Krugman is a tool and Brooks’ piece is to be taken with a grain of salt. The NYT is suspect at best.

Joe -

As Maani says, you really need to do some research on Obama’s various and evolving positions on Iraq.

He loves to say, “I was right from the start on this war,” as of one speech at a loberal anti war college was a vote against the war.

But when questioned about how he would have voted had he actually been in the Senate he sais he was not privy to intelligence reports and he dosen’t know how he would have voted.

Even more telling however, are these quotes the day after his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

These come from a March 8 Boston Globe newspaper article.

BEGIN QUOTE
“In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

“The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.”
END QUOTE

Right from the beginning???????? Actually Obama’s policy on Iraq has been and is an evolving one.

Joe:

“You must know that building a massive, modern military and keeping them here at home except in case of REAL emergency is the way to go (my name for this is the Obama/Brzezinski doctrine).”

You have obviously read NOTHING that Brzezinski has writtten, or you would know that his long-stated “doctrine” is hegemony through force.  As well, you have obviously not read Obama’s position on Iraq, in which he, like Hillary, would leave non-combat forces (some 30,000 according to some statements) in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel, fight terrorism and train the Iraqi army.

Try doing some actual research before you make easily refuted statements like that.

Peace.

Still expecting your ‘mother’ to “go fetch” for you just like some pet dog, Joe???

Mr. Cohen…

You may be more prophetic than you think!  Should Hillary or Billary wrest the nomination from Obama, there will be a black backlash that will propel McCain to the presidency and that is the true danger of the Clintons!  The only way for HRC, should she get the nomination, to prevent this is to persuade Obama to take the VP slot.  However, right now he is loathe to do that.  To sweeten the pie and end the bickering, if I were Hillary, would be to offer Obama the VP slot in exchange she would agree to be a one-term president.

Well, there ya go, Maani - the Democrats’ candidates are both ‘boneheads’ so feel free to vote for a Republican - and get what’cha derserve, uhh…...

Maani,

This is a perfect example of what I was just thinking about in my response to Bert. Now read this again, and tell us anyone could KNOW FOR SURE, (just from this article and the posted comments) who the hell you’re talking about.

“...And now we have a professor of Global Leadership and Public Policy engaging in schoolyard name-calling…”

OK, we know who the Professor of Constitutional law is. That much has been revealed.

Who is the other person you reference here, and what was the schoolyard name-calling that was done?

As for it being a ‘drawback’ to be a professor, I wouldn’t know. I just it just all depends eh?

And, there again, is what I mean about 99% of what you post here. It’s just innuendo and smear. Think about how stupid it sounds to a logical person. A ‘drawback’ compared to WHAT Maani? Might it be a drawback to being a ‘professor’ if one was comparing it to being a homeless bum, or a jobless professor, or a homeless professor, or an employed hamburger flipper?

Now of course I wouldn’t know these things, because I’m NOT a ‘credentialed’ professor, but I suppose folks can pretty much call themselves or anybody else, whatever they want, eh?

So, I can certainly see if it MIGHT be a ‘drawback’ to be a professor, like if one had to engage with a student like YOU! But, that’s easily enough resolved. For the most part, I’d say that most professor don’t see it as a ‘drawback’ unless they spent a lot of time preparing for the job and expecting it to be something that it isn’t. Like, nobody deciding to teach should expect to get rich on it. It’s just not that kind of profession. (no pun intended).

But, for people who like to think and talk, and help others figure things out for themselves, I’d say it’s probably pretty rewarding. Most of the professors that I know, really DO enjoy their jobs. Most lawyers that I know who are involved in Public service areas of the law enjoy it as well. I know corporate lawyers who absolutely hate their jobs, as I know I could never be a corporate lawyer myself, because it represents is the antithesis of my own ideology. As a matter of fact, I can no longer do CORPORATE ANYTHING!! It causes me great discomfort.

On the other hand, there are people who have to do this work, whether they like it or not, if only because it might be the only thing they know how to do, and the only way that have of providing for themselves and anyone they are responsible for, in a society that pretty much tells you to suck it up, and make it on your own, no matter what.

So yeah, there are ‘drawbacks’ all over the place. Then again, the very same profession or other activity can be a push forward. Just depends on how one feels about it I would think.

Now me…I’m just grateful for small things, which means that I’m really grateful that I’m not YOU! If I had the choice between being a homeless bum or within any near/forced proximity to you, I’d definitely take the homeless bumhood option. More professors out there anyway.

Thanks Bert,

No need to denigrate you or any of that, since you simply answered my question, and you’re the only one who has. So, I appreciate that. I didn’t know about the 4 page memo with the double loop-back and around again, that has been ‘learned’ about Obama being responsible for this whole ‘racist’ calling thing. But, I am gonna take your word for it.

I heard Bill Clinton myself though, respective to South Carolina’s caucus, and the bottom line…VERY, VERY, VERY TACKY! And guess what? I actually LIKE Bill Clinton. I’ve heard him speak at conferences many times, and I think he is a very intelligent man, and I appreciate that. That doesn’t mean however, that what he said THEN, and at that TIME, wasn’t just about as tacky as it could be.

So, that’s just sort of the way it is. Politics is always nasty, and I predicted what was gonna happen to Barack Obama way back when. The thing about racism (and really any other discrimination) is that while it took forever for it to become ‘politically incorrect’ and while there are even laws on the books that are intended to prevent or at least decrease the occurrences of it, we all know that we cannot police morality, and we can’t prevent what people ‘think’. So, since it’s become ‘politically incorrect’ to be blatantly racist, people find other ways to denigrate or otherwise smear whomever it is that they hate because of race/gender/religion/political ideology, and on and on. And, that’s just the way it is. And, as time has progressed, (or regressed, dependent on which view you’ve got) folks come up with more and more ways to disguise their hatred, or attribute it to some other thing. And, that GENERALLY involves making shit up! (at least for most people).

That means that when someone actually comes along and consistently tells the truth, a large percentage of the population will say that they’re lying. Or, they’ll zero in or things that are not ‘crimes’ and make them appear as such.

It isn’t isolated particularly, since we all have some sort of biases, to one degree or another, about SOME things at least. I think the clue, (and it IS only my opinion) is to accept that we HAVE these biases, and admit to them, and acknowledge that our opinions are likely to be swayed by them, because it is human nature. I have far more respect for the person that does that, so that we don’t dance around trying to figure out what otherwise comes across as totally irrational.

If somebody SAYS that they hate, this, that, or whatever, and so their opinion is this that or the other thing, then we KNOW! Now some people ARE open to other views of things, ONCE THEY ARE EXPOSED to them. For others, it simply will never matter. I know the type for whom it will never matter. For some, it’s a temporary thing. For others, it’s permanently built-in. So, it certainly is not MY intention to ‘change’ the thinking of anyone who’s simply is stuck on whatever. My questions come from me trying to figure out if I’m talking to someone with open channels in their minds, that can sort the ideological from the fact, or if somebody has some serious plague build-up or other thing that prevents any ‘connection’ between the facts and the various ways they might be interpreted. And yes, it IS my own ‘nature’ to try to track things back to their origin, and figure out how whatever it was came to be, or ‘be believed’. So, I always appreciate the sort of responses that you’ve provided here.

I don’t know if I believe that such a thing actually originated in Obama’s campaign, but I’ll certainly accept that it COULD HAVE. Politics are very nasty, which is terribly sad, but very true. 

I sure miss Al Gore. I don’t blame him a damn bit though, for not wanting to re-subject himself to political torture. Now HE was THOROUGHLY victimized by the political machine, and yet there are still those who would blame him for it.

Maanai, thanks for sharing both of these excellent and insightful editorials. I can’t wait for the fun to begin and for the usual suspects to begin their usual slams, especially on Krugman on these posts.

cyrena   I don’t belive Obama ever directly called Hillary a racist. I have never heard him do it.

As usual Obama allows his surrogates to speak for him and for his campaign and they do the actual attack. Then he sits back and lets a willing media, who never turn down an opportunity to stir the pot and increase thier ad revenues, make the actual attack.

I can’t speak for the people who have posted on here that Obama called Hillary a racist. But here is what happened to make some think that.

First there was the suggestion that somehow Hillary derided Martin Luther King when she said that it took LBJ to get the civil rights act passed. Surrogates to and supporters to the Obama campaign publicly came out and began saying Hillary slammed MLK.

Add into the mix a compliant media who right on cue stepped in and in their usual restrained manner started asking did the Clinton’s just play the race card?

Later it was learned that the Obama campaign thought up the idea of using this SUPPOSED derision against MLK by having SURROGATES claim it was a racist slam aginst MLK and by extension all blacks.

Obama of course claimed none of this was true.

After this many people began calling the Clinton’s racist.

Stealth smear campaign won.

Later it was learned that this entire thing actually was a tactic of the Obama campaign. It was first suggested in a 4 page memo from an Obama advisor to the campaign. Again Obama denied it, but someone dug up the actual memo and posted it on the internet for all to see.

Essentially the same thing was true with the remarks Bill Clinton made after South Carolina.

So while Obama can say he keeps to the high road, and he can claim HE never dirtied his hands and called Hillary racist, his campaign advisors do the dirty work. Just like with Canada and NAFTA and calling Clinton a “monster.” I didn’t do any thing wrong. I didn’t say anything bad. It was over enthusiastic non-paid advisors.

This is starting to become a pattern in Obama’s campaign.

I know you will disagree with this summary and will find at least half a dozen ways to denigrate me and use your psycho-babble to try and smear me. Go right ahead. Make my day! Laughter is good for the soul.

Doug:

You (and others, particularly the Obamamaniacs here) might be interested in David Brooks’ and Paul Krugman’s Op-Eds in today’s NYT:

Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07krugman.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Doug:

“So, who would YOU want “answering the phone at 3am”, Maani? Someone who admits that, as a ‘professor of law’, he made a “bone-headed mistake” in entering into financial dealings with Tony Rezko???”

Well, Doug.  To be honest and fair, it would be somewhat more than disingenuous to suggest that Hillary is some kind of angel, or that she has not made some “boneheaded” mistakes as well.

It is just that, when all is said and done, taking everything into account (yes, MMC, including her vote to give the dimmest president in history the power to start a preemptive war), I continue to feel that Hillary is the better candidate overall.

Peace.

Thank you for this news. Had not heard it yet.

myiq2xu   Thank you. I could not have said it better myself.

I personally don’t mind politicians being politicians. What bothers me most about Obama is his saying he is NOT a politician. Get real.

Actually “to keep some forces ....in Iraq AND in the region”, uhh!

Quoting Obama: ” We will need to keep some troops in the region to strike at Al Qaeda…..”

Interview with Samantha Power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvzyq0Og6SA&feature=related

So, who would YOU want “answering the phone at 3am”, Maani? Someone who admits that, as a ‘professor of law’, he made a “bone-headed mistake” in entering into financial dealings with Tony Rezko???

Wow!  Samantha Power has resigned from the Obama campaign!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Well, I give her enormous credit for realizing that staying on would only have created an increasing PR problem for Obama.  (And, of course, there is nothing stopping him from tapping her again if he does become president.)

Peace.

Doug:

So we have a professor of Constitutional law (Obama) who says that AS a Constitutional law professor, he “should have known better” re his vote on the Schiavo resolution.  And now we have a professor of Global Leadership and Public Policy engaging in schoolyard name-calling, which does not exactly strike me as good global leadership or public policy.

Sounds like being a professor may be a drawback.  I wonder how professor Cyrena feels about all this…LOL.

Peace.

Quote E.J. Dionne: “Here is where the problem gets really serious….. Obama, faced with the opportunity to drive Clinton from the race Tuesday, just couldn’t get tough enough. He started hitting Clinton harder after the Texas and Ohio results were in…”

‘Hillary Clinton’s a monster’: Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

In an unguarded moment during an interview with The Scotsman in London, Samantha Power, Mr Obama’s key foreign policy aide, let slip the camp’s true feelings about the former first lady.

“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark….

Dimmo dysfuctionality it is called. A rule and social engineering is the bulwark of the dimmos, yet, they break and bend these rules as needed. The repugs beat them so easily and all dimmos can do is cry and cry and cry.

I thought this was a perfectly reasonable question, and I’ve never been certain of the motivation behind the personal attacks me -specifically me- from waxman.

I asked a question of whomever posted this about Obama allegedly calling Hillary a racist. If this is true, can anybody provide a link.

Waxman, whatever your issues are, I’ve not done anything to you, or said anything to you, so can you explain why you’re so attracted or obsessed with me - specifically, to consistently through these remarks in these threads, that never have anything to do with anything.?

I’m just attempting to understand your purpose. What do you get from this. Apparently YOU don’t have the link either, so what was the purpose in your crude response?

I’m sure it would be more ‘fun’ for you, if I actually ‘got it’. I don’t. It’s really bizarre.Lots of folks have been asking me what’s up with you and these messages, but I don’t have a clue. You’re the one leaving them, so you’re the only one who would know.

I’m still waiting to see when/where/how this supposedly happened. I’m wondering if maybe it didn’t, and it’s just yet another lie. I don’t get the point in those either, but there much be some rationale. Just trying to figure out what it is.

When did Barack Obama call Hillary Clinton a racist.

I’ve been paying pretty close attention, and I’ve not seen that.

I’ve only heard repeated on these blogs without ever a like there directs me to this alleged crime of Obama calling Hillary a racist.

Being very skeptical, I have to that I can’t believe it unless someone is actually able to provide a source, which shouldn’t be too difficult in the technology age.

So hopefully, before anyone else makes us THIS claim, (there’ve been so many, all disproved) you’ll be good enough to provide a source. Until then, unless I come across it myself, I’m putting this in the lie category as well.

I know that part about him being a machine politician is a LIE, but I’d still like to get the source where he is caught calling Hillary a racist. So, I’ll wait for that.

^ a cluster fuck:  Which describes the Dems 100%.  They can’t find their ass with both hands.  First we get Pelosi; impotent.  Then they go for Mukasey.  Then they (Dems) get their asses handed to them repeatedly by Bush.  So what on gods green earth makes anyone think they can manage something as simple as an election?  The Dems have created a monster that even they can’t control (super delegates).  That has to be the most convoluted piece of crap ever created by idiots or worse; usurpers!  Vermont is the only state that gets it.  One human one vote; end of story.

wasn’t negative enough.

Obama’s record shows that he is not “too nice.”

Get out of the tank and start practicing journalism again Mr. Dionne.

Obama is a machine politician from Chicago.  He didn’t come from Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

“I guess that’s what you can expect from a party so committed to fairness.”

Great point, E.J.. It’s ironic on the one hand, and pathetic on the other. What I don’t understand is, if they knew there would be less contests, why did they keep the total number of delegates needed to win the same?

Couldn’t they just have lowered the number proportionally?