The Audacity of Barack Obama?
Well, Barack Obama is in. Make no mistake: It takes no small amount of self-esteem to run for President, at the age of 45, with only two years in federal office -- and making explicit comparisons between oneself and one of America's greatest and best-loved presidents, Abraham Lincoln.
That self-esteem may serve Barack well, and starting today, he may need it. It's unlikely that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are going to stand idly by and permit their presidential hopes and dreams to be stripped away by a johnny-come-lately who, so far, has declined to offer many specifics.
What's more, it will be interesting to see how popular Barack remains once he's forced to reveal more about his policy preferences. Will he really be able to keep the conversation uplifting and high-minded, or will he be forced to take some real-world policy stands that will reveal how left he is? Will the press discuss uncomfortable issues like his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act?
And will he be able, himself, to keep his rhetoric out of the gutter? His speech this morning was sweetness and light, except for the passage where he alleged:
And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.
Who are these people who have tried to blame Katrina or Iraq on gays and illegals? And what does it say about Obama that, on the one hand, he would call for a new era of consensus and bipartisanship and then launch such an attack on unspecified people (carefully using the passive voice to avoid naming them)? Who, exactly, are these people -- and will anyone in the press bother to follow up?
It seems the politics of unity go only so far. This should be very, very interesting.
That self-esteem may serve Barack well, and starting today, he may need it. It's unlikely that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are going to stand idly by and permit their presidential hopes and dreams to be stripped away by a johnny-come-lately who, so far, has declined to offer many specifics.
What's more, it will be interesting to see how popular Barack remains once he's forced to reveal more about his policy preferences. Will he really be able to keep the conversation uplifting and high-minded, or will he be forced to take some real-world policy stands that will reveal how left he is? Will the press discuss uncomfortable issues like his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act?
And will he be able, himself, to keep his rhetoric out of the gutter? His speech this morning was sweetness and light, except for the passage where he alleged:
And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.
Who are these people who have tried to blame Katrina or Iraq on gays and illegals? And what does it say about Obama that, on the one hand, he would call for a new era of consensus and bipartisanship and then launch such an attack on unspecified people (carefully using the passive voice to avoid naming them)? Who, exactly, are these people -- and will anyone in the press bother to follow up?
It seems the politics of unity go only so far. This should be very, very interesting.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:54 AM
7 Comments:
Induced Birth Infant Liability Act (SB 1094) of 2002 was what Barack Obama voted against and it differs from the law signed by Bush in that it does not establish "hospices" for near death aborted fetuses.
Aside from this, the more important point is that people who feel such measures are more important than the choice of a woman are not going to be carrying Obama in '08 signs.
Carol, I know this is a terrifying time for the GOP. The loss of the Christian Coalition, having the most reviled president in nearly a century in the Oval Office, the greatest fall down of national security, 9/11 in American history on his watch, scandal after scandal lapping against the partisan ship like so many foul waves.
And now the GOp divided between centrists who favor Giuliani, near rightists who favor McCain and the far right religious who see Tancredo and Brownback as their only hopes face a fundraising juggernaut of Hillary Clinton and the fresh new Kennedyesque Hope of Barack Hussein Obama. So in the light of these matters I really do not think abortion will be much of an issue in the 2008 campaign unless you have a Christian Conservative Party ticket on the ballot. They can waste their time shouting about it into a windstorm, nay the hurricane, that is the debate about the failed war in Iraq started by neocons who convinced Bush that the adventure would seal his legacy. They were right and it is sealed with the wasted blood of Iraqis.
I wonder if Hillary's team is thinking, "that upstart." And then I wonder if it might come out "uppity."
That would be worse than Biden's "clean", right?
"Kennedyesque"???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanx cav, I needed a good laugh. That was rich. I'll give you that.
I'll give you this as well: It's unfortunate that in this day and age there are enough people in this country who haven't the sense to understand that there hasn't been any proof offered by those like yourself to defend your stance that human beings with all the rights afforded by their Creator came into existence at the moment of fertilization. Obama voted against an act that would defend the lives of children who survive abortions, children who were left to die in closets and laundry hampers. The act came about from the efforts of one Jill Stanek who was a delivery room nurse and witnessed such heinous acts by doctors who took an oath to save lives. It matters not one wit whether there were special places established to house them, only that they were not treated like trash. And when you can honestly say that the choice of a woman to murder her own child is something that should be protected in order to allow her to continue engaging in the very act designed to bring about new human life, and that that choice is somehow more precious than the life she will be taking, then you will have proved the extent to which your soul and mind has deteriorated.
But you keep on posting. Your parallel world fantasies are amusing to read.
Who are these people who have tried to blame Katrina or Iraq on gays and illegals? And what does it say about Obama that, on the one hand, he would call for a new era of consensus and bipartisanship and then launch such an attack on unspecified people (carefully using the passive voice to avoid naming them)? Who, exactly, are these people -- and will anyone in the press bother to follow up?
Carol you are so sneaky by pretending not understand his two very simple sentences. He is talking about people like you.
Thanks, Earth, for clearing up the nuance. We on the right never get it.
Of course he's talking about the right. The call is for him to come out and say it plainly so that we can then demand proof of his claims. Innuendo can be spun away. He's got no stones is the bottom line here. He's accusing "somebody" but by not being specific, he doesn't have to support his accusations. And the press isn't pressing him on the issue. Hope that clears it up for you.
That right to self determination and the right to do what they will with their body and its contents repulsive or even murderous is my own opinion or not is their right. Once again I would state that to the tens of thousands of Christian women who had abortions for their own reasons I would defend their right to the procedure within the law with my own precious life as I would any and all of your rights Marshall, because that is the essence and the height of democracy, no matter what plane of life or Afterlife in which you dwell.
You can be as religiously offended as you like but the law is written and I can only suggest you consider using your impressive first life energies caring about some of the suffering born children living in poverty and squalor or in abusive homes who have a copy of the "good Book" on their coffee table.
Enough piety Marshall how about some action!
Slavery was once legal, cav. Don't pull that crap about what the law says. What those women have invited into this life are not property or a piece of her as a leg would be. They are individuals with their own DNA that distinguishes them as separate people. If you can come up with anything at all that disputes the sovereignty of their lives, anything that proves they are not human beings, which according to our Constitution acknowledges their unalienable right to life, granted by their Creator, if you can somehow come across with anything at all, then your support for this mythical "right to choose" wouldn't be the runny and malodorous load it is. This might be too weighty for sad folks who like to pretend they're demons, but let me try it this way: is it the law that makes you a human being? If the law someday changes, will you no longer be a human being? If the law someday allows for your mother to wack your sorry ass in the privacy of her own home, will you be less a person? THINK child. Use your God-given brain and see this issue for what it is---the lawful enabling of those who wallow in self-gratification. And people are dying for it. How freakin' noble of you to defend it! Shame on you.
Post a Comment
<< Home