Things Suddenly Look Really Bad For Obama…
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:34am Matt Margolis
..since Hanoi Jane has endorsed him for President.
Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.
Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery in June 1972 singing an anti-war song with soldiers during her visit to North Vietnam in the Vietnam war has just endorsed Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois for president
There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress’s approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet.
[...]
Many people question the value of celebrity endorsements, whether they actually attract anything other than simply more publicity, not to mention votes. The imprimatur of Fonda, who’s been an antiwar activist for decades, certainly supports Obama’s antiwar credentials.
Less examined is whether some celebrity endorsements may actually cost a candidate votes. This could be one of those less desirable votes for part of the country, especially if Obama was hoping to attract some crossover Republicans if he’s the Democratic candidate come fall.
It’s hardly surprising that there was no fanfare over this endorsement. This is an endorsement that has the potential to really hurt Obama… especially if he ends up with his party’s nomination. That last thing Obama would need in the general election, when his opponent was a POW in Vietnam, is the woman who was taking pictures with North Vietnamese who were fighting against American troops.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
71 Comments
1. Jay Gaultieri | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
The people this matters too were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Most Obama supporters weren’t alive when the Hanoi incident took place. It’s ancient history to them. It took place 40 years ago and dredging up someone the VFW-Swap Meet-Tractor Pull crowd hates won’t cause Obama to lose voters.
2. SteaM | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Hate to tell you this Mark. but this does not hurt Obama at all.
Why?
Because the only people who will care about this are people like you who simply do not like him already and who do not like Jane Fonda for her anti-Vietnam war activities.
No wonder, at times, I consider you and other republicans to be pro-war.
3. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Matt, great job at the catchy headline. I was truly intrigued…. until I read the body.
Who really gives a crap on which celeb has endorsed who? I honestly can’t imagine that this really affects much of anything.
Are you upset because the only celebs you have are Chuck Norris, Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent?
Like Jay said above… this is ancient history and only matters to those who weren’t going to vote for him to begin with.
4. William Teach | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Where this will matter is not to the bases, but to the 20-30% of voters who can vote either way. Those are the people McCain has been aiming his campaign at, and many of them will remember her traitorous actions, especially when compared to McCain spending years and years as a POW of a regime that Fonda was a propagandist for.
5. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
All those ‘Nam Vet’s remember well. Hanoi Jane, instead of teaching our kids that what we did in ‘Nam was a good thing, taught them to run away from the fight. It wasnt an issue about right and wrong to her, only the absolute rejection of the idea that some things are worth fighting for.
Obama is famous for his statement that he would pull every troop out of this war. Its no different now than back then, to these people, its not about right and wrong. They only grab hold of the peace movement as a means to get attention. Its easy to garner the sympathy of American mothers who lost children in a war, but it awful hard to grasp the meaning of why for these peaceniks. Maybe they should spend several years living under one of these regimes, communist, totalitarian, or theocratic tyrants. Maybe the struggle in Tibet is more than just a TV News spot, and the recent upheval in Bangladesh has a real purpose and cause.
Maybe freedom is worth fighting for, at least our forefathers thought so anyways.
6. Jay Gaultieri | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
8 years ago McCain’s POW status didn’t stop the Republican masses from believing Bush’s preposterous lie that McCain fathered a bastard mulatto from an adulterous affair with a Black whore.
7. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Do you really think Jane Fonda has that much say in current politics that her endorsement of anyone would tip the balance against their campaign?
If John McBush has to rely on has-been celebrities to tip the balance in his direction, he really IS desperate…
Or could it be you just don’t want people to notice how your blogs earlier posts this week have already been proven wrong, such as how the economy is recovering and how wonderful it was that shares climbed being reduced by a 50point loss at 11am EST today?
Really, this is another desperate non-story that is only being used to try and talk down Obama’s campaign - which is still doing fine - when there’s nothing else positive you can find to talk about.
Really sad.
8. SteaM | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Mark, sorry, I thought this was your post so I referred to you directly above. I meant to say… Matt.
9. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“this is another desperate non-story ”
non-enough to make you argue…..you should just plead diminished capacity, its more believable
10. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
yep js…. another useless post out of you. Thanks for not disappointing.
11. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
pointing out that non-truths from local stooges are never useless posts joe stooge
take the diminished capacity, you are far better off that way
12. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
js,
thanks for following the comment policy that Mark posted a few days back.
Do you have anything to say other than insults?
You know what debate is, right? It is where both people present their sides. Not one person hurling insults with no information.
13. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
ya know joe stooge, you and hanoi jane have something in common
jane defended charlie by lying, and you defend obama by lying
ill bet you have the same yeller stripe up your back too….and probably the gall to brag about it, just like your mentor jane…..
14. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“this is another desperate non-story ” from Arctic fox describing the story, and I diligently pointed out the fact that its enough of a story to get his comment, after which your bright stooge comment was added insulting myself, joe stooge
so dont try to feed us BS and tell us its justice, little boy….
15. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Damn js… more insults. Really. If you have nothing to say, just don’t post anything.
Keep it up. I won’t hold my breath, but maybe Mark will start deleting your posts for being useless.
16. William Teach | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“this is another desperate non-story ”
In other words, it is a story that liberals/progressives understand is not good news for them, so, why can’t we talk about GWB’s service in the TANG, darnitall!
This is what I call a #6:
6. Whine about the discussion of the topic, proclaiming that it means nothing, and why aren’t we talking about X? This is usually the point where Liberals/progressives truly understand how bad the issue really is for them, typically when even the NY Times cannot ignore it, so, now they want to have an in-depth discussion on the point of the Iraq War, which you have had 1,000 times, but, they strangely have never had.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/03/23/the-8-stages-of-liberalprogressive-discussion-when-they-are-busted/
17. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Teach, nobody is whining about anything. We are saying that the only people that even remotely care about Jane Fonda’s endorsement wouldn’t be voting for Obama to begin with.
People that would be voting for him don’t care about this one way or the other. It is like saying I am changing my vote because Charlie Daniels is endorsing McCain and I really like that Devil went down to Georgia song (although it is next to impossible on Guitar hero!). It is foolish. If anyone’s endorsement changes your mind one way or the other, you need help.
18. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Yes, it’s another “non-story”. Why? Because nobody cares what Jane Fonda thinks any more. But hey, let’s not bother to talk about shares dropping, or about the latest job data being poorer than expected, or about the fed boss warning the country stands “on the brink” of recession…
Nooo, much easier to ignore all that, bury your heads in the sand, and instead claim that Obama is in trouble because some has-been celebrity is endorsing him.
And of course, you’re happy to argue about that rather than face the REAL issues of the day.
19. William Teach | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Sorry, Joe, but, with all due respect, it is a story, as it highlights more of the hard left people who support Obama who want surrender. Yes, it is a minor story, but, if it was a non-story, it wouldn’t be featured on not just blogs, but on the MSM sites, as well.
Obama is running primarily on his character, and an endorsement by Fonda (not that Obama could stop it, obviously) just highlights what his character is.
Your turn. I’ll respond later, gotta run for a lunch date.
20. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I guess we just have to disagree on this Teach. I really don’t see any difference at all on what Jane Fonda thinks. You do.
Time to move on to more important things.
Hope your lunch was better than mine.
21. JayJo | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Hagee….
22. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
JayJo… shhhhh…. it doesn’t matter who endorses the GOP candidate! It only matters who endorses the Dem!!!
Get with the program!
23. DBM | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Again, it’s a caricature of Obama’s foreign policy stance to call him a “peacenik” or “yeller”. As much as it must be a fantastic disappointment to JS and others, no candidate - right or left - is advocating military force anywhere a military dictatorship or an oppressive regime exists. All candidates hold the use of force as an option. It’s a matter of intelligence and judgment of when to use it. To steal a phrase, strength and intelligence are not competing virtues.
As for Obama’s position, I refer you to this excellent synopsis:
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine
And for his critics who are loathe to read something longer the running scroll at the bottom of Fox News, here’s Obama 5 months before the war:
24. Meanwhile on another plan&hellip | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
[...] blogsforvicto(r)y, the deceitfully named successor to Blogs for Bush (yes, even they dropped Bush’s name, though they claimed renaming it had nothing to do with Bush’s record low ratings) avoid talking about any of these stories, preferring instead to claim that Jane Fonda’s endorsement of Obama has sunk his chances of ever getting elected (even though Obama apparently raised $40million in March) He sure doesn’t look sunk by those figures. No sign of the news here though. [...]
25. Casper | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.
But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, “Who are you going to vote for?”
There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, “Obama!” Then she got into a car and drove away.”
Hardly a stirring endorsement.
26. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
” don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today”
the jist of the truth, a statement made in March this year, in past tense nonetheless…
“I know that ”
he knows?
or did he forget the statement about kenya?
Kenyan Government calls Obama ’stooge’ for Odinga.
Odinga and Obama are from the same Kenyan tribe.
In 2006 Obama took a trip to Kenya and voiced his support for his fellow tribesman and political ally, Odinga.
Obama also directly attacked the sitting Kenyan leadership (Kibaki) calling them ‘corrupt’ (Kenya is one of the most stable places in Africa).
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542
really, the whole point that obama’s characture issues one lie after the other doesnt phase his supporters, who, like lemmings, would elect this individual who will say anything it takes to succede in this election
so, what he says, today, really has little meaning because it contradicts what he said and did yesterday
but he is good at it
if being a good liar has any relevance to anything
but then again, so is billy boy clinton and billary too…..
27. OhioOrrin | April 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I can’t wait 4 the swifties to fire-up the engines & cast-off on their mission up the ear bama river.
I luv the smell of napalm in the morning…
28. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Quoting JS:
Um, are you thinking that somehow stability is dependent on a lack of corruption? Because it isn’t. Ivory Coast is stable, but most of the 419 scams currently being aimed at the rest come from there. Political stability has absolutely nothing to do with the level of corruption.
So quiz time then. When John McCain called President Putin “the president of Germany” the other week, did he A) Misspeak B) Make an honest mistake or C) deliberately lie?
Because if you’re going to call into question every tiny thing that Obama says and try and say he lies, I really do think you need to clarify your own candidate’s position as well.
29. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
they dont need to, bama is on a suicide mission
give im nuff rope, an he hangs hisself
no help needed
30. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
28. Arctic Fox
so, you ignore the truth about obama and attack mccain
typical
and you want respect?
LOL so funny
31. Some Assembly Required | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
js, you remind me of a cow… If you burn the barn they are in they will not move. They’ll just stand there nibbling on the grass the farmer feeds them until they catch fire or their stomachs explode.
When Obama or Hilary become president don’t hit the bottle to hard my friend.
32. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I’m still waiting for ANY truth to come out of you, let alone truth about Obama.
As for respect, do I want yours? Couldn’t care less. Do I have the respect of those who tell the truth? Probably, because I deal in truth.
My point, which you conveniently sidestepped, is that ALL the candidates are prone to make mistakes, yet according to you if something inaccurate comes from Obama or Clinton then it’s a deliberate lie but if it comes from McCain it’s not.
That’s a double standard.
33. DBM | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
JS, in comment 26, were you inferring that the quote came in March 2008? Your terse style makes it difficult to know what you’re saying.
To make my point clear, the Obama quote came in October 2002, 5 months before the war. The point is that Obama has remained remarkably consistent on his position on *this* war, voicing his opposition when it wasn’t necessarily politically expedient to do so.
So that directly undermines your assertion that he contradicts himself based on the current political winds.
And what’s the releavance of the Kenya thing?
34. Rana Quijotesca | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This story matters no more than that rabid, Catholic-hating nut-bag endorsing McCain… except McCain actually accepted and cherished that endorsement…
Honestly, a candidate is not shaped by who supports them, they are shaped by what they support… Obama hasn’t said (to my knowledge) that he supports Fonda’s actions in the ’60s… McCain openly accepted the support of, and praised a certain Catholic-hating preacher… what does that say about him?
35. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
@DBM
I don’t think there IS a relevance. It just happened to be in the article he was quoting, so he quoted it verbatim, without bothering to check whether it was either relevant or true.
36. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
@Rana - you’d think that the editorial staff here, Matt and Mark, would find that hard to stomach, given that they claim to be Christians and Mark claims to be a Catholic.
But of course they don’t have any problem with it, because nothing McCain can do is wrong in their book even when there’s a glaring contradiction like this.
And that’s how it seems to be in the Right Wing. Contradictions, mis-speaking and lies are fine if you’re a Republican, but if you’re a Democrat like Obama is, then it’s proof that you’re a racist America hating traitor.
37. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Contradictions, mis-speaking and lies are fine if you’re a Republican, but if you’re a Democrat like Obama is, then it’s proof that you’re a racist America hating traitor.
How true. Could you imagine what FOX News and all the righties would have done if it were Obama that mixed up Sunni and Shia the way McCain did???? That would have actually outdone the Wright racism chants.
Instead, just chalk it up as McCain misspeaking………. FOUR TIMES.
38. Thrower | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Beware of what you wish for Ohio. In politics, what is done by you will be done to you if it is effective. The image of a hard hitting Republican attack against a floundering Democrat won’t be repeated in 2008. The honeymoon for McCain should end sometime in early summer.
What we will likely see is an effective counter punching candidate “backed” by well funded 527s willing to distort any opening to attack McCain. You can expect to see him characterized as old, confused, bumbling and willing to change any position to get a vote. I’m guessing you won’t like it anymore than Kerry supporters did in 2004.
39. Some Assembly Required | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Arctic,
It is precisely this line of politics which will lose them the election in November if Obama is the Dem Nominee. Obama assumes the American public have above a 6th grade level of intelligence. The hypocrisy and desperation will be exposed on an unpresidented level. The media will have no choice but mirror the same questions towards McCain. Comparing ‘apples and oranges’ shtick will not suffice. Finger pointing will not suffice. Name calling will not suffice. People such as js, jeremiah, and Freedom1 will be shown for what they are ‘fanatic followers’. Furthermore, Matt and Mark will be (if they are not already) seen for what they truly are propagandists.
I read an article the other day about a man who was mugged by a teenager. After giving the teenager his wallet he asked if the kid wanted his coat to stay warm. The teenager was taken back and didn’t know what to do. So the man then asked the kid if he would like to join him for dinner. They ate dinner, then the cheque came. The man calmly looked at the teenager and explained how he had no money on him and would appreciate it if the teenager picked up the tab. The teenager not only picked up the tab but gave the man his money back and apologized.
40. Dennis | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
An item from the LA Times reader responses below the story:
Jane Fonda is an American that the Founding Fathers would be proud of - she stood up to the Washington DC power structure who got it all wrong on Vietnam.
Over 58,200 American troops died there as well as millions of Southeast Asians. Today America has full trade & diplomatic relations with Vietnam. We could have done that without the war.
Some who still criticize Jane Fonda, advocated in the 1970’s that Americans should continue to die in Vietnam for 100 years ( sound familiar ). I wish America had more people who stand up to government officials that are so wrong.
Bob Mulholland, 101st Airborne, Vietnam, 1967-68
41. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
u know, for all its worth, you lib’s posted tons of nuttin
really, the propoganda is void of facts, and suggesting that hanoi jane was anything less than a traitor is lunacy
42. William Teach | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Notice that none of the liberals are actually really defending the Obamessiah? Mostly just attacking the messengers.
On a lighter note, the captcha words are buffalo expert. Serendipitous!
43. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“The image of a hard hitting Republican attack against a floundering Democrat won’t be repeated in 2008.”
Yes it will. The one thing that wont change is the truth, and in the truth we exposed Kerrys lies, in the truth we exposed Obama’s lies.
Just basic stuff. Nothing else was used in 2004. Just the truth.
44. Arctic Fox | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Defending Obama against what, William? Against Jane Fonda endorsing him? I would have thought she was free to endorse whoever she wanted, or isn’t she - or anyone else for that matter - allowed to endorse a Democrat?
Once again, the Republican apologists try to twist things around (where they will look at them at all, eh JS?) to fit their own view.
45. DBM | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Um, Teach? What needs defending? That Jane Fonda “endorsed” him while running to a limo?
Okay — here goes the defense. Reagan put it best…
46. Joe | April 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Nice DBM. Have to remember that one.
“If anyone chooses to vote for me, they are buying my views. I am not buying theirs.”
47. Thrower | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Don’t be naive J.S. It will be just the “truth” coming at McCain, in his own words, over and over and over….. He will appear to be a parody of his worst moments, and Obama’s fingerprints will be nowhere to be seen. In fact, he will condemn the attacks but the damage will be done.
48. Timothy Horrigan | April 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Well, I agree with those who say it doesn’t matter… the only people who care about “Hanoi Jane” weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.
One thing to keep in mind about Vietnam is: we basically lost the war. (We did negotiate a peace treaty, but that gave the North Vietnamese everything they had been fighting for.)
And nothing particularly terrible happened a result… aside possibly from the fact that we eventually sold our manufacturing base to Vitenam’s ally Red China and are now trillions of dollars in debt to the Red Chinese. But that would have happened anyway, even if he had “won” Vietnam. And even we had kept Red China locked up in a Communist bronze age like North Korea, Cuba or Mongolia, we would have sold ourselves out to some expanding power: our Big Box stores would be full of Russian or Brasilian crap instead.
49. Xango Annie | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I see #6 is dragging out that tired old canard…
50. js | April 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
47. Thrower | April 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Don’t be naive J.S. It will be just the “truth” coming at McCain, in his own words, over and over and over….. He will appear to be a parody of his worst moments, and Obama’s fingerprints will be nowhere to be seen. In fact, he will condemn the attacks but the damage will be done.
——————————————
stop playing adult
if you had any facts, you would have posted them to change subject instead of just insinuate that something exists that you, and you alone remain privy too…im not naive, your just dumb….
51. ViralNexus | April 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I hate to admit this but JS has made a very real and very valid point. Bravo, JS. His point being that we are seeing nations rising to the occasion to either attempt to overthrow their corrupt rulers or making it known to the world that they are dissatisfied with their governments. Why is that such a profound statement? All free people, all throughout history, have had to fight for their freedom. They either overthrew their governments, ran them out of the country, or forced them through protest to change. When an oppressed people have had enough they will rise up and fight for their freedom. That did not happen in Iraq. Thank you for your honesty JS.
52. bongoman | April 4th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Xango Annie, the tired old canard that McCain had fathered a child out of wedlock was spread by Republicans during the 2000 South Carolina primaries.
The Bush campaign used push-polling to insinuate that McCain’s adopted daughter was fathered by McCain out of wedlock.
Charming huh?
53. js | April 4th, 2008 at 12:34 am
“That did not happen in Iraq. Thank you for your honesty JS.”
The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.
The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.
Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.
The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shi’a Muslims after the Shi’a uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.
The 1991 Kurdish massacre, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
Sorry son, but yes it did.
54. js | April 4th, 2008 at 12:37 am
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
Or, do you suggest that all these people just fell over and died without any help Viral?
55. Thrower | April 4th, 2008 at 1:16 am
50. JS: if you had any facts, you would have posted them to change subject instead of just insinuate that something exists that you, and you alone remain privy too…im not naive, your just dumb….
So are you saying there will be no 527 attack ads on McCain? No Bomb Bomb Iran? No Lieberman correcting him on which side Iran is supporting? No “yes it’s torture, no it isn’t?” No Falwell is an agent of intolerance, no he isn’t? Np flip flopping in immigration? We won’t have to debate this for long. The cards will call themselves. And yes, “your” naive.
56. Dennis | April 4th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Js: “Or, do you suggest that all these people just fell over and died without any help”
Saddam had help - precursor chemicals for his weapons - and tacit support from the US, all while we knew he was committing atrocities against his own people and others.
The proper avenue would have been to stop this supply line and unequivocally deplore his actions. Didn’t happen. In fact ambassador April Glaspie followed precedent in implicitly okaying Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.
America’s long double standard, as much as anything else, empowered Saddam through decades of atrocities, and confused him as regards Bush’s novel charges of WMD. Not the least because our SecDef was Rumsfeld, who earlier, as Bechtel’s man, had lobbied Saddam for permission to build an oil pipeline to Aqaba notwithstanding all his human rights violations.
Of course all this is ancient history now. But since you brought it up, nobody can claim the US has clean hands in any of this - there were ways to deal with Saddam short of shcok and awe, short of the killing of hundreds of thousands more innocent civilians and the destruction of Iraq’s infrastucture and their prior fragile but intact religious freedoms.
Now we have created a new, highly unstable Islamic state where we least needed one, have empowered both al Qaeda and Iran who are at swords’ points, and destabilized the Middle East in a manner we are unlikely to be able to repair within the average human lifespan.
Things look bad for Obama? actually they look bad for the next ten presidents of the United States, should our republic last that long.
57. Jay Gaultieri | April 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Back in 1987 Iraqi fighter jets fired missiles into the USS Stark in an unprovoked attack. Seventeen sailors died and only some heroic action by the survivors saved the ship. Nothing was done in retaliation. Back then Saddam Hussein was our “friend” because he was at war with Iran, although the Reagan Administration had been covertly selling arms to Iran a few years before.
Because this happened during the Reagen years it has been conveniently erased from the collective memory of the Fox News/talk radio crowd. The tragedy takes its place alongside President Bush’s slanderous lies about John McCain’s daughter, the Dubai Ports deal, the Harriet Meiers nomination, My Pet Goat, “Mission Accomplished”, the gay White House hooker, and the Anthrax Attacks in the “IF WE NEVER MENTION IT WE CAN PRETEND IT NEVER HAPPENED” file. Instead we get stories attempting to link Barack Obama to an incident that took place when he was six years old.
58. js | April 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
55. Thrower
lip service, discounted to drivel
59. js | April 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
56. Dennis
Saddam had help
——————-
So did Hitler but that only confirms what I said. Poor excuses.
another stooge?
60. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the “unintentional incident.” Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate.”
Seems we Fox news types still know more about history than the leftists.
Are you going to try another tact to change the subject?
61. Percy Beezer | April 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I know, trot out the photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam, that one never gets old.
62. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Dasien,
In the other thread about “Chicago corruption”, quote #58. You said this:
Tractatus,
Have you ever contributed anything to the conversation?
Why not run along and play with your putz? Huh, do us all a favor, k?
Are you going to make that suggestion to js for his quote #s 58 and 59? Just curious if your hatred is for the comment or the party affliation of the commenter.
63. Jane Fonda » Things&hellip | April 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today on Things Suddenly Look Really Bad For Obamaâ¦Here’s a quick excerptJane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese … [...]
64. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Joe,
First off, there is no hatred; i just become weary of reading drivel from the barely sentient. Second, js has contributed to the dialog, brought up points worth discussing and engaged in conversation in defense of his (her?) positions; Tractactus never has.
I stand by what I wrote and see no inconsistency there.
65. FoolYouTwice | April 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Joe,
Bane is just another partisan hack on this site who has no interest in objectivity. He will never attack his own for doing the exact things he attacks others for. Bane likes to think himself an intellectual, but amazingly enough he has started defending js. Nothing takes away from your intellectual status than defending the least intellectual person on the site.
66. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
*yawn*
67. Joe | April 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Dasein, tired?
js, tractatus and a whole slew of others here offer actual debate. Then there are times when they don’t. I’m just asking that if you are to jump down someone’s throat for having one post, then be consistent.
I’m sure that is too much to ask.
68. Dasein Libsbane | April 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
New World Dictionary
te-di-um (tē′dē əm) n. See: Joe
fact (fakt) Tractatus has never offered “actual debate“.
69. Tractatus | April 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Tractatus has never offered “actual debate“.
You keep using that word “debate”…it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
70. js | April 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Obama was first drawn to Wright’s Afro-Centric church because it provided a political base for his already well developed ambitions. Writing in the Huffington Post after the Wright furor had erupted, the Illinois Senator insisted that the “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.” Clear to whom? “Obama,” notes the left-wing netzine Salon quoted Wright at length in his book “The Audacity of Hope” — and took the name of his book from one of the first sermons he heard Wright deliver. “That first sermon included a comparison of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, which claimed 69 lives, to Hiroshima.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C753AD1A-9481-43B1-AB96-3121A49B10F0
obama and reality, something the liberals normally evade
71. Actresses » Entry f&hellip | April 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
[...] Things Suddenly Look Really Bad For Obama…Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese … [...]