Barack Obama majored in international relations at Columbia and was well regarded in some of classes (although he won't release his transcript). That is worth keeping in mind as you wonder whether he really is this stupid or just thinks we are. Here is his latest YouTube classic making the rounds, as excerpted by Jim Geraghty:
"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union.
Well, yes they are. Geraghty and others make the key point - that Afghanistan also seemed pretty small in 2001, until Bin Ladin used it as a base from which to launch an attack that killed 3,000 Americans.
But let me mock Obama from a different direction - why does he suppose people metaphorically reference the 800 pound gorilla in the room, or the elephant in the room, as opposed to a mouse or a squirrel? He is the IR major and I am sure his guess would be interesting, but my impression is that people pay attention to things that are simply too big to ignore. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan correctly considered the Soviet Union and China far too big to isolate diplomatically and economically in an effective way. China also looked to be a useful counterweight to the Soviet Union in 1970.
As a bonus question, one might wonder what Obama thinks is meant by the phrase "Only Nixon could go to China"? Hints are offered at Wikipedia, among scholars, and even in the pop culture. Well, here is a spoiler from Wikipedia:
Because Nixon had an undisputed reputation of being a staunch anti-Communist, he was largely immune to any criticism of being "soft on Communism" by figures on the right of American politics. The phrase "Nixon going to China" is thus an analogy which refers to the unique ability that hardline politicians have to challenge political taboos and third rail issues. Only a proven hardline right-wing politician can succeed in challenging a conservative sacred cow, and vice versa for left-wingers.
I daresay Reagan had as solid an anti-Communist reputation as Nixon. Does Obama think he has foreign policy credibility and anti-terror credentials analogous to Nixon and Reagan? When did he acquire that credibility - was it as a schoolboy living in Indonesia, or later as a street organizer in Chicago? Or even later, as a colleague of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge?
And why does Obama suppose that, regardless of his own high self-regard, the rest of America and the world also sees him in the same clear light as Nixon or Reagan? Kennedy didn't have quite the same fearsome reputation - does Obama think Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev went well?
I'm not sure why a Dem candidate for President wants to insist he is taking his cues from Nixon and Reagan, but let me say this. I knew Nixon and Reagan; I voted for Reagan; and Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
I'm thinking Barry wasn't that strong a student, or perhaps he always took that New Left pose of just siding with anyone or thing that had it in for Reagan and the Evil Empire.
I can't believe this incompetent dangerous douche is in a position to run the country and that the media types feel any criticism of him or their work to elect him is racist.
What a bunch of bullsiht.
Maybe I should vacation in "Massatoosits" Barry, I hear that it's just a small place and I shouldn't be afraid of it.
Posted by: Rev Dr. E Buzz Miller | May 19, 2008 at 02:14 PM
Obama may be no Reagan, but he seems to respect his presidency and, like Clinton, wants to copy the more successful aspects of the presntation of that Presidency.
Posted by: Appalled | May 19, 2008 at 02:33 PM
Do we really know if these guys know anything besides campaign talking points and blather they've soaked up reading the NY Times? What sort of crap did Obama learn taking classes from the "Marxist" professors he tells us he sought out in college? What we need is a new format for vetting these idiots.
My proposal -- we dump the MSM "debates" and put McCain and Obama in front of Jay Leno asking questions similar to those written for Leno's "Jay Walk All-Stars" only made relevant to American foreign policy and the operation of the economy and the government.
Bonus feature -- lots of great YouTube clips!
Posted by: PrestoPundit | May 19, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Maybe BHO could chat with Peanut about how "tiny" Iran is? That would make a lot of sense, given that he seems much more in tune with Carter than any other President of the past century.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 19, 2008 at 02:39 PM
I'm fairly certain copies of foreign language editions of 'The Mouse that Roared' just skyrocketed.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | May 19, 2008 at 02:50 PM
In the immediate aftermath of the Kennedy Khrushchev meeting in Viena 1961 (the sixth year of nuclear arms talks), the USSR announced that it was resuming nuclear testing and IIRC began secretly shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba. The result was the Cuban Missile Crisis which damn near ended in a nuclear catastrophe.
This is the perfect example of why I don't want Brocko talking to the Mad Hatter Nijad of Iran.
Posted by: MikeS | May 19, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Size Matters?
Iran has over four times the land area o Japan. Seems Japan was worth considering a wee bit dangerous a few years back.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 19, 2008 at 02:53 PM
I think McCain first response was pretty good but the opening here is so wide that I would counsel McCain to return to the issue with several more forays. I think something like this would leave a mark:
My friend in the Senate wants you to know he thinks that Iran as a threat is tiny. He points to the Soviet Union during the Cold War days and wants you to see it in those terms.
Well if relative size is all that matters, then Israel is also tiny compared to the United States. Should we therefore be unconcerned about a country whose leader has repeatedly threated to wipe Israel from the map as soon as he is able?
Posted by: Gmax | May 19, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Now this may be over the top.
Posted by: Neo | May 19, 2008 at 03:00 PM
he seems much more in tune with Carter than any other President of the past century.
I'll say:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
Posted by: jimmyk | May 19, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Try this on for size:
Because Obama had an undisputed reputation of being a staunch New Dealist, he was largely immune to any criticism of being "soft on Social Security Reform" by figures on the left of American politics. The phrase "Obama going to AARP" is thus an analogy which refers to the unique ability that hardline politicians have to challenge political taboos and third rail issues.
Can't wait to see that happen! Oh wait, he just had his chance and blew it.
Posted by: Pat S. | May 19, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Snobama is no Reagan but he appears to be a duller version of Carter. Does the world need another arrogant jackass making foreign policy? Would we all be better served if Snobama just built dog houses or outhouses?
Posted by: Thomas Jackson | May 19, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Another country was relatively small on , Sunday December 7, 1941,Japan.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 19, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Does he honestly believe that Iran in possession of nuclear weapons would pose no threat to the US? Does he have some reason of which we are unaware to believe that it would pose no threat to Israel?
He seems to have no notion whatsoever of any difference between the Cold-War, non-combatant adversarial status of the US and USSR, and the modern era of extra-national, asymmetrical terrorist warmaking under clandestine state sponsorship. It seems of no consequence to him that, unlike the Soviet Union, Iran is now actively engaged in the killing of American servicemen, and is known to be a sponsor of terrorism worldwide.
I think he may be talking himself out of any chance for the presidency.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 19, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Obama needs to read up on Ludwig Wittgenstein's work on language and how culturally dependent it is. One would think after the Rev. Wright fiasco he'd get the notion that thought, expressed in language, "pictures" facts differently depending on one's upbringing.
Jimmy Carter works under the impression that everyone thinks relatively the same and that differences are simple misunderstandings. Evidence abounds that differences are real.
The job of international relations is to establish the minimums for social interaction. They are two: humility and reciprocity -- which I have described previously. Insofar as the Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, and North Koreans haven't ceded either humility or reciprocity, we will defend ourselves against them until they do.
That doesn't make us right on anything else, but our survival depends on recognizing that our opponents are wrong on two basic necessities. And those who don't recognize the importance of the minimums of society are not fit to be President.
Talk? Hell! Until they recognize the minimum requirements of society, there is no framework for talk.
Posted by: sbw | May 19, 2008 at 03:14 PM
...modern era of extra-national, asymmetrical terrorist warmaking under clandestine state sponsorship.
Not only does that sound cool, but even I can understand it.
Posted by: MikeS | May 19, 2008 at 03:17 PM
This might leave a mark ..
"the first plan that we got had been initiated by [John] Dean."
Posted by: Neo | May 19, 2008 at 03:21 PM
First, it was Hamas .. now it's ..
Posted by: Neo | May 19, 2008 at 03:27 PM
Finally, a government program Obama would eliminate: the CDC.
Why worry about AIDS, avian flu, anthrax - those things are literally microscopic. How could anyone be concerned about something so tiny?
Posted by: bgates | May 19, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Apparently only a day and 1/2 later Obama is now saying that Iran is a "grave" threat. Tiny but grave. Unconditional talks with preconditions. I am getting whiplash.
Posted by: Gmax | May 19, 2008 at 03:33 PM
And another thing, doesn't Barack know that Iran is training Al Qaeda? Gosh, why can't he be as smart as McCain?
Posted by: mkultra | May 19, 2008 at 03:34 PM
"Does Obama think he has foreign policy credibility and anti-terror credentials analogous to Nixon and Reagan?"
He knew enough to stay out Iraq. Compared to the other guy - you know, the septuagenarian who can't get his Sunnis and Shia straight - it's no contest.
Posted by: mkultra | May 19, 2008 at 03:41 PM
"He is the IR major and I am sure his guess would be interesting, but my impression is that people pay attention to things that are simply too big to ignore. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan correctly considered the Soviet Union and China far too big to isolate diplomatically and economically in an effective way."
Wait - so Iran is big enough to be concerned with, but small enough to be ignored.
Now it makes perfect sense!
Posted by: mkultra | May 19, 2008 at 03:48 PM
"I am getting whiplash."
Steady, it's going to get much worse before it's over (it will never get "better"). The Great Disowner has never been ought but a fabulist, so we can anticipate history beginning at sunrise for the next five months.
I find it a bit entertaining to consider that both Carter and Bubba had much stronger resumes than BHO prior to their successful runs. To be sure, neither had written a Meine Träume such as BHO's but I'm not at all convinced that writing in the fantasy genre is that big a plus.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 19, 2008 at 03:57 PM
"He knew enough to stay out Iraq."
Actually, that's false. In 2004 he acknowledged to the New York Times that when he gave his 2002 speech opposing the invasion, he had not been privy to the intelligence reports. He said that, had he seen the intelligence, "I don't know what I'd have done."
In any event, as an Illinois State Legislator he could not vote either to go into Iraq or to stay out of it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 19, 2008 at 04:06 PM
We might as well put the actual facts up for review by the uninformed:
"In a recent interview, [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. 'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'WHAT WOULD I HAVE DONE? I DON'T KNOW.' What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made'" (New York Times, 26 July, 2004).
A genuine profile in courage...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 19, 2008 at 04:11 PM
Dont forget the time he points to in 2002 as his courageous stand, he was trying to get the Congressional seat that was being vacated by a member of the Black Caucus. So its a gerrymandered majority minority district, full of blacks and lakefront Hyde Park limosine liberals. So exactly how courageous was it to take the position he took? Zero. It would have been political suicide in that district to have any other position. Remember even the AUMF has over 1/2 of the Democrat caucus voting no. It was never popular with Progs, and that is one of the proggiest districts in the country.
Posted by: Gmax | May 19, 2008 at 04:18 PM
I want you all to remember that I was the first to question his reputed brilliance.
He's as brilliant as the smartest woman in America which is to day aside from gaming how to get into the Ivy League and a good law school----not very.
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 04:33 PM
**which is to Say****
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 04:35 PM
I'm thinking he doesn't actually consider anything except what he can say that will get applause from the audience he's talking to at that moment.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 19, 2008 at 04:43 PM
Charlie,
We can't really rule out a mix of stupidity/ignorance but I certainly agree that he appears to belong to the Cliff Clavin school of public discourse. I really think that he has all the intellectual heft of a Robert Wexler or Henry Waxman.
IOW - not quite enough to make a good paperweight.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 19, 2008 at 05:00 PM
More on his genius:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/the_backstory_on_obamas_books.html>Song and Dance Master
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Waxman is truly a dimbulb. Wexler is just so distasteful to listen to, I turn off immediately so I dont know if there is 60 watts or 100 watts of power there truly.
But its real important to the Ivy Leagues to have persons of color. Many of the their admits are very deserving, but more than a few are not. The fact that he does not want us to see his transcript is probably telling. You think its cuz he does not want to brag? Really? The same guy who says " we ( meaning moi ) are the one we have been waiting for?"
Still think its out of an abundance of humble?
Posted by: Gmax | May 19, 2008 at 05:06 PM
"I dont know if there is 60 watts or 100 watts of power there truly"
Not even if he were a quadruplet and you were using the total for all four.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 19, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Obama needs to read: Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism. Because he's wildly missing how Reagan handled the Soviet threat.
It was more like Gorbachev caving to Reagan's pressure that got the talks going between them. That was AFTER Reagan's aggressive approach convinced the Politburo that they needed a younger, more vigorous leader to match up with him. Reagan outlived Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko in just his first term.
Gorby didn't come along 'til 1985 and Reagan told him to 'tear down this wall'.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 19, 2008 at 05:25 PM
It is a damned shame no one's running against Wexler, my guess is that turnout for the Dem plantation he presides over will be low this time--in fact, knowing the condo commandos believe that voting is a religious act, they probably will show up and vote for McCain but they may never have learned how to split a ticket.
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Want to know how decrepit the USSR was then--and of course the CIA missed it altogether. At a meeting in the procurator's office in L'vov, I looked up at the oil painting of Brezhnev and had to bite my tongue to keep from laughing. He'd given himself yet another stupid medal and there wasn't money to redo the portraits in all the state offices so they oil painted the last medal itself on a separate piece of canvas and somehow attached it to the paintings.
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 05:30 PM
"I am getting whiplash."
In this case it is called "lipwash"
Posted by: PeterUK | May 19, 2008 at 05:31 PM
New Dealist? Didn't the World Bank have a New Deal for aid? It was that Zoll guy and it had to do with food or something.
Posted by: Nelist | May 19, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Posted by: cathyf | May 19, 2008 at 05:47 PM
. . . the septuagenarian who can't get his Sunnis and Shia straight . . .
Right. And there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq, because Osama is a religious fanatic, and Saddam was a secular leader.
Iran supports both brands of insurgents in Iraq, because their goal is disruption, not religious purity. And the hundredth time some lefty makes this claim, it'll still be stupid.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 19, 2008 at 06:06 PM
The guy who called Israel a "stinking corpse" will say to his voter-public, see, Obama will talk to me. BHO HELPS Ahmadodojihad & his religious mooonbats when he says stuff like he did. Even in a campaign.
Just like Hitler exposed the French Army in '36 as garlic-eating surrender-monkeys when he invaded the Rhineland on a wing & a prayer. [The Adolf was bluffing & the Froggies couldn't make the call]
Iran is a country under the control of a crooked bunch of clerics who have a stranglehold on the levers of power. Obambi is a silly fool who probably flunked a lot of his foreign policy courses at Columbia!!
Posted by: daveinboca | May 19, 2008 at 06:28 PM
Getting back to the the elephant and mouse metaphore, wasn't there something about little rodents doing a job on Europe a while back? And isn't it odd that Mr. Sensitive is telling us not to sweat the small stuff?
Posted by: expat | May 19, 2008 at 07:43 PM
"He knew enough to stay out Iraq."
Most Democrat political leaders considered Iraq a major Problem
The problem for the Bush Administration, they failed to determine just how far the MSM and and most of the Democrat political leaders were willing to go to insure that the enemy understood that they had major support from the leftists in America.
Sen Rockefeller flew to Syria, even before the fighting started to make sure that the word got to Them
"ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."
Sen Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent for his senate seat; the Democrat political leaders refused to support him because he believed in America.
They simply do not allow that in their party.
Posted by: Pagar | May 19, 2008 at 08:06 PM
Iran is a country with a strategic hold on the Persian Gulf if they chose with Chinese
Silkworm missiles and the Shahab long range missiles which could hit targets on the Mediterranean coast and potentially Western
Europe's frontier. Thanks to Carter provoking the power vaccuum that brought the mullahs of Quom to power, it has operational control in Lebanon,and has influence in the emirates and Azeirbaijan.
Thanks to Clinton's misteps, they have an entree into Latin America with Chavez, who is tied to the old FARC/MIR/MRTA regional
insurgent network. Which stretches as far South as the TRiple Frontier.
Posted by: narciso | May 19, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Wonder how much Obama knows? Take a look at the books he claims to have read while writing his own. His list might be OK for a high school graduate planning to major in literature, but it is pitiful for anyone aspiring to be president.
Posted by: Jim Miller | May 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Interesting. I think like Truman, Bush reads lots of history books.
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Posted by: baldilocks | May 19, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Any guess as to when Texas might succeed?
Posted by: boneys dad | May 19, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Secede?
Posted by: baldilocks | May 19, 2008 at 10:39 PM
That's what the Texas Chamber of Commerce is hoping..
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM
thanks baldilocks one too many beers
Posted by: boneys dad | May 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Well, Clarice, you've lived in Iron Curtain countries; so like certain other folks who have had the innoculation of the 'messianic
experience' we've learned to distrust populist demagogues of the type of Barry the
Sumatran prince. However, 30+ years later, one is suspicious of the benefits of Nixon's rapprochement with China. Not only did it undermine our principled opposition to Russian totalitarianism, it didn't help us with solving the Vietnam problem; it put us indirectly in the same alliance with Pol
Pot's Khmer Rouge. Looking forward, they have used 'what does it matter what color a cat is, as long as it catches mice" nationalism has allowed China to promote it's 'Middle Kingdom' influence in Sudan,
Iran, South America; et al. exacerbating
pollution and the scramble for energy with
nary a complaint from the usual suspects. It has practiced naked imperialism in Tibet
(causing Nick Kristof, court stenographer for the oligarchy, to blame us and the Dalai Lama, for the fact that Tibetans are no longer content with nonviolence approaches. A rapprochement with the
'Pistachio oligarchs is likely to have even less salutory effects. Am I wrong, in this conclusion.
Posted by: narciso | May 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Hmmm..I would say that the reapproachment was not completely lacking benefits to us but that the foreign policy advantages have been often overplayed.
China does seem slowly to be changing domestically--you can see that, inter alia, in the reports relating to the earthquake disaster:For the first time the govt cannot hide the tragedy, for the first time citizens are mobilizing to provide aid when the central govt seems unable to do so, for the first time there is pressure on the govt to explain shoddy school construction and the govt has been forced to respond.
For us, the trade changes have made it possible to substantially improve the material lives of so many Americans while keeping inflation in check.
You are right about China's foreign policy though you forget it does seem to have played a somewhat more positive role in North Korea. (I know it's because they cannot deal with all those refugees that would overrun it if No Korea collapsed, but still.)
I think pressure will build inside on China which will act as a greater check on the imeperial desires of its leaders.
Posted by: clarice | May 19, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Clarice:
Patrick Casey's piece on Obama's publishing history was pretty astonishing. When I read that Obama has 2 more books on the way, I suddenly found myself thinking of his presidential run as just so much more fodder for his career as a author. He's probably not studying up on Iran or any place else when he retires from the stage, he's deciding how to feature the day in the continuing narrative of his life.
This could be fun though, per the NYTimes: "Mr. Obama, an inveterate journal writer who had published poems in a college literary magazine but had never attempted a book, struggled to finish." Have we seen any of this poetry? If not, I say release 'em along with his report cards!
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 19, 2008 at 11:56 PM
It's funny that both Obama and Bill Clinton were International Relations majors, yet both seem to be clueless about national power and the use of it.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 20, 2008 at 01:33 AM
I'd have liked less opinion and more red meat in this Adolph Reed post at "The Progressive" (via Michael Weiss -- whose piece on Obama & Iraq is more rewarding). If the following bit were just a little more definitive, however, I'd say it confirmed my suspicions that Obama's role as a "community organizer" was really rookie stuff:
Would that be like a drive on training wheels, or what? This could conceivably be a promising tidbit too:I don't know any thing about this author's antipathy to Obama or where a precinct captain would sit on the Chicago totem pole, but it certainly suggests the simple 3-spoon factory worker Michelle talks about was no stranger to Daley politics. As usual, what may be most interesting about that factoid is just how little we've heard about it.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 20, 2008 at 02:07 AM
JMH, Clarice linked two of his poems a couple of weeks back. They were published in the New Yorker and were posted at Sweetness & Light last year:
Obama Poems
They're not very impressive, imo.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 20, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Let me see - the tiny Cuba of missile crisis
fame. That tiny Cuba which allowed the Soviet Union to put a nuclear submarine station in Cien Fuegos, Cuba. The tiny Cuba that distabalized Central and South America and continues to wreak havoc in Venezuela and other Latin American countries. The tiny Cuba that
went to Angola to spread Marxism in Africa.
Tiny Cuba - haven for drug dealers and other criminals in exile.
That tiny Cuba - that poses no threat to anyone. Fidel is Obama's "Maximum Lidir".
Fidel chanted "yes we can" and
one of the first things Fidel took away from the Cuban people - was their food - sounding more familiar every day.
Posted by: rosietalks | May 20, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Why pay attention to the rodent?
Answer: Black Plague.
Next!
Posted by: ajacksonian | May 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM
jmh, I had a friend who was a Time editor when Carter ran. (I'm sure I've recounted this here before but I'll repeat it.) He said that editors senior to him bet that they could make anyone they chose, President and picked Carter whom hardly anyone had heard of. They gave him a cover sotry and from then on super favorable coverage, building him up as the honest, bright former naval man who'd clean up after Nixon.
In a way the story of Obama's publishing career reminds me of this...someone singled him out for political success. The very notion that publishers would give a $40 k advance for the memoirs of a 28 year old law student strains credulity..The only other thing of note about him--ta da--was a story in the NYT about him as the first black head of the law review.
We now know the selection process at the time had switched from grades to diversity, that he never wrote anything fot the review and that the review editions put out under his leadership are the least cited of all the Harvard reviews.
I smell some fiddling.
Posted by: clarice | May 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM
(Sorry about the obvious typos..above.)
Posted by: clarice | May 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM
My favorite quote from the Texas debate illustrates why Obama will not be a Nixon goes to China event:
He wants to meet at the Presidential level to prove we don't hold ourselves above the rest of the world. To show we will come to their level. To demonstrate our equality.
It isn't about coming to an agreement or negotiating a deal. It is, for him, a tool to show the world we are not special.
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM
"In a way the story of Obama's publishing career reminds me of this...someone singled him out for political success."
IMO, no one has a clue who that someone is.
Posted by: Pagar | May 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM
MayBee:
It isn't about coming to an agreement or negotiating a deal. It is, for him, a tool to show the world we are not special.
Like obama wanting to double the capital gais tax on the "rich" ... When he's told that would actually produce you know less revenue ... He says he wants to do it for the "fairness".
Posted by: hit and run | May 20, 2008 at 01:35 PM
hey hit- I saw your shout out at Campaign spot. You are such a star.
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2008 at 03:33 PM
MayBee - thanks! You know what else? I got a link on the Corner last week.
Though it was very anti-climatic. It was an update to a post that was two-hours old.
But still! I can now claim "as seen on the Corner"
Posted by: hit and run | May 20, 2008 at 06:26 PM
I insist when these things happen, you provide links.
Posted by: Jane | May 20, 2008 at 07:03 PM
I agree with Jane.
Posted by: Ann | May 20, 2008 at 07:12 PM
You want links? I got links!
Posted by: hit and run | May 20, 2008 at 07:35 PM
By special order, I have provided a LUN
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Great, Hit.
If you have to listen to that weasel McAuliffe, it's nice that he's attacking Obama. HEH
Posted by: clarice | May 20, 2008 at 07:43 PM
HIT, HIT, HOORAH!!! Congratulations, Hit.
Posted by: Ann | May 20, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Thanks guys! Good job Hit. I expect before long you will be writing at The Corner.
Posted by: Jane | May 20, 2008 at 08:10 PM
Um, no.
But....
Posted by: hit and run | May 20, 2008 at 08:19 PM
But....?????
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2008 at 08:24 PM
Eh, nothing, really.
I think.
Maybe.
We'll see.
Posted by: hit and run | May 20, 2008 at 08:30 PM
Oh, how you tease.....shall we have a JOM write-in campaign for "Jeff's Corner" or the "Campaign Spotlight with Jeff Dobbs" or just the fabulous "Voice In My Head"?
Posted by: Ann | May 20, 2008 at 08:40 PM
National Re-Brew?
Posted by: Elliott | May 20, 2008 at 08:43 PM
Dobbin's Noggin
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2008 at 08:55 PM
And we can all be known as Dobb's Snobs
Posted by: Jane | May 20, 2008 at 09:02 PM
I like it! I'm a Dobb's Snob. (clinging to my guns, and my religion, and not sharing my pie).
Posted by: centralcal | May 20, 2008 at 09:17 PM
LOL
Posted by: Ann, a Dobb's Snob Original | May 20, 2008 at 09:24 PM
Dobb(s)oisseurs?
Posted by: Elliott | May 20, 2008 at 09:25 PM
Egads!
HEY! Look everyone!!! A primary!!!
Wait!!! Is that Mark Steyn??!!!?? Over there!!! Hurry!!!
Posted by: hit and run | May 20, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Finally, we have a true distraction in this election season.
Posted by: Elliott | May 20, 2008 at 09:32 PM
I have noticed that Tom Maguire is getting a lot of mention around the righty blogosphere recently. I blame Karl Rove! I mean, ever since he listed JOM as one of his must reads, Tom is suddenly HOT! Oh, and you too VIMH (spoken by a true Dobbs' Snob).
Posted by: centralcal | May 20, 2008 at 09:38 PM
Um..I don't know how to put this...but, what the heck, I have to ask the ladies. Didn't we ALL get emails from Jeff saying we were his very favorite poster and he loved us to pieces?
I mean isn't that some kind of IT fraud or something? You know the kind that can get you thrown in jail?
Just curious...%^)
Posted by: clarice | May 20, 2008 at 09:44 PM
"Didn't we ALL get emails from Jeff saying we were his very favorite poster and he loved us to pieces?"
Well, no?
Ok, I am back to plain Ann. :(
Posted by: Plain Ann | May 20, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Helloooo! I didn't get that email either, Plain Ann. (Throwing my Dobb's Snob badge in the pissoire). Okay, I'm not. I mean, Clarice really is the favorite *poster* of us all. (Oopsie, right next to Jane, of course. It's a tie!)
Nevermind. I am going back to my cocktails until things cool off here.
Posted by: centralcal | May 20, 2008 at 09:59 PM
Me neither. I see Clarice has started another war.
How will she (and Hit) get out of this one.
Posted by: Jane | May 20, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Wouldn't you like to know,Jane?
(I'm listening to Obama. One stupid thing after another with a torchlit crowd that has a disconcerting Nuremburg rally feel to me.I suppose it's because I instinctively hate/fear this populist/charismatic thing.)
Posted by: clarice | May 20, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Hillary beat him by 35% in KY? Good grief. The MSM will regret this. Just as they regretted reporting for duty.
Posted by: Sue | May 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Ha, Clarice! I am loving Major Garrett trying to work "change" into every sentence, at least twice and sometimes, thrice.
Posted by: centralcal | May 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Who the hell stole this country? I am so sick of hearing they are going to "take" it back.
Posted by: Sue | May 20, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Sue, could you please get with the program? Bush and the neo-cons stole this country. And they are gonna take it back! (markos and ron paul and arianna, and obama, and all of the other fruitcakes.)
Posted by: centralcal | May 20, 2008 at 10:40 PM
c-cal,
That's what I'm afraid of. ::shudder::
Posted by: Sue | May 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Who the hell stole this country?
Honkies.
Posted by: Rev. Wright | May 20, 2008 at 10:45 PM
This is just amazing to me. Obama is the democratic nominee and Hillary keeps kicking his butt.
Posted by: Sue | May 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM
If Clarice or Jane were kicking McCain's butt, I would go to the convention with all of you.!! Just saying!!! :)
Posted by: Ann | May 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM