 |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Olbermann on the Democratic Dust-UpPosted on Jul 25, 2007
Why should the media worry about issues when there’s a new Clinton-Obama showdown to cover? Keith Olbermann plumbs the shallows of the latest non-controversy to emerge from the Democratic campaign. Watch it: 
Previous item: The Full CNN/YouTube Debate Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Now Is No Time for Phony Thrift
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Bran, July 28, 2007 at 2:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think Hillary hit this one on the head. Both of them have called for diplomacy, but Hillary qualified her stance in a reasonable and professional way. Obama had his chance to clarify and he’s stumbled ever since.
Report thisBy Homer Hewitt, July 26, 2007 at 4:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama is in some difficulty on stating his willingness to meet with leaders of countries that we don’t like without preconditions. In reality, his response is correct, although the explanation is too intricate to counteract the initial impression Hillary emphasized. She said there would have to be a build-up to any meeting to be sure it was not just for propaganda and later called Obama naive.
By “pre-conditions” the questioner undoubtedly meant insurmountable ones such as fair and free elections in Syria. These act as barriers to any diplomatic discourse. And, as Obama pointed out later, there would be planning before any meeting.
If these were real debates with time for exchanges between candidates these points would have become clear. But they are not and, in the meantime, Obama must be alertfor the appropriate, firm soundbite.
homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
Report thisBy cyrena, July 26, 2007 at 12:39 am #
#89474 by THOMAS BILLIS on 7/25 at 1:21 pm
Thomas, you’re right on spot again.
...“What a load of crap.Everybody understood that Obama meant a willingness to talk to people you do not get along with.”...
YES. We knew exactly what he meant!! This is what a STATESMAN/WOMAN is EXPECTED to do!!! Its just been so damn long now, since weve seen any traditional form of diplomacy or statesmanship emanating from the white house or the Hill, that many Americans dont have a clue to what it means. Others (oldsters into the isolationist-fear mode) reject what they call all of this internationalism. They fail to understand that we are already internationalized, whether we asked to be or not.
So, the Cabal routine for bullying other countries, and saber rattling, and intimidation, and the standard smear campaigns that they are so famous for here at home, have created more than a few troubles abroad. Like,... pretty much everybody else in the world, (with the exception of Britain and Australia of course) is thoroughly disgusted.
We need bold ideas and laying the groundwork so that nothing gets done is not my idea of bold leadership.
Besides, the groundwork has already been laid. I wonder how many of us are aware of just how often, and how desperately these other countries, (as well as the UN) have tried to communicate with the cheney-rovians over the past 6 years, only to be rebuffed, ignored, or totally dismissed, by the likes of condi, cheney, or john bolten when he was illegally representing us at the UN?
Nothing gets things done faster then when there is a dialogue between leaders.
AMEN, AMEN!!
(obviously, that is NOT what this gang has wanted they have never wanted to have Iran as anything other than the next in line for the hit. Thats why they never wanted to talk to them. Now, they have no choice, but I doubt its gonna help, because it will not fulfill the ultimate cheney objective.
Report thisWe need a global president. Barack is younger than me. He might as well do it.
By cann4ing, July 25, 2007 at 5:18 pm #
Mudwallow, you have hit it. This is typical non-coverage. The best way to avoid “issues” is to focus on a meaningless dispute like this one and to pretend there are only two candidates, Obama/Clinton.
Report thisBy Don Stivers, July 25, 2007 at 5:06 pm #
Hey Chris Cillizza!
Why focus on who the best debater is? Didn’t Clinton get it wrong on the Iraq war? Wasn’t Obama and Kucinich the ones who got it right BEFORE the war????
Why don’t we focus on what went wrong and find the best candidate to get it RIGHT!
And as for Clinton, Bush is the one who will not negotiate. Look where that has gotten us. Strutting around like a peacock and not negotiating is STUPID!!
And Keith, why don’t you catch on to this?
We ALL are looking for the best candidate, not the one with the most money. REMEMBER AGAIN, it was Obama and Kucinich who got it right the first time and did not back down to politics as Clinton did. They saw what was right and stood up for it.
And, let’s mix the party up a little bit. ROTATE ALL of the candidates around!!! Let Hillary and Obama stand on the side lines now and then! Okay???
Sincerely, Don Stivers
Report thisBy nf, July 25, 2007 at 2:18 pm #
Clinton continues to contradict herself. Several months ago she indicated that she would meet with these individuals and now she tries to go the other way. Say anything at any time to get what she wants. Obama, although young and not used to national politics has a superior intellect and greater honesty. For once we need to nominate a democrat that can compete with the republican positions on foreign policy. Obama just needs to get away from income tax increase and promise to keep the Bush tax cuts that have made for the best ecomomy ever or promise to reduce taxes to gain the necessary independant votes that will decide this election. Let’s stop wasting time on candidates like Kucinich that have no chance.
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, July 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What a load of crap.Everybody understood that Obama meant a willingness to talk to people you do not get along with.Hillary of course in this turn the page election showed why she is yesterdays news.If our President goes to Iran and works something out that saves American lives while Hillary is laying the groundwork I will take the going to Iran scenario.We need bold ideas and laying the groundwork so that nothing gets done is not my idea of bold leadership.Maybe Reagan before he met Gorbachev should have laid some more groundwork.Nothing gets things done faster then when there is a dialogue between leaders.
Report thisBy P. T., July 25, 2007 at 11:15 am #
In my view the refusal to meet with adversaries unless they agree to surrender unilaterally (at least partially) is used by elements of the U.S. ruling class to stir up tension and manipulate public opinion.
Report thisBy Mudwollow, July 25, 2007 at 11:08 am #
Neglected to mention that Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich continue to be placed conspicuously at the extreme edge of the stage. Neglected to mention that these two were only permitted token amounts of time to speak. Neglected to point out that these debate travesties continue to be perpetuated by the same corporate elite who helped get us into Iraq and are now profiting so handsomely from the Iraqi “liberation”.
Report this