Another 'inartful' comment from Obama. The reaction I'm seeing to it splits straight down gender lines:
Guys: 'He wasn't referring to her--everybody uses that phrase anyway. I do.'
Women: 'I've heard it all before.'
I think maybe this one won't go away for Obama. If McCain and Co are real smart they'll get the rights to Miss Piggy from sesame Street and riff on this super-obvious smear all fall...Comment Posted By Hope Muntz On 10.09.2008 @ 12:50
I disagree with much of what you say. I don't think Obama can win--unless McCain's health collapses or there is some sort of Democrat October surprise. However, if he is elected, an Obama presidency would be far more horrific than you imagine, sort of a politer Anglo-Saxon rerun of Allende or Chavez in agonizing slo-mo--and would almost certainly provoke a mini race-war here in Washington between his militant defenders and his growing number of detractors.Comment Posted By Hope Muntz On 30.05.2008 @ 07:05
And only a blogger could be so craven. So what if Obama got called a 'boy'? He asked for a dialogue on race, meaning of course tolerance for the aggrieved racist rants of his pastor. But now it's open season, and Obama derives no advantage from that. A slight majority of American whites very likely are racist. So what? Prejudice is not a thought-crime(yet)unless it manifests itself in harmful public speech or action; freedom from racism is also the freedom to feel racism. Maybe 'boy' is a racist word, or maybe it wasn't intended that way at all--who knows? If feminists and black activists have their way the 'B-word' may be banned someday; but a lot of people will still be muttering it under their breaths. Grow a pair, dude!Comment Posted By Hope Muntz On 14.04.2008 @ 22:21
What utter hogwash. And coming from someone I normally respect. Of course war is moral--as moral as anything else in life. War exhibits all the successes (penicillin, jet engines, full employment, closing of death camps, heroism, and sacrifice) and all the failures (destruction, cruelty, casualties, cowardice, and profiteering) of absolutely any other human endeavor. War is in short, exactly like a day in a normal metropolis like New York City. To treat it as an abstraction--like a tsunami or a plague or pestilence--and therefore 'bad' is to infantilize both it and yourself. Many wars have begun from the most exemplary moral reasons--to rescue co-religionists or other persecuted minorities, to free a people from cruelty, oppression, or slavery, to honor solemn commitments of mutual defence, etc etc--and many of the most 'moral' of these have been lost. That doesn't mean they weren't worth fighting. To declare all war immoral is to brand all who fought in them criminals and to demonize the memories of those millions who heroically gave their lives for others--often having their names and cultures obliterated in the process.
War was once an intrinsic part of being a man. Just because Code Pink finds that concept nauseating doesn't mean you should.Comment Posted By Hope Muntz On 16.03.2008 @ 16:56
Well done! At last a piece of real journalism on Obama's wheelings and dealings--and of course it had to come from a blog. This is precisely the sort of thing the NYT should be investigating, if it were a real newspaper and not a party broadsheet. The connection to Iraq certainly explains Obama's oddly dovish vote from the onset of the war (this from a man comfortable with invading Pakistan, though unclear as to its exact location); he was evidently as thoroughly bought by Saddam as Ramsay Clark or George Galloway.
However, in answer to her question, this issue will not bring him down. It won't have to. Obama has a solid proportional ceiling of national voters somewhere in the mid to upper forty per cent. America will not elect a black man as president at tnis point in its history--not an ultraliberal one, anyway. That, of course, is shameful; unfortunately, it's now becoming increasingly obvious, so are Obama's past associations, the traditional Achilles' Heel for any politician emerging from the corrupt leftist inner-city. It's a shame that neither women nor African-Americans had a candidate this election cycle that they could feel really proud of. Because after this carnival parade is over and Obama fails, he will then join the ignored ranks of black also-rans like Julian Bond and Jesse Jackson. Whose rhetorical flourishes he already emulates.Comment Posted By Hope Muntz On 26.02.2008 @ 13:14
I'm not a conservative--and after watching CPAC today, I'm not sure I'd ever want to be one--but you and I obviously watched and listened to two totally different speeches. You make a few good points--he was rushing through it at first and misspoke a few times--but it was definitely the speech of his political life. He is no Reagan, but it was like he was channeling Reagan at times he connected so well. The audience was largely moved by the speech, and I didn't see many -- if any-- people 'sitting on their hands' by the end.
Like it or not, McCain showed himself willing to be taken to the woodshed today--and to reach out to conservatives at the same time. Your reaction is precisely the sort of narcissistic sourness that will permanently marginalize the rightwing blogosphere if you all keep it up and help get a Dem elected.Comment Posted By Hope Muntz On 7.02.2008 @ 19:23
Pages (1) :