It became obvious today that Republicans are unable to differentiate between “talk to” and “appease.”
In my dictionary, appeasement is defined as “satisfying, esp. by giving in to the demands of.”
Barack Obama has said that we should talk to not only our friends but also our enemies. The Republicans have latched on to this as meaning that he wants to appease the terrorists. Do none of them own a dictionary? It is common knowledge that George W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but is it really necessary for the rest of the Republican party to mimic him?
Watch this video. I have not laughed quite so hard in a very long time…
Hot air. It’s really all they have. One almost has to feel sorry for them. (I said almost.)
This is the best response their presumptive nominee could muster:
Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”
Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”
My question is, what is there not to talk about? (Remember, please, that talking and appeasing are completely different actions. Get out your dictionary if you need to.)
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.
The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the choice of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040 form, said only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been defeated and Iraq’s government will be functioning on its own.
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won,” McCain told an audience of several hundred here in the capital city of a general election battleground state.[..]
In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his speech, the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek a second term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four years after being the oldest president elected.
In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.
He added: “The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. … There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.”
American desperately needs a leader to emerge from this election, not a fortune teller. What we especially do not need is a senile old man who will do nothing more than continue the policies of the failed Bush administration.
Really, my Republican friends, is this the best you’ve got? You should be ashamed.
SAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court said Thursday that California’s ban on gay marriage is not legal, a move that sent off wild cheers and celebration in San Francisco but one that will face new fights from opponents of same-sex marriage.[..]
In its 121-page majority opinion, the court stated emphatically that California law may not deprive gays and lesbians of the same rights of other citizens.
“…(R)etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples,” the opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George said.
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
The decision came down 4-3. It should probably be noted that six of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court are Republicans.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Senator John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who bowed out of the presidential race in January, is expected to endorse Senator Barack Obama at a rally being held here after 6 p.m.
Officials announced the news shortly after Mr. Obama landed here late this afternoon. The campaign has timed the announcement to coincide with the start of the major evening newscasts, which would have otherwise focused on Senator Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia, which raised new questions about Mr. Obama’s strength with white working class voters.
Mr. Edwards has been watched closely for who he would endorse, and Mr. Obama’s campaign is hoping it will be taken as the start of a partywide coalescence around Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee.
The endorsement ended months of speculation over Mr. Edwards’s preference in the Democratic nominating contest, during which he mostly stayed silent and close to home in Chapel Hill with his wife, Elizabeth.
But in recent days, Mr. Edwards had made his choice all but obvious, giving a series of television interviews hinting that he was close to endorsing Mr. Obama, who last week he called “clearly the nominee at this point.”
And it was little surprise to close observers of Mr. Edwards on the campaign trail in the past year, when he regularly attacked so-called establishment politicians like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and teamed with Mr. Obama against her in debates.
His campaign sounded similar themes to Mr. Obama’s – both candidates positioned themselves as change agents who would clean house in Washington.[..]
Mr. Edwards has carefully played down his aspirations for an administration role. In an interview in January, he said he would not accept a vice-presidential spot or Cabinet position. “No, absolutely not,” he said, shaking his head emphatically when asked.
But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general, which would appeal to his experience of decades spent in courtrooms as a trial lawyer in North Carolina; and his desire to follow in the footsteps of Robert F. Kennedy, one of his heroes.
Not long after Mr. Edwards dropped out of the race, John C. Moylan, a close friend and adviser who ran his South Carolina campaign, said Mr. Edwards he would consider a Cabinet spot. “You don’t run for president unless you want to work in the administration,” Mr. Moylan said.
I think it was mighty outstanding of Mr. Edwards to wait until the nomination was practically secure before choosing to endorse Senator Obama. It shows a lot of courage on his part. Really, it does. (Not.)
Has he earned a position in the Obama administration? I guess we’ll see.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, had this to say today:
Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a “terrible mistake” for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.
“Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain,” Clinton said on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”
“I’m going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I’m still hoping to be that nominee, but I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me … understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.”
It’s coming together.
“We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.” — John Edwards, May 14, 2008.
Would you like to see a 71 year old “war hero” pick on and attempt to ridicule a young lady who is 57 years his junior? (He was terribly proud of himself.) Here you go…
What was his answer to the question? Nobody knows. What he said made no sense whatsoever.
The teenager definitely came out the winner in that little show.
Sen. John McCain, at a town hall event held Wednesday in Michigan, singled out a girl wearing a t-shirt critical of him and challenged her to ask him a question. She asked about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have corrected the Supreme Court’s destructive ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear: “I was wondering Senator McCain why you had the opportunity to vote to give equal rights to women equal pay [but] you didn’t show up to vote and you said that if you did you wouldn’t support it.”
“This question should be on the minds of millions of working women who may face pay discrimination during their careers,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People For the American Way. “Senator McCain had the perfect opportunity to embrace equal pay for equal work, but he instead parroted talking points fed to him by corporate lobbyists. It’s pretty clear from his response that he’s more concerned about the rights of big corporations than those of everyday Americans.”
Teeny tiny West Virginia (population less than 2 million, 95% of which is white and 15% of which holds a college degree) held its Democratic primary election today. Hillary Clinton will win by a large margin. That’s her kind of crowd.
Here is what CNN’s senior political analyst wrote…
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A big victory in West Virginia Tuesday could re-energize Sen. Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House and raise fresh doubts about Sen. Barack Obama’s electability in the general election.
Clinton is expected to win in West Virginia by a wide margin, but, with only 28 delegates at stake, she will not cut significantly into his lead in the delegate count.
“Clinton’s strength all along has been, not just with women, but also with older, rural and blue-collar Democrats — the kinds of voters who predominate in West Virginia,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.
“A big Clinton win will send a powerful message that there are a lot of Democrats not yet ready to get on board with Obama,” said Schneider.
Mr. Schneider is a “senior political analyst” (he went to Harvard) and, as Craig Ferguson says, it’s written down so it must be true.
Let’s just say I question Mr. Schneider’s objectivity, his powers of observation and his qualifications as a political analyst (let alone senior political analyst).
The polls in West Virginia will be closing shortly. A few moments after they do, the networks will declare Hillary Clinton the victor. A few moments after that she will give a big flowery speech in which she declares that her victory in West Virginia unquestionably means she is the most viable and electable Democratic presidential candidate. The delusion will live on.
Aren’t we thankful that we have teeny tiny West Virginia and senior political analysts like Bill Schneider to guide us?
Bill Schneider should be fired on the basis of this idiocy alone.
Update:
Don’t let yourself be fooled into thinking that tonight’s charade actually means something.
I could not pass this up. It’s a video that’s been making the rounds of the internets today. Chances are that you’ve already seen it, but in the event that you have not I will post it here. The video drew over 400,000 viewers on YouTube in one day before they took it down for “copyright violations.”
Warning: Not Safe For Work! (You have been warned.)
John Weiler is a former Air Force staff sergeant who says he was a lifelong Republican who became a supporter of Barack Obama. An “Obamacan,” if you will.
His message is the basis of the winning ad in MoveOn.org’s “Obama in 30 Seconds” contest. MoveOn, a liberal political action committee that endorsed Senator Obama back in February, sponsored the competition to solicit the best pro-Obama video spot that they hope to raise enough money to broadcast on TV.
“Obamacan,” created by a team from Monrovia, Calif., beat out some 1,100 other videos submitted over a 19-day period in late March and early April. Judging was broken down into two parts.
First, online public voting whittled the crowded field down to 10 entries. The winner and honorable mentions then were selected by a panel of 24 judges including actors Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rory Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos blog.
CLARKSBURG, W.Va., May 11 — With her campaign falling ever deeper into debt, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a rainy Mother’s Day seeking votes ahead of Tuesday’s primary here, turning a deaf ear to calls for her to leave a Democratic presidential contest she has little hope of winning.
Clinton aides continued to insist that she will remain in the race even while confirming that she is $20 million in debt. “The voters are going to decide this,” senior adviser Howard Wolfson said on “Fox News Sunday,” acknowledging the $20 million figure. “There is no reason for her not to continue this process.” Wolfson said he has seen “no evidence of her interest” in pursuing the second-place spot on the Democratic ticket, contrary to rumors that she is staying in the race to leverage a bid for the vice presidential nomination.
People need to get this idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket out of their heads. It’s not gonna happen.
Cyrus had this to say in a comment to an earlier post:
I think it’s important that, at this point, Hillary waits until after the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries to bow out, because it would be a bit of a psychological blow to the Democrats, as a party, to have the nominee lose the next two primaries.
Don Frederick and Andrew Malcom of The Los Angeles Times agree with him:
“The Democratic race now moves to West Virginia,” Jay Leno noted the other night. “Today, Hillary Clinton claimed she always wanted to be a coal miner. But those dreams were dashed when she was forced to attend Wellesley and Yale.”
The political focus now does, indeed, shift to the Mountain State for its primary on Tuesday. And then Kentucky and Oregon and Puerto Rico, down to the very end in Montana and South Dakota on June 3.
Times political writer Mark Z. Barabak had an interesting conversation with Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not involved with a candidate this time. Counterintuitively, the way he sees the inevitable delegate math in favor of Barack Obama, the worst thing that could happen to the Illinois senator now is what so many party members are clamoring for: Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out.
Why?
Because with her name still on the ballots, she’d be very likely to win in West Virginia anyway. And maybe Kentucky too, given the demographics in both places. And possibly Puerto Rico as well.
How would that look if at the end of the Democratic race the winning candidate with clearly the most delegates and popular votes went down to defeat against a candidate who isn’t in the contest anymore? Ouch! That would tend to overshadow his expected wins in Oregon and Montana.
In fact, although little noticed because the Republican race had long been over, Sen. John McCain won his Pennsylvania primary with 73% of the vote. Put another way, the surefire Republican nominee lost about 27% of his party’s vote to a candidate who had long since dropped out (former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee) and a Republican rebel who never really had any chance of winning (Texas Rep. Ron Paul).
“If [Obama] lost to a candidate who’s withdrawn, that would hurt him a lot,” says Devine. “And there’s a good chance that could happen.”
Better for Obama, he figures, for the former first lady to remain in the race a few more weeks, as long as she recalibrates her rhetorical cannons at McCain and President Bush.
There is little to no doubt that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky. (See previous post.) She will likely win them with fairly large margins. For that reason, it probably is a good idea for her to keep her campaign active for another nine days. The problem is that she appears to sincerely believe that she can still win the nomination. She continues to attack Barack Obama. She is not “recalibrating her rhetorical cannons at McCain and President Bush.”
Witness her campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe on NBC’s Meet the Press this morning. Keep in mind as you watch this that this is the man who, should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, will likely be her Chief of Staff.
Do you see any indication in that clip that the Clinton campaign is ready to concede the nomination to Barack Obama? At some point, reality has to set in. Right now, the only thing she and her supporters are accomplishing is a deepening of the rift in the Democratic party. They are only making it more difficult for Senator Obama to reunite the party, which he will definitely need to do in order to save our country from another four years (minimum) of disastrous Republican rule.
I will continue to stand by my prediction that Barack Obama will clinch the nomination after the Oregon primary on May 20. For the good of our party and our country, Hillary Clinton must graciously step aside at that time and do whatever she can to convince her supporters to rally behind the party’s nominee.
We must defeat John McCain and the Republicans in November. We have no other option.
