Maybe he's not avoiding a trip wire but stating the truth. He didn't say historical origins, but the continuing conflict emanating from a radical ideology.
I'm still not exactly sure what he meant to say, and I know it perturbs the tripwire to force the question. He seems to have depicted the perversion and hatred on one side, and stalwart alliance on the other. The grammar confuses me. First it's the expression of a phrase Obama rebukes Where it goes from there is out into the weeds. There are no semicolons in a spoken speech, and the connections we're left to draw are muddled (I'll paraphrase 2 variations): 1) All that we know is right with America includes a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. 2)a religious leader's profoundly distorted view sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. It's just flat-out muddle-headed. I really hope that pundits don't start diddling the tripwire over this. There is no way that Obama can deepen the debate over Israel without demolishing his candidacy. The handicapped USAmerican learning-curve on this issue won't allow for it.
However we are to take it, I dislike the categorization of perversion and hatred on one side, and stalwart alliance on the other because it is untrue no matter in what or whose voice it is expressed.
That is going to be an interesting line of attack: that articulate speech is itself evidence of leftiness and lack of specifics. (Of course it will distract from the obvious rejoinder to the question, whcih is that Obama's specific policy proposals have been both more numerous and more workable than, say, those of McCain, who is running on image and rhetoric and trying to get away from the specifics that burden his positions. But the actual impact might be not primarily on the rational level of deflection from issue, but the atavistic level of anti-intellectual reaction in the US. If enough people can be persuaded to vote agaisnt Obama because he speaks well, that's a serious problem for him).
Considering the latest Gallup polls, it looks like the Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, Hannity, etc soundbites came through more strongly than Obama's eloquent speech. Once again, repetitious programming seems to have more impact than thoughtful speech in the USA, at least until we start demanding more from our media. When I tuned in to watch the Philadelphia speech, and as I stayed tuned for a short while afterwards, the deluge of concentrated, divisive, inflammatory vitriol was something to behold. I rarely tune into the major networks, so maybe I'm getting out of touch with what's still driving the herd. It looks like more USAmericans saw the inflammatory sound-bites being unfairly associated with Obama's politics, than watched or heard Obama's de-spinning speech. By the poll, it looks like the networks imprinted divisive sensationalism much more effectively than Obama could counter with a sincere and eloquent speech.
What is it with this fascination of lumping everyone into catagories of left and right? This 'black and white' approach to politics in America has caused more damage to the electoral process than anything else, one of the disadvantages of a 2 party system I guess. If you ask me political parties should be done away with completely, everyone should run as an independent without being constrained to thinking only in terms of left or right on a given issue.
I think the problem is more with soundbite-sensationalist media. If we can elevate the national debate, I expect it will raise all political boats.
Caption this Obama pic. What is he thinking? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps some of you will find this a good example of leadership quality. Before the real estate crisis started, Barack advocated a home protection action that Hillary (according to the Obama website anyway, I have not looked into it personally) is doing well into the crisis. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBnCJ The letter is in the link.
1. "I'm strangley attracted to this crazy bitch" 2." So that's what a tripple espresso does to a little white person?" 3. "I'm glad she doesn't have "force lightning" like the emperror." 4. "She'll get you, my pretty. And your little pitbull,too." 5.""WASSSUUPPP!""" is played out, Hill."
Poor old bitter hicks aren't as common as they like to pretend? Despite the furor, it would appear that the first wave equals a negligible effect, if any: ____________________ Notes: Wagner, Annie. "None Taken!" Slog. April 15, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/none_taken
Yet if this happens watch people act as if Hillary has the nomination edge by winning a state she had a huge lead in, and was expected to win all along.
It's interesting how punditry has been proclaiming Obama's vulnerability to gaffspinning, when McCain is the far greater liability in that regard. The corporate media must be careful in displaying the selectivity of their microscope, lest the their audience become bitter, and turn to independent thought and sources, where there is greater depth of view and clarity. If that happens, mediacorps will wield less influence when the real test comes, and voters must choose between conservative-Democrat brains and neocon-militarist brawn in the general election. Sadly, if terrorists re-enter the mass-manipulation business later in the process, all these blips will be dwarfed by the power of fear and insult, sweeping McCain and any cabal he chooses into power.
Cynicism It's rather quite sick, in my opinion. See, the thing is that if Obama is elected, the news media get a week's worth of headlines about the first black president being elected, a couple of months of "special features" about the culmination of the civil rights movement in the 2008 election, and another week's worth of headlines about the first black president being inaugurated. To the other, if McCain wins, the media gets a potentially endless period of headlines about racial and ethnic tensions, bigotry, and how black people are just plain sore losers. And expect that last to be played up if there is yet another appearance of GOP fraud. Jonah Goldberg and other conservative pundits are already laying the advance work for GOP foul play to elect McCain, suggesting that there will be race riots if Obama loses. At any rate, the news media has a financial interest in a McCain presidency. Not so much that the world lacks intriguing stories that make for sensational headlines, but it's just easier for the reporters if they don't have to go out and actually report. It's easier for the editors if everything is written to a pre-established template. It's better for the investors if the company doesn't have to spend as much getting a story for the sensational headline.
Obama's poor performance since super tuesday proves he can't win the general election. He's striking out with the blue collar folks. The SuperDs have to get serious, now.
It is nice to see that money can't always buy happiness. Barack outspending Hillary 3 times in PA and still finishing 10% below. Although one could argue that his 10% surge from the original low was the result of his bigger wallet....
Whitehead on black Source: New York Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/opinion/24whitehead.html Title: "Visible Man", by Colson Whitehead Date: April 24, 2008 MacArthur "genius", Cullman fellow and novelist Colson Whitehead recently offered his insights regarding the current electoral cycle:
