Gorilla Che ([info]axmxz) wrote,
@ 2008-05-15 14:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Bush Godwins Obama. His BFF McCain agrees.

FAIL.

(Post a new comment)


[info]nirejseki
2008-05-15 08:04 pm UTC (link)
I hate to point it out, but that's a very vague statement that Bush made. Obama was the one who took it as an attack on himself, and that's when the newspapers - who previously hadn't been paying any attention to it - started talking about it.

I'm not saying it wasn't a reference to Obama; it may have been. But no one has even been thinking about foreign policy in the US lately, even with the whole Middle East situation, so it seems odd that that angle of attack would be chosen - it seems far more likely to me that Obama decided to seize upon the statement to prove his toughness/competence in terms of foreign policy. This is not a bad thing - it's actually a very good idea, considering that he's turning his attention to November and he needs to establish that before the GOP starts attacking him on it - but I'd still hesitate to phrase it the way that particular newspaper did, as a blatant and obvious attack. I mean, we're talking about BUSH here. Not someone known for extreme subtlety here, no?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]axmxz
2008-05-15 08:07 pm UTC (link)
>I hate to point it out, but that's a very vague statement that Bush made. Obama was the one who took it as an attack on himself, and that's when the newspapers - who previously hadn't been paying any attention to it - started talking about it.

Sounds fair. I'll buy this line of reasoning if you give me an example of some other prominent polician who has recently been in the news on account of their desire to negotiate with "terrorists and radicals."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nirejseki
2008-05-15 08:09 pm UTC (link)
Jimmy Carter? A number of others, too. Obama has been the important bit of the news, but he's not the only one - and actually, his "desire to negociate with 'terrorists and radicals'" hasn't been in the news very recently. The news has focused more on super delegates, primary victories, white middle-class Americans, etc, not about his foreign policy record.

...and really, when I read that, I thought about Jimmy Carter's little "personal peace-making mission", not about Obama's record on it. I mean, if we're talking RECENT news, Carter is definitely the number one winner for appeasement here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]axmxz
2008-05-15 08:24 pm UTC (link)
Trouble is, not only has Jimmy Carter's Hamas trip peaked several news cycles ago, but also, Jimmy Carter presents no political threat to GOP power. Unlike Obama, who is pretty much the personification of the Reckoning to the Republicans.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nirejseki
2008-05-15 08:31 pm UTC (link)
Jimmy Carter's Hamas trip is more recent in the news than any discussion on Obama's record, and all the more relevant because Bush is in Israel and Hamas is right there threatening him. I mean, yes, there is the whole Hamas-Obama connection, but really - Hamas just bombed Ashkelon, a small city in Israel, yesterday. All thoughts are on Hamas. Who was most recently tied to Hamas? Carter, not Obama.

Again, I'm not saying that it wasn't aimed in some way at Obama. I'm just saying that it's more likely that Obama was using it as a way to get the conversation away from the whole white-blue-collar-Americans that the newspapers have been harping on recently and back onto the issues of foreign policy - much more likely than it being a sneaky sideways attack from one of the least subtle politicians we currently (and unhappily) possess. I mean, Obama is a politician too; it's his job to win votes by any means necessary. There's no shame in him doing his job in that sense.

Ironically, Obama being the Reckoning has actually won him some votes - there are groups of fundamentalist Christian Republicans saying that they're going to vote Obama because "we deserve to suffer under Pres Obama as punishment for our sins." Personally, I'd rather suffer under Obama than under Bush, and if they do vote that way in November I don't care why they do it, just that they do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]axmxz
2008-05-15 08:47 pm UTC (link)
>Jimmy Carter's Hamas trip is more recent in the news than any discussion on Obama's record, and all the more relevant because Bush is in Israel and Hamas is right there threatening him. I mean, yes, there is the whole Hamas-Obama connection, but really - Hamas just bombed Ashkelon, a small city in Israel, yesterday. All thoughts are on Hamas. Who was most recently tied to Hamas? Carter, not Obama.

Actually, this has been the big Hamas/American politician story lately, not Carter's trip. This happened a week ago. Whereas Carter met with Hamas officials in Egypt on April 17th.

This was aimed at Carter only in the sense that it was aimed at Obama not just as the person and the Presidential candidate but also as the figurehead of the newly organized Democratic Party, and Carter is a Democratic superdelegate. Bush, McCain and the pityful remains of their supporters need to hammer it home that electing Obama will doom America.

I am very much looking forward to exit polls where evangelicals reveal that they voted for Obama because he is clearly the Antichrist, and they welcome the fulfillment of the prophecies.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nirejseki
2008-05-15 08:59 pm UTC (link)
*shrug* Perhaps you're correct - I'm mostly going by what news sources I have while I'm here in England, and they have barely mentioned that, so perhaps it's been significantly more notable in the American press. Though Obama does need to come to terms with the fact that he was endorsed by Hamas, whether he likes it or not, and that the GOP will use it against him, and he needs to find a better way of deflecting it other than "They're using personal attacks!" (Really, his inability to think of a better response than that is more disturbing than anything else about his campaign. Except perhaps the Hamas endorsement itself.)

Personally, I still don't think that even if it was an attack, that it was as nasty an attack as Obama's virulent strike back against it would suggest. I mean, as personal attacks go, that's barely a blip on the radar.

I second that! For once, fundamentalist Christianity comes in useful!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]axmxz
2008-05-15 09:04 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure Obama needs to "come to terms" with anyone's endorsement. He already said he considers Hamas a terrorist organization and won't talk to them until they actually begin playing nice - what else can he do? He had to do the same thing when Farrakhan endorsed him - "threw him under the bus," as the annoying idiom has it. He can't help being so cute and popular. =D

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]axmxz
2008-05-15 09:06 pm UTC (link)
>Personally, I still don't think that even if it was an attack, that it was as nasty an attack as Obama's virulent strike back against it would suggest. I mean, as personal attacks go, that's barely a blip on the radar.

I disagree. Partisan politics are not supposed to leave the country; a state is supposed to present a unified, coherent image. For Bush to go to a foreign parliament and badmouth a Presidential candidate is UNTHINKABLY impolitic and idiotic.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…