How am I admitting to being stupid? Agreeing with Kaus makes me stupid?
No, Russert is supposed to be asking tough questions. Not lobbing softballs. C'mon. And if he did and Obama nailed it - then Mark and many other non-Obama supporters might have been impressed.
No, Russert is supposed to be asking tough questions.
Not sure how Obama's pastor is a tough question. Should someone should look into the beliefs of Hillary and McCain's pastors to see if that makes them poor candidates for president. Checking out their physician's beliefs might be good too.
Obama's problem is that, to some, he looks anti-Israel. He has made what appear to be anti-Israel statements in the past, and his advisors appear to be anti-Israel.
IIRC, Obama's pastor invited him and his wife to a dinnner honoring Farrakhan, who is almost certainly anti-Israel. And his wife attended that dinner.
Perhaps memory does not serve.
I'd say it's much clearer than Obama is unfriendly to gun rights, for example, even considering recent statements to the contrary. I've heard from gun rights friendly sites (bring as many molecules of NaCl as you like) he wanted to make all semi-automatic weapons illegal at one time. I know a lot of bird hunters, trap, skeet and sporting clays shooters who would be unhappy with that.
I'm here for the friendly discussion, not to waste time on my googling skills. As I said, bring as many molecules of NaCl as you like. If you find cites, links or quotes persuasive, I can sell you any number of bridges.
There are some real dogs on the internet. As I recall, you quote some for them as if they were gospel.
I'm not here to write peer reviewed papers with footnotes, which is what links were created for.
How is Obama responsible for everything said by everyone he's ever met?
Simple: Obama's black, Wright is black, Farrakhan is black. Whatever one of them says, the others are automatically responsible for answering to it.
See? Much simpler.
Agreeing with Kaus makes me stupid?
Your words, not mine.
Russert is supposed to be asking tough questions. Not lobbing softballs.
How about lobbing goofballs? Russert is a clownish ass-hat.
He has made what appear to be anti-Israel statements in the past
Do tell. Please.
and his advisors appear to be anti-Israel.
"Appear" to be? And that is important because...why?
For crying out loud, shall we go over the list of people you guys demand Bush be responsible for their every word or deed?
boo fucking hoo. Stick to the topic, Rosemary.
P.S. Bush and Cheney (and Reagan) have skated past pretty much the most heinous things ever done (or said) by people who WORKED FOR THEM.
Jaysus -- Bush gave George "slam dunk" Tenet a freaking medal. He commuted Scooter "traitor" Libby's sentence.
And you want Obama to answer for Farrakhan? Give me a break.
How many times do I have to say it: Watch what they do -- not what they say.
"'Appear' to be? And that is important because...why?"
It's useless, Ara. They're smart people and if they can't understand the difference between gossip and reporting, innuendo and corroborated fact, slander and legitimate criticism (and right and wrong) because they can’t "waste the time" it takes to google and instead get their “facts” from Instapundit and milblogs, you have to assume they just don’t want to know.
If you’re a Republican, beating up liberals and the ignorance it takes to enjoy it is the bliss.
Look, Ara, I'm not saying Obama is anti-Israel, nor am I saying his advisors are. I'm saying they appear that way. Not to me, I've just got the people who complaining about that appearance to go by. The appearance is to them.
"Appear" to be? And that is important because...why?
What a politically tone deaf statement. Can you think why I might say that? Keep reading.
And you want Obama to answer for Farrakhan? Give me a break.
How many times do I have to say it: Watch what they do -- not what they say.
Obama hasn't had much chance to do anything with regard to Israel - accept make statements and pick advisors.
You know that some statements sound more partial to Israel than others. That's life. If Obama mainly has made statements which sound less partial to Israel, it's fair to conclude he is likely to be less partial to Israel.
Did I say he has mainly has made statements which sound less partial to Israel?
No, I did not. But you know how the sound bite wars work.
You also know that some foreign policy advisors are more partial to Israel than others. That's life. If Obama mainly picks foreign policy advisors who are less partial to Israel, it's fair to conclude he is likely to be less partial to Israel.
Did I say he has mainly picks foreign policy advisors who are less partial to Israel?
No, I did not. But you know how that works too.
And if you are more partial to Israel, and it's important to you, and you've concluded, based on the evidence available to you that Obama is less likely to be partial to Israel, you have a good reason to be less partial to Obama, especially if his opponents appear to be more partial to Israel.
So what should Obama do? Well, he should make overtures to people who are more partial to Israel, perhaps by making strong statements in favor of Israel.
And lo! Obama has done so. What a smart guy.
Must not be a politically tone deaf one.
Why on God's green earth did I have to explain this?
It's useless, Ara. They're smart people and if they can't understand the difference between gossip and reporting, innuendo and corroborated fact, slander and legitimate criticism (and right and wrong) because they can’t "waste the time" it takes to google and instead get their “facts” from Instapundit and milblogs, you have to assume they just don’t want to know.
If you’re a Republican, beating up liberals and the ignorance it takes to enjoy it is the bliss.
shep proves that he can be politically tone deaf, too.
"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," leading Democratic presidential contender Illinois Senator Barack Obama said Sunday.
"If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress," he said.
He also criticized the notion that anyone who asks tough questions about advancing the peace process or tries to secure Israel by anyway other than "just crushing the opposition" is being "soft or anti-Israel."
Yglesias' remarks are quote-worthy too:
This is music to my ears and, frankly, very much the attitude that's Israel's long-term future requires. Still, in some quarters the man may as well have just festooned himself with swastikas.
There are two certain ways to know that a toxic smear is bubbling up from the right-wing sewers -- it comes pouring out of Tim Russert's mouth and oozes onto Instapundit's blog, where it's deceitfully plugged. The indescribably baseless "Obama-hates- Israel" smear is well on its way.
There’s one more way: it appears on QOAE.
“There's no cheaper or more intellectually vapid device in political punditry than to point to some stray, anonymous friend and claim that he told you "X" as though that's proof that "X" is some sort of widespread or valid thought. Therefore, that's a favorite tactic of Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds…
“On one level, this is just the standard, cowardly, passive-aggressive way that Reynolds spreads his bile: ‘I didn't say that Obama hates Israel; my anonymous die-hard Democratic friend said it, and I just innocently passed it along.’"
I'm not saying Obama is anti-Israel, nor am I saying his advisors are. I'm saying they appear that way.
Grow up, Wince. Please. I say that as a long-time friend of yours.
Obama hasn't had much chance to do anything with regard to Israel - accept make statements and pick advisors.
[insert 10 completely opaque paragraphs]
Why on God's green earth did I have to explain this?
Sigh. I just wish you had.
Wince, you know me -- I'm pro-Zionism (and also pro-Israel). And/But I know this much: Bush foreign policy has hurt Israel AND America. Their fight is not our fight and our fight is not theirs. They're going to do some things that we don't like and vice-versa. But the long view is that they are our staunchest ally in the region and will be for a very, very long time. I feel more confident in Obama's (or Clinton's) approach to Middle East peace than I ever did with either Bush president.
P.S. Before I forget, here's what Stephen Spruiell at NRO.com had to say about Russert's ass-hat clowning:
Have you ever seen a candidate extract himself from such a maddeningly stupid argument so adroitly? He read viewers' minds — we were all thinking, "What's the difference between 'denounce' and 'reject?'" — and made Hillary look silly for trying to create a distinction.
It's this seemingly effortless ability to rise above the tedious semantics of American politics that makes Obama so difficult to attack. Even if you play better than him, he's better at mocking the game.
It's far, far too late to try to be cute about this sort of vile shit. You propagate the smear, you are the smear.
What smear? Are you kidding me? Pointing out another person's opinion about Russert taking it easy on Obama makes her "the smear." It is time for you to re-read the post. You clearly read things that are not there.
You are ridiculously laughable and vile.
If he is going to lead our country, Obama should have to answer for being a member of a church that above all else pledges its allegiance to the mother country...Africa (from tucc.org) and embraces a person like Louis Farrakhan. Russert had a chance to ask the question and he threw a softball.
I certainly want to know and also want to be assured that the USA is his number one priority.
No, unlike our host, I don't find a goddamn funny thing about it. The smear is any suggestion that Obama is any way culpable for the (possible) anti-Israeli - and by additionally ridiculous suggestion anti-semitic - statements of completely independent actors whose speech he has "denounced and rejected", just because they've said something favorable about him. Your loyalty is admirable but you've apparently ventured well outside your understanding and capability.
If he is going to lead our country, Obama should have to answer for being a member of a church that above all else pledges its allegiance to the mother country...Africa (from tucc.org)
What if your read the following about a candidate and his church:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Polish and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Polish religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent.
We are a Slavic people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of our civilization.
God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of persecution, the days of separation, and the long night of hatred. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation.
We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Catholic worship service and ministries which address the Polish Community.
What would you say?
What should I think?
Should I be scared?
Should I be offended?
As you know, I've simply substituted "Polish" for "African" and changed a few other words, here and there. Should the candidate now "have to answer for" his church?
As for "embracing Farrakhan," that's a question that has been asked (and answered) by the only person who matters: Rev. Wright. Beyond that, we're playing six degrees of separation to Kevin freaking Bacon.
If you don't want to vote for Obama, it's OK with me. Just don't give me some baloney about how he "has to answer for" what someone else says about somebody who says something about yet some other person who says or believes something that somehow you find scary or threatening.
That's your problem not his. You ought to work on that, not him.
P.S. Shouldn't John McCain "have to answer for" what this guy says? I say no (actually I don't give a damn either way) but you be the judge, OK Alice?
Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.
"John McCain has publicly stated his support of the state of Israel, pledging that his administration will not permit Iran to have nuclear weapons to fulfill the evil dreams of President Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map,'' Mr. Hagee said at a news conference at the Omni Hotel in San Antonio.
Mr. Hagee also praised Mr. McCain for his "solid, pro-life voting record for the past 24 years.''
Mr. McCain, who has been on a steady search for support among conservative and evangelical leaders who have long distrusted him, said he was "very honored'' by Mr. Hagee's endorsement. Asked about Mr. Hagee's extensive writings on Armageddon and about what one questioner said was Mr. Hagee's belief that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union, Mr. McCain responded that "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support.''
My bad. Sounds like McCain has already "answered for" it.
When John McCain hires Bill Cunningham to sling the most vile hash at Obama, calling him a Muslim, anti-American, (translation: BLACK) terrorist, Arab, when McCain puts a guy like that behind a podium to introduce him at a rally, when McCain then throws the idiot under the "Straight Talk Express" bus wheels, when McCain does that, he's not fooling anyone.
Cunningham was given a microphone -- the McCain microphone -- in order that he might spew the most toxic and vile crap into the atmosphere. And having released it, no simple press release can "un-spew" it.
McCain is no dummy. He knows that, to win, he must play the race card. Why? Because it's what Republicans do.
During a series of satellite television interviews, [Hillary] Clinton was questioned by Dallas station KTVT about comments by Adelfa Callejo, a local activist who supports Clinton candidacy. The interviewer quoted Callejo as saying "Obama's problem is he happens to be black" and asked Clinton to respond.
[...]
The interviewer asked Clinton whether she rejected or denounced Callejo's comment.
"People have every reason to express their opinions, I just don't agree with that," she said, adding "You know, this is a free country. People get to express their opinions."
"shep proves that he can be politically tone deaf, too"
Translation: shep isn't seeing that some strong supporters of Israel want to be reassurred about Obama's support of Israel. Obama, who is not tone deaf on this issue, gets it, and he was on it in a flash.
No one is propagating smears here. Ralph Nader says that Obama was pro-Palestinian and castigates Obama for moving towards Israel. Is that a smear? Well, it's like the New York Times endorsing McCain - it doesn't play well with a portion of the base. And that's a problem for Obama - one which he is handling quite well.
Substantively, if you are pro-Israel and you very much want a candidate who is pro-Israel, then you look for signs that the candidate is pro-Israel. Sometimes you even agitate to get a candidate to make a promise you can hold him too. If Obama wants those votes he has to go get them and be careful not to lose them.
And what has Obama done? He's gone to get them, yet being careful to establish that he's going to try to be fair to everyone so as not to pander, and he's being careful not to lose them.
Bravo, Obama.
Why Ara and shep aren't willing to take their cues from their candidate I don't know.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Alice:
If he is going to lead our country, Obama should have to answer for being a member of a church that above all else pledges its allegiance to the mother country...Africa (from tucc.org) and embraces a person like Louis Farrakhan. Russert had a chance to ask the question and he threw a softball.
And the smear continues, oh, so innocently. Are you really such a tool you don't even know your function?
Ralph Nader says that Obama was pro-Palestinian and castigates Obama for moving towards Israel. Is that a smear?
Maybe. But where I come from it's also called "bullshit."
Why Ara and shep aren't willing to take their cues from their candidate I don't know.
First of all, you aren't going to find two guys with more divergent opinions on Israel than shep and me. And although Obama is "my guy," I'm not sure that shep is quite so committed to Obama. Why not ask him.
Be that as it may, US policy toward Israel is just one part of the puzzle I look at when choosing between Democrats and Republicans. Generally speaking, Republicans are more "pro-Israel" (whatever that means) than Democrats. But I would never vote for a Republican based on just that.
Besides, I suspect the reason most Republicans back Israel so vocally is because the evangelical base tells them to and THOSE guys just want all the Jews to convert so Jesus can give the faithful a free ride to the Rapture.
First of all, you aren't going to find two guys with more divergent opinions on Israel than shep and me.
That's why Obama was careful not to pander to the pro-Israel portion of the base by qualifying his strong statements in support of Israel to make it clear he isn't in Israel's pocket. Nicely done, huh?
I suspect I disagree with shep, you and Obama on Israel. My position is somewhat fluid because the problem is difficult. I want an easy solution and there aren't any.
Ara, Mark &Shep, I am a voting American liberal. I want some answers to my questions. This does not make me a tool or part of the smear. I am troubled by Obama's religious beliefs. If he is going to be POTUS I want to know that the USA is where his allegiance lies. I have every right to ask and know. And, if someone running for president pledged allegiance to another country above all else including Poland...I would question them the same. This is not about being black. I have black grandchildren for God's sake. I also don't care about what Louis Farrakhan says...I don't think Obama has to answer for that. But, he should have to answer for his religious beliefs if they put another country before our own.
Mark, when did you join Obamarama or Obamamentum...I thought you still had Edwards’s dick in your mouth?
I want answers so that I will vote for Obama. If you can't handle that...then you should all think of the Hillary supporters and how easily they will or won’t brace Obama. My Mom and sister were willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. I know many Republican women willing to do so. They won't do the same for Obama. I need Obama to convince me why I should support him, now. Tucc.org recently removed the statement about pledging their allegiance above all else to the mother country Africa...interesting.
Oh and Shep, you continue to read things into what Rose says that is not there. You really need to take a course on deductive reasoning... because you clearly lack those skills.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I thought you still had Edwards’s dick in your mouth?
Nice.
You kiss your grandbabies with that fucking mouth?
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, Alice. Are you seriously concerned that Obama remotely pledges allegiance to his church, and through that to Africa, above the USA? Aren't you just engaging in the slur that Obama isn't patriotic enough?
Did you have the same "concern" with Huckabee or Romney? We you "concerned" that Kerry would place more loyalty to the Pope instead of the Constitution or the American People? How about McCain attending a church that is an arm of the fundamentalist/evangelical Southern Baptist Convention. Do you blithely accept Bush coming right out and saying Jesus tells him what to do as acceptable?
[psst...McCain gave up secret military info to his captors for preferential treatment...pass it on...]
How about just admitting that you ladies are all for girl-power, but are looking for any excuse to run away from Obama and reenter the GOP fold.
How about just admitting that you ladies are all for girl-power, but are looking for any excuse to run away from Obama and reenter the GOP fold.
Alice voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc.... She's a hardcore liberal and never supported a Republican, other than to stick it Bush in the primaries like Ara did back in 2000.
So, please stop trying to insult my sister by implying she's a Republican. She's not. She's just not a koolaid drinker.
No doubt in the Dean Esmay school of liberalism, eh?
I am troubled by Obama's religious beliefs. If he is going to be POTUS I want to know that the USA is where his allegiance lies. I have every right to ask and know.
That you've come this far and STILL BELIEVE that the question is in doubt is extremely troubling and does not speak well for your powers of judgement. But, whatever.
And, if someone running for president pledged allegiance to another country above all else including Poland...I would question them the same.
I would too, so we agree. But where did you get the idea that Obama even came remotely close to doing this? Like I said before, that you've come this far and you still have doubts...well, I'm worried about your ability to make an informed decision about a whole host of important matters.
My Mom and sister were willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. I know many Republican women willing to do so. They won't do the same for Obama.
Wait wait let me guess: it's because he's a scary African Muslim terrorist, right?
Alice voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc.... She's a hardcore liberal
I don't think the word "liberal" means what you think it means.
She's just not a koolaid drinker.
No, of course not. She genuinely and sincerely believes that there is a chance that Obama is secretly an African Muslim terrorist.
"shep isn't seeing that some strong supporters of Israel want to be reassurred about Obama's support of Israel."
Then they can ask him. What the fuck does that have to do with attempting to smear his reputation by attaching him to the statements of someone he doesn’t even know? Is there some sort of ethical lobotomy Republicans (and their close "liberal" relatives) have to undergo register with the party?
Personally, I hope that he thinks the Norman Podhoretz wing of the party should go Cheney themselves. The neoncons have pretty well established that simply saying or believing that you’re pro-Israel doesn’t mean dick with regard to knowing how to do her any good. Quite the opposite actually, and they’ve demonstrated over and over that they’re perfectly willing to betray the national security of United States to prove it.
Hey, Jerry, can you ban Alice for a while? It's just not necessary to write in such a foul manner. Just a symbolic ban will do. Six minutes? Half an hour?
Or maybe you could ban shep, Mark and Ara for insulting Rose. Or me for insulting shep.
A smear is when you destroy (or try to destroy) a candidate's message and reputation by drawing attention to a small, irrelevant aspect of his background.
...e.g...
John Edwards pays lots of money for a haircut so he's a hypocrite when he says he wants to help the poor.
Al Gore rides in a jet so he's a hypocrite when he says he wants to stop global warming.
John Kerry testifed to war atrocities he knew about while in Vietnam so he hates the troops and wants to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq.
OK, Ara. Here's the challenge. You are sensitive to smears and have a definition. Can you show me one smear perpetrated by a Democrat on a Democrat? Or by a Democrat on a Republican? Just one.
I do not believe Obama is an African Muslim Terrorist. His Church and the faith of his Church concern me. For the record on that, I have Muslims in my family, too! Blacks, Muslims and Feminists all in my family. One big happy melting pot.
So are you saying, one's church or religion should never be questioned when running for POTUS? I mean if Hillary embraced Wicken or was a member of a Wicken Church...do you think she be questioned about it? Absolutely.
What you are not getting here is that I want to like Obama. I want to be able to support him. But, I still feel I deserve these answers. Not because he is black. Not because I think he is a Muslim Terrorist, but because he is auditioning to be the POTUS and as an American and a voter it is my right to ask.
I think that should be plenty to get you going down the right, not the wrong, road about who Barack Obama really is -- not who your "friends" say he is.
Alice, really: vote for whomever makes you feel good. But I would be disappointed if you judged Obama because he has a scary middle name and his pastor's daughter's magazine gave an award once to a bad man.
It's all up to you. You can indulge yourself in fear, uncertainty and doubt; or you can rise above it and accept people for who they are -- even if they are not exactly like you.
Really...As I have said before I am not judging Obama by his middle name or what his friends say. I have concerns about his church. I am not indulging in fear. I want a president that puts the USA first, period. I want to know more about who Obama is...I have no problem with people who are not like me. Quit trying to make this about race or his being a muslim. As I have already said, I have friends and family who are black and even muslim. And I wholeheartedly embrace them.
As far as I am concerned, the POTUS or the church of which he is a member should not put an allegiance to another country above all others. I believe in the separation of church and state. His church clearly does not.
You clearly do not know me if you think his race is an issue. I am a person who believes loyalty is important in a President. I have doubts about his...not too mention, he certainly seems to be more fluff than substance.
I understand you are part of the Obamamentum. I on the other hand am not a lemming. I want to elect someone I can believe in not just follow everyone else and call doubters or questioners fear mongers or racists.
If Rev. Wright was running for president, I could see your point.
Quit trying to make this about race or his being a muslim.
Oh, I don't have to make it that way. It already is. Whether or not you buy into that, I can't say.
As far as I am concerned, the POTUS or the church of which he is a member should not put an allegiance to another country above all others.
So if Obama's church believes X (which it doesn't, but let's say it does) then Obama believes X? And because Obama believes X, he should be ... what? Disqualified from the presidency?
I have to point out that your opinion on this runs counter to American constitutional law (Article VI, Section 3) and American tradition. Not that you'll be arrested or anything.
But here's a question for you to consider: didn't your ancestors and mine come to this country to get away from shit like that?
I believe in the separation of church and state. His church clearly does not.
OK, that's just wrong. Where did you get that idea? And even if they did (which they don't) what does it matter?
I understand you are part of the Obamamentum. I on the other hand am not a lemming.
Hahahahaha! You're calling the tens of millions of people who support Obama lemmings? Pretty presumptuous on your part, don't you think?
I don't get Ara's example. What's a smear about calling the only black candidate "the black candidate". This makes so little sense to me.
Alicia, what evidence do you have for your church/state concern? I read your Polishified quote and no church/state alarm bells rang. I think you, like shep, may be reading things that aren't there.
Boy, talk about reading into a remark something that is not there.
But even if Clinton had said that explicitly it isn't a smear of Obama. He would be questioning Obama's electability by claiming that Americans are so racist that we would never elect a black man. If that smears anyone, it smears Americans.
OTOH, since it is an axiom of liberal orthodoxy that America is horribly and irredeemably racist, one would think that all liberals would be rightfully concerned that Obama was unelectable, no matter what Bill said.
And you can leave off with the sighs. It's not my fault you are shooting weird non-sequiturs all over the place, and seeing implications that can't be seen.
shep is reading things Rosemary never wrote. Alicia is reading things that Obama's church never placed on their site. And you are hearing things Bill Clinton never said.
You know, Wince, you should trust your intuition more than you do. It might open up a whole new world for you.
When all you know and trust are "facts" and "truth," you are living a limited existence.
He would be questioning Obama's electability by claiming that Americans are so racist that we would never elect a black man.
Your words, not mine (or Clinton's).
Others may infer something else entirely, e.g., "Of course, I'm not racist but I'm afraid enough other people are racist; so much so that I'm afraid that Obama could never win in November."
Since South Carolina we've seen that Obama has wide appeal, so Clinton's smear clearly didn't have the desired effect.
Now we're onto a different tack: (according to people like Alice) Obama's followers are "lemmings."
You know, Wince, you should trust your intuition more than you do.
My intuition is really positive on hanging around in Iraq for fifty years and the vindication of GWB. I'm not having any trouble trusting it. But you've always given it short shrift before. What changed?
When all you know and trust are "facts" and "truth," you are living a limited existence.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of shep, or ++ungood? They are the fact mongers in this crowd.
By the way, there is no essential difference between this:
He would be questioning Obama's electability by claiming that Americans are so racist that we would never elect a black man.
And this:
"Of course, I'm not racist but I'm afraid enough other people are racist; so much so that I'm afraid that Obama could never win in November."
But how you got all that from the three words "the black candidate" is beyond me.
Maybe you saw or heard the entire speech and it's more than the three words. But if not it should be clear to you why I find your statements obscure.
"As I have said before I am not judging Obama by his middle name or what his friends say. I have concerns about his church."
I'm pretty much with Maher and Hitchens on that one: believing in one Flying Spaghetti Monster is pretty much like believing in another. If Obama starts doubting evolution or wishing for "the rapture" or believing that God Himself gave a particular piece of land to a particular identity group, then I'd have the same sort of "concerns" I have for the evangelical and zionist wings of the Republican Party who have bee making public policy for the last seven years.
How is Obama responsible for everything said by everyone he's ever met?
Because there's so little else to attack him on?
In a way, it's a compliment.
No, Russert is supposed to be asking tough questions. Not lobbing softballs. C'mon. And if he did and Obama nailed it - then Mark and many other non-Obama supporters might have been impressed.
Not sure how Obama's pastor is a tough question. Should someone should look into the beliefs of Hillary and McCain's pastors to see if that makes them poor candidates for president. Checking out their physician's beliefs might be good too.
IIRC, Obama's pastor invited him and his wife to a dinnner honoring Farrakhan, who is almost certainly anti-Israel. And his wife attended that dinner.
Perhaps memory does not serve.
I'd say it's much clearer than Obama is unfriendly to gun rights, for example, even considering recent statements to the contrary. I've heard from gun rights friendly sites (bring as many molecules of NaCl as you like) he wanted to make all semi-automatic weapons illegal at one time. I know a lot of bird hunters, trap, skeet and sporting clays shooters who would be unhappy with that.
Yours,
Wince
Neither do milblogs or other "gun rights friendly sites". Cite it, quote it or shut it.
NO.
I'm here for the friendly discussion, not to waste time on my googling skills. As I said, bring as many molecules of NaCl as you like. If you find cites, links or quotes persuasive, I can sell you any number of bridges.
There are some real dogs on the internet. As I recall, you quote some for them as if they were gospel.
I'm not here to write peer reviewed papers with footnotes, which is what links were created for.
Yours,
Wince
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
For crying out loud, shall we go over the list of people you guys demand Bush be responsible for their every word or deed? It's a long fucking list.
Reagan too? You want to sit in the big chair, then you'd best be prepared to have an answer for every asshole you know and associate with...
Simple: Obama's black, Wright is black, Farrakhan is black. Whatever one of them says, the others are automatically responsible for answering to it.
See? Much simpler.
Agreeing with Kaus makes me stupid?
Your words, not mine.
Russert is supposed to be asking tough questions. Not lobbing softballs.
How about lobbing goofballs? Russert is a clownish ass-hat.
He has made what appear to be anti-Israel statements in the past
Do tell. Please.
and his advisors appear to be anti-Israel.
"Appear" to be? And that is important because...why?
For crying out loud, shall we go over the list of people you guys demand Bush be responsible for their every word or deed?
boo fucking hoo. Stick to the topic, Rosemary.
P.S. Bush and Cheney (and Reagan) have skated past pretty much the most heinous things ever done (or said) by people who WORKED FOR THEM.
Jaysus -- Bush gave George "slam dunk" Tenet a freaking medal. He commuted Scooter "traitor" Libby's sentence.
And you want Obama to answer for Farrakhan? Give me a break.
How many times do I have to say it: Watch what they do -- not what they say.
"'Appear' to be? And that is important because...why?"
It's useless, Ara. They're smart people and if they can't understand the difference between gossip and reporting, innuendo and corroborated fact, slander and legitimate criticism (and right and wrong) because they can’t "waste the time" it takes to google and instead get their “facts” from Instapundit and milblogs, you have to assume they just don’t want to know.
If you’re a Republican, beating up liberals and the ignorance it takes to enjoy it is the bliss.
"Appear" to be? And that is important because...why?
What a politically tone deaf statement. Can you think why I might say that? Keep reading.
And you want Obama to answer for Farrakhan? Give me a break.
How many times do I have to say it: Watch what they do -- not what they say.
Obama hasn't had much chance to do anything with regard to Israel - accept make statements and pick advisors.
You know that some statements sound more partial to Israel than others. That's life. If Obama mainly has made statements which sound less partial to Israel, it's fair to conclude he is likely to be less partial to Israel.
Did I say he has mainly has made statements which sound less partial to Israel?
No, I did not. But you know how the sound bite wars work.
You also know that some foreign policy advisors are more partial to Israel than others. That's life. If Obama mainly picks foreign policy advisors who are less partial to Israel, it's fair to conclude he is likely to be less partial to Israel.
Did I say he has mainly picks foreign policy advisors who are less partial to Israel?
No, I did not. But you know how that works too.
And if you are more partial to Israel, and it's important to you, and you've concluded, based on the evidence available to you that Obama is less likely to be partial to Israel, you have a good reason to be less partial to Obama, especially if his opponents appear to be more partial to Israel.
So what should Obama do? Well, he should make overtures to people who are more partial to Israel, perhaps by making strong statements in favor of Israel.
And lo! Obama has done so. What a smart guy.
Must not be a politically tone deaf one.
Why on God's green earth did I have to explain this?
Yours,
Wince
If you’re a Republican, beating up liberals and the ignorance it takes to enjoy it is the bliss.
shep proves that he can be politically tone deaf, too.
Yours,
Wince
Yours,
Wince
Here's a link which emphasizes Obama's strong statements in favor of Israel.
I will drop in links when it's easy for me, like when I happen to be reading and they leap in front of my eyes.
Yours,
Wince
Translation: "shep proves that he knows a disgusting, repulsive and reprehensible tune when he hears one."
There’s one more way: it appears on QOAE.
And not just Reynolds.
Grow up, Wince. Please. I say that as a long-time friend of yours.
Obama hasn't had much chance to do anything with regard to Israel - accept make statements and pick advisors.
[insert 10 completely opaque paragraphs]
Why on God's green earth did I have to explain this?
Sigh. I just wish you had.
Wince, you know me -- I'm pro-Zionism (and also pro-Israel). And/But I know this much: Bush foreign policy has hurt Israel AND America. Their fight is not our fight and our fight is not theirs. They're going to do some things that we don't like and vice-versa. But the long view is that they are our staunchest ally in the region and will be for a very, very long time. I feel more confident in Obama's (or Clinton's) approach to Middle East peace than I ever did with either Bush president.
It's far, far too late to try to be cute about this sort of vile shit. You propagate the smear, you are the smear.
What smear? Are you kidding me? Pointing out another person's opinion about Russert taking it easy on Obama makes her "the smear." It is time for you to re-read the post. You clearly read things that are not there.
You are ridiculously laughable and vile.
If he is going to lead our country, Obama should have to answer for being a member of a church that above all else pledges its allegiance to the mother country...Africa (from tucc.org) and embraces a person like Louis Farrakhan. Russert had a chance to ask the question and he threw a softball.
I certainly want to know and also want to be assured that the USA is his number one priority.
No, unlike our host, I don't find a goddamn funny thing about it. The smear is any suggestion that Obama is any way culpable for the (possible) anti-Israeli - and by additionally ridiculous suggestion anti-semitic - statements of completely independent actors whose speech he has "denounced and rejected", just because they've said something favorable about him. Your loyalty is admirable but you've apparently ventured well outside your understanding and capability.
If he is going to lead our country, Obama should have to answer for being a member of a church that above all else pledges its allegiance to the mother country...Africa (from tucc.org)
What if your read the following about a candidate and his church:What would you say?
What should I think?
Should I be scared?
Should I be offended?
As you know, I've simply substituted "Polish" for "African" and changed a few other words, here and there. Should the candidate now "have to answer for" his church?
As for "embracing Farrakhan," that's a question that has been asked (and answered) by the only person who matters: Rev. Wright. Beyond that, we're playing six degrees of separation to Kevin freaking Bacon.
If you don't want to vote for Obama, it's OK with me. Just don't give me some baloney about how he "has to answer for" what someone else says about somebody who says something about yet some other person who says or believes something that somehow you find scary or threatening.
That's your problem not his. You ought to work on that, not him.
My bad. Sounds like McCain has already "answered for" it.
When John McCain hires Bill Cunningham to sling the most vile hash at Obama, calling him a Muslim, anti-American, (translation: BLACK) terrorist, Arab, when McCain puts a guy like that behind a podium to introduce him at a rally, when McCain then throws the idiot under the "Straight Talk Express" bus wheels, when McCain does that, he's not fooling anyone.
Cunningham was given a microphone -- the McCain microphone -- in order that he might spew the most toxic and vile crap into the atmosphere. And having released it, no simple press release can "un-spew" it.
McCain is no dummy. He knows that, to win, he must play the race card. Why? Because it's what Republicans do.
It's how they win.
Every. Single. Time.
When is Tim Russert going to "answer for" what Don Imus said?
No shit, Sherlock.
Translation: shep isn't seeing that some strong supporters of Israel want to be reassurred about Obama's support of Israel. Obama, who is not tone deaf on this issue, gets it, and he was on it in a flash.
No one is propagating smears here. Ralph Nader says that Obama was pro-Palestinian and castigates Obama for moving towards Israel. Is that a smear? Well, it's like the New York Times endorsing McCain - it doesn't play well with a portion of the base. And that's a problem for Obama - one which he is handling quite well.
Substantively, if you are pro-Israel and you very much want a candidate who is pro-Israel, then you look for signs that the candidate is pro-Israel. Sometimes you even agitate to get a candidate to make a promise you can hold him too. If Obama wants those votes he has to go get them and be careful not to lose them.
And what has Obama done? He's gone to get them, yet being careful to establish that he's going to try to be fair to everyone so as not to pander, and he's being careful not to lose them.
Bravo, Obama.
Why Ara and shep aren't willing to take their cues from their candidate I don't know.
Yours,
Wince
And the smear continues, oh, so innocently. Are you really such a tool you don't even know your function?
Maybe. But where I come from it's also called "bullshit."
Why Ara and shep aren't willing to take their cues from their candidate I don't know.
First of all, you aren't going to find two guys with more divergent opinions on Israel than shep and me. And although Obama is "my guy," I'm not sure that shep is quite so committed to Obama. Why not ask him.
Be that as it may, US policy toward Israel is just one part of the puzzle I look at when choosing between Democrats and Republicans. Generally speaking, Republicans are more "pro-Israel" (whatever that means) than Democrats. But I would never vote for a Republican based on just that.
Besides, I suspect the reason most Republicans back Israel so vocally is because the evangelical base tells them to and THOSE guys just want all the Jews to convert so Jesus can give the faithful a free ride to the Rapture.
Feh.
That's why Obama was careful not to pander to the pro-Israel portion of the base by qualifying his strong statements in support of Israel to make it clear he isn't in Israel's pocket. Nicely done, huh?
I suspect I disagree with shep, you and Obama on Israel. My position is somewhat fluid because the problem is difficult. I want an easy solution and there aren't any.
Yours,
Wince
I am a voting American liberal. I want some answers to my questions. This does not make me a tool or part of the smear. I am troubled by Obama's religious beliefs. If he is going to be POTUS I want to know that the USA is where his allegiance lies. I have every right to ask and know. And, if someone running for president pledged allegiance to another country above all else including Poland...I would question them the same. This is not about being black. I have black grandchildren for God's sake. I also don't care about what Louis Farrakhan says...I don't think Obama has to answer for that. But, he should have to answer for his religious beliefs if they put another country before our own.
Mark, when did you join Obamarama or Obamamentum...I thought you still had Edwards’s dick in your mouth?
I want answers so that I will vote for Obama. If you can't handle that...then you should all think of the Hillary supporters and how easily they will or won’t brace Obama. My Mom and sister were willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. I know many Republican women willing to do so. They won't do the same for Obama. I need Obama to convince me why I should support him, now. Tucc.org recently removed the statement about pledging their allegiance above all else to the mother country Africa...interesting.
Oh and Shep, you continue to read things into what Rose says that is not there. You really need to take a course on deductive reasoning... because you clearly lack those skills.
Nice.
You kiss your grandbabies with that fucking mouth?
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, Alice. Are you seriously concerned that Obama remotely pledges allegiance to his church, and through that to Africa, above the USA? Aren't you just engaging in the slur that Obama isn't patriotic enough?
Did you have the same "concern" with Huckabee or Romney? We you "concerned" that Kerry would place more loyalty to the Pope instead of the Constitution or the American People? How about McCain attending a church that is an arm of the fundamentalist/evangelical Southern Baptist Convention. Do you blithely accept Bush coming right out and saying Jesus tells him what to do as acceptable?
[psst...McCain gave up secret military info to his captors for preferential treatment...pass it on...]
How about just admitting that you ladies are all for girl-power, but are looking for any excuse to run away from Obama and reenter the GOP fold.
Alice voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc.... She's a hardcore liberal and never supported a Republican, other than to stick it Bush in the primaries like Ara did back in 2000.
So, please stop trying to insult my sister by implying she's a Republican. She's not. She's just not a koolaid drinker.
No doubt in the Dean Esmay school of liberalism, eh?
I am troubled by Obama's religious beliefs. If he is going to be POTUS I want to know that the USA is where his allegiance lies. I have every right to ask and know.
That you've come this far and STILL BELIEVE that the question is in doubt is extremely troubling and does not speak well for your powers of judgement. But, whatever.
And, if someone running for president pledged allegiance to another country above all else including Poland...I would question them the same.
I would too, so we agree. But where did you get the idea that Obama even came remotely close to doing this? Like I said before, that you've come this far and you still have doubts...well, I'm worried about your ability to make an informed decision about a whole host of important matters.
My Mom and sister were willing to cross party lines to vote for Hillary. I know many Republican women willing to do so. They won't do the same for Obama.
Wait wait let me guess: it's because he's a scary African Muslim terrorist, right?
Alice voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc.... She's a hardcore liberal
I don't think the word "liberal" means what you think it means.
She's just not a koolaid drinker.
No, of course not. She genuinely and sincerely believes that there is a chance that Obama is secretly an African Muslim terrorist.
No koolaid there. Nope.
Then they can ask him. What the fuck does that have to do with attempting to smear his reputation by attaching him to the statements of someone he doesn’t even know? Is there some sort of ethical lobotomy Republicans (and their close "liberal" relatives) have to undergo register with the party?
Personally, I hope that he thinks the Norman Podhoretz wing of the party should go Cheney themselves. The neoncons have pretty well established that simply saying or believing that you’re pro-Israel doesn’t mean dick with regard to knowing how to do her any good. Quite the opposite actually, and they’ve demonstrated over and over that they’re perfectly willing to betray the national security of United States to prove it.
;0
Hey, Jerry, can you ban Alice for a while? It's just not necessary to write in such a foul manner. Just a symbolic ban will do. Six minutes? Half an hour?
Or maybe you could ban shep, Mark and Ara for insulting Rose. Or me for insulting shep.
Come on. We haven't had a good banning in days!
Yours,
Wince
Bill Moyers seemed to think Obama and his operatives didn't play it straight.
Just trying to figure out this word smear.
Yours,
Wince
A smear is when you destroy (or try to destroy) a candidate's message and reputation by drawing attention to a small, irrelevant aspect of his background.
...e.g...
John Edwards pays lots of money for a haircut so he's a hypocrite when he says he wants to help the poor.
Al Gore rides in a jet so he's a hypocrite when he says he wants to stop global warming.
John Kerry testifed to war atrocities he knew about while in Vietnam so he hates the troops and wants to surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq.
...and so forth. Those are smears. Got it?
Yours,
Wince
You can even pick from the article I linked.
Yours,
Wince
I think I have the perfect example. Joe Lieberman and John Kerry did almost the exact same thing to Howard Dean. H/T Glenn Greenwald
Also, Bill Clinton calls Barack Obama (paraphrasing) "the black candidate" during the South Carolina primary, 2008.
I do not believe Obama is an African Muslim Terrorist. His Church and the faith of his Church concern me. For the record on that, I have Muslims in my family, too! Blacks, Muslims and Feminists all in my family. One big happy melting pot.
So are you saying, one's church or religion should never be questioned when running for POTUS? I mean if Hillary embraced Wicken or was a member of a Wicken Church...do you think she be questioned about it? Absolutely.
What you are not getting here is that I want to like Obama. I want to be able to support him. But, I still feel I deserve these answers. Not because he is black. Not because I think he is a Muslim Terrorist, but because he is auditioning to be the POTUS and as an American and a voter it is my right to ask.
I think that should be plenty to get you going down the right, not the wrong, road about who Barack Obama really is -- not who your "friends" say he is.
Alice, really: vote for whomever makes you feel good. But I would be disappointed if you judged Obama because he has a scary middle name and his pastor's daughter's magazine gave an award once to a bad man.
It's all up to you. You can indulge yourself in fear, uncertainty and doubt; or you can rise above it and accept people for who they are -- even if they are not exactly like you.
It's your choice.
Really...As I have said before I am not judging Obama by his middle name or what his friends say. I have concerns about his church. I am not indulging in fear. I want a president that puts the USA first, period. I want to know more about who Obama is...I have no problem with people who are not like me. Quit trying to make this about race or his being a muslim. As I have already said, I have friends and family who are black and even muslim. And I wholeheartedly embrace them.
As far as I am concerned, the POTUS or the church of which he is a member should not put an allegiance to another country above all others. I believe in the separation of church and state. His church clearly does not.
You clearly do not know me if you think his race is an issue. I am a person who believes loyalty is important in a President. I have doubts about his...not too mention, he certainly seems to be more fluff than substance.
I understand you are part of the Obamamentum. I on the other hand am not a lemming. I want to elect someone I can believe in not just follow everyone else and call doubters or questioners fear mongers or racists.
If Rev. Wright was running for president, I could see your point.
Quit trying to make this about race or his being a muslim.
Oh, I don't have to make it that way. It already is. Whether or not you buy into that, I can't say.
As far as I am concerned, the POTUS or the church of which he is a member should not put an allegiance to another country above all others.
So if Obama's church believes X (which it doesn't, but let's say it does) then Obama believes X? And because Obama believes X, he should be ... what? Disqualified from the presidency?
I have to point out that your opinion on this runs counter to American constitutional law (Article VI, Section 3) and American tradition. Not that you'll be arrested or anything.
But here's a question for you to consider: didn't your ancestors and mine come to this country to get away from shit like that?
I believe in the separation of church and state. His church clearly does not.
OK, that's just wrong. Where did you get that idea? And even if they did (which they don't) what does it matter?
I understand you are part of the Obamamentum. I on the other hand am not a lemming.
Hahahahaha! You're calling the tens of millions of people who support Obama lemmings? Pretty presumptuous on your part, don't you think?
Next you'll be calling them "sheeple."
I don't get Ara's example. What's a smear about calling the only black candidate "the black candidate". This makes so little sense to me.
Alicia, what evidence do you have for your church/state concern? I read your Polishified quote and no church/state alarm bells rang. I think you, like shep, may be reading things that aren't there.
Yours,
Wince
Sigh.
It's implying that Obama wants to be, or can only be, President of the United Black States of America.
Get it? It means he doesn't have enough support to actually, you know, beat the other candidate.
For Democrats, that's a big fear; and fear, as we know, moves voters big time.
Boy, talk about reading into a remark something that is not there.
But even if Clinton had said that explicitly it isn't a smear of Obama. He would be questioning Obama's electability by claiming that Americans are so racist that we would never elect a black man. If that smears anyone, it smears Americans.
OTOH, since it is an axiom of liberal orthodoxy that America is horribly and irredeemably racist, one would think that all liberals would be rightfully concerned that Obama was unelectable, no matter what Bill said.
And you can leave off with the sighs. It's not my fault you are shooting weird non-sequiturs all over the place, and seeing implications that can't be seen.
shep is reading things Rosemary never wrote. Alicia is reading things that Obama's church never placed on their site. And you are hearing things Bill Clinton never said.
Yours,
Wince
When all you know and trust are "facts" and "truth," you are living a limited existence.
He would be questioning Obama's electability by claiming that Americans are so racist that we would never elect a black man.
Your words, not mine (or Clinton's).
Others may infer something else entirely, e.g., "Of course, I'm not racist but I'm afraid enough other people are racist; so much so that I'm afraid that Obama could never win in November."
Since South Carolina we've seen that Obama has wide appeal, so Clinton's smear clearly didn't have the desired effect.
Now we're onto a different tack: (according to people like Alice) Obama's followers are "lemmings."
Whatever.
My intuition is really positive on hanging around in Iraq for fifty years and the vindication of GWB. I'm not having any trouble trusting it. But you've always given it short shrift before. What changed?
When all you know and trust are "facts" and "truth," you are living a limited existence.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of shep, or ++ungood? They are the fact mongers in this crowd.
By the way, there is no essential difference between this:
He would be questioning Obama's electability by claiming that Americans are so racist that we would never elect a black man.
And this:
"Of course, I'm not racist but I'm afraid enough other people are racist; so much so that I'm afraid that Obama could never win in November."
But how you got all that from the three words "the black candidate" is beyond me.
Maybe you saw or heard the entire speech and it's more than the three words. But if not it should be clear to you why I find your statements obscure.
Yours,
Wince
In other words, it's always the other guy who's full of crap -- my own congressman is fine.
Mine OTOH....she's Teh Shit!
I'm pretty much with Maher and Hitchens on that one: believing in one Flying Spaghetti Monster is pretty much like believing in another. If Obama starts doubting evolution or wishing for "the rapture" or believing that God Himself gave a particular piece of land to a particular identity group, then I'd have the same sort of "concerns" I have for the evangelical and zionist wings of the Republican Party who have bee making public policy for the last seven years.