Obama, Clinton non-story puts Davenport, QC Times on the map
During Monday's "Countdown with Keith Olberman" on MSNBC, they were discussing the really disgusting effort by the press to try to find and over-hype even the slightest sign of conflict between candidates, and between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton in particular.
During the CNN debate where people could submit video questions via YouTube, a question was asked whether the candidates would talk with our enemys. Obama, simply seeing an opportunity to state that he thought the Bush policy of refusing to talk to our "enemies" is stupid and counter-productive, said that the idea that refusing to talk to countries like Iran and Syria is some sort of punishment is ridiculous, which it is.
Clinton then jumped in and said that she wouldn't meet with any leaders of any "bad" countries because she didn't want to be used for propaganda, etc.
Not that big a deal, but boy the feverish imaginations of the political press, which truly function more like they're reporting on Hollywood or for E! television, were quick to try to make this a big deal.
It was not quite as ridiculous and insulting as when they tried to make a big play out of the fact that Hillary showed a teensy bit of cleavage while speaking on the Senate floor (what's WRONG with these people) and they then made up the stupid idea that this was all a calculated response to something they made up, namely, that Elizabeth Edwards comments somehow implied that Clinton wasn't feminine enough.
I mean, it's all so high-school, so purile and just plain dumb, not to mention that it's an appalling failure of the press to actually DO THEIR JOB and inform the public about important matters.
But anyway.....
In discussing the Obama/Clinton non-story, Olberman twice quoted an Ed Tibbetts piece in the Quad City Times in which both candidates responded to the other as the press desperately tried to fan the flames into some sort of conflict. They're itching for an Obama/Clinton fight so bad they can barely contain themselves.
When Clinton used the words, "irresponsible" and "naive", to describe Obama's response, they almost wet their pants. In that respect they resemble nothing more than a bunch of high schoolers trying to get two popular kids to fight. Once you think about it, the press truly does behave like juveniles, cattily discussing hair styles and clothes as if they are more important than what candidates are actually saying.
But what I started out to say, is that the Quad City Times actually had both candidates responding, and it was picked up by the national press. Olberman even said "Davenport".... wow!
And that's not all. One of the video questions choosen from among thousands to actually air for the candidates was from Davenport as well. It was from a woman who was sitting next to her mother, who, she explained, had diabetes. The woman stated the dismal statistics about the rise in the disease and problems getting proper care and asked the candidates what they would do about it. It was very well done.
So two Davenport mentions on national media in one night. Woohoo!
posted by The Inside Dope @ 7/25/2007
19 comments
19 Comments:
Sorry Dope, but Obama showed himself to be exactly what he is - a premature and inexperienced politician and candidate. These comments were a virtual mortal would to a campaign that is raising big money, but still running a distant second.
I am no fan of Hillary's, but unless something extremely amazing happens, she is the candidate and Obama needs to start considering a VP role.
Although very polished, he is just too green for a Presidential run.
Josh, you seem to have bought the media line on this. I see it differently.
How in the world can you take his statement and twist it into some sort of evidence of being "green", or inexperienced? This I can't fathom.
He simply said that, unlike this administration, his administration would actually speak to friends and enemies alike, just like American diplomatic policy forever, until this gang came in.
You can differ on whether we ought to have some sort of diplomatic channels open to all players in the mid-east, and it seems plain that you need to talk to everyone, no matter if you don't approve of their actions.
But to somehow suggest that believing that there needs to be dialog with all players in the region in order to achieve some sort of less-horrible mess than Bush has led us into is somehow a sign of naivete or inexperience strikes me as bizarre. Now negotiating with other countries is considered amateur? How the hell did that happen?
Tell us again how you get from believing in opening dialog with countries like Iran and Syria to somehow being inexperienced?
Is wanting to utilize diplomacy now seen as naive and goofy?
That's the Bush line, and you can see how well it's worked.
The fact remains that Clinton would do the same thing Obama would do... namely open up channels of communication with countries we're currently not happy with (check back in 10 years or so and they might be our biggest allies)
Clinton simply and skillfully turned Obama's remark into a way to differentiate herself and make herself look more prudent somehow.
But as I've said, the fact remains that any responsible leader will open channels to all major players in any conflict. In that respect she's no different than Obama, or nearly any other candidate from either party.
To make a blanket statement that this would be something that you would make certain to do in the first year, to meet with countries that are hostile to the United States interest in an effort to form better relationships, etc (to appease), is silly.
Dope, the nerd in grade school can try to reason with the bully all day long, but the bully is working on a different agenda - and cannot be reasoned with.
You are absoluetly insane if you believe that Venezuala and Iran love the U.S., but just hate Bush.
They hate the U.S.
You are equally as naive if you think that Bush and Clinton before him have not had dialogue with these countries.
Obama, and apparently you, just don't seem to understand that Chavez and the Iranian President keep their popularity BECAUSE they use the hatred of the U.S. in the limelight. Not everyone will love us, regardless of who the President is...never has, never will.
These comments clearly show Obama's pandering if not his lack of intelligence on the issue - and Hillary handed him his lunch.
Thanks for proving my point Josh.
You said that Clinton and Bush before him all had lines of communication to these countries, but then try to suggest that Obama suggesting he'd do the same thing is somehow a sign that he's wet behind the ears.
Weird.
The fact remains that you talk to your enemies. We always have and there's a reason, because it's a hell of a lot better than NOT talking to them.
We are not so invincible and powerful that we can afford to simply ignore these countries, countries who all are feeling threatened by us, and yes, THIS administration, not our country in general. These countries have not been, and likely will never be, allies, however, as you also admitted, Bush is the best thing that ever happened to them, as far as uniting the entire world in hatred and loathing for their behaving exactly as these countries have always accused the US of acting... in other words, being imperialistic, arrogant, and bloodthirsty in their desire to control and loot resources of other, less powerful countries.
If you feel it's cool to ignore anyone we don't agree with, then you'll have to accept the consequences when the countries go off the rails and feel forced to do things we don't want them to do.
You don't accomplish shit by threatening and making entire countries feel more and more theatened and isolated. All you do is encourage what we're seeing now, leaders who enjoy popular support because they pledge to do something to stand up to the biggest bullies on the planet, the United States under George W. Bush.
And you also make them feel it's imperitive to develop nuclear weapons in order to hold us at bay.
I don't think you have to be particularly bright to realize that if any two parties have a conflict, it's better to discuss things and try to come to a mutually agreeable position, even if it may take years, and even if it prevents rash actions by one party or the other.
Evidently you're not that bright.
Evidently you swallow the Bush doctrine that we can throw out what's worked for over 200 years and just start behaving like complete assholes around the world.
I'm not sure the majority of Americans agree with you.
But back to Obama/Clinton. Yes, as I said, Clinton thumped Obama as a shrewd debater. But there's really no "there" there, as far as the difference between their positions.
Somehow, through the magic of bullshit, Obama simply saying he'd talk to the players in the conflict magically became that he'd somehow go over to their palaces hat in hand and sit in the waiting room until they called him in.
He neither said nor suggested anything of the sort.
And what's the deal about the first year in office anyway? Is it hunky dory to talk to enemies after 365 days have passed? I don't get it.
The fact is that any president, which needless to say is going to be Democratic this time, is going to have to re-institute heavy diplomatic efforts to try to make up for the arrogant and counter-productive "we won't talk to you nyah-nyah" school of non-diplomacy practiced by this band of incompetents in office.
Josh,
Iran's government may hate the US, but the people certainly don't. In fact, the Iranian people have a fairly pro-America slant, but not because of Bush foreign policy mind you.
Also, I don't know if you are up to date with Iranian politics, but the president there is actually incredibly unpopular.
It's quite amazing how a little bit of dashing your credibility on foolish comments makes any rational statements you make seem... irrelevant.
You should be a little more careful when referring with blanketing statements. That and a couple other things too.
Yes, I think the media is overhyping this exchange between Obama and Hillary and trying to make something out of nothing. But I also think the media has been overhyping and magnifying Obama all along.
If Obama belched, the media would think it was a groundbreaking statement and there would be some cover story about how he should be President.
I mean when is the last time you ever read or saw anything critical of Obama? Try NEVER.
Sorry Dope - I am not buying it.
Clinton and Bush had tried when those governments were reasonable and receptive. They are not at this time.
They are antagonistic, at best.
Obama stating that it would be a priority of his, is not the same thing. Nice try though...
Peter...whatever.
Irresponsible and naive would be to take talking to Iran off of the table. If we can figure out how to make Iran our friend (and I think it's possible - as peter says the people lean pro-US) we'll have an important, I'd even go so far as to say "key" ally in our efforts to her east and west.
Nico,
There's no denying that Obama is a media darling. But that's not to say that the very same media that hyped him wouldn't love just as much to destroy him. After all, they're all about "the story", even if it's largely manufactured drama or even fictitious.
Obama got the attention he has I believe because he is genuinely exciting and people respond by being excited. He's young, handsome, intelligent... in other words, who can blame the public and media for getting a bit hyped up when, after enduring the thugs in DC, they see a figure like Obama? It's too tempting to invest all their hopes and dreams into Obama and make him a knight in shining armor.
But I think Obama himself has done a lot to shy away from the over-hype, mocking it on many occasions and using self-depreciating humor.
I believe he felt it was not doing him a favor to have so much of the "rock star" image thrust upon him, and he's been trying to shed that and trying to show that he's a serious idea person who has the gravity to be a viable candidate for the presidency.
The media "Obama-rama" was definitely there, but I see it fading and doubt it will be sustained.
I predict that as the primaries approach, there will be more and more attempts to take pot shots at whoever appears to be the front-runners, and Obama definitely won't be spared from attack, even if it's ludicrous and false.
HA!! Oh yeah, they were nice guys back then. Now they're "evil doers".
Oh man. This comic book Bush world view just kills me. (and thousands of other people)
Truth be told, you don't know beans about the actual situation on the ground and get your foreign policy opinion from some ignoramus on AM radio or Fox "News".
You dismiss Peter's pertinent and important FACTS about Iran with a "whatever".
That about sums it up. Like the Bushies, to you facts are stupid things that get in the way of your odd ideology and can therefore be dismissed and/or ignored.
The world can see how well that's worked out for Bush and our country.
Tiz,
Absolutely! The Iranian public is fairly advanced and they do have fairly good contact with the wider world. They're educated and wanting to better their country.
While I wouldn't advocate putting a McDonalds or hideous strip mall on every other block of Teheran, I really do think that they could be an important trading partner. They, like most people around the world, want a lot of what the U.S. has, especially popular culture and media and technology.
If it weren't for the elite and the leaders they control in various countries, I truly think that there wouldn't be nearly as many conflicts. It's the leaders and the elites that cause so much war and strife, not the vast majority of the citizens of the respective countries.
You don't spread democracy at the point of a gun. It's much easier done through ecomomic opportunity and improving the people's economic situation and opportunities.
Tiz,
Absolutely! The Iranian public is fairly advanced and they do have fairly good contact with the wider world. They're educated and wanting to better their country.
While I wouldn't advocate putting a McDonalds or hideous strip mall on every other block of Teheran, I really do think that they could be an important trading partner. They, like most people around the world, want a lot of what the U.S. has, especially popular culture and media and technology.
If it weren't for the elite and the leaders they control in various countries, I truly think that there wouldn't be nearly as many conflicts. It's the leaders and the elites that cause so much war and strife, not the vast majority of the citizens of the respective countries.
You don't spread democracy at the point of a gun. It's much easier done through ecomomic opportunity and improving the people's economic situation and opportunities.
But the comic book kids like Josh et. al. choose to see the world like a gigantic John Wayne movie and project their macho fantasies on a grand scale.
There's a place for strength, and even a place for military action, of course, but where Bush made his fatal mistake was in using it for conquest in Iraq when it posed no iminent threat to the security of the U.S.
Dope, it does not take Bush to tell us what these people are like - do you have a TV?
All one has to do is watch these jokers, listen to what they say, listen to their threats and posturing.
I suppose that you think that this is the Bush Administration manipulating their words and their speeches via media-manipulation?
You are a joke - even when someone threatens the U.S., you find a way to make it Bush's fault!
Yeah.
And you sit there on the couch getting your world view from Fox News. That ensures you're misinformed and ignorant... it's even been proven by scientific studies that Fox viewers have more mistaken notions about foreign policy and the war than viewers of any other channel.
Secondly, if you thought that I was in any way saying that these countries are benign little pussy-cats and should never be treated as potential adversaries, you're goofy.
Again, you can't make a point without having to invent a straw man first.
Yeah.
And you sit there on the couch getting your world view from Fox News. That ensures you're misinformed and ignorant... it's even been proven by scientific studies that Fox viewers have more mistaken notions about foreign policy and the war than viewers of any other channel.
Secondly, if you thought that I was in any way saying that these countries are benign little pussy-cats and should never be treated as potential adversaries, you're goofy.
Again, you can't make a point without having to invent a straw man first.
And a lot of things ARE Bush's fault, especially in light of the fact that the "buck stops here" for every president until now. Now apparently you and your ilk argue strenuously that NOTHING is the responsibility of Bush, including Bush himself. First he says he doesn't make strategic decisions in Iraq and follows the generals, then almost the next moment, if a general comes out and speaks the truth that they don't like, then he says he doesn't rely on the generals.
Bottom line: Can you think of ONE THING Bush has done right or a single large policy of this administration which has truly improved the lot of Americans or anyone else on the planet. (and no, the richest 1% don't count.)
This story on MSNBC.com also cites the Times... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19989655/
Probabley the same thing Olbermann was talking about. I don't see how this will end well for CLinton, in April she took the position that we should talk to these people.
I can think of some good things Bush has done
1-Tainted the entire Republican Party's name, making elections a toxic environment
2-Allowed unheard of levels of immigrants into the country that will , along with the burgeoning youth vote, ensure a solidified Democratic majority for the future
3-Ok I honestly can't think of anything else....
Thank you so much, TIZ and DOPE! You gave me the best laugh of the week...
"if we can make Iran our friend"
I can hardly stop laughing at your degree of naivity!
Maybe we can have 100-people from each state send them a dozen roses?
Maybe each Grandmother in the U.S. can bake and send them chocolate-chip cookies?
Maybe we can provide them with great amounts of foreign aid and an apology-a-week?
Or, maybe we can just go sit down with them and say nice things, talk about the evils of global warming and sign them up for free memberships in PETA?
I am sure that with these efforts, we can be best buddies and really stabalize the Middle East!
Mowen, For an avowed Christian, you sure don't have much faith in humanity. What a cynical person you show yourself to be. Amazing.
All about the "culture of life", but believing that war is always the answer. Truly bizarre.
You're the type what would have guffawed and sneered at anyone in the 70's suggesting that someday we'd be peaceful trading partners with Vietnam too, right?
And as usual, you'd be proven dead wrong.
No room for hope in your world. Glad I'm not in it.
Post a Comment
<< Home