I am not the only one who has commented on Hillary’s outrageous “obliteration” comments. Robert Scheer has just written an article to the same effect. Continue reading
Category Archives: Essays
Déjà Vu All Over Again
You can’t call this a Comeback either. Hillary still can’t win. What is amazing is just how predictable voters are. Each state since Super Tuesday has behaved exactly as the polls and demographics anticipated, with the sole exception that in each state that Hillary was likely to win, Obama cut her lead. Regardless of what it might look like from the photo, it’s not “just like starting over”.
If you’re an Obama-maniac, then you probably feel a little disappointed this morning. But who are you kidding? Things happened as planned. There were really no suprises, even if the press tried to play it like it would be very close (Obama was only able to reduce Hillary’s 25 point lead to a 10 point lead). So if you wonder why Obama can’t close the deal, it’s because Hillary has pledged to stay in the race even if she can’t win. Remember, this race has been dead since March.
Interestingly enough, after all the ugliness in Pennsylvania, the New York Times today published an editorial, “The Low Road to Victory“, essentially un-endorsing Hillary. Maybe her victory today wasn’t so great after all. Continue reading
Get Out of the Kitchen
What was it that Bill Clinton said after the Philadelphia debate when Obama accused the press of not focusing on issues and distracting the electorate? Something about not complaining, about politics as a contact sport and being able to stand the heat? In a twist of faith, it sure sounded like Bill was whining today about the press:
You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day . . .
. . . You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.
Then when thinking the microphones was off, Bill had replied,
I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?
In Hillary’s defense: when asked about Bill’s statements she looked like she’d wished she’d never married him in the first place.
McCain is Glad to Have Hagee’s Endorsement
McCain made some very disturbing statements on this Sunday’s This Week. While McCain admits that it was probably a mistake to have accepted Hagee’s endorsement because of Hagee’s anti-Catholic rhetoric, McCain nevertheless says he is “glad to have his endorsement.” How can you be glad to have the endorsement if it was a mistake to accept it? Does he mean that he was glad to have made the mistake of accepting the endorsement? Then McCain even goes on to praise Hagee,
I admire and respect Dr. Hagee’s leadership … I admire and appreciate his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of Israel.
Saying that you reject Hagee’s hate speech but love everything else about him is like saying that you reject the KKK’s racism, but respect its leadership and would be glad to have its support. Do you really think that John McCain can make such statements and get elected? Remember, McCain voted against both a federal and Arizona state holiday commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday and has supported the Confederate Flag.
Obliterating a Country Doesn’t Work
If there is one thing that the U.S. has proven in Iraq and Israel has proven in Lebanon is that obliterating an enemy whether through threats or even attacks just doesn’t work anymore. It might sound counter-intuitive, but major military powers like the U.S. or Israel have not been successful in their wars against low budget foes. As a matter of fact, these two military and political fiascos have really put into question whether a superior power can ever actually invade a foreign country and come out victorious.
If you believe Seymour Hersh that the U.S. supported the Summer 2006 war in Lebanon to potentially test later shifting targets from Iraq to Iran, then it’s hard to imagine why threatening Iran now would yield any positive results. U.S. threats, occupations, and attempts at obliteration are counter productive. George W. Bush has proven this more than any other president in U.S. history.
Thus, I have no idea what Hillary thought she was trying to prove — other than that she too can sound like a McCainian “War-Monger Wanted for President” t-shirt — when she said on ABC’s Good Morning America that,
I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel) . . . we would be able to totally obliterate them . . . That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.
Deterrence, eh? That sure worked with Sadam and Hezbollah. Are we sure that what the U.S. needs is to perpetuate a foreign policy based on scaring and intimidating other nations and making their citizens hate us? Does she even know what the word obliteration means? Did she mean that the U.S. should threaten Iran with genocide?
Pathetic All Around
Candidates cannot be everywhere (and often cannot stoop too low into the nasty mud slinging), so they need surrogates on the war path for them. Nevertheless, everyone should know their place. There is a reason why politicians do the talking and the strategists do the strategizing. Politicans are communicators, strategists are not (necessarily). Strategists plan, politicians execute the plan.
That was more than evident on yesterday’s Meet the Press where both Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod and Clinton’s Geoff Garin were horrendously pathetic. Not only were they so much worse to look at than Obama and Hillary, they both lacked the public speaking skills necessary to effectively get their bosses’ points across in a non-destructive manner. I don’t doubt their intelligence and worth to their respective campaigns, but as “visible” advocates, they were about as eloquent as a George W. Bush speech. The net result made both candidates look bad. Continue reading
The Sad State of Hypocrisy
Between ABC News’ choice of debate questions and Billary’s “anything goes” tactics, I really believe that the state of hypocrisy in American politics and the media has reached new heights. If Obama has brought in a whole new generation of voters “who can believe” in the country, the press’ need to keep this race alive combined with Hillary and the Republicans’ absurd allegations against Obama will only leave the nation desolate and hopeless. No matter how naive you believe that Obama’s “Yes We Can” message may be, a “no you can’t” response helps no one.
On Friday’s The Bill Moyers Journal, Bill Moyers began by pointing out that
You knew it was going to be a dismal night this Wednesday when just a few minutes into the debate, ABC interrupted the candidates for a long commercial break — the first of many. By the time it was over, the audience had had enough.
Makes you think that if Lincoln and Douglas were around, they’d be sandwiched between a Viagra ad and Victoria’s secret. In a real debate the candidates would face each other on the stage with no one but a timekeeper to enforce the clock. As it is, these ‘debates’ are commercially-staged press conferences about as connected to reality as an Elvis Presley sighting.
The Washington Post’s Tom Shales called the affair “shoddy” and “despicable.” Greg Mitchell of EDITOR AND PUBLISHER said it was “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.” And the historian and writer Eric Alterman said: “I don’t like to speculate on people’s motives. Just why ABC thinks that a presidential ‘debate’ should entirely ignore health care, environmental issues, science policy, our over-stretched and under-resourced military, an epidemic of people losing their homes, the bailing out of mega-banks, and our disappearing civil liberties… is a mystery to me.
Sadly, as the fantasy-inducing commercials and journalistic narcissism built through the evening, the most damning indictment of all came from facts on the ground, otherwise known as reality.
Just this week Iraq was struck by a fresh wave of violence. At least 50 people died from a bombing at a funeral – a funeral! Sixty people were killed earlier in the week, and 120 wounded.
It’s difficult … but gruesome news doesn’t go away because we look away . . .
In today’s New York Times, Frank Rich has written one of the best commentaries to date on the this season’s hypocrisy: Continue reading
Et Tu, ABC?
Here is a fantastic article by Jeffrey Feldman in the Huffington Post about the disgraceful performance of George Stephanopoulos and ABC News during Wednesday night’s debate. Why Stephanopoulos went so low into the gutter is anyone’s guess — loyalty to the Clinton’s, to keep the elections alive and people tuned in, or because Corporate America is in bed with Hillary as ReWrite believes?
Nevertheless, asking about the Weather Undeground was freakishly inappropriate and says something incredibly disturbing about U.S. politics and the media. Feldman writes,
Last night this violent framing took on a new and disturbing dimension when George Stephanopoulos, co-moderator of ABC’s candidate debate, asked a series of questions insinuating that Barack Obama may be politically aligned with a radical group called The Weatherman Underground–a 1960s violent political organization responsible for the bombing of federal buildings:
A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizing meeting for your state was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?
(George Stephanopoulos, Apr 16, 2008)
Of course, it is patently absurd to believe that Barack Obama or any candidate for President in either party has political allegiance to 1960s [sic] group of domestic terrorists. But the truth in this situation did count for much, unfortunately. Stephanopoulos [sic] question was the type of media stink bomb that fouls a candidate in the asking. Obama’s answer, no matter how quick or good, could not have changed the outcome.
On the surface, Stephanopoulos’ questions seems to be about ‘patriotism,’ the supposed organizing theme for that particular round of questions. In fact, it was not about patriotism at all, but was a trap. The question tried to put Obama in a situation where he felt the need to repudiate his connection with a man associated with political violence in the 1970s. Obama responded not by taking the debate, but by showing what was at stake when questions like Stephanopoulos’ are allowed to stand unchallenged . . .
Check out the entire article: Continue reading
Upside Down
Last night’s debate was absurd and one sided, as ReWrite correctly points out. Laila Lalami sums it up pretty well by as having been “Upside Down“:
Four million people have been displaced in Iraq, as many as a hundred and fifty thousand have been killed, food prices are causing riots around the world, the economy is in the can, crude oil is at $115 a barrel, and what do talking heads want to know? Why Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel.
Hillary went so far as admitting that she can’t win by acknowledging that there was a reason why she was “still in the race”. What she didn’t explain after saying that she would not have chosen Jeremiah Wright as her pastor was why, on the other hand, she did hire Mark Penn as her Senior Campaign Strategist — the lobbyist who has represented Blackwater and Colombia.
It’s all getting just too silly. Why Obama was drilled for knowing a Clinton pardonee or about his relationship to the flag is anyone’s guess. I guess Carville accusing Bill Richardson last month of being a Judas must have really scared George. Continue reading
Obama Unaffected by Opponents’ Negative Tactics
It is now generally accepted that Hillary only chance left is to pull a coup by negativity. She has to convince the Super Delegates that Obama cannot win in November. Sometimes this is done by directly attacking his persona and other times by spinning the reality on the ground — to pretend that she actually has a chance other than the back door. The fact of the matter is that Obama is beating and continues to beat Hillary regardless of negative attacks against him.
The irony is that nothing she does can really make a difference in terms of the way people are voting. The voters have been incredibly predictable since Super Tuesday. Hillary has won the states that she was predicted to win, and Obama has won the states he was predicted to win. The only real difference between the original predictions and the results has been how much Obama has reduced her leads in her states. For example, when Hillary is predicted to win big in a state, Obama almost always reduces that lead significantly and thus gains so many delegates that Hillary’s victory is almost unnoticeable in real terms.
Hillary would like us all to believe this isn’t happening. She was leading by double digits in Pennsylvania, but now her spinsters want us to think it will be a close race. That way they can call it a comeback. In reality, there is no comeback. Obama has caught up. The press also wants us to think that each race is up for grabs and extremely close. The only reason this race is still going is because the press needs us to keep tuned. Continue reading
Grave Error 