I keep vowing to take a break from talking about Obama (and talking about Obama talking), but I can’t help it. He’s keeps saying things that cry out for commentary.
So if you’ve been wondering what sort of change Obama’s talking about, it’s this sort of thing: Continue reading →
…when an email starts with the phrase “I wish to inform you that this letter is not a hoax and you need to treat it serious.”
I have a friend who isn’t ordinarily very political. But from the start she’s been taken with Obama, and supported him enough to do some canvassing for him during the primaries—the first time in her long life that she’s actually worked for any candidate. She’s a highly intelligent, not-too-far-to-the-left Democrat, and even a practical and rather cynical sort. And so it stunned me to see that certain light in her eyes—the light of a quasi-religious belief—when she spoke of her admiration for the man.
She and I have learned over time not to talk about politics too much. But after the Wright revelations, I decided to ask her a brief question or two, because I was so intensely curious to hear her reaction. Continue reading →
Charles Krauthammer charts the shifting sands of Obama’s changing desire to talk to Iran, without preconditions and/or with.
The responses in the comments section of his piece break down in the usual fashion. Supporters write, “You tell ’em, brother!” Haters excoriate the slimy neocon Jew.
But a goodly number of the commenters harp on an old theme, which is that anyone who opposes or criticizes Obama and does not believe we should be talking to Iran sans conditions is motivated by, of all things, fear. Continue reading →
Richard Landes has a roundup.
And here, Karsenty adds that if France2 and Enderlin continue to assert their innocence, that “we will have victims of terror attacks that directly resulted from the [al-Dura] footage sue France 2.”
Good. I’d like to see some accountability for the purposeful (cameraman Talal) and/or the recklessly negligent (newsman Enderlin) promulgation of lies.
Remember that this suit was started by France2 and Enderlin, in an effort to clear their names. Now, as with the case of David Irving, their hubris may come back to haunt them.
And wouldn’t it be nice if this case could get the publicity the original footage of al Durah did?
I added a link to the NY Times op-ed article by Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins entitled “Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed” as an addendum to the previous post. But it’s such a good piece that I’d like to highlight it still further.
Read it. Or perhaps “read it and weep,” if you think (as I do) that Obama has a good chance of actually becoming President.
Obama has approvingly cited Kennedy’s meeting with Khrushchev as a precedent for his own willingness to talk with tyrants and enemies. But what actually happened there? Continue reading →
Karl Rove has some advice for Obama: not all “talks” are created equal.
No doubt Obama’s supporters see his wild whiplashing on whether or not to talk with Iran, and under what conditions such talks might be held, as evidence of his highly nuanced and complex approach to things. Or perhaps they just don’t care to analyze it, because by definition He Who Cannot Be Criticized is always right.
But the rest of us see Obama’s words on the subject as further indication of his fogginess of both mind and will.
Actually, I take the latter word back: Obama’s will seems clear enough. For his entire public life, his thrust has been to become President rather than to actually accomplish anything along the way. Continue reading →
Okay, so I watch “American Idol.” So sue me.
I see it as a brief weekly escape from our drab, wretched lives, a la Michelle Obama. I see it as a continuing soap opera with music, although the sort of pop stuff the contestants tend to sing is not what I usually like to listen to—with the exception of Jason Castro, who sang one by Leonard Cohen (sigh) and one by Bob Dylan.
Last night’s final featured the Two Davids, Cook and Archuleta, both very telegenic and personable young men. Hey, if I were sixteen, I’d give either of them a run for their money, although I think I’d favor Cook, who’s got more of an edge.
Archuleta has no edge at all. Continue reading →
I’ve often stated that I used to be a Democrat, but no more. Now I belong to neither party, and I don’t think I ever will again, except perhaps for strategic registration before a primary.
I sometimes wonder how someone like Joe Lieberman does it, though. How does he stay affiliated with a party that has moved so far away from him, a party in which he now appears to be so very alone? Continue reading →
I don’t have the details yet, but this is very good news: Philippe Karsenty has won his appeal.
[NOTE: My previous writings on the case can be found here.]
Quote of the day:
Oregonians seem to like the cool, cerebral type,” Oregon pollster Tim Hibbitts said. “They liked Harding. They liked McCarthy. They liked McGovern. They seem to like that kind of Democrat. And, without putting an ideological implication on it, I think that Obama stylistically appeals to Oregonians.”
I used to think it might be a good thing for Obama to continue to make egregious errors. It would allow people to see his feet of clay and to understand the dangers of his naive and uninformed views.
But, as he’s made goof after goof and none of his myriad supporters—including his enablers in the MSM—seem to notice or care, it’s become more frightening. Now I’m hoping he smartens up, but fast—especially if he wins the election.
So I’m offering the following in the spirit of helpfulness—sort of. Continue reading →