An in-depth analysis of the Democratic frontrunner's own policies
The Obama train pulled out of Super Tuesday with a head full of steam, and proceeded to make the case for Democrat frontrunner status with Saturday and Tuesday's primary sweeps. The Democrats hottest property is winning voters in rural areas and the south, and giving Hillary Clinton a serious run for specifically her own money.…
Article comments
176 - REMF
"First, we are in a war. We've declared war, after war was declared on us. Moreover, we suffered an ACT of war on 9/11 by these people, who claimed to be fighting a holy war."
- Obnoxious American
Two things:
1) Please refrian from using the word "we" when referring to those brave enough to actually enlist and serve in the war;
and 2) 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. 15 of the terrorist were Saudis, 2 were United Arab emirates, 1 was from Eqypt and 1 from Lebanon.
177 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
at comment #143 Bennett wrote,
What? You, as a citizen of the US, living in Israel, want to blame people ("them") in other countries for 'making' your President commit sex crimes?
Ah, Bennett, you have me there. Katzav's wrongs, while no where near the wrongs committed by the likes of Dayan and others in Israel, were not caused by the EU or the Americans - his own libido dragged Katzav down.
I wasn't referring to Katzav, or even Dayan's famously loose zipper (two Moshe's with similar peter problems); I was referring to how most of Israel's OTHER politicians manage to get themselves in financial trouble (usually with the help of Americans or Europeans) and then how the Americans (or Europeans) use little pups like Shimon Peres or Menny Mazuz to squeeze their balls to do their bidding - like Netanyahu's handover of Hebron, Barak's pullout from Lebanon or Sharon's traitorous treatment of the Jews of Gush Qatif. Each of these actions were disasters for this country.
So the "non-fool" Jew is going to vote for... YOU on a write in ballot!
Seriously, the non-fool Jew will vote for everybody on the ballot, from the U.S. senator down to the schmuck at the bottom of the ballot who makes sure the shit flow downhill AND LEAVE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT BLANK!. Politicians count votes six ways from Sunday and will want to know why everybody but the POTUS got a tickie on the ballots. That is about the only way you can leave a message for the irresponsible bastards that they will pay attention to.
178 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I liked President Clinton. He certainly had his warts, didn't like his Israel policy (that's for you Ruvy) among other things. But you can't take away the fact that he had a very successful presidency.
And Clinton was fairly centrist, in fact, wasn't that his platform? Supported free trade, revamped welfare, good fiscal policy, tough stance on Saddam and semi decent handling of various conflicts. Overall he wasn't so bad.
Actually, Obnoxious, you are not obnoxious at all, just a tad dense and deluded about my neck of the woods. But, except for NAFTA, you and I agree on the above italicized points.
179 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I'm a big supporter of Israel but palenstinians are your (israel's) problem..like it or not. They arent going anywhere..thats just the nature of the beast. Learn to live with 'em peacefully or exterminate 'em..those are the only real alternatives.
No, Anon, not at all. Read the concepts in this link from the Israel Initiative. They'll never happen, but they make lots more sense than any "solutions" being proposed now. And they do not involve extermination or murder, solve a humanitarian problem, and get the damned UN out of our hair at the same time!
180 - STM
BTW, folks, whilst arguing that the internments without trial in Guantanamo are unconstitutional, I won't argue that either of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan are illegal or haven't been worth doing.
In the case of Iraq, removing a dictator who, while more than likely not having any connection whatsoever with 9/11, had as his favourite party trick feeding innocent people feet first into industrial paper shredders, is probably not a bad thing. Stalinists have had their day.
It wasn't the conduct of a war designed to break that dictator that was the problem ... the Iraqi people were glad to be rid of him. I know this because I lived there as a kid and still have contact with Iraqis and I can tell you straight from the horse's mouth that the US and its allies were regarded early doors as liberators.
And on a sliding scale of how wars are won, given the propensity even of Saddam's so-called crack troops to surrender en masse (most of the Iraqi army didn't want to fight for him because they hated him), it was probably accomplished with the least amount of bloodshed possible.
The big problem has been the conduct of the "peace". No plans in place in regard to jobs and infrastructure, security breaking down because Iraq was disarmed en masse. Had the police and military been allowed to remain in control, overseen by the coalition, I believe that things would be different.
Two things had an effect on Iraqis and how they felt about the liberation: the first was the US soldier, who against very specific orders climbed the statue of Saddam on the roundabout at the mosque on Fardus Square and tied a US flag around Saddam's head. You can see the reaction immediately. Iraqis wanted their flag up there, not the Stars and Stripes. The other: the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
Whoever tasked a bunch of reservist police from Doodad County, many of whom had never even travelled out of their own State, with one of the most sensitive jobs of possibly the most sensitive conflict ever waged should be hung out to dry up or at least lose their government pension.
That was the point where it really went pear-shaped in the eyes of Iraqis. Having no power or running water for long periods was another issue, and people who supported the coalition were left to fend for themselves - no work, no wage - and somehow put food on the table.
So the US fell down badly in the wash-up, which is partly what gave rise to the secular nationalists who joined the religious nuts in the uprising.
What the British were thinking is beyond me. They were there in the 1920s and '30s experiencing the exact same thing the coalition is experiencing today ... an insurgency pushing them into a running war just to stay in control.
Downing St should have had a good look at its own history books and its casualty lists and passed that info on to the White House.
Perhaps neither of them cared, in reality. Is it about oil? Partly. Iraq has the world's second largest reserves of crude oil, so you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out the truth.
As for Afghanistan: getting rid of a murderous bunch of lunatics was the right thing to do. Remember, these are people who want to take us back to the middle ages with an evil and corrupt ideology that in truth is less about religion than about power and control. Even other muslims don't like them, or al-Qaeda for that matter.
If Americans have any doubt about whether they did the right thing in Afghanistan, just remember those jets full of Americans being flown into skyscrapers full of Americans. I haven't forgtten and nor should you.
I won't forget the 80 Australians who were blown to bits by Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda's Asian offshoot, in the Bali bombings in 2002.
But that still doesn't mean that we collectively have to throw away everything that our rule of law has given us this past 1000 years by doing away with one of its great safeguards: Habeas Corpus.
These people aren't warriors. They are just murdering scum.
Criminals in other words, and that's how they should be treated.
And it's true what some of the other posters have said. Some people locked up in Guantanamo probably don't deserve to be there and certainly don't deserve to be tried in a Kangaroo Court, which is really what the Military Commissions represent.
That's the problem ... everyone, guilty or innocent, is entitled to full protection under those laws that mark the point of difference between us in the English-speaking countries and murderers like al-Qaeda and JI.
181 - Clavos
"I think Clavos's recitation of a few controversial and/or bad-egg Times reporters is a cheap shot, to which he rarely stoops. Sorry to see it. It proves little or nothing, just a gotcha."
A "gotcha" perhaps, but I see it as a valid response to your characterization of contemporary NYT journalists as "distinguished."
I see the paper (which I DO read, frequently) and its journalists as sad, pathetic shadows of their former selves, while some of them (those I cited, especially) are downright unworthy of the profession. The paper, once the standard for such things, even makes many more grammatical and spelling mistakes than it used to.
And apparently I'm far from alone in that view; according to Rasmussen, a much greater percentage of Americans have a favorable opinion of George Bush's job performance (35%) than they do of the NYT (24%).
182 - STM
The New York Times is boring, hasn't moved with the times (pardon the pun) and has a layout that was already old-fashioned by the turn of the 20th century. In short, in design terms at least (which are of paramount importance when it comes to readership), it's doing nothing to attract readers and everything it can to turn them off.
Add to that an obvious liberal agenda (the op-ed pages are the true pointer to a paper's direction politically, and despite what handy thinks, WILL be reflected throughout the paper), which wouldn't be at all bad if they were more even-handed, and reporting/editing practises that have made many of the stories virtually unreadable (they have a policy of rewriting and fact checking every detail because they've been stung by their own staff in the past).
It all adds up to a very boring read and the downfall of a paper that should be America's brightest. Why that's not the case is beyond me.
It's always been a tad boring, but it at least was once the newspaper of record in America and worth reading for that alone.
Now it doesn't even have that, and if I'm not wrong, these factors will be represented by considerable falls in sales over the past few decades.
183 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
As a child, I grew up reading the New York Times when it had eight tiny columns, and a banner headline on that paper was indeed news.
Nevertheless, I learned the hard way that the Grey Lady had feet of clay: I first started noticing its misrepresentations of fact when it reported on the Nigerian Civil War of the late 1960's. It continued in this vein and has only gotten worse with the years.
Now it's just "all the news that's shit to print...."
184 - The Obnoxious American
STM,
I cannot argue with a single thing in your post #180. Well said.
Handyguy,
"Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news," such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties. Okrent noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was, among other things, insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration."
This doesn't exactly support your point, eh?"
Are you kidding me? Lolllll. You have the ombudsman rationalizing the NY Times leftist cast of the news (we are oh so cosmopolitan, so what do you expect?), but since he didn't "comment at length" on hard news, you think that's some sort of vindication?
That point about the paper being more left because they are "cosmopolitan" is actually a vieled insult to the rest of us - so I suppose those of use in the New York Metropolitan area that happen to lean right have missed the boat on being wordly?
That the ombudsman would even acknowledge the slightest glimmer of partisanship in what is supposed to be the paper of record is inexcusable, no matter what kind of flimsy excuse he parades around. And yet you think this would be some sort of defense? What a joke!
And I echo all of the comments made in 181, 182, 183
185 - bliffle
OA sez:
"Glad to hear you read the journal (WSJ) edit page. Perhaps one day something they write will bring you over to the right way of thinking :>"
IMO this defies OAs pronouncements of his own fairness.
186 - The Obnoxious American
Note the smily face bliffle, I was commenting in jest. Boy you orthodox lefties are a humorless bunch.
187 - handyguy
OA doesn't even bother to address the issue of whether the Times leaned towards Bush's position in the lead-up to the war in 2002-3, which would be a counter-argument to his own claims of leftward bias [so self-evident, I guess, that he sees no need to present actual evidence]. This would spoil his delight in sending missiles of partisan spittle all over the place.
Name a better newspaper than the Times. I'm not claiming it's above reproach or criticism, just that it's also obviously a very important journalistic enterprise...nothing else like it in the US. If there is, please enlighten us. People? USA Today? Fox 5 local news in NYC? My Weekly Reader? These are possibly more your speed.
As for a sense of humor, OA's own is not often evident. My own posts show some occasional wit, even of the self-deprecating kind. [And, unlike OA, I can actually write. And spell/type coherently.]
188 - The Obnoxious American
I still see no indication of a single bone of funniness in your body HandyGuy.
As far as support for the Iraq war, yes, they were not overly critical, perhaps they should have been. Instead they followed the masses, rather than lead, and chose not to air an unpopular position, until of course it became en vogue to be anti war. Is this something I should be celebrating? I think not.
Further, I think the NY Times treatment of Bush and the war in Iraq since they've changed their tune is shameful and so incredibly biased as to take away any credibility they might have had after not excersizing dilligence in the reporting of the run up to war.
All told, nothing redeeming about a newspaper that is under critical, then overly partisan.
In terms of what is a better paper? I think the Journal runs circles around the times in terms of fair treatment and relevant coverage. But in this day and age, the true paper of record does not exist. Given that you also read the Journal, I'm sure you will agree that the only way to get a true reading of the news is to read news from all sorts of outlets. If you are interested in knowing, I get my media and commentary from the Times, WSJ, Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Press, Drudge, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Meet the press, McLaughlin Group, and a few others. Occassionally I will even read some of the left wing blogs (huff post, politico, etc), and sites like debka file.
189 - The Obnoxious American
btw, ignoring your personal attack about what's "my speed" but (sarcasm) thanks for keeping the discussion above board (end sarcasm)
190 - Clavos
"My own posts show some occasional wit, even of the self-deprecating kind. [And, unlike OA, I can actually write. And spell/type coherently.]"
How disappointing.
I had assumed you to be above blowing your own horn, handy.
191 - STM
Yeah, handy's a pretty good humourist/author/writer/speller/grammaticist.
If you're in any doubt, just ask him ...
I, too, am shocked handy, at your giving yourself a good blast on your own bugle.
192 - bliffle
I have it on good authority that another Chicagoan has attempted to order a 'hit' on Obama! Yes, it's true, but fortunately the Chicago Police, true to their well-earned reputation for probity, were able to 'sting' the villain by substituting a police officer for the Hitman. What follows is a fragment of the tape, as reported by Second City:
Mysterious Middle-aged Woman With Oddly Familiar Voice in Dark Glasses:
"I want you to kill Obama"
Man:
"But I can't"
Woman:
"Why?"
Man:
"I'm in love with him!"
Woman:
"But he's a terrible person. He used to smoke, he tried cocaine, and he even wore a turban once!"
Man:
"haven't you ever loved a man so much you were willling to forgive his failings?"
The rest of the tape is just scuffling noises as the police attempt to arrest the miscreant, but with uncharacteristic ineptness they allow her to escape.