Comments on: Was the president referring to Carter, not Obama?

By: DChound

DChound — Tue, 20 May 2008 21:12:35 +0000

I agree with Thearon’s comment in #49. Why should Obama take Bush’s speech personally? What we have here is Bush making a political statement in a very political geographic context and within a very political timeframe. Obama’s response (see segment quoted in #48) is equally political, i.e. meant to serve his own political goals. He uses the term engagement, rather than negotiate or appease, but none of the terms are spelled out by either speaker. We don’t know what Bush meant by negotiate or appeasement or what Obama meant by engagement with terrorists. I thought it rather humorous that Obama complained of Bush politicizing foreign policy. The line between politics and policy, to the extent one exists, is very thin and dotted. Foreign policy, like any policy, is conceived and brought forth in politics. Both men are playing on the fear factor: Bush, by playing the terrorist card, Obama, by referring to the politics of fear.

Fear will be a major theme of the remainder of the election campaign. Fear of Obama’s inexperience and liberal policies on the one hand and the fear that McCain will continue Bush’s policies, or worse, on the other. Let’s hope that we get beyond fearmongering and sound-bite pettiness and explore the character, thought, and qualifications of the candidates.

Report comment to moderator

By: klasko

klasko — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:53:41 +0000

Scroop – you said, “Overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background” is a vile phrase, and it’s insulting. Gentle people don’t employ that tone.

I assume that you do not count yourself among the gentle people when you continue to insult a person on this blog by calling him a name he asked you not to use? Gentle people don’t do that either.

Report comment to moderator

By: Cheryl D.

Cheryl D. — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:38:58 +0000

Well, Scroop Moth, it’s his honor that’s possibly being called into question now, isn’t it? His ability to represent all of America enough to lead the nation is certainly being called into question, and agree or disagree with the phrase, the phrase deals with that issue. Sorry, “vile” is far too strong. “Uncomplimentary” says it well enough, and I’m pretty sure it was meant to be that.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:17:45 +0000

. . . towards honorable people.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:11:28 +0000

CHERYL D. As far as “overly sensitive…from a limited background,” I assume those weren’t meant to be compliments.

“Overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background” is a vile phrase, and it’s insulting. Gentle people don’t employ that tone.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:09:43 +0000

Cheryl, when I read Peter’s comments regarding limited background and lack of sophistication I perceived a snub from one who perceived himself better than some immigrant working class kid attempts to be a leader. Forget the racial connotations, Peter’s comments were elitist drivel at its best — how dare this single mother’s kid presume to be an intelligent player in world affairs and he’s black to top it off — an uppity ….. to be put back in his place. Its this perception that led me to condemn his comments as the worst he’s ever written.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:05:51 +0000

Throughout this discussion, some of us have sought to convince the rest of you that negotiate and talk do not equate appeasement. We have also sought to point out the hypocrisy behind Bush’s statements as he and his Republican cohorts have talked to the “enemy” as a part of foreign policy. Perhaps the following video will help;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHliQNZcmi8

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:14:42 +0000

TJ and JOEL MARK:

In fact, there is no clip of Obama saying the words, “without preconditions” in this regard. That terminology came from a questioner, not from Obama’s mouth. Obama demands “careful preparation” to produce the agenda, the precedence, and the behavior required by American diplomatic tradition for talks with an enemy. (The shape of the table is only one famous “precondition.”) Bush, not Obama, has departed from tradition by demanding prior promises of concessions before talks.

Obama’s plan to talk to our enemies is well understood, and his account of it doesn’t include the concept “without preconditions.” He has spelled out concessions he requires in advance from Hamas, for example, so Obama would contradict himself if he used the phrase “without preconditions.”

Notice, the questioner in the CNN debate qualified his use of the words “without preconditions.” He asked if Obama would display “bold leadership . . . in the spirit of” Anwar Sadat’s trip to Israel in 1982. That event was as highly prepared a diplomatic encounter as any in history. The questioner didn’t mean to say those talks occurred without preconditions of any kind, only without the precondition of previous concessions. You shouldn’t put the questioner’s terminology in Obama’s mouth, when he’s made his position so clear.

Report comment to moderator

By: Joel Mark

Joel Mark — Mon, 19 May 2008 11:22:47 +0000

Scroop, see #72 about Obama’s willingness to talk without preconditions. Facts are stubbortn things.

Obama has too many close associations with anti-American angry people who always think we (the USA) are the bad guys both here and abroad. I am not for putting Obama in charge of the store. He seems to willing to talk to the worst leaders in the world and he may be willing to give away too much to thugs to appease them. The stakes are too serious today. That’s my take.

Report comment to moderator

By: Cheryl D.

Cheryl D. — Mon, 19 May 2008 06:15:41 +0000

Scroop Moth (#67),

What sense does it make to say we allow others to define themselves as they choose? So Michael Jackson might really be white? George W. Bush might decide to call himself a black woman, and you’d have to accept that as true?

That’s ludicrous. A man with a white mother is (at most) half-black, and it’s not offensive to call him half-black. He’s free to call himself black, for simplicity, if he chooses, but that doesn’t stop other people from being more precise. And it’s not offensive to be more precise, and more strictly accurate.

As far as “overly sensitive…from a limited background,” I assume those weren’t meant to be compliments. That doesn’t mean they’re offensive, or that they’re wrong. The man wants to be president. Those characterizations are nowhere near the worst that will be said about him!

Report comment to moderator