Liberals

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

he’s not going away quietly

And after all John McCain’s complaints about the NCGOP and how mean and nasty they were to bring up Senator Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright, the man himself says that his relationship with his former pastor is a “legitimate political issue“. Then it should be ok for Republicans to bring it up in ads, right?

Here’s the exchange between Obama and Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: I wasn’t sure whether I was even going to ask you about your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, but he made it easy for me because he’s now begun this –

OBAMA: Right.

WALLACE: — public campaign to redeem his reputation. The other night he said to Bill Moyers that he has been the target of a smear campaign.

Question: Do you think that Reverend Wright is just the victim here?

OBAMA: No. I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past. The fact that he is my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue. So I understand that.

I think that it is also true that to run a snippet of 30-second sound bites, selecting out of a 30-year career, simplified and caricatured him, and caricatured the church. And I think that was done in a fairly deliberate way.

And that is unfortunate, because as I’ve said before, I have strongly denounced those comments that were the subject of so much attention. I wasn’t in church when he made them. But I also know that I go to church not to worship the pastor, to worship God. And that ministry, the church family that’s been built there, does outstanding work, has been I think applauded for its outreach to the poor.

He built that ministry. And I think that, you know, people need to take a look at the whole church and the whole man in making these assessments.

The good and bad news for Senator Obama is that we will get to hear more from Rev. Wright, and we can get the full context we need to make a judgment call on whether all this negative press Wright’s been getting is deserved. I say that it is. He isn’t taking back any of the inflammatory things he’s previously said, and he keeps adding more fuel to the fire as he attempts to defend his reputation and his church. Even though I disagree with Rev. Wright on 99% of the stuff he says, he did say one thing to Bill Moyers and in his speech to the National Press Club that I agree with — he said that Barack is just a politician and that he does what he does for political reasons. That’s the point that we have been trying to make — there’s nothing special about Barack other than his ability to wow people with his speeches. He believes the same nonsense on policy that Hillary does, and the left won’t see much difference in a President Obama as opposed to a President Hillary. No doubt Barack is a nice guy, but that’s not enough to make him President.

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

still alive

Hillary Clinton got her needed Pennsylvania win over Barack Obama, and the final margin will probably be around 8 points. It does give her enough of an argument to keep going in the race, and many Republicans hope she will prolong this contest a few more months, even though we know that Barack will prevail in the end. It is surprising that even with all Barack’s strengths as a campaigner and his overall charisma, his lead is not expanding by a much wider margin over Hillary Clinton. Hillary is right when she says that Barack can’t seem to close the deal with Democrats. It should be a no-brainer for them, with all the negatives Hillary’s carrying around. She has stayed in this race long enough to expose some of Barack’s weaknesses, and that’s another reason why Hillary isn’t giving up yet. She’s holding out hope that he will make a more serious mistake than the minor gaffes we have seen from him so far. It could happen. However, it’s a hard case to make to the superdelegates that she will be the strongest candidate against McCain in November if she loses the popular vote and the delegate count to Barack Obama.

Update: The final numbers are closer to 10 points.  It still may not make much difference to the final outcome, but Hillary’s still in and not going away any time soon.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

untouchable

Sensei Kreese has issued the marching orders.  No one touches the prima donna until the tournament.  Is that clear?  No hard punches.  No hard questions.  Let the man skate.  Keep the kid gloves on, because we don’t want to hurt the guy’s chances of becoming President.  This may sound harsh to some of my friends on the left (and one person in particular), but the free ride Barack Obama has been getting for the majority of his run for the White House is flat-out ridiculous and it’s about time someone started asking him questions that he can’t answer from the Democrat talking-point quote book.  It doesn’t do him any good to complain about the press coverage.  If he can’t handle the few hard questions he’s getting now, he’s got some work to do before he is ready to handle White House press conferences.

Tony Resko shouldn’t matter.  The Rev. Wright and his controversial comments shouldn’t matter.  Louis Farrakan shouldn’t matter.  Barack Obama doesn’t have official endorsements from these folks, so it’s perfectly clear that Barack Obama doesn’t agree with Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakan and some of the outrageous things they have said in the past.  At least that is the answer Obama’s supporters have when we dare to bring this stuff up. Then there’s the question of William Ayers.  Maybe most of this was part of breaking into Chicago politics, for Obama to temporarily associate himself with some shady characters in order to get elected.  That’s a possibility.  But it’s fair to ask questions about these things.

Here’s why.  All along Barack Obama has been telling us that he is the candidate with the best judgment, because he was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning.  Should this be the only factor we use to determine how good Barack’s judgment would be as President?  Do we know exactly what he will do as President?  Of course not.  We have to look at what he has said, and we have to look at what he’s done in the past.  Obama is still undefined to some degree, so we still have to try to fill in the blanks. Are we now saying that you can’t really judge a person by the company he keeps? It’s no reflection on Barack himself that all these no-good creeps like him.  Got it.   Sometimes a President can get the good guys and bad guys mixed up.  Former Presidents like Jimmy Carter find this distinction rather difficult.  (And yes, Chris, even Bush does it. There.  Happy now? 🙂 )  My concern about Obama is that he hasn’t shown much aptitude for determining that in his own life, and what would he do when confronted with foreign heads of state who have every incentive to try to fool him?

Then there’s the perfectly legitimate question of why Hamas thinks Barack Obama would be supportive of their interests. We aren’t calling Barack Obama a terrorist. We don’t think he’s a terrorist. We do think that he will misread the intentions of groups like Hamas, people like Ahmadinejad, and terrorist-supporting countries like Iran and Syria. That’s the concern, and it’s a legitimate concern. Foreign policy is a tricky business and we just don’t think he’s ready for that challenge. I just hope that if he becomes President, he will appoint some folks to his foreign policy team that can help him with this.

Don’t misinterpret this as a shredding of the future Democratic nominee. We are actually doing you a favor by talking about Rev. Wright and flag pins, because the more time we spend on the stuff Democrats consider trivial, less time will be spent finding out how much he doesn’t know or understand about foreign policy and the economy. Besides, isn’t it better that Obama gets these questions out of the way now, rather than waiting until closer to the election? It’s not entirely unreasonable to believe that all this will be old news when the election rolls around, and we will get back to healthcare and the economy soon enough. Maybe the media has finally decided to start asking Obama questions that he can’t answer in a soundbite. There’s nothing wrong with that.

7 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

are you impressed yet?

Ladies and gentlemen of the Democrat party,  here are your candidates for President — Senator Clinton, the Washington insider and Senator Obama, the photogenic rookie.  I guess you have to fight an election with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had.  One important thing I took away from the debate tonight is that Barack is beatable.  Even this election year.  Even with an unpopular (at least according to polls) incumbent President.  What we have been seeing recently is the humanization of Barack Obama.  He has fallen off his high perch from self-inflicted wounds and harmful associations with America-haters like Reverend Wright.  We saw more of this in the Hillary v. Obama debate this evening.  He actually looked like he was unsure of himself and his answers to the questions reflected that.   John McCain can beat this Barack Obama.  He couldn’t beat the one we saw 6 months ago.

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

bittergate

So Obama said some inartful things about the good citizens of Pennsylvania while speaking to some fat cats in San Fran, about which Republicans are supposed to be outraged at the great slight he made to average Janes and Joes everywhere in this country.  Do I have the story correct here?   That seems to be the common interpretation of my friends on the right.  This campaign season has already gone on too long, and we have run out of things to say about this race.  That’s why all these little slip-ups take on such great importance. I have no doubt that Obama regrets saying what he said the way he said it, but I’m not really surprised that he would say something like this.

The honesty is refreshing.  Wouldn’t we rather have a candidate who tells us how he really feels, instead of this mindless pandering we see every presidential election? What we have here is someone who, despite all of the photo-ops done by both Democrats and Republicans with the cheesesteaks and the beer and various average-Joe activities like hunting,  doesn’t really identify with those people.  There’s nothing shocking about this revelation.  That’s part of Obama’s whole appeal — that he is something greater than all of the average people and that he alone has the ability to rise above the masses and above partisan bickering to actually get things done for the country.

He is different from John Kerry because he can overcome mistakes like this.  People will still like Barack no matter what he says, and they will always prefer him to the ultimate Washington insider Hillary Clinton.

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

cheap shot artists

Thanks for reminding John McCain who his opposition really is, Democrats. In case he wasn’t sure that the Democrats would say anything mean about him before the election, now he knows differently. Step right up and take those cheap shots. I’m talking to you, Ed Schultz, Howard Dean, and John F. Kerry. For those who have never heard of Ed Schultz, he is a liberal talk radio guy who occasionally appears on cable news shows and represents the Airhead America point of view. He called John McCain a warmonger. That doesn’t sound all that inflammatory in print, but it suggests that McCain is someone who is looking to pick fights that have nothing to do with our national security interests. I don’t see McCain this way, and in spite of his bad joke about bombing Iran, I don’t think he would be as willing to do it as the Democrats suggest that he is. I also think he’s more open to the kind of diplomacy Hillary and Obama keep talking about than he can admit as the Republican nominee.

DNC chairman Howard Dean is the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans. He always gives us such great material for our campaign ads. Think you might see this quote again?

He says:

John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years.

While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.

That’s right. Howard Dean calls John McCain a blatant opportunist. I suppose that this could be interpreted any number of ways, but to suggest, as Media Matters does, that Dean wasn’t accusing McCain of playing politics with his military service — that claim is laughable. Besides, under the Democrat rules of engagement, only those who have served in the military are qualified to support or criticize wars. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t include Howard Dean. Also, Dean is being disingenuous with his claim that McCain is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. McCain did no such thing.

McCain has every right to include his military service in his re-introduction to the American people, because that’s a big part of who the man is. If his intention was to exploit that military service for maximum advantage, he would probably mention it every three seconds like John F. Kerry did in 2004. He also wouldn’t keep the fact that his son James is serving our country in Iraq a secret (more on that later).

Continue reading →

3 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, George W. Bush, Liberals

are they serious?

Non-“right wing crazies” also question the Democrats’ (and specifically Obama’s) patriotism.

Like Joe Klein, for example.

This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what’s wrong with America than what’s right. When Ronald Reagan touted “Morning in America” in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight “and getting darker all the time.” This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama’s hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.

That’s what the right is questioning about the Democrats and about Obama. It’s not that he doesn’t wear a flag pin. I could care less whether Democrats or Republicans wear flag pins. The attitude and mindset of a potential President is what’s important here. I want someone who, while admitting the challenges and struggles we face as a country, will also acknowledge the possibility that we can overcome those challenges. I’ve said on several occasions that it’s customary to have the party out of power tell the voters how terrible everything is to win elections, and that both sides do this. However, the Democrats seem to have perfected this particular argument, and it’s often hard for them to admit that the country isn’t doomed, because this ruins all of their stump speeches.

It also damages their push for national health care, pulling out of Iraq — forget for a minute that both Hillary and Obama have flip-flopped on their commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq — and all of their other grand social experiments and new government spending. This aversion to Bush has really tied the Dems in knots to the point where they can never give him credit for anything, even when it’s obvious they agree with what he does. According to the Democrats, Bush has ruined this great country, and all the bad things happening to you in your life are indirectly caused by your President. This period of misery will continue under President McCain, because “he’s just like Bush”. McCain will also ruin your life, so the only choice you have is to vote Democratic. That’s their whole argument. McCain = Bush.

At some point, the Democrats will have to make the case for their nominee, and it has to be more than “We’re not like Bush!”. President Bush isn’t running again, and running against him won’t work this time.

5 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

it’s not going to happen

The longer the Democratic primary battle continues, the more difficult it seems to be to keep the Democrats from doing something stupid.  Exhibit A: the possibility that they would end up picking someone no Democrat voted for in 2008.  I’m talking about America’s most revered loser Al Gore.   There is actually a discussion among some “senior” Democrats about tossing out the preferences of Democrat voters and nominating Al Gore as the Democrat who will lose to John McCain in November.  That’s a fabulous idea.  If you want all out civil war in the Democratic party, just try to pull this stunt.  Even if you think that Al Gore actually won in 2000, there’s nothing new or original about him other than his obsession with saving the planet.  He’s Washington establishment through and through and he’s one of those boring white male types we keep electing as President.

It’s over for Al Gore.  He would be better off staying where he is and making outrageous sums of money lying to the public about global warming.  I know the media is easily distracted by shiny objects and candidates not actually in the race, but there’s nothing to see here. I never overestimate the Democrats’ ability to screw up a sure thing, but I can’t believe they would seriously consider nominating Gore over Obama or Hillary.   It takes away the novelty and the advantage either Dem would have in November.  It’s not going to happen.  Al Gore will not be the Dem nominee in 2008.  Get over 2000 and the Clinton years and get on with your lives.  Nominate Obama.  Or you Dems could just struggle and struggle until August or September.   Either way works for me.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

something we should all agree on

Chris Matthews is not an objective journalist, and he says some really dumb (some might say a bit creepy) things.

Like this, for example(on Barack’s speech):

We’ll have much more on this momentous day and what I personally view as the best speech ever given on race in this country. One that went beyond “I have a dream,” to “I have lived the dream but have also lived in this country.”

Better than Martin Luther King’s speech? You have got to be kidding.

Or this:

I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract. Something that you just check in with, now and then, like reading Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn. Read this speech, once in a while, ladies and gentlemen. This is us. It’s us with the scab ripped off.

No exaggeration here. A speech Barack felt compelled to give to keep the Wright matter under control is now on par with great literature by F.Scott Fitzgerald and Mark Twain. Uh huh.  Chris Matthews checks his objectivity at the door when he clocks in to work every day.  I don’t know how much more proof we need that he has a glaringly obvious bias to Democrats in general and Barack in particular.

I liked Barack’s speech.  I’ll leave the micro-analysis of it to others, because I have no interest in dissecting every single argument he made yesterday. I will say this, however — if the desired objective was to get the Wright matter settled, I don’t think that his speech achieved that objective.  This will follow him into November, unless the media gets tired of the story.  Don’t be surprised if this happens.  Without new information, stories like this die.  The media is in the tank for Barack, and it will do everything in its power to protect him, including not asking the hard questions of someone who wants to be president of this country.

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Random Musings

barack attempts to answer the critics

From RCP (originally posted at HuffPost), here’s Barack’s answer to those who question his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

Continue reading →