, is so minuscule that it approaches zero.
You’re obviously not going to acknowledge that you were badly mistaken. That’s your prerogative. I don’t think it bolsters your credibility.
“Barack Obama is going to win New Hampshire, fairly easily.” — twc
Wow, was I wrong on that.
I actually believed the late polling and thought the Hill would lose NH, but I have never doubted, in the last 8 years, that she would win the nomination in ‘08. Whether or not she wins depends on who the R’s nominate.
At this point I’ve stared death in the eye with Huckaboom and Romney, I’m shell-shocked enough to accept McCain in a pinch. I hope its Guiliani though, I think he has a better temperament to win, and plus McC is a little elderly.
TO: twc
RE: Welcome….
“Wow, was I wrong on that.” — twc
….to the world of the REAL. — Morbeus to Neo
RE: Back On-Topic
The inter-’play’ between Hillary and Obama and Edwards and Kerry, et al, i.e., the so-called ‘Democrats’, just supports the premise of this thread….
….these people have no morals. Nor do they have ethics.
As I stated earlier in this thread, they will turn and attack each other for no other reason than to achieve more power.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[One cannot serve two masters. You can serve either righteousness or you can serve mammon. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago.]
TO: All
RE: Democrats and Slavery
As I’ve mentioned (above), I see a correlation between the Democrats—as described in Bruce Catton’s history of the Civil War—of yesteryear and those of today.
Back in the 1860s, the soft-war Democrats were not opposed to slavery. They were only interested in the preservation of the Union; the slaves-be-damned, for all they cared.
These days, I see a correlation between the Democrats-in-power policies and the treatment of poor ‘people-of-color’, similar to what was done back then.
How so?
Democrats don’t REALLY want people-of-color in positions of power. Their policies, to date, seem to be keeping said people, on the whole, in positions of powerlessness, vis-a-vis their welfare programs.
If you look at them, as for the result of those programs, we see a parallel between the plantation owners of yesteryear and the Democrats in power today; master to slave.
When I related this idea to the distaff, she commented that Thomas Sowell has been saying the same thing for quite some time, now. Unfortunately for me, I do not read Mr. Sowell all that often.
However, I do recall seeing the so-called ‘Democrats’ describing the Bush administration as running its own form of ‘plantation’.
And I have to ask….
….were they ‘projecting’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. How does this relate to the topical thread?
Well….
….watch how Hillary is attacking the ‘person-of-color’ Obama over his ‘race’.
Who are the REAL ‘racists’?
Are you paying attention?