Michelle Obama on the use of her husband's middle name by his opponents:
Michelle Obama, who often has decried "the fear bomb'' that opponents have used against her husband for his middle name -- Barack Hussein Obama -- said in Canton, Ohio, today that it is happening again and shows why it's so important that he wins election as president.
"They threw in the obvious, ultimate fear bomb," Obama said today of her husband's 2004 Senate race. "We're even hearing [that] now. … 'When all else fails, be afraid of his name, and what that could stand for, because it's different.'"
The senator's wife said that rivals use innuendo to play on fears. "Just as they're saying it now," she said.
But, she told about 200 supporters this morning at a restored theater in Canton, Obama won despite that "climate of negativity and doubt" in 2004. "We learned, number one, that when power is threatened by real change they will say anything to stop it," she said. "But we also learned that the American people can handle the truth."
OK, who is "they"? Today's ChiTrib advised us that Alan Keyes, Obama's final Senate opponent, never used "Hussein":
...not even Alan Keyes in his most overwrought, spittle-flecked moments did it during his 2004 Senate run against Obama in Illinois.
...
"We warned him away from using the middle name," replied Bill Pascoe, Keyes' former campaign manager, when I checked with him to see if my colleagues and I had missed something when coming up empty after plumbing our memories and the news archives.
Pascoe told me he and former top Keyes consultant Dan Proft had steered him away with the admonishment that such a gambit would be "rude, uncivil, needlessly provocative and incendiary."
Well, maybe Jack Ryan dropped the ultimate fear bomb before a friendly (to Democrats) judge unsealed his divorce so the press could have a scandal with Jeri Ryan's "I need a payday" divorce allegations. Jack Ryan left the Senate race in June 2004, but who knows?
Or could it have been one of Obama's primary opponents? Perhaps a Lexis maven can help me out. FWIW, the Chi Trib's archive first kicks out a "Barack Hussein Obama" in Dec 2006, criticizing Rush Limbaugh's use of "Barack Hussein Odumbo". Hmm, Google might have missed that....
MORE: "Hussein" is the ultimate fear bomb? I thought the international community had him contained; isn't "Osama", Ted Kennedy's formulation of "Obama", much scarier?
Whatev. Speaking of scary, let's just call the Senator from Illinois "He Who Must Not Be Middle-Named".
Bob Kerrey speaking for Hill was the first use I remember
Posted by: clarice | February 28, 2008 at 11:03 PM
MichelleO:
it is happening again and shows why it's so important that he wins election as president.
I'd say she's got it about right.
Why is it so important to elect Obama?
The issues? Nope.
The economy? Nah.
Terrorism? Uh uh.
The War in Iraq? You kidding me?
Health care? Not even close.
Hope? Don't make me laugh.
Change? Now you're just being ridiculous.
Yes We Can? Just stop it.
They make fun of his middle name? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
I'm sold.
Posted by: hit and run | February 28, 2008 at 11:17 PM
O.K. In an effort to derail this discussion as quickly as possible, let's hear it for TM's Women! And they're not even wearing their earmuffs!
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM
From Rush today,
" I mean, you guys in the Drive-By Media harping on this middle-name stuff, you had Bob Kerrey out there four or five times pounding it, and then apologized for it some days later to keep the middle name out there."
Kerrey Apologizes to Obama Over Remark
Posted by: Ann | February 28, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Thanks. At the moment my self image is more like *ugh* Andrea Dworkin.
Posted by: clarice | February 28, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Well you look fabulous from here!
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM
JM Hanes, Now that there is Funny!
Posted by: Ann | February 28, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Thanks, JMH--But I always put on heavy makeup before posting.
Posted by: clarice | February 28, 2008 at 11:35 PM
JM Hanes, they should of added that terrorist loving lawyer from New York. I can picture her, unfortunately, but can't think of her name.
MO reminds me of all the reality shows that always have a self righteous black woman participating. Project Runway, Survivor, The You are Fired Show.....
I am almost afraid to post this because I will probably be called racist for pointing out self righteous black women,,,,Oh, well.
Posted by: Ann | February 28, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Lynn Stewart.
Omarosa.
Posted by: clarice | February 28, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Lynn Stewart.....Exactly!
Yes, Omarosa... another MO.
Clarice, it is sad that someone can't write about the comparisons in this environment. I think it would be healthy.
Posted by: Ann | February 29, 2008 at 12:04 AM
"But I always put heavy makeup on before posting."
Clarice, you crack me up.
Posted by: Lesley | February 29, 2008 at 12:27 AM
LOL, clarice. I'm only sorry I couldn't provide this discriminating crew with all the ladies' middle names, because there probably wouldn't be enough makeup in the world to cover your sins if your self-image turned out to be a reflection of Angela Hussein Dworkin.
Saw Madeleine Albright on the Daily Show the other night. Apparently she's got a new book coming out called Memo to
Hillarythe President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership. No doubt Obama and McCain have already pre-ordered their copies. I'm sure this crowd will give her major props for her lapel pin though. No fellow traveler there, by golly.Posted by: JM Hanes | February 29, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Dear Michelle:
The following men who have been elected President of the U.S.A. are, more often than not, referred to by all three, or even four, of their names. Why are you so ashamed of your husband's name?
John Quincy Adams
William Henry Harrison
William Howard Taft
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Dwight David Eishenhower
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Richard Milhouse Nixon
Lyndon Baines Johnson
James Earl Carter
George Herbert Walker Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
Posted by: Sara | February 29, 2008 at 01:58 AM
Can't believe I forgot to announce the newly updated goalposts on Iraq when I was posting the most recent Pew Poll stats: War is too expensive!
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 29, 2008 at 02:30 AM
Gad, I hope Michelle continues to consider herself vital to her husband's election.
======================
Posted by: kim | February 29, 2008 at 03:22 AM
"Thanks. At the moment my self image is more like *ugh* Andrea Dworkin."
Madam,you do yourself an injustice.You may be unseen,but you have a beautiful mind.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 29, 2008 at 07:35 AM
Mark Levin renamed him Barack "Milhouse" Obama...because he's too timid to buck the PC police.
Posted by: capitano | February 29, 2008 at 07:37 AM
Regarding the cost of the war, allow myself to quote myself from JOM, circa 2005
Speaking of which:
One thing left off the 'Cost of the War' calculations is the differential cost between the Blitzkrieg and the cost of Sitzkrieg.
A hot war/occupation that costs us $5Billion per month and which has produced regime change, freed millions, cost the lives of nearly 2,000 soldies et cetera et cetera needs to be compared against the likely cost of 100,000+ stationed in Kuwait for the same period of time which would have produced neither the regime change or freed 25,000,000 (that's 25 m-m-m-million)people.
Since the terrorists are not too picky about borders, and the US presence in the Middle East would be a provocation let's figure that the soldier deaths due to IEDs would be about the same over the length of time needed for the UN team to verify that Saddam does not have any WMDs or programs that can quickly reconstitute said weapons.
There would, perhaps, be a lower frequency of deaths, but- since the troops would be in a more fixed location there could be a higher intensity of casualties per incident(e.g. one mortar round lands in cafeteria, killing dozens)
I don't know what the probable number would be ... but it's worth considering what would be necessary to ensure that Hussein complied with the UN regulations dating back a dozen years and what that would cost, both in terms of money and in terms of soldier's lives --- surely those who walk among the reality-based see the reality of that.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | August 11, 2005 at 11:51 AM
Also, the Reality of the Situation was that the UN had 17 inspectors to cover Iraq with a total of 53 who would get there eventually. Iraq is the size of California, and there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of sites to check. And Saddam was in power.
Plus it took over 75,000 troops stationed in Kuwait and a US Naval presence in the area to get Saddam to allow UN Inspectors in. It costs money to keep 75,000 troops in Kuwait and Naval assets on location.
Here's The Reality-based Situation in 2002
Given that the Democrats/Reality-based types plan on having THOUSANDS of lawyers on-call in any given state to investigate allegations of vote fraud, how do they figure that four dozen inspectors can accomplish anything substantial in a country run by Saddam?
At the end of the day, in Iraq, war is cheaper than peace, both in lives and money.
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 29, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Thank you PUK. Well, I am feeling perkier today and what mental acuity I have had seems to be returning bit by bit as Chantix fades.
JMH Don't say a word..let McCain wait until the debate to explain to Obama how much of that expense is fixed--that is we have to pay military salaries whether the troops are abroad on a mission , acting as a relief convoy or hanging around the barracks waiting to play extras in some film by his friends and supporters.
Posted by: clarice | February 29, 2008 at 08:02 AM
McCain (in a video at HotAir via FoxNews):
"...dispirited spirited campaign..."
"...conservative liberal Republican..."
Oh. Dear.
Posted by: centralcal | February 29, 2008 at 09:01 AM
JMH,
Not just scary, as Ann said, but funny to boot. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | February 29, 2008 at 09:22 AM
I think the scary part is that the Obama camp is making an issues out of it - Obama is obviously proud of his middle name ... that is what we should all be questioning.
Why should we consider his for the highest office in the nation if he wants to use his middle name as an election topic.
As much as I despise McCain - we don't get upset when someone refers to him as John Sidney McCain or refering to Hill as Hillary Rodham Clinton ... You can't have it both was Obama.
Posted by: The POW Warrior | February 29, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Just call him Earl. He is, after all, the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: MarkD | February 29, 2008 at 09:41 AM
I'd like it if Michelle Obama would explain just what it is that is so "scary" about the name "Hussein."
She is a very eloquent spokesperson for her husband (and the Democrat Party). She should be given a chance to explain why "Hussein's" presidential campaign needs to confront users of his birth-name so vehemently.
Really. I'm curious why the defensiveness, and how she'll word her explication.
Posted by: steveaz | February 29, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Have you all seen this about the Canada/Nafta Obamathing:
from The Campaign Spot
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 09:50 AM
"There's a lot to do on Iraq because it's such a big hole we're dumping our money in,"
Quoting Harry Reid.
I think they quoted him out of context. I am sure he went on to say "And we so many other big holes we want to dump money in to try to buy some voters for this election, we can no longer afford to protect the American people."
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 09:57 AM
And that poster left off Angie Harmon, a hottie to be sure...
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Saw this somewhere. "John McCain has urged talk radio hosts and his supporters to refrain from calling Sen Obama "Barack Hussein Obama," but refer to him as "Barack Cougar Obama"
Posted by: Bill | February 29, 2008 at 10:05 AM
I'm pasting in Byron York's piece at The Corner--it's mostly la Michelle's own words:
Michelle Obama: "Don't Go Into Corporate America" [Byron York]
I have a new story today about Michelle Obama's visit to Zanesville, Ohio, where she met with a group of women at a local day care center. According to the U.S. Census, Muskingum County, where Zanesville is located, had a median household income of $37,192 in 2004, below both the Ohio and national averages. Just 12.2 percent of adults in the county have a bachelor's degree or higher, also well below the state and national averages. About 20 percent don't have a high school degree. Nevertheless, Mrs. Obama urged them to foreswear lucrative professions like corporate law or hedge fund management and go into the helping industry, even if the sacrifice is great:
Mrs. Obama also bemoaned the amount of money she has to spend — nearly one-third of the median household income in Zanesville — on piano, dance, and other lessons for her two children. But she was grateful for the concern her husband's supporters have shown for her. "Everywhere I go, no matter what, the women in the audience, their first question for me is, 'How on earth are you managing it, how are you keeping it all together?'" she told the women.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 10:23 AM
She talks about people who end up taking years and years, until middle age, to pay off their debts. “The salaries don’t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you’re in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids,” she says.
Here's one way the people who want to raise taxes really, really bug me.
Michelle Obama seems sympathetic to people who are working and just want to save money for their kids. Why is everyone else who keeps you from taking home money at fault, but not the government?
Corporation not pay you enough? Bad
College loan charge too much? Bad
College costs too much? Bad
Government takes a chunk of your paycheck? Good
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Stick and Stone may break my bones,
but names will never hurt me.
The pedaling of "fear of fear" is even sillier than the original "fear".
Posted by: Neo | February 29, 2008 at 10:29 AM
OT? OT? OT? OT?
Highly recommended (by me) is Take My Wives, Please: Polygamy Heads West, re the impact of Islamic polygamy on the West. Hint: the impact is negative.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Michelle seems to be rivaling Teresa Heinz-Kerry for propensity towards making unfortuante remarks. Has she been taking lessons from Bill?
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | February 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM
'How on earth are you managing it, how are you keeping it all together?'
Yeah I get that a lot too. "boris, how do you do it, hold a job, play guitar, keep up with all the CSI TV shows and STILL find the time to have a beer?"
It's a blessing and a curse I tell them.
Posted by: boris | February 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Meanwhile, George Walker Bush merely reduced the middle class tax burden to historically low levels:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 29, 2008 at 10:39 AM
heh, boris!
Oh, she did not say that.
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Well, since CTV has a new report out confirming their earlier reporting about Obama telling the Canadians he doesn't really mean what he's been saying about NAFTA, maybe everyone should just start calling him Barack Doubletalk Obama.
Posted by: Ranger | February 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Ranger- isn't it curious? The denial about talking to the Canadian Embassy was pretty surgical, I suppose. It was a consulate.
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Boy Michelle did not turn down the property tax abatement on that big fancy house. Something like 8 year of reduced taxes on the minimansion, and it required them to jump thru some hoops to keep it and guess what they jumped and jumped. HMMM
She left a name law firm and was making 121K a year before the raise which tripled her income and and she is whining about low rate student loans and piano lessons?
Democrats are the least discerning beings on this planet. These day care moms should have filleted her.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 10:49 AM
And, GMax, don't forget:
And that does not count the money Mrs. Obama receives from serving on corporate boards.
It's all part of the racial spoils system--for the anointed, that is.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM
So, what should the Meme for this be?
Barack Lied, People Cried!
The Audacity of Lies!
Barack, by thine actions we shall know thee!
Posted by: Ranger | February 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Is it worse to flip flop on your positions, like Kerry did or outright lie? I would think at least with flip flopping you have a chance to explain you legitimately changed your mind after considering additional info. But when you say one thing to your supporters, another to the likely impacted group, get called on it and deny it, I dont see how you come off as anything but a panderer who will say anything to get elected, and worse a liar who is not to be believed.
But I guess if you got hope and change going for you, a little lying doesn't hurt, right?
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Meanwhile McCain is onboard with Jim Demint pork amendment. If the GOP incumbents get onboard with this, they can ride this a whole lot further than the Democrats rode their culture of corruption shtick. Nobody but guys like Booby Byrd like pork. Its got to have 70% to 75% voter support. A clear distinction to make for the parties.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM
There is an interesting dynamic with these two. They bellow hope for change and project resentment enough to want to get even.
=================================
Posted by: kim | February 29, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Is it just me or does it seem like the Chicago Sun Times, the paper that should know Obama the best, really does not care for the chap? Exhibit 1, Steve Huntley writes a column today that eviscerates Obama on his Iraq fiasco of this week. He calls Obama's policy "confused". That is probably charitable. But when your friends in the MSM are firing off at you, it cant be a good sign.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 11:08 AM
There is an interesting dynamic with these two. They bellow hope for change and project resentment enough to want to get even.
"Hope" "Change"? Translation: where's ours?
The Rev Wright told them, God helps those who helps themselves. They've been helping themselves, but they want more.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 11:10 AM
You can bid on Ebay for a new middle name for BHO.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220207403338&ssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:US:1123>Barak Milhouse?
Posted by: clarice | February 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM
The other illuminating thing about this Canada flap is just how clueless Obama (and/or) his team are on the realities of international politics. Did everyone involved in this just forget that the Conservatives are the governing party in Canada? Did it not occur to them that members of the Consirvative Party government might want the Republicans to keep the White House? Did it not occur to them, that given those political dynamics in Canada, this whole thing wouldn't be leaked to the press sooner or later?
Posted by: Ranger | February 29, 2008 at 11:13 AM
GMax, my brother sent me an item yesterday that I should've linked--I only referred to it obliquely. It went into some detail about how and why the press--the actual campaign reporters--like McCain and how they continually get stiffed by Obama, who keeps them strictly at arms length.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I am fearful that the situation in Gaza is about to explode. Israel will not make the same slow and incremental mistake they did in Souther Lebanon and their defense minister is talking about a "shoah". those of you who speak some Hebrew may take a second to translate for us. My limited understanding is that the Defense Minister is threatening a major ass kicking that would not soon be forgot.
Of course Hezbollah may try to take advantage of the situation in the South to stir up something in the North.
If you are the pro Palestinian candidate, you have got to be staying up late trying to figure out a way to walk the tightrope so that even more American Jews dont throw up their hands in disgust with you.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 11:17 AM
"Shoah" is another word for holocaust, and I'm afraid he was not describing Israel's plan for its neighbors, but the reverse.
Posted by: clarice | February 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM
May I respectfully suggest
Barrack "Hallelujah" Obama ?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Ranger- no, because I think they truly believe every country hates Bush.
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM
In the event Senator Obama wins the general in November, will he then say, on January 20, 2009, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear to....?"
Posted by: rogera | February 29, 2008 at 11:42 AM
And one more thing... Did the Obama campaign think they could lie to the Canadian press the way they do to the US press and get away with it? An American paper or TV network may have just slunk away with their tail between their legs as the price of getting a Dem in the White House, but the Canadian press has no such vested interest in the election outcome.
Posted by: Ranger | February 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM
If you are the pro Palestinian candidate, you have got to be staying up late trying to figure out a way to walk the tightrope so that even more American Jews dont throw up their hands in disgust with you.
If you're even clued in enough to realize there's a tightrope needing walking. Given the lack of foreign policy smarts Obama and his campaign have displayed thus far, I'm not convinced that's the case.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM
On the wrong side of a Predator drone's missile, his quest for gore and glory over.
Posted by: Neo | February 29, 2008 at 12:00 PM
"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," McCain said, referring to Obama. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."
On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.
"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.
But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.
Dont discount the fact that CTV has stations in Western Ontario that surely reach Michigan audiences.
I am sure CTV does not like their own reputation smeared, so they are rightly defending themselves on exactly what went on.
Harper is now saying that Canada might like to have a few things changed in the agreement too if it is going to be opened up for renegotiations. Funny how that works, when two sides sign an agreement they expect the other one to uphold the agreement. But someone we are not hearing about a global test on this situation.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM
someone = somehow
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Anduril--per your link above @ PJM--I found myself a little horrified laughing at a story about murder.
Posted by: glasater | February 29, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I suppose he could be like Harry S. Truman, Barack H. Obama and be done with it...and if runs into trouble with the remaining names eventually B.H.O., the first acronym President in the history of the U.S.
Posted by: ben | February 29, 2008 at 12:09 PM
On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.
"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.
Gmax, that's the surgical denial I was talking about although I was thinking it came from Obama's camp.
Note that it seems not to be a lie, but not the whole truth either. Goolsbee spoke with the Consulate.
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Boy--talk about buttoned down campaign management. Everything (almost) has to go through BHO and his minions.
Posted by: glasater | February 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM
glasater, my wife works for a private boys school. Many Muslims send their sons to the school for the single sex education (and their girls to a related girls school), despite the Catholic character of the school. There are a number of western women married to Muslim men among this group--this is not an uncommon situation: they find out after converting that they're part of a harem, sometimes on an international scale. Some of these Muslims are highy westernized and not bad people, but western women who get into this culture are stoopid--they're cruisin' for a bruisin'.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 12:22 PM
glasater, would this be a solution: legalize polygamy but make the homicide justifiable?
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah," the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster. The word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust, but a spokesman for Vilnai said the deputy defense minister used the word in the sense of "disaster," saying "he did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide."
"The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Clarice
Is there more than one meaning of Shoah? Here is the quote. Surely the Def Minister is not threatening a Holocaust on the Palestinians, given the proclivity in the International community to dump on the Israelis for the kind of common sense defense measures that if it were in their own country would be seen as lukewarm half measures.
"The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Vilnai told Army Radio on Friday.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM
OOPs x posted with Anduril
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM
GMax, here's the link to the article I quoted--my entire post was a quote:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959532.html
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Is there anybody following Barak's soldier story? Last I saw it looked, well, made up.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Is there anybody following Barak's soldier story? Last I saw it looked, well, made up.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I know of no other meaning. I take it he's waning the Carterlike Olmert response to the first attacks will not be repeated if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah again.Given that Hezbollah has nestled itself into civilian communities in Lebanon significant civilian deaths seem inevitable in any meaningful response.
Posted by: clarice | February 29, 2008 at 12:47 PM
**waRning****
Posted by: clarice | February 29, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Anduril--I'm a little bit of a female chauvinist so I tend to place more responsibility on women and the choices they make.
Posted by: glasater | February 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM
GMax-
...with flip flopping you have a chance to explain you legitimately changed your mind...
"I was for it before I was against" doesn't seem like a winning argument with BHO's NAFTA gaff. Isn't it a bit presumptuous of his economic team to be sending emissaries to Canada (or at least their their consulates) before he even has the nomination locked up.
Posted by: RichatUF | February 29, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Not that presumptuous for a movement candidate clearly believing his own bullshit.
Besides if they go to the Consulate, they can hopefully head off a strong denunciation by the Canadian government, and look like they are trying to create problems with our largest trading partner.
I dont think they factored in Jack Layton with his far lefty party coming out publicly about wanting to get rid of NAFTA too.
Gee if Prog Socialists on both sides of the border dislike the policy, voters are going to assume its a pretty good policy and the the Democrats are just pandering and puppeteering for the Unions Bosses pulling their strings.
Can anyone advising Obama explain that the farther left you go in the Primary, the harder it is to get back to the center to be able to win a National election? Is it that hard to understand for a Harvard Law School grad?
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Is any more coming out about Barak Hussein's anonymous Captain story?
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 29, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Whoops, I see my earlier posts mysteriously appear.
Weird.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 29, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Rich, It makes me worry more about his emissaries to Damascus.
Posted by: Ann | February 29, 2008 at 01:21 PM
OK--This is long but it is from John Fund's Political Diary and refers to BHO and Nafta--
Can't do a link.
"Is Barack Obama climbing out so far on his campaign's left wing as to court a potential political crash as his party's nominee?
Mr. Obama used to make soothing, moderate noises on the economy, well aware that projecting an image as a wild-eyed populist could hurt him with independent voters in the fall. But in the heat of the Texas and Ohio primaries, he has thrown restraint aside and joined Hillary Clinton in a jihad against globalization.
Most infamously, Mr. Obama paired his endorsement by the anti-trade Teamsters Union with a pledge to block "open trucking" with Mexico, by which cargo vehicles can easily cross the border without transferring their shipments to U.S. trucks.
As for NAFTA, which has proven a boon to many border areas of Texas, Mr. Obama now claims that the agreement with Mexico cost "millions of jobs" and says he wants to renegotiate the treaty. On the outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas, Mr. Obama has come up with a Rube Goldberg plan to levy lower corporate taxes on firms that become "patriot employers" and keep jobs in the U.S. "What he is effectively saying is that companies that offshore jobs are unpatriotic," economist Gary Hufbauer told the Financial Times. "This is serious language."
It may also be serious politics. John McCain advisers believe that Mr. Obama's "stop the world" rhetoric combined with his designation as the most liberal senator by the National Journal magazine give them an angle to appeal to business owners and workers in export industries. "The only Democrat to win the White House in the last generation was Bill Clinton, who was moderate on trade," says one McCain adviser. "If Obama wants to try trade extremism instead as a campaign tactic, that's a battlefield we will be happy to meet him on."
Advisers to Mr. McCain believe that Mr. Obama would present a juicy target as nominee. "We see him as a classic liberal whose proposals come straight out of the 1970s," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior McCain adviser. "It is hard to understand his stance on trade. Access to the U.S. market is a vital element of our foreign policy."
Posted by: glasater | February 29, 2008 at 01:26 PM
So yesterday we learned from Obama that:
Renegotiating NAFTA doesn't really mean renegotiating NAFTA with Canada.
Pulling troops out of Iraq doesn't really mean removing troops that can kill alQaeda out of Iraq.
I also heard Dr. Susan Rice say that while Obama would meet foreign leaders "without precondition", the meetings would be "carefully planned".
It was an interesting day.
Posted by: MayBee | February 29, 2008 at 01:27 PM
This seems to be getting pretty specific, and we both sides default to "No Comment" you can be assured that if they really thought "Bullshit" they would not be holding back from saying anything.
ABC News' Jennifer Parker spoke to Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economics professor, Thursday who would not confirm or deny that he had a conversation with Georges Rioux, the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. Rioux, in meetings this week in Ottawa, would also neither confirm nor deny any conversation took place. Both men did say that they know each other.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 01:27 PM
GMax-
Can anyone advising Obama explain that the farther left you go in the Primary, the harder it is to get back to the center to be able to win a National election? Is it that hard to understand for a Harvard Law School grad?
Maybe they will see it in a dream or bring some tablets down from the mountian. I was looking over some Fed papers on NAFTA and (a skimming and eyeballing warning here) it looks to me that for the auto parts supplier industry (which seems to be the cause of the biggest dislocations in Ohio) that NAFTA has had the effect of sending the more high end production to Canada and the low end production to Alabama. Maybe BHO's new campaign theme for Ohio could be "Blame Alabama!"
Posted by: RichatUF | February 29, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Ha!
See what talking with the enemy get's you Obama.
Canada-playing hard ball.
Ya-baby!
Man did he Obama the geo-political wheeezzzaard forget who won the last election in you know Canada?
Burned ya baby rrrreeeealll gooood.
Now- see how Canada bitch slapped ya?
How do you think Kim Jongster, and some other toughies are going to do ya?
Posted by: Anon | February 29, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Speaking of Michelle Omarosa Obama, we also have Hillary Boo Hoo Clinton saying "It's hard being a woman out there". (from Malkin/ABC)
In an interview with ABC News’ Cynthia McFadden to air on this evening’s “Nightline,” Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., says it’s tougher for her to run as a woman than it is for her male opponent.
Asked why she thinks so many women may be feeling sorry for her, Clinton said, “I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives onto me, and they see how hard this is. It’s hard. It’s hard being a woman out there. It is obviously challenging with some of the things that are said that are not even personal to me so much as they are about women.
“And I think women just sort of shake their head,” Clinton continued. “My friends do. They say, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is so hard.’ Well, it’s supposed to be hard. I’m running for the hardest job in the world. No one has ever done this. No woman has ever won a presidential primary before I won New Hampshire. This is hard. And I don’t expect any sympathy, I don’t expect any kind of, you know, allowances or special privileges, because I knew what I was getting myself into.
“Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field,” she said, “but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there.”
Posted by: Ann | February 29, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Amongst those "who's name shall not be spoken" are of course demons.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 29, 2008 at 01:44 PM
So Obama has pissed off the Canadians, eh. What a hoser.
You know how the Democrats belly-ache about Bush squandering the mythic good will the US had after 9/11?
Child’s play.
Obama can pre-squander good will with our next door neighbors, even if he doesn’t mean it.
Obama's Foreign Policy: The doctrine of pre-emptive squandering
Posted by: hit and run | February 29, 2008 at 01:45 PM
Michelle Omarosa Obama
I like it, Ann! I really, really, like it!
Posted by: centralcal | February 29, 2008 at 01:47 PM
The neocons over at Powerline have a disturbing post re McCain. McCain is clearly a guy for whom all criticism is intensely personal:
Brad Smith responds to Senator McCain
I was intrigued by Paul's account of the blogger conference call with Senator McCain yesterday. Senator McCain justified his refusal to shake the hand of former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith on the ground that Professor Smith had engaged in attacks on Senator McCain's character.
Checking out Smith's 2001 book on the problems with campaign finance regulation -- Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform -- Professor Smith's comments on Senator McCain and the then-proposed McCain-Feingold reform bill, one finds only Professor Smith's reference to McCain's "minimal" role in the Keating Five scandal and criticism of the bill itself. A Google search on Brad Smith on John McCain similarly turns up nothing personal in nature. Professor Smith's consideration of John McCain as a presidential candidate is accessible here.
I called Professor Smith this morning to ask him for a comment. Professor Smith was mystified and amused. He said he laughed out loud when he read Senator McCain's comments, viewing them as a projection of Senator McCain's treatment of him. He recalled having criticized Senator McCain's understanding of the issues implicated by campaign finance regulation, but nothing aimed at Senator McCain's character.
He noted that he has been quoted a number of places, including an Arizona Republic article, characterizing Senator McCain as a hero. Indeed, he said, he largely identifies with Senator McCain by virtue of his own temper and his sympathy with him on a number of issues for which he has taken flak from conservatives, among them immigration reform and the Gang of 14.
He added that since 2004 he has been criical of matters related to the Reform Institute (discussed in George Will's column) for the creation of the same appearance of corruption for which Senator McCain excoriates others. One of the themes of Professor Smith's critique of campaign finance regulation is the creation of the appearance of ethical dilemmas for their proponents.
As to the incident recounted by Will, Professor Smith added that he approached Senator McCain in part because the occasion was public and conducive to cordiality. He quoted Senator McCain as saying: "You're a bully and a coward. You have no regard for the Constitution. I'll be civil to you but I won't shake your hand."
Professor Smith offered one additional bit of armchair psychology. He wondered whether Senator McCain resented him because he can't do anything to him. I personally think the problem is a bit bigger than that, including a form of intellectual laziness on one of Senator McCain's key issues. At the least it represents conduct unbecoming a man of Senator McCain's stature.
Posted by: anduril | February 29, 2008 at 01:48 PM
If Hil can't stand the heat-get out of the kitchen.
P.S. Stop the whining!
Posted by: maryrose | February 29, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Watch this video of Michelle Obama's Wisconsin speech taken by Ann Althouse.
Michelle Obama uses the rhetorical "they" style from about the two minute mark to the six minute mark.
In it she says something to the effect-"they" said Barack couldn't rasie money, "they" said Barack couldn't organize, "they" said he couldn't win Iowa, then "they" said New Hampshire was wehat really mattered.
She even blamed pollsters?
The pollsters that had him leading in NH and CA-is she kidding?
If the "they" she means is the media picking on Obama-that is spin to the nth degree.
It looks like her audience bought the victimization of Obama's chances by the media hook, line and sinker.
Even Althouse didn't notice.
link
Posted by: Anon | February 29, 2008 at 02:00 PM
In reading Hward Wolfson comments today, its clear that Hillary does not intend to get out of the race even if they dont cary both Texas and Ohio.
And he is turning up the heat on Rezko which is a play they should have made six moves ago.
I think their new strategy is to keep it close, and let the Rezko sleaze become better understood with the focus of his corruption trial underway.
Once the superdelegates see Obama is damaged goods, they put Hill over the top.
Hide and watch.
Posted by: GMax | February 29, 2008 at 02:04 PM
Maybee-
I also heard Dr. Susan Rice say that while Obama would meet foreign leaders "without precondition", the meetings would be "carefully planned".
His language about "without precondition" has been gnawing at me. Is he trying to turf some "secret plan" and his own "Nixon goes to China" moment? Given the make up of his foreign policy team this has been for me the most frightening aspect of his campaign so far.
I could imagine a BHO foreign policy which makes nice with Iran (by dropping them off the State Sponsor of Terror List and reducing embargo and travel restrictions) and throws Israel under a bus (maybe forcing them to put their assumed nuclear weapons program under an IAEA microscope or other military aid restrictions).
I'm not sure how he would be able to move the Iranians seeing as how US forces in Iraq would be leaving during his administration anyway. All the Iranians would have to do is keep talking until US forces are gone.
Seems we have seen this script before with Pres. Clinton and Arafat and that policy was less than successful (or US policy regarding NK).
Posted by: RichatUF | February 29, 2008 at 02:08 PM
He quoted Senator McCain as saying: "You're a bully and a coward. You have no regard for the Constitution...."
To which the response can only be, "Then you're a better man than I am, Senator - no one would ever call you a coward."
Posted by: bgates | February 29, 2008 at 02:08 PM
In it she says something to the effect-"they" said Barack couldn't raise money, "they" said Barack couldn't organize, "they" said he couldn't win Iowa, then "they" said New Hampshire was what really mattered.
Maybe she's talking about the New York money people. You know - the Red Sea pedestrians.
Posted by: bgates | February 29, 2008 at 02:11 PM
So Obama has pissed off the Canadians, eh.
And the Pakistanis, but he is in tight with the Iranian Moolahs.
Posted by: MikeS | February 29, 2008 at 02:18 PM
GMax—
You're beating a dead horse.
Clinton's "brain-trust", one and all from the looks of it, should, just on the basis of what they've done for her, never be allowed anywhere near a campaign again. I'm very pleased, personally, that she asked for and got their help.
Posted by: Patrick Tyson | February 29, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I only wish she'd asked and paid for Schrum's help, too.
O's response to McCain's AQ in Iraq remark was petulant and stupid. I suspect he's never really been called to account for his fabulousness before. If this is his style McCain can chew him up in the debates provided he can cool his own too sensitive afterburners.
Posted by: clarice | February 29, 2008 at 02:29 PM
I gotta feeling it's a lot like Rick's mirror idea-
The 'they" is whoever the audience wants to fill in the blank.
Probably got some nutters in that audience going the "they" that killed JFK.
On that note why aren't they worried about Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas?
Why aren't they dodging bullets?
Well JC Watts is in Norman Oklahoma territory, why isn't he hitting the gound rolling and dodging bullets?
I can already imagine the Greenwald/Kos response to this-
"They Don't Shoot their Uncle Toms.."
Oh and by the way that ain't racist...that Uncle Tom lable.
Gawd who can keep up with the double standard-which leads back to the double talk of Obama-now on Iraq and NAFTA he's got people exhorting you to not believe him.
The wiser Democrats.
So now the important planks of any Presidential campaign foreign policy and global economy is predicated on "Don't believe him".
You know they are like the Priests of Obama-only they can know the true meaning of his words.
Posted by: Anon | February 29, 2008 at 02:34 PM