Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Obama Lived and Went to School Overseas

. . . and, like, he totally studied International Relations so, I mean, he’s like so totally hot on foreign policy. Or so he says. Well, he didn’t use those words exactly but they seem, somehow, age-appropriate for describing the logic he used to defend himself against Hillary Clinton’s charge of political naivete after the last debate. Of course, we’re talking about a debate where snowmen and phony Hillbillies were asking the questions. Seriously, are any of these guys grown up enough to run this country?

UPDATE: Obama apparently will not back down when teacher backs him into this corner. And, of course, he cannot back down now without looking like the guilty little boy. This will strengthen his support with his base (already angry with Hillary for voting for the war) and weaken his position in the general election should these antics actually get him the nomination. Normal people will see this for what it is: petulance. I also think it hurts his VP chances.

Discussions - 17 Comments

Thank you, Julie. The very idea of CNN having a "YouTube debate" raises a distant sense of dread deep inside me. Wasn't the point of creating a constitutional republic to prevent the elites from catering to the mob? Doesn't Obama seem to embody Bloom's unflattering generalization of his generation as being simply "nice"?
Obama invokes the Constitution, the Declaration, and Lincoln, and we Americans are naturally attracted to those things, but if someone who actually understood and agreed with them came along he could crush hollow men of Obama's ilk.

I'd put it this way: Americans like Obama, and that reflects more than our love of Nice, but a sense that his heart and his gut are in the right place. Seriously. He's a guy we can imagine having more than just a few beers with, but someone essesntially trustworthy.

But the man's head evidently ain't in the right place, it is consistently turned in the wrong direction, and it doesn't compare with HRC's head. Raw experience has molded her head to understand the presidency. HRC's heart and gut are, well, not organs I have the slightest amount of trust in, but her head is so rigorously focused on that median voter that she will behave predictably.

Of course, if either is elected, the nation will go downhill fast, either at a sprint or at a jog.

And Julie, I'm LOL at your first sentence. Right on the mark.

Televised debates make a mockery of what debate is. Add in eight candidates and "YouTube" . . .



It's not televising a debate that makes it crap. It's the media's desire for soundbites rather than ideological or policy content that does 'em in. If CNN would pick maybe four candidates and give them 3 or 4 themes to discuss, it would be a lot more "political". Alas . . . CNN's after an audience (aka $$$), not a real debate about real issues (with questions in real time?). We are slowly lynching our democracy with a string of profit-driven binary code . . .

Agreed, Mr. Mingus, and add to that a dangerously unrestrained love of mob-democracy.

Amercians like the IMAGE of Obama, and the image is a successful, well-educated black man, who is moderate, not radical, and is a positive role model for black youth.

That's the picture. That's the projection. That's what Americans see and enjoy on Oprah.

But reality is quite different.

But that false projection is come to come crashing down, and sooner, rather than later. Obama can be counted on to make degenerate suggestions, such as 5 year olds should be introduced to, get this, "age appropriate sexual material."

Ordinary Americans ask themselves, "what the hell is "age appropriate sexual material" for a 5 year old little twirper."

Obama's time in the Ivy League is going to seep through.

He'll continue to make those kinds of bizarre, brain-dead utterances. Bank on it.

He's a lib, he won't be able to help himself.

Seriously, are any of these guys grown up enough to run this country?


Despite what I believe to be a majorly flawed Iraq plan, I do not think a Bill Richardson administration would be all that bad. While debates are not his strength, he more than seems capable enough for the office, and he knows how to work Washington, having been in Congress, the White House, the United Nations, and now a governor. So, take him as the lesser of several evils from the Dems, if you will.


I do agree with Matt. They need to do something like what he suggested for the Primaries, and when the general election debates start coming, they should make it a real debate with general topics for the candidates to debate (intelligently argue) about. For those of you who watched the West Wing, I think the idea they had for a gloves-off debate between the presidential nominees would really allow the United States to know the candidates a lot more and would leave less room for posturing to the public and reciting old lines. These people are politicians. Let us stick them in a ring and have at it.

Hey Julie, does being "diverse" in foreign policy mean that you transcend social science value neutrality and take turns representing seriatem the "points of view" of all enemies of political liberty? You have nailed this guy for sure.

R.O.B.: Richardson might as well join this bunch. The LA Times, of course, thinks there is something important going on in the campaigns of Gravel and Paul. So maybe they should give Richardson a little love too. But because he may actually be somewhere close to serious, I won't hold my breath. He's not sexy enough--in the physical or the political sense--for the LA Times. Besides, don't you think he's the one running for VP? And unless you buy all that "Cheney is the shadow president" bunk, I don't see him running things from that post no matter how "grown up" he actually is.

Richardson is VP if Obama is the nominee, ahd that combination would very liberal/left. Most likely is Obama, as has been said, is developing enough of a faction not be ignored for VP with Hillary. The first ticket would be beatable, although it would be tough The second almost impossible to beat...

I'm quite suprised how poorly Obama is doing, but on second thought it's not really that shocking. Obama is stagnant in the polls, and getting his clock cleaned by the Clintons. Hillary seems to be coasting to a rather easy victory, and Obama is showing his inexperience and perhaps characteristic immaturity as a candidate. It's early, but as disciplined as Hillary is, maybe not too early to say game over.

If Obama is on a ticket with Hillary, as Peter L. suggests, as the VP choice then this kerfuffle should be remembered and exploited. It won't take them down, but it could be a chink in their armor. What would it say about H.--after all--if she chooses someone she called "naive" to be her running mate?

I don't think Hillary will take Obama as her V.P. I've noticed in the debates that Hillary and Edwards were both quick to compliment Richardson a few times, and I think that Hillary will take Richardson as her V.P. to gain some more of the western states, not make her look as bad in front of gun rights people, and gain a larger faction of the Latino vote.

11: Clint, Obama is underwhelming because he's never had to be good. In the environments he's been in throughout his adult life, people have been cooing at him uncritically. The same has occurred in the early stages of his ridiculous candidacy. There has been little incentive for the guy to be anything more than friendly, and predictably left-wing. 12: Julie, the Democrats specialize in papering over minor differences. If Shrillary thinks Oprahbama is the right VP, she won't care less that she once called him "naive," and she won't worry about the median voter's reaction to what is, even though it shouldn't be, inside baseball. 90 percent of the votes for any Democratic ticket, win or lose, will come from people who will vote for any Democratic ticket. The remaining 10 percent, which is about 5 percent of the voting population, can be scrounged up by the right campaign, despite discrepancies or bloopers of the kind you mention. Especially if, as seems likely, the Dems bury us in a ton of money and the "mainstream" media continues to function as an arm of the Democratic party, as it will. I'm not saying we've lost this election, but the meaningless food fights among these ideologically nearly identical Democratic candidates are material for laughter and condemnation only, not relevant to the horse-race analysis.

DF: I understand everything you say above. But I still think that it should be exploited if H picks O--not simply to point out H's shallowness or apparent indecisiveness--but because the substance of what Obama said is so outrageous. It is outrageous and dangerous and any semi-conscious voter can see that. So I think that fact may be persuasive where pointing out the "food fight" as you call it may not be so persuasive.

We should exploit both candidates' weaknesses to the hilt. Obama and Hillary are leftists. Hillary is cold-blooded and calculating about it. She is rigidly self-disciplined. Obama is none of these things because he's never had to be. If we play it right, and if Obama is VP nominee, we can turn him into a joke. Especially as Shrillary's number-two.

Re: Obama on the Democrat ticket.

Why? What constituency does he deliver that they're in danger of losing? What state, or region does he place in play by his selection?

The Democrats already control Illinois because they control Cooke County.

And as for the Black vote, they're sure to get 90%.

So I don't see what Obama delivers.

Actually, because so many are so keen on rhapsodizing over Obama, HE COULD EASILY DEFLECT attention away from the head of the ticket, which would be Hillary. The absolute last thing that Hillary and her advisors want is to have her dwindle in comparison, NOT JUST to the GOP candidate, but in comparison with her own running mate.

Obama would claim too great a share of the coverage of the "ooooh-aaahhh" media.

I'm convinced that it won't be Obama. Not to mention, Obama is another Senator. No, she'll go for Richardson.

Selecting Richardson allows the amnesty and immigration issue to be front and center, which means that Democrats and the media will be able to blast Conservatives and Republicans as racists for their opposition to the recent immigration bill.

So I think it's going to be Richardson, because he'll be the smart play.

As for Obama, it's now or never.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/10907