Obama's acceptance speech, like all good speeches, started slowly out of the gate. The second third was a barn burner, going after McCain and Bush the way he should have from the start. The last was a well-intentioned misfire, trying to address critics (like me) who chide him for a lack of specifics. He enumerated his platform planks, but they were so tepid, so woefully short of what we need on a range of important issues, that they fell flat. Nice try, anyway.
There was one galling moment, though. Obama said:
For -- for while -- while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face.
When John McCain said we could just muddle through in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.
You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives.
First of all, Obama didn't actually oppose the Iraq War. He voted to fund it. Over and over and over. All he did was talk about how the war was a bad idea, before voting to waste more money and lives on it.
Second, "the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11" weren't in Afghanistan. They were dead, or in Pakistan. Some of their financiers were in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, too. Obama's desire to seem tough because he's willing to kill Muslims in Afghanistan is as misguided as Bush's Iraq misadventure.
Third, I'm betting Osama lives in a nice house.
A pinkie-hold on the edge is better than being completly thrown in to the abyss. But not by much. Dorme bene
ReplyDeleteHey Ted,
ReplyDeleteYour material is very good and I generally like it. I will say though, I think you're much more in your element when you're addressing specific issues than when you're doing campaign analysis. It's not that it's bad, I just don't think it's as strong.
Obama's qualifications to be President:
ReplyDeleteNice!
ReplyDeleteI think Ted's main point here is that Obama (and almost all Democratic politicians and voters) have bought into a dangerous lie: that NATO bombing of Afghanistan does a single thing to benefit the Western World. (I'd blame the US only but hell even Canada is shooting Afghanis...)
ReplyDeleteThe American people have been fed a similar lie about bombing Iraq since ~1991. Even though the Iraqi people and officials said again and again that they didn't have WMD since, well, we gave them some and they used them.
We're being fed a similar lie about Iran right now. Obama two times last night referred to Iran's nuclear weapons ambition, even though the US's NIE says that Iran hasn't been working on nuclear weapons since 2003.
And we can talk about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience but ...then he picked a Senator who also buys into war lies. According to Joe Biden, everyone (in Washington DC who he asked) said Iraq had WMD, which is why he voted for the AUMF.
...basically neither major political party in the US should be voted for by anyone who is a pacifist. This whole ideology about picking the lesser of two evils is political BS.
If you want peace, vote for a candidate who believes in it.
"Third, I'm betting Osama lives in a nice house."
ReplyDelete...And *I'm* betting that house is a condo in Florida, where a lot of formerly useful operatives seem to end up...
Abraham Lincoln's qualifications to be President:
ReplyDeleteactually edward, TECHNICALLY (i know it's your favorite word, but try to keep your willie in your pants plz), article two of the constitution says he only has to be a natural born citizen, at least 35 yrs old, and a permanent resident for at least the last 14 yrs. article one and the 22nd amendment spell out some additional qualifications, and he meets those as well.
ReplyDeleteso what now, wrong-boy? looks like you've proven yourself to be full of shit, based on your own 13-yr-old lawyer rules. sucks to be you (even more than usual)!
and btw, i think obama is a turd and i wish he and mccain could BOTH lose (but for that to happen we'd have to live in an actual democracy, instead of a pretend one); still, it sure is amusing to point out what an idiot you are. i'll be looking forward to your mea culpa post, wherein you admit your idiocy and apologize for it.
PS how much does the GOP pay you to post here, and do you think they'll make you refund the money for your last post, since it was WRONG?? or do they not pay per post?
Ted,
ReplyDeleteWhile your continued criticism of Obama demonstrates your willingness to be objective, I can't help feel that you are over doing it. Are you afraid of being one-sided if McCain were your primary focus?
I feel that you're doing us, the Liberal/Progressive community, a great disservice by placing so much attention on Obama. You are feeding the very same right wing slime machine that has so often attacked you in the past. (As evidenced by some of the comments you're getting on your blog.)
You carp over Obama's vote to fund the war. What United States are YOU living in where a senator can vote against funding for a war, as unpopular as it may be, where the GOP and its propaganda machine won't label them "soft" on terrorism or "against the troop"? What United States are you living in where the populace doesn't fall for those tactics?
Please tell me. I sure would love to live there.
Obama is dealing with the political realities of the present. To ask him to do otherwise is like tying his arms and legs together and asking him to win the Boston Marathon. You are putting ideology above reason.
Surely even in your cynical view Obama is the lesser of two evils?
Ted,
ReplyDeleteI think you are dead on. Progressives/leftists need to be honest with themselves if they are ever going to produce real "change." Honestly, Obama is not progressive and will not walk where his talk is. Obama may be the lesser of two evils but he is still evil. There are more than two people running for president.
Devil,
ReplyDeleteYou have to think in terms of the literal definition of the terms Edward used, "qualifications" and "President"....To truly know those definitions, you would have to have Edward's dictionary...the source of precise meanings of words.
perhaps by he meant the little know usage of the word "President"....root word, Ent, Presid being the formal title of the official responsible for warding off beetles. In that case, Obama is clearly not qualified, because he is not a tree.
Qualifications, in Edward's dictionary, may literally translate into 'The number of Heisman Trophies one possesses.'
In which case I'd have to respond, Why would a tree need a Heisman Trophy?
Devil,
ReplyDeleteI did not say Obama Hussien is not qualified. I left it blank for you to fill in.
BTW I don't need to be paid to post here, I earn enough having Democrats work for me. They make excellent employees because most of them are too bitter about corporate America to figure out they could easily do what I do and start their own business.
Keep up the bitterness!
Ahhh, Devil, once again foiled by Edward's petty cleverness!!
ReplyDeleteHe's so clever, and we're all just jealous of his intellect and bitter.
Edward:
"Democrats work for me. They make excellent employees because most of them are too bitter about corporate America to figure out they could easily do what I do and start their own business."
If you truly feel this way about your employees, you're a real scumbag.
@anonymous, 8/30/08 5:14 PM:
ReplyDeleteSure, Obama is no "progressive" (in the sense of socialist, that socialist Americans use). He is just a Democratic party professional politician, and a very good one at that. People of socialist leanings (like Ted, I assume) delude themselves into thinking the Democratic party (or even the Democratic base) is exactly at the same position in the political spectrum as they are, just because they've been piggybacking on it for so long.
Until the USA has something like a parliamentary system, where a Socialist party to your hearts content can have the swing power it can gather from its voter base, you are doomed to accept whatever the DNC politburo throws at you.
What worries me, who am not a Socialist, nor an American, is that Obama is making to many concessions on the foreign policy agenda, which may drain the pacifist-inclined American voter base and his chance at winning. And that would be terrible, because he is still a better choice than McCain, for the rest of us.
If you truly feel this way about your employees, you're a real scumbag.
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine what you think about your conservative students at your community college.
My employees are paid well. It is their bitterness that keeps them from moving up and on. Their minds are poisoned by bitter left-wing professors that blame their lot in life on "corporate America". Blame yourself old man.
1)The average American pays:
ReplyDeletea)10,000 in taxes to the military per year.
b)11,000 in taxes toward healthcare per year
c)both a and b
2)The US GDP ranks 4th, and ___
a)ranks 92nd in wealth distribution
b)ranks 15th in Human Development
c)both a and b
3)The US spends more on healthcare than any country in the World, and ___
a) Ranks first, obviously
b) Ranks Second
c) ranks third
d) ranks 10th
e) ranks 20th
f) ranks 23rd
g) ranks 24th
h) ranks 40th
i) is rank
j) ranks 43nd
"I can only imagine what you think about your conservative students at your community college."
ReplyDeleteI'm not at a community college, however your insinuation of the quality of community colleges by using the phrase as an attempt to embarrass or humiliate me (this wouldn't be the first time) demonstrates a truly sick level of incompetence.
I'll take this opportunity, however, to discuss an issue you raise about the political character of students in university today.
I was teaching on the morning of September 11th, 2001, and the students graduating from college this year have lived their high school and college days under the gentle leadership of George W Bush and his cronies. While crippled with student loan debt and weak economic prospects, they are both optimistic about the future and don't carry the baggage of 1960s political food fighting that we see on this blog and in our political discourse today.
Edward, you can build a throne of swords, but you'll never be able to sit upon it. Today's mid-20s generation has enough critical thinking skills, coupled with genuine disgust of the current leadership, and yet still possesses enough optimism, to even give me hope.
You're not going to insult me with your condescending bullshit, because I don't need your validation to get up in the morning. You just make yourself increasingly look like the worm you are.