In January 1980, Jimmy Carter was "far ahead" of Ronald Reagan in the race for the White House; 10 months later Reagan won 45 states. In July 1988, Michael Dukakis was beating George H.W. Bush by 17 points; Bush eventually ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I know how she meant it. Do I really have to run down all the disgraceful things America has done historically? Trail of Tears, Slavery, Jim Crow, Anti-Semitism, Viet Nam, the Iraq War, to name scarcely a few. However, as an AA I believe that if Barack Obama is running for president he has to be president for ALL the people. And his wife must release the identity politics of her youth because this is the job her husband is applying for. They claim they want this, so OWN IT! This type incongruity and ambiguity is the reason I voted for Hillary Clinton. They are neophytes at a time in history when we need a contender. Oh.. how I'd like to issue them both a one-way ticket to palookaville!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Jon, as my first comment stated, there is an important context for the Michelle Obama quote. She was talking about her pride in the American people's political engagement in the 2008 campaign which is unprecedented in her lifetime (her opinion). That is what her remark was about. You're right, it wasn't about race relations, and I'm sorry if my last post was unclear. I was really responding to Barry's previous comment which was a response to mine... funny how important context is, even on this comments thread. As for the McCain quote, all I'm saying is that if it's fair game to put on the psychologist's hat and psychoanalyze the perceived "freudian slip" of Michelle Obama, then I think it's fair game to do the same with McCain's "100 years" comment and his "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran comment." Equal treatment of all the sides is really what I'm after here. (I'd much prefer that we refrain from the psychoanalytic line of argumentation entirely in the realm of political discourse, but Caro has a column and I don't).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Sara, Michelle Obama said this was the first time she really felt proud of her country, and - by all indications - she meant it as a general statement, and not only narrowly about race relations. Did she not feel really proud of her country when the US held the Olympics in Atlanta and Salt Lake City? Did she not feel really proud of her country when people's response to 9/11 was an outpour of solidarity and sympathy? Did she not feel really proud of her country when the US organized a generous relief and reconstruction effort in response to the 2004 tsunami? Did she not feel really proud of her country for having protected freedom in Western Europe and supported Eastern European dissidents when the Cold War ended and the Berlin Wall fell? The United States may not be perfect, but Americans have a lot to be really proud of. Second, you have misconstrued Barry's interpretation of the "100 years in Iraq" quote. McCain did not say he would want to be in Iraq under any circumstances, but rather was speaking of a situation where the US has some (probably small) force in Iraq and is not taking casualties. Although the Korea War took place in the 1950s, the US military still has about 30,000 soldiers deployed in South Korea. They are not taking casualties, are protecting a successful democratic country. The Iraqi model will likely be similar.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Caro: Just because there may be progress does not mean there is reason to be proud. Freeing black persons from slavery is progress. But when they are denied equal civil and social equality there is nothing to be proud of. McCain's comments are not so easily dismissable if we follow your line of argument. You assumed the position of psychologist, calling Michelle's out-of-context remarks freudian slips. If that's a reasonable claim, then so are the claims against McCain. If you found my claims invalid, then you should retract your own. Finally, if you think it's "100% ok" for the US to have a presence in Iraq for 100 years or more, under whatever conditions despite the clear desire of the American people to get out of Iraq entirely, then you, 100% of your children and 100% of your grandchildren should enlist.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I am revolted by Barry Caro's sophistry. He uses Michelle Obama's comment that, "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" as an indictment of Ms. Obama's patriotism. Though personally I believe that patriotism is a form of fascism, I think Michelle, who I greatly admire, showed genuine love and hope for her country in that statement. I myself may have been more reserved and not committed to being proud of my country yet, until we make resitution for the more than one million innocent Iraqis who were senselessly murdered by us in an invasion based on lies and deception.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To Sara: First, I noted the context of the "proud" quote. I said that she made it in the context of Barack's success in uniting people. Second, saying that she would be perfectly justified to never feel proud of her country because she's a black woman feeds directly into my point. Regardless of your yardstick, there is MUCH to be proud of in America. As to the other "Freudian slips" you cite, I don't think that anyone seriously doubts that Bill O'Reilly is at least slightly off his rocker. McCain's comments are both defensible on their face- the "bomb Iran" one was clearly a joke and was understood to be so by everyone. And saying that one would be happy with a 100 year commitment to Iraq AS LONG AS American troops are no longer being killed in large numbers is 100% ok.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Caro, you're regurgitating anti-Obama talking points force-fed to you by the Clintons, the Republicans, and FauxNews. The Michelle Obama statements there are taken out of context. But, let's for a minute pretend that they weren't. Let's pretend for a minute that a Black woman meant exactly what the context-free statement says: She is proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. Even if she weren't talking about the unprecedented political engagement she is witnessing for the first time in her adult life (which is actually the case), this statement would be perfectly justified. But I wouldn't expect a white male to understand that. Besides, you wanna talk about freudian slips... then where's your column attacking Bill O'Reilly for saying that "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels." Hmm... he doesn't want to lynch the future first lady, unless he can find a good reason?! And if you're looking for another presidential candidate with troublesome freudian slips, how about attacking McCain for singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," or saying off-the-cuff that he'd be ok staying in Iraq for 100 years or 10,000 years? Now THOSE are some freudian slips to be really frightened about!!! Stop grasping for straws to smear Obama.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To P'10: How does Obama expect to "change... the nature of American politics"? I'm being serious. How is he going to get bipartisan support on fundamentally liberal policies that he advocates? He's already been rated the most liberal US senator, according to the National Journal, and he votes with the Democratic majority almost 100% of the time! Is that what you call transformational politics? It is simply absurd for Barack to think that he can pontificate people into action and get results by using lyrical prose. I also feel as though he has become too arrogant as of late. Apparently, we're not allowed to criticize him on his Iraq stance because calling his record a "fairy tale" is akin to being racist.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
To P '10: First, if you're going to try and convince me that Obama actually has a long legislative record (which, incidentally, was only a minor point in my overall argument) then you can't cite DailyKos dairies. That site is a partisan Democratic mouthpiece whose mission is not the presentation of truth a la traditional media but the election of Democrats: of course anyone posting there is going to say good things about the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Second, being a state senator is not the same thing as being a congressman. My local state representative is really nice guy who's become something of a power player in NY state politics- if he were to somehow end up as US Senator after this election (by filling Hillary's seat, for instance) I don't think anyone would seriously argue that he'd be ready to be President in 4 years because he had experience at the state level. I'm not going to address your Iraq point because I am assume we're irreconcilably opposed to one another on the war. Finally, as to the argument about inspiration, I'd suggest that you re-read my column. I never say that Obama doesn't inspire, but I do say that I think this adoration has gotten to his head and his wife's head. Inspiration is important, but if you think that congressional Republicans are just going to roll-over for his policy positions because he's a good speaker than you clearly don't understand American politics. As to changing the nature of American politics, I'll just disagree and move on. Cheers,
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422 *Clearly, you're basing this "all talk, no action" theory on blind hearsay. The fact is that Barack's record in the Senate is just as impressive--if not more impressive--than Hillary's. And in fact, Obama's spent more time in legislature than Hillary has--this inexperience argument is complete garbage. The authors of the two above articles, probably unlike you, did some serious research into the legislative records of both Democratic candidates, only to find that...surprise, Obama's even stronger than Hillary in terms of "action." *Barack attacks Hillary on Iraq because--face it--he opposed it from the beginning. The Bush administration had little evidence to justify the invasion, and the "classified" bit likely would not have changed anything. If that were the case, there would have been many, many more politicians at the state level speaking out against the war. *Also, much of the change Obama speaks of refers to the prevailing ATTITUDE in politics. No candidate--except maybe Ron Paul for some crazies--has come even close to inspiring this much excitement. People turn out in the thousands just to hear him speak. His campaign is on the verge of reaching 1 million donors (and a large part--40% or something like that--of his contributions come from donations of less than $100). It's not only the legislation he speaks of when he talks about "change." It's a change in the nature of American politics.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Great column! I also find the messianic adulation of Obama pretty disturbing. Also, I'm still waiting for the Obama supporters what tangible achievements qualify him to be even considered for the presidency - and no, inspiring speeches don't count (not even if they rely on heavy borrowing from the likes of Deval).
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
If there's something people can't seem to get is how vacuous literally everything Obama says is. You want change and bold ideas? Well where are they, Barack? Why is it that all of your ideas are exactly the same as Hillary's or less bold? Why do you attack Hillary on Iraq when you weren't even in the Senate at the time the vote was made? You weren't privy to the classified information that most Democrats fell for. Why is it that you continue to criticize her on Iraq when you and her have voted the same way on every single vote about Iraq since you've been in office? This article is dead on: why is your personal mentor a crazy person? Why are you making this election cycle hyper-politically correct? Why is it that Barack's campaign LOVES playing the racial card when Bill says anything? I am all for eloquence and good speeches, but when someone is simply rehashing his 2004 DNC speech for the past 4 years, then it begs the question, "Where's the beef?".
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!