From John Cole:
The best part of this election is about to start, though- we are going to be treated to months of folks on the right learning Obama really is not as liberal as they think he is and becoming upset that they can not simply attack him as a radical left-winger (although some morons will still continue with the Marxist nonsense because it is all they know), all the while having to watch left-wingers kvetch and moan as they learn he really is not as liberal as they thought he was and that he will move to the center to and compromise. Put together, it has the potential to be really damned amusing.
Well, I hope its amusing. An early marker will be Obama's vote next week on the FISA compromise, which includes a provision on telecom immunity which has libs in a tizzy and is described in the Times as "a clear victory for the White House and the phone companies". The obvious guess is that Obama will simply skip town and skip the vote. [UPDATE: Obama announces that he supports the bill but opposes the immunity provision and will work (almost surely unsuccessfully) to have it removed from the Senate version. Good gnashing and kvetching by Krugman and Greg Sargent, with links to more.]
Obama might also provide some laughs at some point as he grapples with nuclear power, as noted below. Less of a laughing matter will be his re-positioning on Iraq - his commitment to defeat now seems absurdly dated and the gnashing and wailing from the left if/when he changes course and admits that maybe he can work his magic and bring hope and change to Iraq will be momentous.
And John overlooks another source of possible amusement - as an antidote to his inevitable repositioning on various pet lefty causes Obama will have to toss out some red meat rhetoric and embrace some other symbolically fraught but practically inconsequential lefty vision. What will it be? I will guess he won't break-dance on an American flag or start singing "The Volga Boatman", but beyond that, I have no idea. Something analogous to Bush's gay-marriage message is what I would watch for. Or maybe Obama will make some utterly staggering Cabinet or judicial picks to placate his base - John Edwards to the Supreme Court could cause enough aneurysms on the right that it would compensate for a victory in Iraq.
However, two caveats furrow my brow. First, it is a bit unnerving that we really don't know just how liberal or moderate the probable next President of the United States actually is. Secondly, the idea that he admits he has been blowing smoke on some topics (such as NAFTA) and has backed away from his own "overheated" rhetoric on other topics, ("undivided" Jerusalem, "unconditional" pledge to meet with foreign leaders) does not inspire confidence that we can discern the "true" Obama by listening to his words. And of course, we can't discern the "true" Obama by studying his resume and track record because if you blink once you miss it.
Well, we are probably going to elect the guy and learn by doing. Could be fun - after all, people seem to enjoy Space Mountain.
He's hopelessly leftist and unconscious of the degree to which he is out of the mainstream. He will not appear authentic if he moves to the middle.
Besides, this is a puppet, unable to move his own limbs in a convincing fashion. You know, his speech must be canned to make sense.
=====================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM
TM, you seem convinced that Obama will win. Money is certainly a big factor, but probably not big enough. I'm from Illinois, and i do know quite a bit about his liberalism. There seems to be no end to it.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | June 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM
My guess is if he moves to the middle he will confuse rather than convince just about everyone he needs to win. And that favors McCain who is at least a well-known quantity, a brand.
Posted by: JB | June 20, 2008 at 01:02 PM
What are the chances, despite the MSM, that Obama won't commit a catastrophic bloomer between now and the election? I just hope it won't happen before the convention.
Conversely, despite the MSM, what are the chances that McCain will shoot himself in the foot?
==========================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Obama is now plain for anybody to see. He will say whatever it takes to get elected. And I do mean whatever.
Don't forget, this is the guy that out-Clinton-ed the Clintons .. remember that "middle-class tax cut" that never was. The Left should take a lesson from it too.
Posted by: Neo | June 20, 2008 at 01:03 PM
I don't know a single lefty that cares a bit how much of himself Obama sells out to get elected. Right now they're projecting on him what their hopes are for a Democratic presidency and nothing he says cannot be written off as a smokescreen to fool the rubes who, because of their resistance to collectivism, deserve to be fooled.
I strongly disagree with the viewpoint that you'll see any significant buyer's remorse from the Left. They can excuse away anything because he's not Bush and he's kind of brown and because he doesn't really mean whatever he just said.
Posted by: spongeworthy | June 20, 2008 at 01:12 PM
How about this guy?.
Posted by: JB | June 20, 2008 at 01:22 PM
BO's political and economic philosophy made me think of a book written in the late 1970s called "The Joyless Economy". The author argues that Americans consume too much and are childlike in their need for new things, eg cars and gadgets. He calls for a kinder, gentler society with less consumption. The book had a cultlike following in academia. This presumably is where BO wants to lead us, down the road to the joyless economy.
Posted by: LindaK | June 20, 2008 at 02:16 PM
I remember being young and wanting to travel through life unburdened by t oo many possessions..Now I have at least 100 espresso cups and at least that many chairs. *sigh*
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Quite the salon you must be hosting there, Clarice.
JB, the caption to the piece you linked reads "Here's this one guy..."
One dude.
Posted by: spongeworthy | June 20, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Clarice,
I cleaned my basement and discovered four large boxes filled with Boy Scout coffee mugs. THey'll go nicely with the Limoge. The one for Troop 60 is particularly lovely.
Posted by: LindaK | June 20, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Limoges
Posted by: LindaK | June 20, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Well, I haven't gone into my decorative mug collection--largely brought home by my husband who seems to have a sentimental attachment to corporate tsotchke give aways .
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 03:16 PM
If you stay in one (big) house for over thirty years,spongeworthy, the place just fills up almost by itself.
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 03:18 PM
I don't know a single lefty that cares a bit how much of himself Obama sells out to get elected.
I agree, they are desperate to feel "empowered" after 00 and 04, doesn't matter what Obama does, it gets explained away
Posted by: windansea | June 20, 2008 at 03:20 PM
The Marxists and their allies must attempt to sell Snobama as a "moderate" or progressive. No matter that he is to the left of Teddy the wonder boy of statism. No matter that he'd curtail freedoms of all those embittered white folk in the Midwest or those who like to be able to eat as much as they want or heat their homes or even buy the cars they like.
John Cole is entitled to his views. And people who believe them might also believe in Winnie the Pooh, the Obama handbook on foreign affairs and national security.
To think the Dhimmierat Party has sunken to these levels. Each election we get a candidate who is more and more like a mafia don who is hiding his homosexual behavior from the other dons. Its pathetic.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson | June 20, 2008 at 03:22 PM
I bet he "can't rule out" that D.B.Cooper survived his 1971 airplane hijacking, or whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, either.
Please explain where we learned anything new.
Posted by: Neo | June 20, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Clarice--
If you stay in one (big) house for over thirty years,spongeworthy, the place just fills up almost by itself
I hear you and it doesn't help when one is dismantling a mother's and mother in laws households and trying to figure out what to do with all that "stuff".
Posted by: glasater | June 20, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Seems to me that if a crime had been committed by "outing" Plame, there would have been some charges to that effect, Fitz's "cloud over the Vice Presidents office" not withstanding.
Asshats.
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 20, 2008 at 04:46 PM
How did McClelan turn out to be such a doofus?
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 20, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Hey Ann:
Did you see this NY Post piece on whether or not Chris Matthews & Keith Olberman were jockeying to replace Russert?
Russert himself apparently shared your view.Posted by: JM Hanes | June 20, 2008 at 04:50 PM
Clarice, I am a painter. Coffee cups and mugs, and chairs, are among my favorite subjects. They are humble and familiar.
Posted by: Caro | June 20, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Obama may not be a lefty, but his boss is,
Posted by: PeterUK | June 20, 2008 at 05:02 PM
McClellan was *always* a doofus. His press conferences were awful. Having McClellan in that role is one instance, and not a trivial one at that, in which President Bush really is to blame for something.
Posted by: PaulL | June 20, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Barack is yesterday's news. In Russia it's the Vlampire:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | June 20, 2008 at 05:12 PM
glasater, it's my revenge.
Caro--cool--
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 05:19 PM
sub-headlines promising revelations of his wild youth including a visit to a strip club in Hamburg
So he's the one who got pwn3d by Otto Leipzig (aka "The Magician.") Awesome.
Posted by: Elliott | June 20, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Clarice-- :-)
Regarding the FISA issue and BHO the WSJ Opinion page offers this cautionary thought--
As for potential abuses, at least an Attorney General and President are accountable to voters if they use this authority to spy on their political opponents. On the other hand, if a willful judge denies a surveillance request and Americans are killed as a result, he is accountable to no one The Intelligence Deal
Just got a book called Blown to Bits in order to try to understand things a little better.
Can you control who sees all that personal information about you? Can email be truly confidential, when nothing seems to be private? Shouldn’t the Internet be censored the way radio and TV are? Is it really a federal crime to download music? When you use Google or Yahoo! to search for something, how do they decide which sites to show you? Do you still have free speech in the digital world? Do you have a voice in shaping government or corporate policies about any of this?
Posted by: glasater | June 20, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Obama continue's his avoidance of voting on tough issues that would put him on record. He skipped out on FISA vote.
Posted by: Occam | June 20, 2008 at 08:45 PM
Somebody over here predicted that, Occam. If nominated, he'll run, if elected, he'll hide.
=========================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 09:13 PM
I also have a coffee mug problem - I collect vintage ones and can't seem to stop. A mug is my favorite souvenir from any trip - doesn't have to be an official souvenir mug, I'll still remember where I bought it.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 20, 2008 at 09:37 PM
Well, I can see that, but my husband will go to some golf tournament or tennis match sponsored by some business...get some butt ugly souvenirs including a mug with the company logo and insist we really should keep it.
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 09:42 PM
The senate hasn't voted on the FISA bill yet.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 09:51 PM
get some butt ugly souvenirs including a mug with the company logo and insist we really should keep it.
Those are my favorite. The uglier the better.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 09:53 PM
LOL Clarice - my husband grinds his teeth every time he sees a new mug arrive at the house. Of course, I do the same every time I see a new Star Wars action figure which is his weakness. At least a mug can be used for something.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Name tags don't take up nearly as much room as coffee mugs! My name in Japanese is a fav, and I've even got a couple that my father left lying around. They go into the drawer with old licenses and funky calling cards, a vintage draft card or two, my grandmother's dance cards -- pretty much anything that's smaller than a snap shot.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 20, 2008 at 10:11 PM
"Having McClellan in that role is one instance, and not a trivial one at that, in which President Bush really is to blame for something."
Don't let boris hear you saying that!
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 20, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Well. just so we don't wonder off to my weaknesses--yarn and cooking gadgets...
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Mine is frogs.
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 10:36 PM
What an interesting conversation because I just spent the day with my husband cleaning out carp. I found an old box of beach/pool toys when my daughter was little. There was a plastic boat in there with her name on the bottom. I couldn't throw it away because I remembered the day I wrote her name on it because all the little boys keep stealing it from her. LOL
Memories.
I collect spongeware and staffordshire pitchers. By husband gets so annoyed when he wants a pitcher and I won't let him use the 100 I have in my kitchen. :)
JMH, I read that about Chuck Todd and grinned. Their is no one at NBC to fill Russert's shoes. I understand Chrissy and Keith are fighting over it. Make's my day. I think they are going to have to go back to having a panel of Chuck Todd, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams.
Posted by: Ann | June 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM
I still have the tiny bathing suits my son wore before he was one year old. I gave his nursery school blue velvet blazer to my granddaughter--it looks great on her.
Posted by: clarice | June 20, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Did anyone watch Scotty today? I told my husband that if I was there I would of asked him something like "Can you spell DOLT?"
Funny thing is, I was listening to FOX latter today on the radio and Krauthammer called him a dolt. LOL LOL
Posted by: Ann | June 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Oh Clarice, If I could tell you the boxes in my basement of memories that I can't part with yet, you would laugh. :)
Posted by: Ann | June 20, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I have saved everything my daughters ever touched. My granddaughter is loving it. Each time she visits, I pull down another box for her to go through and pick goodies from. My daughter, on the other hand, said for me to clean the attic before we die. She doesn't want to go through all of it.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 11:02 PM
I can't get rid of any of my daughters' things, either. I can make some exception for clothes they never wore, but everything else they've touched, I've kept. It can't last, though, we don't have the room.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 20, 2008 at 11:08 PM
"The senate hasn't voted on the FISA bill yet. "
Oooops nmy bad, that was previous vote he skipped out on.
Posted by: Occam | June 20, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Sue,
Interesting, I use to spend my summers with my wonderful grandmother in Belmond, Iowa. I was always looking for something my mother owned. Nothing, nada. I guess that is why I have boxes like you.
Posted by: Ann | June 20, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Ann,
My grandmother lived in Clarion, IA, not 10 mi from Belmond. How funny! We visited her often. I also used to pore through her old things - I did find my mom's prom dress and her beanie from college (freshmen girls had to wear beanies in those days).
Clarion was a lovely town, so I'm sure you must have had wonderful summers in Belmond.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 20, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Given that yesterday’s announced decision to forego his promise to take public funding shows that Obama’s word is as good as a Nigerian e-mail, does it really matter what Obama's position is on any subject.
Posted by: Neo | June 20, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Ann,
My grandparents lived next door to me until they died. I never really left home. ::grin:: We built on land deeded to us by my grandmother. I live on land that belonged to my great-great grandparents. My sister lives in the homeplace, built by our great-grandparents. I have boxes of stuff that belonged to my great-great grandparents. And furniture. I have a trunk of my great-grandmothers that I still can't throw anything away in. She must have found some value in the stuff she put in there. Sentimental, I am.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Obama is the political equivalent of a French general who proclaims to his poilus, "They shall not pass!"...from a pay phone in London.
Posted by: MarkJ | June 20, 2008 at 11:23 PM
does it really matter what Obama's position is on any subject.
No. This isn't going to be like Kerry and 04.
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Given that yesterday’s announced decision to forego his promise to take public funding shows that Obama’s word is as good as a Nigerian e-mail, does it really matter what Obama's position is on any subject.
Actually, Nigerian e-mail is better than Obama's word, because there's a chance--however infinitesimal--that what it says is actually true.
Posted by: MarkJ | June 20, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Someone in the comments at Hot Air asked an interesting question about when Obama can spend primary money and general election money. Anyone have a good link to the rules?
Posted by: Sue | June 20, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Porchlight,
Oh my goodness, yes, they were what made me...those summers in Iowa. I can remember as a little girl at the kitchen table older folks talking about Clarion. I will half to ask relatives to see why that was important. My grandmother owned the first store on Main Street. I think she was the first feminist that still loved men.
Ha Ha
Posted by: Ann | June 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM
**have to**
you got me so excited about Iowa. My mother use to sing the Iowa song to my baby.
Posted by: Ann | June 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM
That's sweet, Ann! My grandmother was a schoolteacher/librarian in Clarion and also worked at the 4-H museum there. A nice little corner of the world, north central Iowa.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 21, 2008 at 12:04 AM
I have to admit I am confused about why Repbublican and conservatives are so happy about the Telecom-Immunity and domestic surveillence...this is a radically statist bill!
Posted by: James | June 21, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Probably because there is no domestic surveillance doofus.
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 21, 2008 at 01:30 AM
Probably because there is no domestic surveillance doofus.
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 21, 2008 at 01:31 AM
"I have to admit I am confused about why Repbublican and conservatives are so happy about the Telecom-Immunity and domestic surveillence."
No wonder your confused you don't know the first thing about what type of surveillance the bill addresses. Just because you buy into the dems propaganda doesn't make it accurate.
Confused is exactly how the dems like their base voters, so when they fail to do what they stated during elections dummies such as yourself don't even know the difference.
What confuses me is how you don't realize you have fallen for another dem word game, and you wonder what is wrong with us.
Posted by: royf | June 21, 2008 at 06:10 AM
James, find for me please, a single American citizen unjustly harmed by the horrifying invasion of privacy done by this administration which is causing Congress to address this issue with an improved FISA. Compare that with the expectations of 'Big Brother' engendered by the hysterical ranting of the Left.
Now, would you like a detailed list of all the terror that has been abrogated by this administration by application of the old FISA. Oh, sorry, ballyhooing that would diminish the effectiveness of the surveillance.
Do you note a little assymetry?
================================
Posted by: kim | June 21, 2008 at 06:18 AM
Nominate Hillary!
Posted by: Iris | June 21, 2008 at 06:48 AM
Check out her low profile. Please, Obama, don't screw up for the next two months.
============================
Posted by: kim | June 21, 2008 at 06:57 AM
Hi, all. I haven't read this thread yet -- has anyone mentioned the recent announcement by Obama that Hillary is running with him? Didn't announce which one would be P or VP. Saw it at news.aol: "Obama, Clinton to campaign together." Friday pm.
Me suspects H showed him her dossier on him. And if he's P, better watch out for those home-baked cookies.
Posted by: BL | June 21, 2008 at 07:09 AM
"Obama’s word is as good as a Nigerian e-mail," Shouldn't this read Kenyan e-mail.
Posted by: davod | June 21, 2008 at 07:14 AM
Not that it matters, but was his father black, arabic, or indian?
Posted by: BL | June 21, 2008 at 07:25 AM
His father was an African Muslim from Kenya.
They are campaigning together not because she's on his ticket but to show unity after the hard fought primary race, BL.
Posted by: clarice | June 21, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Can't be Kenyan, well maybe it is, but it is probably Hawaiian, but then again, no one is sure where Barry came from, or who he is.
Posted by: Rev. Dr. E Buzz Miller | June 21, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Interesting, Clarice. Wonder what would Hillary get in return for introducing him to her financial backers, per the article, and campaigning with him. A cabinet post? Head of Homeland Security? And would her campaign funds be transferable, or rather, launderable to Obama's?
Since they're both Soros puppets, I wonder if he ordered her to join up with Obama.
Posted by: BL | June 21, 2008 at 09:05 AM
"James, find for me please, a single American citizen unjustly harmed by the horrifying invasion of privacy done by this administration which is causing Congress to address this issue with an improved FISA.
Let the lawsuits go forward, let discovery occur and lets let all the facts get out about who spied upon whom. This bill is an eviceration of the 4th Amendment....not to mention an eviceration of 'rule of law', now I suppose I should be able to expect retro-active immunity on the speeding ticket I got last week...
Posted by: James | June 21, 2008 at 10:04 AM
You should probably learn to appreciate the delicate balance between public safety and privacy, James. You've not shown me an American harmed by this 'invasion of privacy' and I assure you, we've all of us been made safer.
===========================
Posted by: kim | June 21, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Let the lawsuits go forward, let discovery occur and lets let all the facts get out about who spied upon whom.
Brilliant. How could anyone possibly object to letting plaintiffs' (presumably including those in communications with our enemies) lawyers pore through the files on our enemies' wartime communications intercepts? Maybe we could flash back to WWII and give the "Magic" intercepts to Japanese lawyers . . . and "Ultra" ones to the Germans. I mean, who could it harm, right?
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 21, 2008 at 01:11 PM
Let the lawsuits go forward
They went forward. They were dismissed for lack of standing.
How you gonna get around that?
Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Discovery will never happen. Plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit against the telecoms could not prove they had been spied upon. Their case was tossed.
And where was the hue and cry over Clinton's Echelon when he was in office.
Posted by: glasater | June 21, 2008 at 01:47 PM
There was a hue and cry over Echelon.
Posted by: davod | June 21, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Yeah, a peacetime intercept program engendered very similar hyperventilation. Or maybe not:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | June 21, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Bob Barr is a former CIA analyst? That's kind of interesting.
===============================
Posted by: kim | June 21, 2008 at 05:05 PM
There was a hue and cry over Echelon
Well, check out Cecil's link--there were a few concerns in '99 expressed in a Sixty Minutes program at the time.
If you wander through this site you will find a reference and a concern at the time of Clinton shaking down the Chinese for money.
Posted by: glasater | June 21, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Echelon got around that rules, forbidding
domestic surveillance as I understand by having the NSA check British and other foreign communications, while GHCQ (their British counterpart checked American. A small tweaking of the 'Enemy of the State'
scenario. Much like Nicolson's Nathan Jessup's in "A Few Good Men", Jon Voight's
supposedly villainous NSA bureacrat, had the
better part of the argument; of security over privacy. Of course, they had to 'drop
anvils' by murdering Robard's recalcitrant
Congressman and harassing the person who had the incriminating tape; in order to make the nosy labor lawyer the hero.
Posted by: narciso | June 21, 2008 at 11:08 PM
"Obama announces that he supports the bill but opposes the immunity provision and will work (almost surely unsuccessfully)"
This is the KEY to Obama. He knows fully that there is no chance that immunity would be stripped from the bill and that is why he is taking such an action.
He ALWAYS waits for the die to be cast before taking a tough stance.
129 "present" votes.
This is but one more.
Posted by: drjohn | June 22, 2008 at 09:32 AM
I should be able to expect retro-active immunity on the speeding ticket I got last week...
Why would you expect that? Were you rushing to stop a terrorist attack? Were you asked by the government to speed so that lives could be saved?
Posted by: Sue | June 22, 2008 at 09:56 AM
What a putz. Watch him start whining next.
=========================
Posted by: kim | June 22, 2008 at 09:59 AM
I mean Obama; James already is.
====================
Posted by: kim | June 22, 2008 at 09:59 AM
More of his intellectual laziness. If we are going to legalize it now, what is the intellectual justification for disallowing it in the past? A narrow legalism? Well, yes, but one without intellectual rigour or substance.
=================
Posted by: kim | June 22, 2008 at 10:01 AM