I don’t know if you guys tuned in for that disgraceful display of American so-called journalism last night in Pennsylvania…but if you did then you’re probably as pissed as I am (and millions others) about how much of a collosal waste of time it was. The media keeps manufacturing controversy to distract away from falling home prices, rising gas prices, a worsening economy, and a worsening of the conditions in Iraq. Just this week there were two suicide bombing attacks that killed over 50 people (each incident) in Iraq…but that doesn’t make it into the debate. Instead…the debate focuses on stupid ass covered ad-nauseum topics like Reverend Wright, Bitter-gate, and flag pin lapels! So anyway…today Barack Obama had a truly hilarious comeback to it all, that I just had to post. It seems like perhaps Barack went home and got some inspiration from his supporter Jay-Z and his videos. Check out Barack’s response to the debate:
So…in honor of Barack Obama and his swagger in dealing with the haters…I dedicate to him Jay-Z’s “Dirt Off Your Shoulder”
Posted by Reecie
Reecie
thehonorable
If you feeling like the president, gon’ and brush your shoulders off!
lol…good one. That image of him doing that was just classic!
I like the way Barack handle it. The only reason I’m voting and supporting him in the first place is because of his policy not because of who his pastor was or if he wears a flagpin or not. I thik we all know or assoicate with people with shady, extreme, or crazy view about stuff ranging from race, religion, and politic.
amen on all that ish
last night’s debate was such a travesty and my disgust-o-meter for clinton shattered new records
she’s grappling at strings now and will do and say anything at this point
The debate in the end will help Obama.
Nice. I was going to post the same thing, but you beat me to it. Keep up the good work!
^^ I actually agree with Ave, because you know the Repub are going to go to all lengths to talk about everything but the issues and categorize Obama as unpatriotic with a radical preacher. You know, the usual fear machine that got Bush elected. 2nd I think it is good that all or any thing that would be presented as dirt, get out now..
…. but i am weak with the brush off the shoulders. I heard the first part on the news but i did not see the dirt off your shoulders issue.
The coolest politician I’ve ever seen.
This is a cute post. Obama has always had swag but now it’s coming to his defense. I’m glad you picked up on it tho. Good lookin…
http://sethandray.wordpress.com/
As this is a very long response, I just want you to understand that over-all, I can see where you are in your perspective.
For the questions set in place at the beginning, ie Rev. Wright, Obama’s flag-pin, Obama’s Marin-quotes, Hillary’s sniper-fire statement, those all seemed unnecessary until you heard voters talk about how it impacted their votes. I have spoken to many people who have changed their votes on both of the candidates because of their misstatements. These individuals are who the media are targeting, these are the people who eat this garbage up. But sadly, these people are also voters, so I thought this was a wonderful opportunity for both candidates to hear from the voters, talk about the issues that are not really issues, but more bumps in the road, and give their answer once and for all in a major event/debate and move on. Obama answered beautifully on all of the misleading comments and out-of-context quotes.
But as far as the real issues go, the Economy, Taxes, Iran, Gun Control, Gas, and Affirmative Action, they were all covered in depth. I actually think more so than in a lot of more recent debates.
Did you hear Clinton speak on Iran? Brilliant. She has a plan that doesn’t target just Iran, but hits the surrounding areas as well. She talks about Israel and Lebanon, as well as what she plans to do in order to secure a peaceful Middle East, which is free of nuclear weapons. She says how the US must intervene by creating a blanket that protects the surrounding nations of Iran, quintessentially backing them up if Iran decides to attack, so that they (the areas surrounding Iran) do not have to resort to nuclear weapons. That idea provides a lot of background to why Hillary voted on (not a “war on Iran” as the media projects so wrongfully) a measure that would give the presiding administration power in responding if Iran decides to keep interjecting with the stabilization of Iraq.
Did you hear Obama speak on raising the capital-gains tax? Brilliant. Well, until the announcer mentioned how raising the capital-gains tax had a negative impact on the Economy. That wasn’t a highlight for Obama.
And when the same question was posed at Hillary, she was a lot more informative on what she would do and how she would do it. She also criticized Obama’s lifting the cap on the pay-roll tax, stating how it would impose additional taxes and how it would negatively impact certain people. She was also good in stating what she did know and what she wasn’t sure on. I think that is important also.
Obama did a good job in his rebut-statement against Hillary’s criticism, but again, came up short when the announcer interjected and questioned his idea, to where he had little to no answer.
Did you hear Clinton speak on the Economy and how she was the first to begin talking about investing in clean-energy? Brilliant. This strategy is my personal favorite. I bring this up all the time in Econ class.
Did you hear Clinton speak on Social Security? I like how she pushed that one in there. Something we need to talk about.
Obama’s criticism on Hillary’s Social Security ideas were… I couldn’t tell if he was desperate or had an actual reasoning that was superior to hers. He didn’t expand as much as I would have liked him to.
As much as I want to blame Charlie (the announcer) for Obama’s lack of knowledge on everything from Taxes to Social Security to Gun Control, I must say that Charlie grilled Hillary just as hard on important topics, to which she handled very well. She didn’t attack Charlie when responding to his statement about her harsh disapproval of owning a gun, but instead stated a very descriptive plan on what exactly she would do, to the T, to ensure safety. And when responding to the other commentator about DC’s ban on guns, she came back hard on how she thinks it is wrong to have the Federal Gov. put blanket regulations on gun control over America, because cities like New York and Montana are very different and require very different regulations. The announcer tried as he might to grill Clinton: “But Senator, you were for that (the gun regulations) when you were running for Senate in New York.” Hillary was fast to respond: “I was for the New York rules, that’s right because they have worked over time, and there isn’t a lot of uproar in New York about changing them.” The commentator then moved on.
Obama just talked about what he’s seen, stated that he isn’t that well informed on the issue (gun control statistics), was yet again criticized by the announcer, and said nada about what he plans on doing about it.
Obama responded very well on reforming Affirmative Action, talking about his daughters and how he believes it to be useful in society, but shouldn’t be a “quota-system”.
But Hillary Clinton responded with a much more rounded opinion. She touched on “No Child Left Behind”, a greater supply of college aid, criticizing the “ridiculous” student-loan rates, essentially wanting to make college affordable. She almost made me cry when she talked about the “potential gap” - trying to “create the conditions to enable people to live up to their God-given potential”. What? Brilliant.
Clinton also spoke on the gas-situation. She compared this to Enron’s “market-manipulating,” and how she would stop putting oil into the “strategic-petroleum-reserve” and also release some to “drive the price down globally”. She touched upon how important this is for our Economy, stating that if people can’t afford gas for their car, then how are they going to go to work? She talked about the “Gas-Tax Moratorium”, being proposed by McCain (in this instance I like how she is not being a loyalist, but actually doing some bipartisan thinking), and she added on that by talking about a “Windfall Profit Tax” (sp?) that would tax the “outrages profits” of the oil companies and put that back into the “Highway Trust Fund”, essentially so that we don’t lose out on repair, and construction, and rebuilding. This hits home to me because in California, and especially the Bay Area, our roads are trashed. We have streets and freeways that are unfinished, bumpy, and tore-up. It’s a mess! I thought that this was another good idea.
Clinton extended her thoughts on gas to energy-independence, bringing up our high dependence on foreign oil, comparing it to our low dependence before 9/11. Something else we need to be looking at.
Obama was given a chance to speak on energy-independence and talked about fuel efficiency on cars, and touched on investing in new tech. such as the Apollo Project.
Hillary Clinton was thrown a hardball when she was quoted upon “using former Presidents,” and how she would use President Bush as a former President. She said she had to think hard on that - she fell a little flat on that regard, but put it into a much larger perspective as how it is important to use all former Presidents.
Obama did good on this question when he transitioned from using Bush Sr over using Bush Jr.
I can’t give Obama a free-pass on this one, no matter how much I feel for him. I was really really starting to lean more towards Obama, mostly because of you Reecie, but I fell short of that platform for the simple realization that had come to me over and over again within every debate. You see, this is why I like debates. Not just this one in particular, where although it happened to be horrible in the beginning, became more solid towards the end, but because this is where I see how the candidates can handle themselves, where they are focused on a topic and forced to answer tough and critical questions.
If you don’t recognize the differences in Obama’s answers compared to Clinton’s, go back and re-watch the debates, and I am asking in the nicest way possible. I mean, look at their answers. Obama gives the problem at hand, who or what caused it, and then goes into telling us what is happening, the people he’s met, and then the struggles they are facing. Hillary talks about the fault of the problem and the way to fix it. She cuts to the point and talks about, strategically, how she will solve this or that issue. She breaks it down, and gives examples, programs that are working, programs that aren’t, and what she wants to do, and then what might happen as a result. THIS IS WHY I LOVE HILLARY CLINTON.
On the spotlight that is the debate, both candidates drop the campaign mindset and we have a chance to get into what they know. If Obama can’t give a detailed answer, that tells me he is ill equipped. Reecie, honestly, have you ever given a presentation in class? Have you ever gone ill prepared? If no, have you ever seen someone go up in front of people ill prepared? Have you ever seen them jump around the topic, talk about some common-knowledge issue that we’ve all experienced and never fully answer the question? Have you ever done that? I have. I have witnessed it also. Obama reminds me of the kid who came to class and was suppose to give a presentation, only to mess up because he couldn’t answer the class’ questions, followed by the grilling of the teacher or “the smart kid” who is obviously more knowledgeable on the issue. Surely you must see this with Obama when he’s thrown a hardball… can’t you?
The commentator’s reaction to Obama’s responses pretty much summed up the frustration the commentator was feeling in not getting a full answer. “We’ll move to you Hillary, since I couldn’t get an answer from Obama”.
An argument stating that this discussion involved no type of questions that would intrigue the higher-intellectual thinker is saddening. Perhaps if the Economy, Taxes, Iran, Gun Control, Gas, and Affirmative Action aren’t on your list’s top six, then ok, I can understand that. But if so, then I think what you were more disappointed about was the fact that Obama couldn’t reach the standard of the questions being asked. He sailed right through the questions oh-so criticized by the public and media today, but why all of a sudden did things get so tough when he failed in answering some of today’s most important questions when compared to Hillary’s answers?
Reecie you are a genuine intellectual and I really value your opinion. PLEEEASSSE tell me you see at least SOME validity in my point. I had not even seen the debate until this evening on YouTube… all I heard were adjectives such as “disgusting” when referring to the actual questions posed on the candidates, and the way which the debate was handled. Really? I had gone into watching this debate with a very very high interest in seeing what everyone was regarding as a “trash-debate” - I had even read your commentary before going on to watching the debate. I went in leaning towards supporting Obama, but, yet again, came out supporting Clinton. I watched Obama’s video from today only after I had finished most of my response… he really came off as if he was whining. No offence, but really? Really Reecie?
I really wish you can feel the sincerity in my heart while typing this out to you.
I didn’t get to watch it.But I heard it was good! Way to go President Barack Obama!
You will be the next President of the United States of America and I just can’t wait!
I’ll be the first one at the polling station in Houston voteing for you when!
Way to go,keep u head up and don’t get fed up! (LU S.S)
The debate was a good one that did cover all the bases that matter to Americans. The media is not manufacturing controversy - they are shedding light on it. Barack was hiding behind his empty speeches, but now he can no longer compensate with flowery language. He actually has to answer tough questions and he has been doing a horrible job of it. Never once has he apologized which reveals a true weakness in regards to being President. If you can’t admit your wrongs than your moral compass is broken. I hope they do get more into other issues in the future though, so everyone can see the Marxist that he is. He wants fairness for everybody, but not so that it makes us all successful and wealthy. He wants to bring the rich and middle class down to the level of the poor.
dsgawrsh,am sorry,
BUT WHAT THE F ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!
Ps keep up the excellent work Reecie!
Obama for President people!vote Obama!
Pss you too Shaffer
^^ Ryan i disagree with most of your points. I watched every minute on the debate and I thought the only area Clinton outshined Obama was how she explained using the regional allies as a defense against Iran and not just Isreal. On Affirmative Action Action, I thought Clinton gave generals and piggy basically piggy backed what Obama said. In addition, afirm action is going to be on the ballot of about 10 states and she avoided giving a direct answer.. If we are talking about afirm action, i really dont care about no child left behind.. AFirm action tend to be a college issue while no child left behind is a primary and secondary school issue.
….- trying to “create the conditions to enable people to live up to their God-given potential”.. THis is the most generic answer.. i do not know why you were so moved. What are these conditions?… I have heard Obama get much deeper explaining that it is not a simple upgrading of the schools, early education etc, it is involving parents, health care and the family structure.
2nd, they did not ask Clinton about Mark Penn or Geraldine Clinton (only asked about Bosnia…which is the least important of the 3) but asked Obama about flag pins, Rev Wright and Bitter-gate.
Using Former Presidents question was the easiest of the night. I could have properly answered that without preparation.
On Oil.. I thought all of her responses are just good campaign speak to get votes but had no actual substance.
“market-manipulating”.. clinton said I think their is.. gave no proof,evidence or facts but compared it eron.
“strategic-petroleum-reserve” and also release some to “drive the price down globally”..
This is counter productive to developing long term alternative energy. When i heard McCain state this I thought it was just a feel good story to get votes. There is a inverse-direct relationship with the price of oil and the investment into alternative energies. She failed to mention (and obama) the main cause of inflation is that we forced ethanol use and all of the farmers around the world stop producing their normal crops to produce corn. This causes all of the other food used commodities to go up (decrease supply), and the price of corn increased (increased demand).. but neither will say this b/c ethanol use was created to help the midwest which have not experienced an growth in the last 10 years. This is causing the global food inflation crises in multiple ways.
“Windfall Profit Tax” …
This is harmful long term too… it sounds good b/c people hate hearing companies making billions while they are struggling to pay their bills. However, a windfall profit tax discourages the exploration and production of oil/natural gas b/c if you produce over a certain level of profits, the company will be taxed for the additional profits so why produce more oil/gas/natural gas .. this causes the oil companies to hold exploration (no increase in supply) while their is a constant increase in demand (simple economics…higher prices).
gun control..
Even though she flipped flop on her previous statements i thought she answered the question well.
http://blogs.greentechmedia.com/cleantechinvesting/2007/01/15/2006-cleantech-investments-total-29b-and-other-catch-ups/
Ryan, are you a Republican? Seriously, if you are, that’s fine, just admit it…I mean, just don’t come in here pretending to be a diplomatic Democrat, who’s engaging in an even-handed look at things and is truly undecided in the primary race between Obama and Clinton (and yet slam everything Obama says).
Actually, I take that back…you might not be a Republican…because even Pat Buchanan, the most republican Republican I know, called Clinton’s response on Iran ridiculous and that it promoted furthering the Imperial presidency beyond what George W. Bush has done. It means two things: 1. any attack in Israel would necessitate and demand an American response. and 2. it would expand the shield of absolute protectionism beyond Israel to other “allies” in the region. Is she really advocating US military intervention against Palestinian aggression in the Middle East? Is she saying that if someone attacks Saudi Arabia, home to the terrorists that attacked this nation on 9-11, we’d really step in with the assist?
THAT’S NOT BRILLIANT, IT’S CRAZY and represents a move further to the right in American foreign policy. She was pandering, pure and simple. To continue the trend of quoting Jay-Z, “I call a spade a spade, it just is what it is.”
The debate was bullshit. I don’t mind Barack Obama getting tough questions–what I do mind is spending 50 minutes on tabloid journalism, the apparent collusion between George Stephanopolous and Fox News and the fact that on the few substantive questions they asked, no legitimate follow-ups were offered (except to Obama in attempt to continue the “gotcha” politics” game).
Not one s
Hey, you guys have to watch this militant (it think catholic) father get into a fox news reporter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0wvQMqSzTM&eurl=http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/35838-fox-reporter-squashed-by-wise-father-s-words-on-wright
Hi,
I write for the music website http://www.urbanplanet.co.uk and I just wanted to let you know that your page has been picked as one of the Top Music Blogs online.
After researching over 100 blogs on the web we’ve decided that yours is one of the best and have recommended it to over 800, 000 regular Urbanplanet readers. Here is a link to the feature: Top Music Blogs http://www.urbanplanet.co.uk/showArticle.aspx?loadid=00818
We hope it brings you lots more traffic and please feel free to link up to it from your site. Any comment or a link back to our site is always appreciated.
Many thanks and hope to hear from you soon,
Chloe
I knew I’d get a response for what I wrote, I just didn’t think I’d get such empty criticism.
Ddot I was doing a play-by-play as I watched the debate. I summed up the main ideas each candidate was putting out there to answer each question. I read everything you had to say and really was blown away with how you picked apart every idea Clinton gave, but said nothing on Obama’s opinion, which gets exactly to my point - he had no opinion.
Other than that I thought your responses on each of her opinions were constructive. Again, she has something that she is working off of. She’s bringing up the issues and how she could possibly work through them. May I remind you this is not her final decision on every single problem.
And on Affirmitive Action. Well, I have to disagree with you on pretty much every single point you stated. You left out her talking about financial aid, which I think is way more important than Affirm. Action. Once you get into college, how the hell are you going to pay for it? That is a problem that way more students today are facing.
Clinton listed a huge amount of issues regarding the “create the conditions to enable people to live up to their God-given potential” quote. This is, essentially, what Affirmitive Action is. It is not “let’s just get the blacks from high schools into colleges”. It is allowing students, no matter what there background is, to get to where they need to go in order to succeed in life. “No Child Left Behind” is placed under the same exact category, but it is failing. I am glad she brought that up, because that shows she understands the groundwork. If your child cannot function on the primary level, how are they going to do in High School? This is why she wants to reform or get rid of NCLB.
If this were an essay, dsgawrsh’s statement would have been my perfect Conclusion. Obama came very ill-equipped.
And to respond to natthedem… Cute little beginning, but I’m probably as democratic and as diplomatic as you can get, I think what you were trying to put into question was whether or not I was a blind liberalist, which no, I am not.
I question everything both Hillary and Obama say, and if Obama falls short, don’t question my platform to somehow disregard my opinions as some type of cheap Republican rhetoric.
And to further my criticism not to ABC, but to blind followers such as yourself; you bash me by calling me a Republican and then follow that by feeding me Republican propaganda? You must be kidding. Hillary’s idea regarding ISREAL was NOT to give a blank check of protection to them, but the entirety of the answer was REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. She wants to provide back-up to the surrounding nations of IRAN because IRAN IS A NUCLEAR POWER. She states how she doesn’t want other countries to take suit and pick up Nuclear Weapons because THEY FEEL THEY HAVE TO. She wants to provide them with aid so that they don’t have to go out and get Nuclear Weapons - she wants to protect that ladder effect to where 1 country gets NW, then two more countries have to get NW. Are you joking? THIS IS BRILLIANT.
You obviously can’t see that because of the way YOU WANT TO SEE IT. Blind faith will get you no where.
This is pathetic. If you can’t provide me anything intelligent that Obama provided me from the second half of that debate, then you’re wasting my time, and just proving to me that you’re a blind follower. And second, if you think those questions in the beginning were “useless” - they wern’t. THOSE QUESTIONS WERE NONSENSE, NOT USELESS. This is the real world where there are looney voters who think that Obama’s Marin-quotes and Wright’s statements actually impact their vote.
I WISH HILLARY WAS ASKED MORE STUPID QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE BASED OFF OF STUPID ISSUES, AND STUPID ISSUES IMPACT THE VOTER REGARDLESS.
Obama, in my head, got the upper hand because he aired out most of his dirty laundry. I had never heard a response by him regarding the pin-issue, so I am glad I got to hear his response. I give him credit for the way he handled the beginning half last night. Hillary was also able to air out some her dirty laundry.
And if you for one minute try and turn that against me by saying that “well asking Obama most of the dirty questions in the beginning impacted his answers later in the night” - well sorry, then that isn’t President material. I want someone who can handle stupid questions and follow that by transitioning into questions that matter.
There was a reason why the hosts were getting upset at Obama and his wack answers.
Hillary’s statements hold water and can be argued for or against. If I learned anything in school, it’s that one must value an emperical argument. Facts, problems, and viable solutions based on the facts presented and the problems at hand. I am looking at this at a very intellectual stand point. I don’t disregard an individual because some may consider that person to be a “bitch”.
And you know what, if Hillary Clinton works in a way that is a little Democratic and a little Republican, then good. Then that means she is going to get shit done, because if you have not noticed, this country does not just have one primary party.
Ryan,
Nice attempt at deflection, but you’re clearly wrong. Hillary did offer a blanket protection for Israel and its neighbors. Actually, her exact words were:
“Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”
Sure, she spend part of her answer talking about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, but the reality is she said that she would expand our “security umbrella” to include other allies in the region–extending the current relationship we have with Israel to countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. I’m sure the Israeli leadership is thrilled to know that Saudi Arabia, whose Royal Family promotes some of the same anti-Semitic rhetoric that you hear from Hamas, will be held in the same regard as Israel. Again, not brilliant, CRAZY.
For the record, though–and really, you show how ill-informed you are with this–Iran is NOT a nuclear power. They do not have nuclear weapons. The 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate (you know, the NIE is the thing that Hillary Clinton didn’t read before voting for the war) reported that, as of the time of its publication, there was no active nuclear weapons program. So you’re just factually wrong, again.
Again, you’re wrong. I will accept part of the blame in bluntly stating that Iran “is a nuclear power”, but in Hillary Clinton’s regards as Iran being a Nuclear threat, she’s on the money.
You’re statement to Iran being inspected in 2007 is correct, but that is because they passed all regulations, not because they are not devloping WMDs.
“Its program has facilities considered legal under international agreements—that is, declared to the world and open to IAEA inspections—and facilities that were either kept secret or are suspected of hosting activities not permitted by international agreements.”
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/8830/
“Edwards said [that] “Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office… A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others,”
-http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm
What Edwards touched on at then end of his quote was exactly what Clinton’s strategy pertained to. She wants to prevent surrounding countries of Iran not to feel pressured into starting nuclear programs.
“What has Iran done recently to attract world suspicion?
After Iranian dissidents blew the whistle in 2002, Tehran admitted withholding information for nearly twenty years from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ (UN) nuclear watchdog, about aspects of a uranium-enrichment program. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran’s new president, said after he was elected in June that Iran had a right to a nuclear program. In August, Iran also resumed sensitive nuclear work at some of its facilities, bringing two years of negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear program nearly to collapse.”
Otherwise, what are you talking about? You keep swaying from what I was responding on in the first place.
“Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”
That is what Hillary Clinton said. She is speaking about Iran attacking Israel. Not Palestine, not Kuwait, not the United Arab Emirates attacking Israel, or the surrounding countries.
You really missed the bullseye on that one.
What she wants to do is prevent an Arms Race. And if you have never learned about the impact of an “Arms Race” in history class, let me inform you: “The term arms race in its original usage, describes a competition between two or more parties for military supremacy.”
So, again, brilliant strategy.
Side Note: Don’t just argue with me for the sake of arguing. Seeing as I can admit when I am wrong, and you can’t - I can understand why you especially are voting for Obama.
- Oh and believe me, I do anticipate Obama becoming the nominee. Not because I believe it is his right, but because of all of the SDs coming out to support him. What politician in their right mind would go against what millions of people have already decided upon?
- But that does not mean I will discredit anything Hillary Clinton says because of what I think might happen. I know what candidate I truely believe in. Hopefully she can beat some sense into Obama in the affect that he needs to learn a thing or two.
I think Hillary was right in the LA debate when she critisized Obama’s Health Care plan. You have to start with Universal Health Care, or else the Republicans are going to pick you apart. This is her coming from where she knows she went wrong back in the 90s. This advice is very credible and I think Obama should take suit.
Chloe - Thanks! We are honored by your suggestion and recommendation. We will add Urban Planet UK to our blog roll.
-thehonorable
Ryan,
Miss me with your foreign policy lecture, man. I mean, besides the fact that I’d never take advice from someone who doesn’t even know who the world’s true nuclear powers are, there’s the reality that I know more than you ever thought of…
Seriously.
You clearly don’t understand the argument. When Hillary Clinton says, “I would do the same with other countries in the region,” she means I would do the same with other countries in the region. Other countries meaning Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. How do I know she meant that? Because she said so during the debate! Read the transcript of the debate (courtesy of the New York Times). You’re the one that’s missing the bullseye, buddy.
Was her broader point that I want to back Saudi Arabia up so that they don’t feel the need to develop their nuclear program, if/when Iran decides to do the same? YES. She said during the debate, “an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.” But that still means that she’s affording the same protection to Saudi Arabia that she is to Israel (since they’d be under the “security umbrella”), which I think offends the conscience of a great many people, AND that she’s threatening “massive retaliation” without acknowledging limitations placed on the presidency by the War Powers Act.
You can keep belaboring the point–and trying to make the case about her broader point–but she advocated for the continuation of the Imperial Presidency. You can’t legitimately argue otherwise.
Lastly, I’m not arguing with you for the sake of arguing–you made a point that I disagree with (well, actually, you made several, but I chose this one) and I responded, lest someone reading this blog post and its comments take your lengthy diatribe as truth. You can continue your attempts to marginalize my opinion by trying to trivialize my support of Obama, but: 1. I think it’s clear that I (and others here who support Obama) know what they’re talking about and 2. it just re-emphasizes why we need a break from the politics of old.
::brushes shoulder off::
-ntd-
Ryan,
The only reason why i mostly mentioned clinton is because you were being fox news about it, fair and unbalanced. Everything she said, you praised. You could not give an objective opinion, it came off as bias. I wanted to point out that she had good moments and bad moments…
…and i did not even mention the worse moment of the night when she said Obama could win the national election since her current campaign is convincing the super delegates that he has no chance and she is the best choice. It has been discussed for weeks how in private they are telling the supers that he has no chance vs mccain.
… I thought obama worse moment was when they challenged him on increasing capital gains tax and is he raising taxes on those 100-250 grand. I thought he handled all of the tabloid questions well and gave a superior afirm action question. In addition, i thought he handled clinton’s jabs well and caught her off guard with mentioning bill pardon 2 or 3 members of that underground group.
Overall i thought clinton seemed more uncomfortable than normal b/c she usually performs well in debates and obama is improving in every debate and was ready for her jabs.
… Overall i thought it was even, a tie
awwwh good I didn’t think you guys were going to respond. good shit.
natthedem - I keep getting confused with your point… maybe that’s why you seem confused with mine.
The Question:
“MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let’s stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”
“SENATOR OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.”
So your candidate wants to also protect Israel from Iran.
This is Hillary on Israel, as well as the “umbrella” strategy. She wants to send a CLEAR, VIVIDLY BLUNT MESSAGE TO IRAN, who happens to be a very possible nuclear threat.
“SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”
“And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don’t now have.”
“And secondly, we’ve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.”
So, again, my point is Hillary Clinton answered the question by saying that we must protect Israel against an attack from Iran, but she extends her point so much further than that. She wants to prevent an arms-race with the surrounding countries by saying that “you do not have to pick up nuclear weapons to feel safe from Iran, we can provide aid if need be.” I think that this is a very diplomatic approach in order to sway Iran from feeling like it can dominate over that region.
The imperialistic approach would be to go into Iran, like we did with Iraq, and “dissarm” them and begin to run their country. That is not what Hillary is proposing.
And I am sure you’d love to explain why Obama is now eating the words he uttered from ABC’s debate:
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn’t be here if she didn’t. And you know, I haven’t commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I —
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.
SENATOR OBAMA: Of course, but —
SENATOR CLINTON: (Laughs.)
SENATOR OBAMA: Because we’re asked about it.”
Published today:
“One of the inherent duties of the president of the United States is to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day,” said Gen. Walter Stewart on an Obama campaign conference call on the issue of Bosnia — remarks circulated by the Clinton campaign Saturday afternoon.
“Now we can assume, and let’s keep in mind that Senator Clinton has said she was under sniper fire, or she joked about, which to me was the cruelest part of all this, she joked about it with Jay Leno. … Imagine the lack of moral authority she has now to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day.”
Clinton’s Response:
The Clinton campaign pointed to Obama’s statement at Wednesday night’s debate that his campaign only commented on the Bosnia incident when asked. “When it comes to negative campaign tactics, Senator Obama has been a hypocrite from day one, decrying attack politics from one side of his mouth while he and his campaign wage a character assassination effort from the other,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “The juxtaposition of Senator Obama’s comments in the debate and the remarks made on his campaign conference call this afternoon prove the point.”
ddot - First of all I thought the best part of the night was when Clinton said that she thought Obama could win - she is learning from her mistakes in saying he couldn’t. First you want to point finger at her when she “divides the party” by saying that Obama couldn’t win in the first place, and then rip her to shreds when she finally admits that she thinks he has a chance.
Hypocrite.
And as far as SuperDelegates go - she is proposing the argument that she is the better candidate over Obama, that she can beat McCain a lot easier than Obama. That isn’t saying Obama can’t win, that’s saying that she is better.
The whole reason why I didn’t say “BRILLIANT” after EVERY Obama comment or AS MANY TIMES AS I DID WITH CLINTON (because I did give Obama credit for some of things he said) is simply because I thought he said a whole lot of nothing. No specifics, no plans, no stratigic perceptions of anything.
You want a quote that is pretty much a summary of Obama’s entire debate-answers?
“MR. GIBSON: Well, with all due respect, and I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama. But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?”
That is the apparant frustration of a journalist not getting answers from a candidate who is suppose to be on his shit. This is my particular frustration.
And I had earlier posed a challenge to ‘nat’ to clarify one of Obama’s statements from the debate - I will also do the same for you…
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.
“Gibson: And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.
Obama: No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. This is a story that has been evolving since last December, when Politico.com obtained a copy of the questionnaire the Obama campaign had completed for a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. One of the questions dealt with a ban on handguns and assault weapons, and Obama took a hard line:
“35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons?Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.”
Now, when your candidate misspeaks about a certain group of people being bitter, fine. Out of context.
When your candidate misspoke about Rev. Wright and his affiliations with him. Ok. He “didn’t hear those remarks while [he] was sitting” in that church, I can take that politically correct answer - no matter how BS that sounds.
But when your candidate becomes an obvious hypocrite OVERNIGHT about his stance on attacking other candidates, and is a blatant liar on a policy HE ACTUALLY SIGNED OFF ON, then I ask you - does your candidate know his shit? No.
I am head-to-head with at least two people in this discussion - and still ya’ll can’t come hard with ANY FACTS or ANY VIABLE SOLID EVIDENCE *THAT MATTERS* - quoting the woman on Bosnia pales in comparisson to quoting Obama on his possitions… or what he thinks his possitions are, since he obviously doesn’t know them.
Love, Ryan.
I guess the gun law issue is like 50th on my list of concerns so it was not that important to me. I did say that Clinton gave a better response and I actually agree with clinton’s response, however i thought both gave non-genuine answers so it was a wash in my book.
In terms of superdelegates.. it is not as simple as she will be a better candidate… Thats what she says in public, but it has been reported on many news outlets that she or her people are telling supers that obama has no chance…. i just believe clinton got called out and had to say it or would be harmful to the party. I really believe she believes obama has no chance and she is only staying around b/c she is will to anything to get the nomination, and we are bypassing the fact that she basically has no chance unless she wins every state by 60-40 to 65-35. I think she will win Penn by upper single digits but will not get the margins she needs to win the overall nomination. She can win every state from now on and obama will still have a more pledged delegates and a bigger popular vote.
you do not have to wait for him to say plans to believe he does not have them.. go to his website. Basically the differences in both candidates plans are minor. Although neither are perfect (but who is), Clinton to me lacks the integrity to get my vote. I think she competent enough to be president however she just says and will do anything to get the nomination. i did not have this initial thoughts of her. I always heard the polictical people saying that a lot of people dislike hillary and i never knew why but now i get it. I am sure she is not like that in private but that is the impression i get.
… in terms of views, i like obama view on health care more than hillary, I aggree with obama’s philosophy on foreign affairs.
Education, both are have the same philosophies, however i like what obama emphasizes a little more over Hillary. Immigration both the basically the same. Trade, i actually agree with McCain. however i do believe in what clinton and obama says about tax loop holes (the say tax breaks…but is not actually a tax break) for companies that outsource.
last… just letting you know that i just did not start to follow obama in the last 6 months, i have followed him for about 3 years. I think you actually get a better idea on his philosophies then, because he could freely speak without people analyzing every word he says. I high percentage of his physiology and views line up with how i analyze situations and the world we live in.
In terms of bitter-gate… i absolutely understood what he was saying (really their was no clarification needed for me) but when you are running for election, you can not say these types of things and desired some (not all) of the criticisms. In terms of pure intellect i think he is one of the smartest politicians i have seen in my short voting life and tones it downs during elections b/c it would go over people heads. (actually he lost an election in Illinios b/c they say he came off as too much of a professor, however he learned from it when he ran for senator.)
You should watch some of the old interviews when he is very topical.
ddot - dumbass amounts of props for that response - deffinitly even-ended and what I was waiting for in terms of me gaining a perspective.
I’m all about perspectives. I will check out his older responses, as you should with Hillary’s 90’s interviews. Haha, I know that’s dated, but Clinton played it low-key when she was in Senate for a very distinct purpose, so most of her most outspoken work was during the 90s, while her husband was still in office.
My grandmother loves her and I gained an appreciation for her back when she was First Lady. My grandmother always said she was the one running the show.
I was just reading an interview conducted by GQ with Karl Rove, one of the most hated politicians today in regard to the Bush Admin. And GQ… haha, yeah.
But the point is, I gained a really large perspective and appreciation for the man on the terms of how he thinks, what he has to say about both Obama and Hillary, and also what he thinks about McCain and Bush’s years in office.
Now we are getting somewhere.
Because someone (ddot) was able to provide me with some useful information, I was able to go out and explore on some older responses by Obama.
What I found blew me away - Obama has been talking about (and made perfect sense when talking about it) those same quotes (the ones from Marin) he is being attacked on today. I agree with him. This sums up the draining of the Democratic party into the Republican party, because the Republican party was and still is able to relate more to everyday people regarding religion and guns. Haha - it does sound funny, but watch the video! It’ll make sense!
Reecie, you should check this one out too!
Link : http://youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90
Reecie this is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoG4jKVsig&eurl