1. Comment says

    Some on the right who are trying to be too clever and contrarian say Obama is just channelling Bush.
    That’s insincere clever lawyering way to say it – the opposite of Obama’s approach.
    But it has gained traction with WaPo type MSM centrists who have picked up on it.

    The entire world thinks its bizarre to compare Obamaa to Bush – and they look at the edit pages with wonder.

    Bush’s words were mostly meaningless – even when he meant them. That’s just a fact.

    The odd thing about the Serious DC media is that they are liberals who are self hating and accept the Cheney premises.

    Consider how weird it is the way they treated Cheney’s re-emergence with respect compared to the sneering against Gore.

    Now, it would be normal if they were Hannity types or right wingers – That would be normal, if still at odds with the world.

    But the weirdness is that they are liberals – socially well to the left of US middle.

  2. Comment says

    We think we’ve been vindicate by how the speech flummoxed opposition – We are listening to a liberal on pbs point to all the inconsistancies and he is right, to a point, but good speeches are never strong on logic.

    The right wing and the neocons are all babbling:


    [NRO’s] Michael Rubin:

    Obama abandons Democracy

    Obama studiously avoids the word democracy. Instead, he declared, “That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.” Dictators of the world, relax: Stage a spontaneous demonstration to demonstrate popular adulation; don’t worrt about those pesky votes.

    Barack Obama:

    The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

  3. Comment says

    Ha – Churchill strikes again! – Just turned on Neil Cavuto as he told his audience Obama basically endorsed an Iranian nuke (when the truth was opposite) – then he had “Doctor” Nile Gardner on to back him up

    Next up was the impeccably named Winston Churchill lll – who seemed to shock Cavuto and probably made the FNC people vomit as he swated away the absurd Chamberlain comparison (we bet most Republican, by now, assume Chamberlain was a lefty and not smart) and proceeded to praise Obama’s speech.

  4. Comment says

    Even though we’re in the tank for Obama – we’ve never really digged his ‘big’ speeched – He uses a sophesticate version of what Newt tries to do (and fails except with meatheads) on mainstream audiences by repeating certain banalism that covertly flatter the listener – albeit in his novel and clever way.

    Anyway – his speech in Cairo seemed to be heading this way, but we think it turned out brilliant.

    Key points of the speech will be highlighted and repeated over time – establishing it as a “good speech” and making it something considered officially good.

    At the same time he included some things that will bait the Newts and O’Reillys etc, but all points contained pre-emptive refutations and re-framings that will ultimately work to Obamas advantage – esp when the nutcases and wingers and the Newts get confused and contradictory about which part of the speech to hate – Same with the Israeli right. If they complain about one part, they will seem to refute parts they like or parts their enemies hate.
    But this will only reveal itself in time.
    What happens Egypt is something most Americans don’t care much – but by delivering a popular speech , Obama has emboldened those young souls that Michael Rubin cynically pretends to care about in Egypt – to start to politically change their country.

    It was a pro America speech and a pro Israel speech – but without the obnoxious gotcha points that turn off foreigners.

    We heard Ed Rollins complain Obama did not bring up Saddam;s UN violations – Who cares? Most conservatives I know do NOT care about UN resolutions save to score cheap points – insincere rhetorical points – against unpopular regimes that Americans hate so they can create wedges.

    Most liberals don’t really care aboout UN stuff – save as the bacon bits to put on top of a policy hamburger,

    Does Ed Rollins care? We doubt it – but he falls for the insincerity trap – which was one Reagan usually avoided to his credit.

    Newt’s tragedy has always been when he turns insincere and unernest – Just seeming insincere is deadly for a pol – John Edwards sometimes seemed insincere, even though he was poor and probably cared about the poor –
    Anyway – Obama’s sincere speech worked – and it will carry the day politically. Will it change things on the ground? Who knows. Israel will be a challange – But OBama can win over a plurality and maybe a majority of Israelis and then he will be Bibis headache, not vica versa.

    Poor Frank Gaffney can go to Israel and “complain about America” – but he is a fool on a fool’s errand. Most Israelis know the right thing to do . It’s just a matter of bringing some trust and leadership.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge