Thursday, May 08, 2008

Obama's Bosnia Moment

Let's see if the media and blogosphere go ballistic over a little misremembering by The Chosen One.

On Tuesday as noted in a column by Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, Obama "talked about 'the America I love' and 'American values' and 'the promise of America' and 'the flag draped over my father's coffin.'"

Flag draped over his father's coffin...??? WTF, Howling Latina thought pops died a drunk in a car accident in Kenya.

Never mind. Like a minor gold boom, the Obama myth grows through repetition of tall tales.

"We have lived the founding ideals of the flag draped over my father's coffin...and I have learned the simple truth which I learned in shadows of shuttered factories in south side of Chicago.."
Now don't let the small details worry you, folks, though. If the facts don't fit the story thread, this is actually what Obama meant while misremembering in his cloistered unity world.

GRANDFATHER's coffin. He said GRANDFATHER's coffin. And he grandfather was a veteran of WWII.
That's not what Howie reported!!!
Apart from the issue of getting the facts straight, it is time to put the attitude on the shelf.

The time has come to unite in the cause of winning in November.
You also don't do Senator Clinton any favor by comparing anyone's comments about anything to her Bosnia comments. That was clearly not one of her finer moments and it is best for everyone if we just forget them and don't bring them up ever again.
It may not have been her finest moment but neither was Obama's little slip of the tongue on Tuesday.

Why no media coverage??? This is exactly why I will fight until the end to elect Hillary.

I refuse to be manipulated by media, pundits and bloggers. She is the most qualified to be president.

Period. End of story.
I was being polite when I refered to it as not being one of her finer moments. Reasonable, objective people would characterize it far more harshly than that. I haven't reviewed Obama's comments to see if he said grandfather or if he misspoke and said father. In any event he was speaking of an event that actually occurred, the funeral of his combat veteran grandfather.

To equate the mixing up of generations when speaking of something that actually happened to the complete fabrication of being under fire is a bit of a stretch. One does not forget being under fire and one does not remember being under fire when it never happened.

So the answer to your question, "Why no media coverage???" is that it was not newsworthy and is not at all equivalent as you imply.

It is fine that you strongly support Clinton. You have lots of company. I assure you that had she been the nominee of the Democratic Party I'd have worked hard to see that she was elected in November.

At this point, bitter, angry and lightly supported posts accomplish little except to give aid and comfort to the Republicans.

The time has come to pull together to elect lots of Democrats this Fall.
I'm not hitching my trailer to that wagon.

Obama is a movement without substance. Name one thing Obama has done that warrants the highest office in the land??

What did he have to say about the Sean Bell verdict?? Bland excuses such as "we must honor the verdict."

Obama seems to skip all the black events. What's he trying to hide, the fact that he's black?

You would think that after Republicans fell for someone with pretty words and no record of accomplishment, Dems would be a little smarter.

I just love the way Obama supporters act as if he's already won. Last I checked Hillary led West Virginia, another swing state (unlike South Carolina) by 20 points.
It is just a matter of Senator Clinton ending her campaign. She fought hard and, unfortunately for her, her campaign was not of the same caliber as she is.

I would reiterate what I said before. Unless your aim is to assist in the election of John McCain, your bitter and angry posts serve no useful purpose.

I find it difficult to uderstand your characterization of the Sean Bell case as a "black event". The police officers involved were also African American so it is difficult to twist this into an injustice based on race.

After the verdict there were those saying things like a black man couldn't get justice in a New York court. If the facts before the jury caused them to acquit the African American police officers would it have been justice to railroad those black men into prison? The case was tragic, but it had nothing to do with race.

No one has suggested that this jury, like most juries, didn't take their duty seriously and attempt to arrive at a proper verdict under the law. Under the circumstances I think honoring the law and the verdict arrived at by the jury is certainly a reasonable and responsible thing to do. What do you suggest? Rioting in the streets when you are unhappy with a decision arrived at in good faith under the law as it is enacted by our elected representatives?

I realize that this was a hard fought primary battle and there are some hard feelings as a result. I don't think it is ever helpful to spread vitriol and hatred. And at this time when it is so important to work together for the good of the party and the country I would hope you would take a breath and reconsider these ugly posts.
Nice kumbaya characterization of my post as "ugly."

If the truth is ugly, so be it.
That's it? You use "kumbaya characterization" as a pejorative and don't provide even a pretense of a defense of your inflamatory remarks or the assertions you make with no facts to support them whatsoever. Don't overtax yourself or anything. Someone might get the notion that you have given even a moments thought to the stuff you are spewing here.

You make the ludicrous assertion that race is a central issue in a tragic case where all the principals are of the same race. And then you are flippant about your casual stoking of hatred and violence. And then you are surprised when someone might view your posts as ugly?

Well, the truth is not ugly. However, your post bears little resemblence to the truth. And your post is, in fact, ugly.

As an Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the race, I feel that charges of both racism and misogyny have been tossed about way too casually and completely inappropriately during this campaign. I can think of no kind way to characterize your comment:

"Obama seems to skip all the black events. What's he trying to hide, the fact that he's black?"

What possible positive motivation can a reasonable person be expected to attribute to such a comment? Is your purpose to alienate the most loyal constiuency of the Democratic Party as completely as you possibly can? A constiuency that would (if by some miracle she should acquire the nomination) vote in greater numbers for Hillary Clinton than any other.

The greatest irony would be for Clinton to win the nomination and then narrowly lose the general election because sufficient numbers of African American voters stayed home on election day because they were alienated and insulted by the hateful statements of folks like you.

You have a public forum. Why not consider using it somewhat constructively rather than posting like a hate filled child.
Obama did skip the Martin Luther King anniversary celebration and refused to attend the Travis Smiley's 'State of Black Union' forum. My characterization was accurate -- even if ugly in your mind.

Again, trying to shame me to silence (the same way Obamatrons did during the caucuses to Hillary supporters) is useless.

This thread is getting tiresome and is officially closed. Let's just agree to disagree and say "adios."

So when you start getting hammered about your totally over-the-top pronouncements here, you close the thread?

This is horrible, and sadly, typical of you. I am sure Hillary is watching and approving.
Yellow Dog, why would you post on a subject you know NOTHING about.
In the Sean Bell trail the defense opted for trial by judge thus no jury. The Queens county prosecutors made their case weakly seemingly due to the desire to not alienate their local police force, an issue much in discussion in reasonable forums in NY such as NPR.
Your assertion that all the principals were black is wrong, one of the three officers was black and your idea that just because of this the police action in this case could therefore not be racist simply shows how little you understand the subject.I guess you think the republicans are the less racist party as they've now had two black secs of state, much higher positions than any blacks have achieved in a democratic administration. Shooting three unarmed men 50 times in a car outside a club without even identifying yourselves as police officers, they were in plain clothes, follows the pattern in NY the most famous example being Amadou Diallo, imagine the response if this happened to three white professionals after a night out on the Upper East Side.
And finally you show that you're a complete fraud by one suggesting that civil rights protests are not only misguided and worthless but automatically equivalent to riots. Woe become us if you're an example of the passive, sheep like, rule obsessed new America.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?