Obama puts forward the “the same incoherent litmus test he mentioned a few days ago.” This is a test that “conveniently allows him to talk to Iran — a sovereign state … but otherwise guilty of the same sins he lists vis-a-vis Hamas — while ignoring Hamas lest it put him on the wrong side of pro-Israel voters.”
My question is how does one not consider Iran to be a terrorist organization? Yes, it has borders, yes it has a hierarchical structure unlike the network-based structure of a terrorist organization. But Iran still wants to DESTROY Israel. Iran is still funding terrorist groups, giving money to the families of suicide bombers, and training forces that are killing U.S. and allied soldiers.
To me, Iran is a terrorist organization dressed up as a state. Obama, Clinton, Carter, or the State Department can talk all they want with Iran. This won’t change Iran’s goals of ruling the middle-east and pushing the Jewish people into the sea. It took millions of lives and a world war to realize that Hitler wasn’t playing around. Will it take that much to force us to realize Iran isn’t playing around?
What’s even scarier nowadays is the realistic possibility that a so-called state can conceivably pass off a nuke to a terrorist organization who would then detonate it wherever it pleases. There would be no smoking gun and it would be nearly impossible to connect officially such an action to a “state.” Just by virtue of having borders and some form of centralized government, Iran can allow “unaffiliated” terrorist organizations do its dirty work while it can bask in one of the benefits of statehood, namely unending diplomacy and talks which further legitimizes an undeserving and dangerous terrorist organization state.
I thought this last paragraph from Clive Crook’s blog post about Obama’s recent “bitter” comment was really funny.
Pandering is one thing. It is to be expected of politicians. But it is unwise, and it violates the etiquette of the profession, to say that you are pandering. Hillary panders to anti-trade sentiment, to the religious, and now (can this be correct?) to gun enthusiasts–all with apparently total conviction. Obama panders less well. I think it is a question of experience.
Read the whole thing for a good dissection of Obama’s comment and Hillary’s response to it.
The sky is blue, the grass is green, and Hillary Clinton is a liar. Please tell me something I don’t know.
Gordon Smith over at Conglomerate has done some research on the facial hair of past Vice Presidents. I tell you, a beard comeback to the White House would be the only good thing to result from a successful Obama-Richardson campaign.
Obama exploits his still living white grandmother. James Taranto of the WSJ thinks simple decency dictates that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion, but come on, he’s a politician!
Victor Davis Hanson writes about Obama and the poor track record of Northern liberal Democrats in the presidential races: none have won since JFK. The only Dems that have taken the White House were from the South: Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
Hanson goes on to explain why Obama might think this time it will be different. First, there is no incumbent president or vice president running and second, Hanson writes that “Obama offers Americans a sort of collective redemption at home and admiration abroad” due to his African-American status. I was surprised to see Hanson leave out a third reason why Obama thinks he is special, which is that I think Obama thinks he is the next JFK.
In summary, Hanson says that Obama needs to start being more honest with the voters and explain in detail his message for change. Hanson sees Obama as way more liberal than he portrays himself to be, which is why Hanson writes, “The irony is that Obama really does offer a change — not just in matters of youth, race and eloquence, but also in that we have not seen such a leftish philosophy on the national scene in over a generation.”
I totally agree with Hanson and I think as the campaign progresses, we will slowly begin to see what Obama really stands for as the press and conservative groups begin to criticize and question.
I don’t know how she did it, but she did it.
Hillary is still in this race against Obama. Last night she won Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, snapping Obama’s winning streak. Here’s an explanation of how she won two of the most important races of her campaign.
I think its everyone’s belief that McCain will have an easier time against Clinton as opposed to Obama. I agree with that sentiment, but I’d also like to add that McCain can win over Obama and that it would not be a landslide as I think most Obama supporters would imagine. As talk radio continues to suggest, Obama is unknown and barely has any sort of record. Reporters have just started to ask him really tough questions and he wasn’t able to satisfy them.
If Obama does get the nomination soon, there will be many months for people and reporters to ask him even more tough questions and there will be plenty of opportunities for McCain to attack Obama. There will be plenty more time for Obama’s wife to make a fool out herself and her husband. 2008 will be another very close presidential race.
During the Tuesday night debate between Democrat candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one of the topics of debate was NAFTA. Tim Russert was the questioner and he did a good job of trying to force both of them to choose a side: are you for NAFTA or against it? Both tried to have it both ways. Even the New York Times is not afraid to point out that both candidates haven’t always been free-trade foes.
But most distressing to me is the fact that both spoke in ways that were highly insulting to Mexico and Canada. As this editorial on IBD states, “Sure, they’re pandering for Rust Belt votes. But do they ever consider the impact of their statements on our allies?”
Both candidates threaten to leave NAFTA unless its “labor and environmental standards” are strictly “enforced.” Enforcement? Hammer? What kind of criminals are these would-be G-men talking about? Evil ruffians out there committing . . . trade.
This not only insults our allies and trading partners, it signals to everyone else that America’s capricious, chest-thumping protectionist ally, Mexico, a third-world nation that is trying hard to transform itself into a first, bears the brunt of this coded jingoism.
That’s because trade pacts these days are about more than just trade — they represent long-term strategic partnerships. But after this talk, who’ll want to sign a permanent trade deal knowing they’ll be threatened by ambitious politicians every election season?
Mexico is not on the same level as the United States and it is probably much harder and more cost prohibitive for them to enforce labor and environmental standards. These candidates are ignoring reality if they think they can force Mexico to meet our higher standards.
Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay:
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC’s “This Week,” she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.”
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, “it will be affordable for everyone.”
Of course it will be affordable for everyone, especially when you STEAL from the most productive citizens and when you STRIP their liberties from them. These Dems make the silliest fuss about how our government should not be “spying” on us, how we should not be in this stupid war in Iraq, about how we shouldn’t sacrifice our freedoms for security, yet they go on to say in the same goddamn breath that we should sacrifice our freedoms so everyone can have cheap health care, which is a form security and wellbeing.
To me, the biggest difference in the government doing what it thinks it needs to do to protect us from terrorists and the government doing what it thinks it needs to do to give us cheap health care is that people are largely incapable of insulating themselves from the threat of terrorists. I can’t collect foreign intelligence, I can’t tell the State or Defense Departments to work whatever magic they might have. I am extremely dependent on this government to protect me from military threats, whereas I and other people are less dependent on the government in regards to health care.
Has any of these Dems explained why taking away freedoms and liberties for cheap health care better than taking away freedoms and liberties in order to kill terrorists before they kill me?
Congressman Ron Paul had an excellent one-day fund raising take of $4 million. Not too bad for an anti-war Republican.
New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen told On Call today that Republican Ron Paul has a shot a shaking up the GOP contest in the first primary state. Cullen said that with Paul’s $4 million fundraising take yesterday, he legitimizes his candidacy. Also, the crusty Granite State is fervently anti-war, a sentiment shared by members of both parties.
Judging by Paul’s performance of late, I’m going to predict that he will win New Hampshire and maybe Iowa, but will fail in South Carolina and other Southern states. Paul will be this election’s McCain.
