I have a lot of respect for Elizabeth Edwards, and she certainly understands healthcare better than most. But, in all honesty, I don’t think MSNBC could care less.
Imagine my surprise as I watched this interview. It was supposed to focus on healthcare, and yet the first question was about… Rev. Wright?!?! What’s he got to do with healthcare? Has he proposed a radical new plan? Has he denounced insurance companies with his fiery rhetoric? Oh, wait, never mind. They just wanted to know how much damage Wright has done to Obama.
I hope this isn’t going to become the generic lead-off question for interviews to come…
Anyway, when she finally got a question about healthcare (which, incidentally, is not as sexy as Rev. Wright), Mrs. Edwards stuck it to McCain sorry excuse for a plan. Its nice to know that there is someone out there who has the ability to see through McCain’s love affair with the free market.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Edwards did not elaborate on her views as much as I would have liked, although this isn’t necessarily her fault. MSNBC decided to change the subject quite quickly, and she was asked not once, not twice, but five times if she or her husband would endorse a Democratic candidate. Some may consider this unnecessary, but I think MSNBC was trying to follow on of the great unwritten rules in journalism: If there’s no news, make the news.
Well, good job Elizabeth, for taking time off from your vacation to handle a real political issue. MSNBC, please stop throwing election garbage around like that.
Here it is, folks. The DNC’s “controversial” ad that you’ve been hearing about:
The RNC is not happy about this ad, and they have called for TV stations to pull it from the airwaves because it is “dishonest” and does not show McCain’s full answer to the question. In a sense, they are correct. McCain did not just say he would be okay with a hundred-years war in Iraq; he listed some guidelines as well:
How long — we have been in — we have been in South Korea — we have been in Japan for 60 years. We have been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me … as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.
But there is still a problem here. Sure, its easy to draw weak parallels between South Korea, Japan, and Iraq, but one would think that a “foreign policy expert” like McCain would have realized by now that a long-term presence in Iraq will not be that easy. As the ad pointed out, after only five years in Iraq our battered military has suffered over four thousand casualties, and with no end in sight to the violence. When giving his answer, McCain probably should have remembered to tell the audience how he plans to turn this land chaos into a peaceful nation.
So, as you may have guessed, I’m going to have to take the side of the DNC on this one. I see very little misleading in this ad; they simply used McCain’s own words against him. Since a peaceful occupation of a war-torn Iraq is looking pretty much impossible, I think cutting out that part of the speech makes the ad even more accurate. A McCain presidency will only achieve more war, and that is the point that Democrats have to harp on.
As for the RNC, they would do well to stop whining and to take a closer look at some of the truly damaging and misleading ads that they have issued in the past, and will continue to issue in the future. However, if they don’t, there is something the DNC can do. Yep, make more ads. Preferably ads that include McCain’s entire “100 years” response, and point out just how ridiculous it is.
I don’t know how many of you actually watch Fox News Sunday, but those who do probably noticed Senator Obama’s appearance. It was an event that both sides have been looking forward to, with Fox counting every one of the 772 days that it took for Obama to get on the show, and with the Obama campaign promising to “take on Fox”.
Here we go…
Like any other Obama interview, this one couldn’t have started without questioning his ability to attract the white vote and the blue collar vote. Obama, who has done both, appeared to be quite used to such questions and answered them well using his own facts to counter the endless polls thrown at him by Fox. Unfortunately, Chris Wallace is obsessed with the question of race, and no matter how many times Obama tried to move toward issues, Wallace asked yet another racially-charged question. Starting off on the defensive is not a good way to start.
I figured Wallace would find a way to drag Rev. Wright into the conversation at some point, and its good to see that Obama, at the very least, rejected the thirty-second spots of Wright’s sermons that were all over the news. However, I think it was unwise of Obama to say that the Wright controversy is a “legitimate political issue”. Iraq is a legitimate political issue. The economy is a legitimate political issue. Rev. Wright is just a distraction, and unfortunately, Obama just opened the door even wider for his opponents.
And speaking of distractions, there’s the flag pin thing. I didn’t see a pin on Wallace, did you? That’s an issue that was almost certainly not worth mentioning.
Well the good news is, this segment covered actual policies. The bad news is, Wallace felt compelled to start off by sucking up to John McCain. Please try to contain your surprise.
But the worst part of this is the fact that Wallace managed to get Obama to suck up to the right wing. Or maybe Obama wanted to do that all along. Either way, it played right into Wallace’s hands. He got to subtly attack Obama for being a liberal, while Obama responded by becoming more of a centrist with every word.
It’s about time we realized that Obama is a liberal and McCain is a conservative. There is no need to pretend otherwise.
In the last segment, Fox News actually squeezed in a question about smaller issues, like the war. Sort of. Actually it was more of a question as to whether or not Obama would pull a Truman and fire General Patraeus if they ever argued about the war. His answer was certainly better than the question, and I am all for Obama listening to the generals (something our current president needed to do a long time ago). However, I can only hope that this wont stop the war from coming to an end.
Now how ’bout that lightning round? Were you disgusted as I was? Wallace, you had no business asking Obama why he is “ducking another debate with Hillary Clinton”. We have had 21 Democratic debates so far, more than enough time to learn about the candidates. I fact, based on the performance of ABC in the last debate, I think its safe to say that they have become a complete waste of time.
Or how about when Wallace asks if young, African-American voters will be angry if the superdelegates give Hillary the nomination. He doesn’t mention any other supporters, just those young African-Americans. Because as we all know, only the young black kids riot in the streets.
And finally, there’s the financing question. It sounds like Wallace chose to call it “private financing” in order to put it in a negative light, even though Obama is mostly financed by small donors. That is about as close to public financing as you can get without actually applying for pubic money. I just wish Obama had pointed out McCain’s own financing problems, such as his tendency to break his own laws.
In the end, Fox made a fool out of Obama on Sunday. How, you ask? By asking terribly biased questions with racial undertones, and getting straight, honest answers. Not once did Obama challenge Wallace by pointing out the ridiculousness of the whole thing. I know he’s trying to be a uniter and all that, but he should know by now that Fox and their viewers are far beyond his ability to unite.
All he did was help legitimize a propaganda network, which will then turn around and tear apart his image at every opportunity. Great job, Obama.
I held out as long as I could. I can’t do it anymore. This Clintonista retires today. It’s over.
Hillary Clinton can’t win. I’m not talking about the pledged delegates, I’m not talking about the popular vote, I’m talking about the primary. It isn’t going to happen. The superdelgates won’t go over to her, the voters won’t go over to her, the Democratic party won’t go over to her.
Most importantly (to me), I don’t really like her anymore. The Hillary I knew when this race started has been corrupted by Emperor Palpatine/Lord Sauron/Mark Penn. She has fought Obama by moving to the right of him, and in a race where both candidates were pretty centrist to begin with, this is something I cannot condone. She has utilized fear in her advertising, with that 3 AM ad. The worst thing, though, the sin that I cannot forgive, is that she has promoted a politics in which issues are preempted by scandals, gaffes, and mouthy surrogates. Whether it was Reverend Wright or “bittergate” (scare quotes deserved because you shouldn’t add “-gate” to everything as if to put it on par with one of the biggest presidential misuses of power in history) she has done nothing, when the media has gone on these hype-fests, to attempt to bring the national discourse back to anything that mattered to America.
Hillary could have beaten Obama on issues, on policies. She could have shown us a vision for the future. I voted for her because I thought a Clinton White House would be better than an Obama White House. But she didn’t give us anything but thrown slime. She could have treated Americans as if they were smart, but she did not. She treated us as if we were stupid, ignorant, and in posession of the attention span of a gnat. And maybe that was the most realistic strategy. Maybe we have not proven ourselves to be deserving of any better treatment.
But if you look at the presidents who were truly great, they have always been the ones to overestimate the American people. Hillary Clinton, I wish you had been a little less realistic.
So how ’bout that ABC debate? Remind me, how long was it before our esteemed moderators got to talking about Iraq? Was it halfway through the debate?
If you saw it, then you know that the first half was dedicated to bitterness, electability, Wright, Wright, Wright, Ayers, Bosnia, flag pins, and some patriotism. You know, the issues Americans really care about.
Okay, I can understand how some of these issues created controversy at first. But can’t we let them die down? The way I see it, most Americans are not bothered by them when they are first uncovered. But then they go home and see the same thing on the news every night. Political pundits, debating whether or not these issues will hurt the candidates; whether Americans will be able to get behind the candidates. And the Americans watching begin to question their decisions.
The debate was just another example of that. There were no journalists there, in fact you’d be lucky to find real journalists anywhere these days. They’re all pundits. They are all obsessed with speculation, and whether we like it or not, we’ve become a lot like them.
It reminds me of the paper I just wrote on yellow journalism of the early 20th century. Every day, I am more and more convinced that yellow journalism has not gone away.
There’s not much more to say. Just mark the debate on your calender, as a turning point in the history of journalism. That, and the day Chris Matthews decided to debate Obama’s choice of breakfast beverages…
A couple days ago, Senator McCain appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss the situation in Iraq, specifically, the battle of Basra. If you can bear to watch a Fox News clip, here’s the video:
There’s a few problems with McCain’s argument. First, he claims that Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire because he thought he was losing the battle of Basra. In actuality, this ceasefire was the result of a behind-the-scenes deal, in which members of the Iraqi government traveled to the Qom, Iran, in order to win the backing of Iranian Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who persuaded al-Sadr to negotiate. Seeing as Prime Minister Malaki had previously stated that it would not negotiate, it seems like it was the Iraqi government, not the Sadrists, who were feeling pressured to end the fighting. If anything, al-Sadr is now more powerful, having demonstrated his ability to both hold off the Iraqi Army, as well keep his own men under control in maintaining the ceasefire.
Moreover, McCain does not appear to be fazed by the fact that over 1,000 Iraqi troops deserted during the battle. He seems to think that this is progress, and that we are getting better at holding the Iraqi military together. He does not realize that these 1,000 troops deserted because they could not bring themselves to fight their fellow Shi’ites. According to Malaki, “They swore on the Koran that they would not support their sect or their party, but they were lying.”
You will never hear this on Fox News, but Basra was not a victory for the US-trained Iraqi military. Rather, it was a victory for sectionalism, which has been tearing the country apart ever since Saddam was removed from power. Unfortunately, this makes a solution to the mess that much more difficult to achieve. You would think then, at the very least McCain would try to get his facts straight.
First, I’ll show you the old John McCain, from December:
“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”
Apparently he’s taken a few classes, because here’s the new John McCain speaking to CNN today:
“I know economics very well, certainly better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. So let’s clear that up.”
Sounds to me like the Straight Talk Express is taking a U-turn. Here’s how McCain explained that:
“I said it wasn’t my strongest (suit) because I spent 22 years in the military and I’ve been a member of the Armed Services Committee and involved in every major national security challenge in the last 20 years.”
That’s quite a bit of experience. And after all these years, he still doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims. And this is his strongest area. Maybe that explains why he’s one of those Reaganomics guys…
Anyway, the media will probably eat up everything McCain said, so there’s no sense in waiting for them to report his inconsistencies. The ball is in the Democrats court now. Let’s hope they don’t let him get away with this.
I would like to share with you all something that I have been agonizing about for a couple of weeks. As many know, I am a Clinton supporter, or “the Clintonista,” as some are fond of calling me. I have supported Hillary for a variety of reasons, but one of those reasons is I do not believe Barack Obama is ready to be president. As this race continues, it looks more and more like Obama will ultimately win the nomination.
This puts me in a hard position. Obama is still not ready to be president. Should I consign myself to eight years of shoddy governance?
No, that is not something I can do, which is why I reached my decision that, should Hillary lose the primary race, I will be supporting John McCain for president in 2008.
Don’t attack me just yet, there are reasons for this. I think that if McCain beats Obama, then in just four years we can finally get the Hillary Clinton administration we so desperately need. McCain will obviously just be more of Bush, so voters in 2012 will want to get back to a Democrat, a strong leader like Hillary Clinton. The decision for me seems to be either 4 years of governance by someone of a different ideology or 8 years of governance by an incompetent. We’ve seen what that’s like.
So please, all I ask of you is that you consider this position. Even though it seems alien to you, it is in its essence entirely progressive.
