Is it you, or is it me?
It’s me. Or because I’m the first poster, I’m going to see if I can steal the subject matter and get your learned politicos talking about the campaigns. McCain is the clear Republican nominee.
Obama has 9 straight wins and tons of momentum. What say you Hillary supporters and Obama supporters about the race now? Who will win, how will the super delegates vote? Will Obama’s momentum work more in his favor than any war chest that Hillary could spend on ads or does she still have some tricks up her sleeves in Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania?
Inquiring casual politicos want to know.
Also, will McCain pick Huckabee to run with him and/or will that be a good thing or a bad thing for the Republicans?
Following GFWD’s lead…. Victor Davis Hanson has some interesting thoughts. I know most of the folks here probably don’t read him, but maybe you should.
“Re: Michelle Obama’s astounding admission that she hitherto had no reason to feel pride in the U.S., and Obama’s supposed Biden-like lifting of a campaign refrain from someone else.
“The problem is deeper than occasional slips. For most of the last 25 years the Obamas’ contacts have been largely confined to universities (Occidental, Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Chicago) as both students and employees, or to government-sponsored social agencies, or to the incestuous world of Chicago minority politics. These landscapes have proven liberal, sympathetic, and non-confrontational. I doubt very seriously in those environments that the Obamas have had any of their sometimes bewildering statements seriously cross-examined or questioned.
“Michelle Obama, true, recites a litany of slights and grievances, but more likely she encountered highly educated white liberal audiences that were not about to cross her or challenge her assertions-a world away from steelworkers in Ohio, the Nascar crowd, the Mexican Americans in LA, the hungry wolves of the D.C. press corps for whom controversy trumps even shared liberal ideology — or Clinton, Inc. for whom power, status, and adulation outweigh everything, including liberal head-nodding, white guilt, and identity politics.
“The result is that finally out on the campaign trail both are beginning to enter an arena where most of America does not faint at an Obama rally, but resents deeply a candidate’s spouse suggesting that she previously had no pride in her own country, and would think that generous college admission practices, scholarships, and loans were cause more for gratitude rather than resentment.
“Some old cynical campaign veteran, cigar in mouth-a Tip O’Neill-type, with the more scars the better-should sit the two kids down, explain the no-holds-barred rules of the arena outside the university and liberal government agency, remind them that African Americans and elite white liberals probably make up about at most a fourth of the electorate, and emphasize to them that by the public’s own standard of living, the Obamas have been very privileged and done quite well-and that Michelle and Barack should start to say something uplifting other than the current mantra that the U.S. is a depressing and unfair place and has only one chance of ‘hope” and “change” and “redemption” by allowing Barack and Michelle to lead us out of our collective ignorance.”
I still think McCain will win the general election, and Mrs Obama may play a small part in that. The Princeton-Harvard-Chicago power couple are indeed privileged (compared to anyone), and the chip on her shoulder will not go over well with the rubes in the heartland.
The intellectuals in the Dem party don’t have any idea how to appreciate the “rubes”.
Until then plan on being smarter than everyone else and out of power.
I will grant the fact that Michelle Obama put her foot in her mouth.
But it’s a fair question to ask of anyone: What is it about the United States in the past 30 years that you can feel real pride about?
If you look at what Michelle Obama actually said, it’s clear what she meant was that she was reacting to the way that people are becoming passionately involved in politics for the first time in a long time, and daring to think that the Government can be a positive force in society. Of course she is glad people are embracing her husband as a candidate, but I believe there is more than that going on.
We have a chance to elect someone who is bright, a quick study, and demonstrates a modicum of common sense in his political approach. The fact that the US, 150 years after the Civil war, 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, is considering an African-American as a serious candidate is something to be proud of.
I am an Obama supporter with my eyes open. The only time in my adult lifetime we had a candidate for president I really felt good about was Jimmy Carter, whose presidency didn’t work out the way anyone hoped. We could see a repeat of that, but I’ll take that chance compared to John “100 Years” McCain.
Ignoring the aforementioned politics discussion, the question you pose is beautiful.
If presented sincerely, it represents a desire to achieve internal insight and perspective as to the outside world. Sometime you need to question whether your perceptions of a situation are so influenced by you (your past, your experience, what you ate last night, how long since you’ve had sex) that you are misinterpreting the situation. And other times you need to ask the same question, but of the other observer.
Is it me, or is it you? ‘Cause one of us ain’t on the right wavelength.
A useful exercise to be undertaken regularly, if not daily.
But, you might not want to verbalize the question to everyone. Some folks could take offense.
To answer your question – I’m not yet sure, but I’ll think about it. It is surely one of us!
Just for the record, McCain said he wouldn’t mind if the U.S. stayed in Iraq for 100 years if “Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” He went on in his answer to cite Germany and Japan as examples where we’ve had troops for 60+ years and nobody particularly minds. The context changes everything.*
I see today that Barack has “clarified” what his wife actually meant; more or less what you wrote. People can judge for themselves whether this is true or merely occured to them after they realized she had stuck her foot in it. Either way, she wasn’t misquoted or quoted out of context the way McCain has.
I’ll vote for McCain and hope he wins. I’m wondering, though, what exactly has Obama acheived during his time in congress? I read that he’s voted “present” 130 times. That sounds like a lot. Almost as if he’s had his sights on a presidential run all along and didn’t want to make a decision that might later be difficult to explain. He had no qualms, however, while an Illinois state senator, voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would require medical care for babies that survive partial birth abortion procedures. Nice guy.
are the rumors true that he also eats babies? I’m not saying I know its true…just the whole smoke and fire thing
Heh, I wish the BAIPA vote was just a rumor. Shocking, but true.
you didn’t answer my question
No, caveman, he just wants to leave them to die from a lack of medical attention. It’s part of his universal health care plan, I guess.
Matt, I appreciate you taking the reigns and interjecting some insight into things. And to you, too, Kent. Matt, is there more to the BAIPA vote that you’re not sharing or didn’t research? I don’t know. I’m only asking as we all know that any vote necessarily has pork added to it that bogs down an otherwise well-intentioned bill such that people end up voting against the riders to the bill, when they might otherwise support the main tenet of the bill.
In a moment of fairness, I am curious as to whether you researched or know about the entire bill. For example, did the bill for BAIPA also require some other measures which caused him to vote against it, such a tax breaks here or other riders there?
Obama better sign up a VP that has experience, dedication, and a willingness to get everyone health care in some way – in other words, make up for his deficiencies.
I have researched it and it seems that Barack has given various answers as to why he voted against the bill.
In March 2001, on the floor of the IL senate as the sole verbal opponent of the bill, he suggested it was unconstitutional. (“I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”)
In March 2002, he suggested in the senate judiciary committee that it would pose an undue burden on women. (“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”)
In October 2005, in a speech to Benedictine University, he suggested the bill was merely a political stunt and that there was no “proof” that it has actually occurred (despite testimony to the contrary).
In August 2004, he told the Chicago Sun-Times that the bill “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”
In a July 2006 oped for USA Today, he pleaded religious tolerance, writing “we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can’t impose my religious views on another.” He also claimed that letting babies who are born alive after a failed abortion die violates no universal principle. (“If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”)
And in October 2004, he claimed the bill as written would’ve undermined Roe v. Wade. (“Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade…. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.”)
But that’s not true. The federal and Illinois versions were virtually identical. The only difference being paragraph (c):
Illinois’s paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Yet when the sponsoring IL senator tried to amend the bill to make it the same as the federal version, Obama, as chairman of the committee, refused.
This might come up again before November, I think. If I got anything wrong, please let me know.
Matt, I’ll admit I don’t know much about this particular bill but it seems to me this is an example of people making way too much out of nothing.
First of all the whole “partial birth abortion” procedure (if that’s what you want to call it – which I don’t but you did, so I’ll stick with you) isn’t done after a time when most doctors would consider a fetus “viable” (meaning before 24 weeks). If a woman delivers a baby naturally (not due to a planned termination) before 24 weeks in most hospitals that I know about, she has the option to not have the child resuscitated (meaning taken to the NICU given lots of care) because of the known risk of many terrible problems likely to occur in babies born before this point. To me, what is the difference here? The mother is choosing not to have the child cared for before the time of viability in either case. I personally don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with you thinking you can decide that for someone else.
I also have a problem with people making such a huge deal out of these bills/votes about things that rarely if ever happen medically. Late term terminations are extremely rare and a child being born alive afterward is even more rare and the controversy of caring for that child is even less likely to happen within the confines of that medical setting where it is just the woman and her doctor (and who exactly is going to be in that room to ensure these fetuses receive care anyway? – the fetus police?). The anti-choice folks are just trying to make Obama look bad. Obama is pro choice. That’s all there is to know.
“I have a problem with you thinking you can decide that for someone else.”
The problem is there’s another opinion that matters. Since the infants don’t have a voice in this, somebody has to stand up for them. That’s a proper role for the law. We can argue all day about when a clump of cells/fetus becomes a human being…and be equally determined…we just aren’t going to agree.
This procedure is far worse and much more repulsive to Americans than abortion in general. I think Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining this vote to people who aren’t radical pro-abortionists.
thank you, matt, for confirming that the answer is indeed “No.”
It’s not luck, Todd.
–Louis Winthorp III
I’m so not getting the Trading Places reference.
Its just that I am a big fan of the cheesy attempt at call-out associated with the classic- “no, [insert name of call-out victim for effect], that isn’t the case but…[insert witty/snide remark]” that was utilized earlier in the comments section. It kind of reminded me of the conversational pacing associated with the above noted movie quote. One could also look to the modern classic Fast Times at Ridgemont High, “Can I please just get my money back now, Brad?” for another perfect example of the technique. You are standing on the shoulders of giants.
“I read that he’s voted “present” 130 times.”
Obama voted ‘present’ in the Illinois Senate. Voting ‘present’ isn’t even an option in the US Senate. It’s either you miss the vote, yea, nay, or abstain.
If you even give a shit, here’s what the Obama site says: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php
I’d say McCain is one Republican I don’t entirely hate, and lord knows he’d be an improvement over GWB, who is so bad it beggars imagination.
And there’s video of McCain hugging GWB, which I think Obama could run in a loop on television as the only advertisment he needs.
130 still sounds like a lot.
From your Obama link: “Fact Check: Present Votes are an Accepted Legislative Strategy in the Illinois Senate”
I’m glad to know they’re “an accepted legislative strategy”, Kent. Thanks!
“No, it’s not you. It’s me. I thought we had our issues all worked out, but sometimes long-term relationships are a mistake….
…I know, I know — things are really tough at work. Getting beat up everywhere you go and your old friends deserting you…
…listen, I’m really sorry things didn’t work out like we plann-That’s call waiting! Sorry I have to take this. Let’s keep in touch Hil… Bye!”
Ian, earlier today I would have said it’s me. But after reading the previous comments, I say it’s them. Of course, maybe I just have no fucking clue. And then it’s me again.
Matt – right now at least, abortion is legal in the US so it is not your right to decide what happens to those involved, thankfully.
Ian, it’s definitely not you.
clearly, it’s neither you nor me –
three cheers for Obama and all those who can actually read beyond the spin-doctored sound-byte manipulated labels the religious right slaps on their proposed legistlation! three cheers for folks like Obama who are willing to vote pro-choice even when the right wing lunatics try to make it sound evil!
It was me !! sorry I’ll er get my coat!, “parp” sorry I’ll er go then! , “wham” sorry I er didn’t mean it.. jeeze!!
oh no! this is going to be read the wrong way!I meant to sound like “peter griffin ” but it reads as though I have a sound opinion !
Neva, for right now at least — we’ll have to wait and see what President Obama has in mind — but it’s perfectly fine for me to advocate against partial-birth abortion (though you don’t particularly like the term, I know, but what else to call a procedure where a doctor partially removes an unborn infant from a woman’s uterus, crushes its skull, and then dismembers it to complete an abortion?).
For the Obama lovers… Click on my name.
Hey Matt – I call it none of your business.
I don’t care, Neva. Killing babies is all of our business. Sorry.
I helped write the ACLU’s brief to the United States Supreme Court in Hope Clinic v. Ryan, a case challenging Illinois’ “partial birth abortion” statute back in 1999. This statute was a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade under the guise of banning a procedure which Neva correctly points out is rarely employed. The Illinois case was never decided upon by the Court because it decided to strike down Nebraska’s statute in a companion case. Normally, I’d roll up my sleeves and wade into this debate full-tilt, but as a resident of Chicago, which is near Tinley Park (where five women were executed in a clothing store two weeks ago) and Dekalb (where a former Northern Illinois graduate student opened fire on a crowded geography class last week), I’m still trying to figure out why America is so in love with the right to bear arms.
The 2nd Am is one of my favorite (and most easily argued) topics of debate. Perhaps another time.
And I guess that so long as the technique of crushing baby’s skulls is so “rarely employed,” it’s really no big deal. Forget I even mentioned it.
Unless that’s short for Matilda, you are incapable of conception, right? Therefore, any opinions you may have about pregnancy are stirctly academic.
Let’s face if, if men could get pregnant, abortions would not only be legal everywhere, but a drive-thru procedeure.
So, is it just me, or is the fact that State splashed red paint on the Old Well funny?
It’s you I swear,
it’s you I swear,
I delight in your despair.
(I’ll wait for you)
It’s you I swear,
it’s you I swear,
Giving me the right
(I’ll wait for you)
It’s you who lied,
it’s you who lied
When you had to swallow pride
(I’ll wait for you)
It’s you I swear,
it’s you I swear…
So surprised, Caveman. So surprised indeed.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.