here. Malkin, it turns out, has been really proud of her country many times in her adult lifetime (and rightly so). I should also note Michelle Obama's clarification of her remark, via the AP:
On Monday, Michelle Obama told an audience in Milwaukee that "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change." ...
Asked by WJAR-TV if she would like to clarify her comment, Obama replied that she has been struck by the number of people going to rallies and watching debates, as well as record voter turnouts.
"What I was clearly talking about was that I'm proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process," she said.
"For the first time in my lifetime, I'm seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven't seen and really trying to figure this out -- and that's the source of pride that I was talking about," she added.
When asked if she had always been proud of her country, she replied "absolutely" and said she and her husband would not be where they are now if not for the opportunities of America.
Obama himself gave a similar explanation during an interview Tuesday with WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas. Expressing frustration that his wife's remarks had been taken out of context and turned into political fodder, the Illinois senator said, "What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America, because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."
Thanks to Si Frumkin for the pointer to Malkin's piece.
What's Michael Savage saying about it?
Indeed.
Ann CoulterMichelle Malkin thinks "America is more a source of shame than pride" for Democrats? I'm glad someone is out there is brave enough to publish theseunverifiablefacially ridiculousimportant truths. Her article certainly has led me to view the Defeatocrat traitors in a new and refreshing light.It's going to be really, really difficult not to want to tear your hair out over the next 8 months as absurdly dumb attacks like this are levied against Obama. I can only hope democrats won't do the same thing against McCain, notwithstanding The New York Times’s decision to post baseless innuendo that McCain had an affair in 2000.
I wish about six months before any election, republicans were given one free week of airtime to attack their opponent as a hippie socialist who likes to have gay sex while aborting a child. They could then have another week to call their opponent unpatriotic, etc. But after that, they had to drop it. Their attacks are stupid and something anyone with half of a brain should be able to see through. But we’re going to be forced to read brain dead commentators, like Rush and Malkin, jump up and down, screaming each line of attack for the next 8 months.
It will be interesting, however, to see republicans continue to argue that advocating for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq means you don’t support our troops. Given that over 60% of americans now support that position, I wonder how a majority of the country will react to hearing they’re unpatriotic?
People say what they mean. But if Michelle Obama announces that when she speaks, she doesn't mean what she says, then I'll accept BHO's translation.
McCain is going to get slaughtered.
That’s the thing though, if you believe Obama’s “explanation” there really isn’t that much of a difference. Michelle Malkin listed all sorts of non-political things that are a source of pride for millions of Americans – our robust free enterprise system, our advanced science and technology, volunteerism, etc. For the Obamas it was that thousands of people turned out to participate in their political campaign.
"if Malkin is proud..."
Nowhere does she say she is proud of everything.
Nowhere.
Berlin Wall? Not in America, or part of Americans' increasing engagement in the political process.
Space shuttle? Ditto.
Medicine? Ditto.
And "contentious" elections? The country seems totally polarized, and participation in the electoral process has been dropping constantly.
Highly unimpressive.
You can be proud of graduating from college, or raising a nice family, or running a marathon. But being proud of your country makes about as much sense as being proud of being tall, or white, or brown-eyed. Or being proud of the space shuttle, for that matter.
And let me add my voice to the posters above who are disappointed in Eugene for linking and giving added publicity to a mindless partisan attack dog.
Michelle Obama = Hillary Clinton
All that the right-wing needs is a target, because they are ready to start a-shootin'.
I would prefer to live in a nation where Warren and Burger are Chief Justices, rather than under your "jurisprudence.".
No matter how clear the context is, it's a boring and usually fruitless argument.
Less easily explained is Barack Obama's explanation that "What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America..." Can this really be true? Nothing in the past 20 years? If pressed I can't believe that he really believes this. But it is indicative of an extraodinary conceit on his part that without reflection he would assume this to be the case.
Yeah right! No one ever misspeaks or says half of what they mean or forgets to qualify their statement. How pathetic.
In the absence of corroborating evidence, it's really* arrogant for you to presume that Michelle Obama and/or her husband are blind to America's qualities or otherwise unpatriotic. Just because it conveniently fits a caricature of bitter liberals (e.g. the Berkeley city council) doesn't mean that the Obamas are part of that fringe and you know it.
Demonization, that most effective propaganda tool, has worked in the past and may yet work again. I don't think this is one of those years. Only fools buy into this kind of sound bite argument and if that's the best you can do good luck in November. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
*obviously I mean this as "what I truly believe" and not "very much"
Square Peg!
ROUND HOLE!!
As an Obama supporter, I'm thrilled to see such ridiculous attacks getting more attention.
The Republicans are going to find this out, but it will be too late: Against Obama, these kinds of attacks are going to make the Republicans look like petty, low, and in many cases, downright bigoted. The only people who will buy into them are people who never would have voted for a Democrat no matter what.
The rest of the electorate will reject these attacks, because Obama's positive rhetoric provides such a starkly optimistic contrast. Deep down, people want to feel good about a candidate. Obama has the image and the ability to elevate himself above it all; as a result, millions of people find him extremely inspiring.
This is what Hillary is finding out now, as her negative strategy is backfiring badly. Thankfully, the Republicans will never be able to help themselves.
Mark my words: McCain will lose by a landslide.
It's clear that America embarrasses some people all the time. I know what it is like to be embarrassed by your country, as I was in college when Jimmy Carter was president. However, I have at most times felt proud of my country.
Clearly we should just ignore everything that Mrs. Obama has to say, because she is not responsible for what comes out of her mouth.
Somewhat disappointed.
Maybe we should not ignore it but we should certainly give it the importance it deserves, how does that comment affect why anyone should vote for or agains Mr. Obama on the elections?
For Number One to be true, that would mean that she NEVER had been proud of her country while an adult. If we can come up with a single example of her being proud of America, then we know that Number One is not the correct option. Based on the little I know of Mrs. Obama, she seems like a typical (ie, not insane, not mentally impaired, not habitually intoxicated, etc.) person. I find it beyond belief to conclude that she was not proud of her country when her husband was first elected to local political office. Or that she was not proud of America when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Or that she was not similarly proud when he won the [pick one of many] primary this year.
She spoke quite poorly, and I think it would have been much better if she had instead said, "I've never been more proud of my country . . . ." But she didn't. Her fault. But c'mon; let's use a small amount of common sense in analyzing this.
In response to Michelle Obama, either John McCain or his wife (I'm too lazy to double-check) said something like, "[unlike Mrs. Obama] I've been proud of my country every day." Well, if you are a biased, Left-thinking, liberal (as I am), why can't we twist this to its logical extreme? Were you proud when it came out that we had behaved shamefully to Iraqi prisoners, complete with photos of naked pyramids, et al? Proud when it came out that a few military had raped and killed Iraqi citizens. Proud when Bill Clinton lied under oath to the entire country? Proud when we outed a CIA agent for purely political reasons?
I think reasonable people should use the same, fair, standard here. No reasonable person would be proud of the above actions, so I think it's fair to interpret the McCain statement as, "I am extremely proud of America, and while there have been a few dreadful days, and a few dreadful events, those have been so few and far between, they do not change the fact that I have been a proud American for essentially my entire life." What *that* what was said? No. But I think it's a fair interpretation, regardless of whether the speaker was a Conservative, a Liberal, or anything in-between.
BTW: Based on the little bit of information I've seen so far; I think the McCain article in the NYT today was shameful. But I don't think it was done for any political purpose. If that had been the intent, it would have been released just before the New Hampshire primary. Or right before S. Carolina. Or right before Super Tuesday. To release it now, after McCain's nomination is almost assured, but waaaaayyyy before the Nov. general election, seems to be the *least* harmful timing. And since (assuming there is no meat to the story that will come out down-the-road) the article will actually *help* McCain in rallying conservatives to him. [sorry for the semi-hijack of this thread]
If this is actually the first time in her life that she's managed to look up and look around it should be a source of shame to her. People haven't been, UNTIL OBAMA DESCENDED ON A WHITE FLYING PEGASUS, rolling up their sleeves and working to solve problems? Sheesh, what a poltroon Mrs. Obama is; doubly so if she expects people to swallow such tripe.
Their thinking really does seem to be: "Not proud of your country because of Vietnam, Iraq, and all sorts of other evil doings? Just follow Barack and you can be proud again. He will wash away the stains of sin and renew us. {OK, may be I am going too far}"
If McCain and Clinton focus on this stuff, they will lose and lose big.
No, Houston, we are specifically saying that you SHOULD consider EVERYTHING that comes out of Michelle Obama's mouth, and not fetishize a single sound byte because it serves to reinforce your own personal narrative about how Democrats and/or liberals hate the good 'ol US of A all the time. In other words, people do misspeak, and particularly where the misstatement makes absolutely no sense (and let us rejoin the land of the logical here and ask ourselves just what Michelle Obama POSSIBLY had to gain by saying she has never been proud of her country before now...it's ridiculous to even think she meant that, or that she actually believes that), we should perhaps give some credence to the explanation of the misstatement. Particularly where, ahem, it makes perfect sense. But if you want to believe Michelle and Barack are America haters who will hand us all over to the Berkeley City Council the minute he is elected, well, I won't be able to dissuade you.
And that's what separates Democrats from Republicans. Democrats want to feel good about how their candidate makes them feel about themselves, Republicans are much more concerned with their candidate's ideology. Frankly, you sound like you're voting for a class president, not the leader of the free world.
I don't look to the president for inspiration in my personal life - I look for sound rationale policy in an increasingly dangerous world. Keep dreaming about Obama, though, because hHe doesn't have the chops.
You make it sound like somebody who is inspiring cannot also be a good executive. Why do you assume these are two mutually exclusive skillsets?
Personally, I took a pretty hard look at Obama's ideology. For one, he was the only major candidate who did not support the war. McCain, by contrast, wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
That's pretty much game-set-match for a lot of us.
I think that most people who don't like the statement don't really think she meant it literally, even if they sometimes pretend to do so. The key, however, is that it's easier to make a gaffe that's fairly close to your true beliefs than one that isn't. The statement, then, is not a sign that she literally was never proud of her country, but rather as a sign that she's so rarely proud of her country that going from that to never is only a slight exaggeration.
I've never said republicans kill spotted owls.
Seriously--if she thinks the advent of Barak Obama is the first time people started thinking about politics, she can be rightly accused of living in an intellectual bubble.
Commenter longtime reader (rightly) asks "how does that comment affect why anyone should vote for or agains Mr. Obama on the elections"... and the answer is simply "as much as any statement by potential First Ladies affects it". That value obviously differs from person to person. But certainly it's newsworthy, no? At the very least, doesn't the person a candidate chose to live his/her life with tell you something about their underlying character? Or are we back to the "marriage as a business contract" argument again?
If it's a joke, I don't get it.
You're not related to J.F. Thomas, are you?
Malkin, it turns out, has been really proud of her country many times in her adult lifetime
I think that's kind of funny. Malkin wrote a idiotically sanctimonious news story that essentially reported "the sky is blue." Whether you think it's funny or not is really beside the point - which is that I doubt sincerely that he's linking to the Malkin post because he agrees with its tone or content.
BHO refusing to place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.
I think you've done real yeoman's work distilling the important issue down for 28% of the country.
Well then, she's not unpatriotic, she simply hasn't been paying attention. The 2004 election--the same election that got her husband into national office and into the public eye--boasted record turnout not seen since 1968. Apparently it also showed the largest uptick in % voting since 1952 as well.
Are those "large numbers" not enough for the Obamas? Are they clumsily trying to predict even higher turnout in 2008? And if so, I'll offer a bit of free advice based on the demographic polling I have seen: it's always harder to turn the galvanized youth bloc into actual votes than candidates expect.
(For what it's worth, advocacy group spending was at record levels in 2004 as well; obviously not a 1:1 measure of volunteers or enthusiasm, but it certainly belies the premise that the frenzy of activity in 2008 is unprecedented within Mrs. Obama's lifetime.)
It was a subjective statement in which Michelle Obama was clearly trying to express how excited she is and how she thinks this election and the turnout we have seen makes her proud. That's all. No statistical analysis. No rigorous metaphysical claims. No America hating. There's nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I don't assume the two are mutually exclusive, but do note the overwhelming importance that different factions place on different aspects. While my statement perhaps bordered on caricature, Obama's fanbase has played true to form.
>>Personally, I took a pretty hard look at Obama's ideology. For one, he was the only major candidate who did not support the war. McCain, by contrast, wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Good for you - if you do look at the ideology. Frankly, Obama's socialist mantra of feel-good prognostications with no firm basis in appropriate Constitution authority strike many of us as scary and vapid. However, you are mischaracterizing McCain's position here. If I said that Obama wants us to cut and run and lose in Iraq I would be doing the same thing.
Do you know what "socialist" means, or did you read it on a flyer?
Well, if his wife didn't stand up in public and make absurdly dumb statements, there wouldn't be a problem. I suspect your hairline will continue to recede.
Well, by all means then: What is his position on when we're going to get out of Iraq -- and how?
According to the standard Bush response ("when the Iraqis can stand up for themselves"), that amounts to "NEVER", because there is zero progress being made on that front.
I didn't know the figures, all I had was a nagging recollection that 2004 had been a year of record turnout. A quick Google search confirmed it and gave me the numbers, including the % increase stat which I did not previously know.
I am an ordinary American in the private sector. Mrs. Obama is a prominent politician's wife. I certainly don't expect her to have Google's total recall, but I do expect her to temper her enthusiasm--or at least her speeches--or heck, even just the clarifications to her speeches--with a little reality. That also goes for Barak Obama himself, whose comments I was poking at in the last post.
Obviously these data points do not disqualify the man for the job, but it does dovetail remarkably well into the narrative that the Obamas are not yet experienced or knowledgable enough to play national politics, and are blithely peddling change for change's sake.
Yes because he said it was a plot by Karl Rove to distract the public from poverty and people without health insurance. In which case it’s not just his ideology that’s questionable but his sanity as well.
Here is something to consider:
It is now 60 plus years since the end of WWII. U.S. troops are still stationed in Germany.
It is now 50 plus years since the end of the Korean Conflict. U.S. troops are still stationed in Korea.
Were those wars failures? Not worth the fight because of the seemingly endless commitment of military resources in those countries?
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that
you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That
you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort
zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engaged.
Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual uninvolved and uninformed. ( If you doubt me check the audio it starts at about 8:40)
He is going to require us to work and shed our cynicism talk about an expansion of executive powers. Even allowing for the hyperbole of a campaign this is positively fascist.
If this doesn’t disturb you I don’t know what possibly would.
http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=4086
Here is a working definition:
Now it is true that no one in the mainstream of U.S. politics advocates socialsm in toto. But it is also true that many of the left would dearly like to institute a collective control over much of the economy.
Health care is the most egregious example -- what is clearly contemplated by many Democrats is nationalizing the health care system -- some 15% of the U.S. economy.
Are they still being attacked by Germans and Koreans?
How many hundreds of billions of dollars is it costing?
If I remember correctly, Malkin's has objected to citizenship for children of immigrants in two cases:
-- when the "immigrants" are illegal aliens
-- when the family didn't live in America for long and didn't accept American culture
Here's a quote from Malkin about Yaser Esam Hamdi:
"When Hamdi was three, his family went back to Saudi Arabia. For the next two decades, Hamdi was raised in the Saudi kingdom. He spoke their language, not ours. He went to their schools, not ours. He embraced their culture, their religion, and their way of life. Not ours."
While I won't argue for all of those being good standards, it's clear that they are standards that she does herself meet. No inconsistency here.
Which is pretty gutsy coming from a guy who has never held a real job his entire adult life.
So working at a civil rights law firm, or being a state senator, or being a U.S. senator -- none of these are "real jobs" in your opinion?
What's your job?
Bravo, that wins the editing of the day award. Right before that, he talks about the tax credit that is conditioned on the work that you excerpt. In other words, he pays you to work. So, so . . .
SOCIALIST.
The U.S., including the MSM, closed ranks behind the President at the outbreak of hostilities in WWII. That unanimity convinced the enemy that they faced a united opposition. There was no "Dad said no, so I'll go ask Mom."
The tremendous morale boost given to the enemy today by major Democrat politicians constantly trumpeting statements such as, "The war can not be won," and by most of the mainstream media, has convinced the Islamist enemy that their foe is badly divided. Their friends in Congress give them aid and comfort, and are a major reason that the violence -- although it is rapidly de-escalating due to the efforts of our fine soldiers -- still continues.
Support for our troops must be unequivocal once a conflict starts. Politics must end at the water's edge. When the Left -- for its own self-aggrandizing reasons -- refuses to back our soldiers 100%, then they are a big part of the current problem. They will howl at the accusation. But it is the truth. And the truth stings.
Michelle Obama isn't proud of Jesse Jackson's runs for President in 1984 or 1988?
She isn't proud of Bill Clinton defeating an incumbent President Bush 41 on a message of change?
She isn't proud of her own husband's Senate campaign in 2004?
And she isn't proud of the Democrats retaking the House and Senate in 2006?
If you're a liberal Democrat, shouldn't you feel insulted?
So the combat was over 60 years ago, and 7 to 8 years after the U.S. entry.
How long do you propose that we stay in Iraq, while our soldiers are still being killed, and our budget is depleted by hundreds of billions of dollars?
Because it sure looks like that's going to be ongoing for a lot longer than it was in WWII.
I wish you were right, but I don't think you are. Internet irony can be tough to pin down, so I certainly could be wrong. My textual deconstruction turns on "I should also note Michelle Obama's clarification." I just don't think he'd have said "should" if the whole comment was tongue in cheek. Of course this is all highly speculative, but compared to the attributions of Michelle Obama's anti-patriotism, I think we're on pretty solid ground.
Like Kosovo?
You're repeating yourself.
And please, stop with the crocodile tears over U.S. casualties. I believe, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you care not a whit for our soldiers. Pretending to support the troops is simply a Leftist tactic. If you supported our soldiers you would back them 110%. You do not. If we were to precipitously pull out, every American death would have been completely wasted. With victory their deaths will not have been in vain. There is no substitute for victory. Stop the cut 'n' run talk. It increases American casualties.
But obviously, you missed my point (and dodged my question).
I am capable of drawing a distinction between our troops, and the civilian leaders who command them.
I want our troops taken home precisely because I do care for them. And unfortunately, their deaths have already been wasted, because the "victory" you seek is not possible.
To be fair, Obama ran virtually unopposed in 2004. Illinois Republicans got hit by scandals, Jack Ryan dropped out after his divorce records got unsealed by a judge, leaving Alan Keyes to run a laughable challenge with only 1/3 of the campaign season left (yet he somehow managed to get 30% in Chicago dominated IL, which continues to mystify me).
Perhaps Mrs Obama is saying she was unimpressed by her husband's ridiculously easy ride into the political limelight four years ago... but I somehow doubt that was her intent. I suppose that, compared to the relatively "local" election he faced in 2004, she might be getting a little overwhelmed by the nationwide expression of support for Mr. Obama; endearing, but it goes right back to the "lack of national experience" narrative I mentioned above.
Let's amend your list by replacing that item with "When a political flack with an axe to grind took advantage of his wife's CIA position to wangle an investigative assignment to Africa where he learned that President Bush's charge about Saddam trying to buy yellow cake uranium was true, and then deliberately set out to make it look like a lie, thereby stirring up needless partisan acrimony, weakening the security of the US (and the UK) and its international credibility, inspired a lengthy criminal investigation that led to conviction of a dedicated public servant, falsely claimed that the Bush administration was out to persecute him and his family and was deliberately endangering their lives, and then — with his wife — collected lots of money repeating on the lecture circuit by repeating proven lies, all for partisan political purposes.
It must be quite something to go through life with the belief that your own opinions are utterly infallible.
I blame our education system. Or perhaps Condi Rice.
Wolf Pack refers to tactics used by German Submariners.
You are trying to refer to "werewolves" during the occupation period. They were mostly former SS members and Hitler Youth and there has not been one documented case of them killing a single US soldier.
"Antony Beevor and Earl F. Ziemke have argued that Werwolf never amounted to a serious threat, in fact they are regarded by them as barely having existed. This view is supported by the RAND Corporation, which surveyed the history of U.S. occupations with an eye to advising on Iraq. According to a study by former Ambassador James Dobbins and a team of RAND researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany was zero.[2] German historian Golo Mann, in his The History of Germany Since 1789 also states that "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign."[3]"
You might infer that "Kovarsky" is also an eastern european name. Unfortunately, I've got to give anybody that sincerely thinks that Obama is a socialist an F on the kindergarten regime-understanding scale. Regardless of where his family is from.
No, holding a political office or working for a political organization isn’t the same having a “real job,” it’s something you might do after having first worked in the private sector and then only on a temporary basis. Politicians don’t produce, they merely subsist off of the wealth created by those of us in the private sector.
I’m a professional bounty hunter who occasionally gives cello lessons on the weekend for extra income. Can I put you down for next Saturday?
Well, either Barack's clarification of his wife's words (which I hope we can expect him to stand by) was true or it wasn't.
1. It was the first time she was proud of "politics in America."
2. It was the first time she had been proud of the "political system."
I think it's generous to say that a clarification, made after heavy scrutiny by the media, should also be judged with leniency.
This is Obama talking. And he's saying his wife has never, before this race, been proud of politics in America or the political system. That includes, uncontroversially, his own election to Senate in 2004.
It's not an issue of low voter turnout or scandals plaguing his opponents. Was she or was she not proud of her husband's victory in 2004? What about the 2006 Democratic takover? No pride for that either?
As a civil rights lawyer, Obama filed voting rights cases, discrimination claims, etc. I take it you've never worked in civil rights law, if you don't think it's real work.
And he did it for about 6 years, which is more than "temporary".
He's also be a lecturer in constitutional law at U. Chicago law school.
Is teaching constitutional law also "not a real job" in your opinion?
QFT. Though I'd like to know more about his time in a law firm before passing final judgement.
That's OK, I wouldn't want to interfere with your "Battlestar Galactica" viewing.
There's this thing called Google.
Everything was cool until you talked smack about Battlestar Galactica.
Cyon!
So, only continuing our engagement in Iraq at current levels, with all the attendant deaths, casualties and other costs, until some indeterminate point in the future (you'll let us know when), constitutes "victory?" And anything short of "victory" (as you define it) at any cost, regardless of intervening information or events that might make the costs unsustainable or grossly excessive to the potential gains, robs the sacrifices by all our dead and injured soldiers of any value whatsoever? And anyone who reaches a different conclusion, who doesn't believe it's in our national interest to pursue this victory (as you define it) without regard to the future cost in lives, injuries, strain on military infrastructure and piling debt burden, doesn't care at all about the troops?
Where do you get the nerve to wrap yourself in the flag and question the loyalty and motives of most Americans, many having (or having family members who) served in Iraq, and most of whom care about the troops every bit as much as you claim to? Despite being a liberal Democrat, I happen to support the surge, and I happen to disagree with the positions of both Democratic candidates on Iraq, but I don't pretend to know for certain which course will ultimately be the most or least harmful to our security, to the troops, to the Iraqis or to anything else that matters. But I believe very strongly that demagoguery like yours is tearing apart the social fabric of our country, and I reject it from the left, right or otherwise.
No, it doesn't. It raises tons of questions. Why are the other people in the photo standing with their backs to the flag? I don't believe it is customary to salute the flag while showing it your backside. What was the occasion? Was it perhaps the playing of the national anthem? Is it obligatory to put one's hand over the heart while listening to the national anthem? Or it is acceptable just to stand at respectful attention, as Senator Obama appears to be doing in the picture? What happened just before this picture was taken? Just after? You smear artists will have to answer a whole lot of questions like these before I accept the ntion that a major candidate for president of the United States refuses to salute the flag--and his refusal hasn't been plastered across all the newspapers in the country. Give me a break! This is despicable.
Not only is it socially obligatory to put one's hand over their heart during the national anthem, it's federal law.
Sorry buddy. You lose.
On the other hand, if Martinxyz and Co. are correct in suspecting your goal was subtle irony, the point of order is withdrawn.
And please define the outcomes that would constitute "victory". We could kill all the insurgents turning the country into a radioactive waste heap, but that would hardly be an outcome worth having.
I hereby diagnose these idiots to be sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Oh dear. Now that pitchers and catchers have reported, it is only a matter of time before the massive arrests. Good catch, J. Edgar Pluribus!
Me: No, you're not. Here's proof.
Other people like left-right left-right and loki13: OH MY GOD YOU WANT OBAMA TO BE ARRESTED!
Dudes, this is not hard. When someone makes a valid criticism, you come back and scream that it's invalid.
When we offer support for the criticism, you offer strawmen to attack us.
No one's saying Obama needs to be arrested. But is it possible, just possible, that a rational voter could base a portion his/her decision on something like public displays of patriotism? I think so.
That you don't is convenient for your support of Obama. But don't attack the motives of the people who make valid criticisms.
I don’t see why you felt the need to include “etc” as Obama has only actually been involved as an attorney in three cases his entire legal “career.” And by “involved” I mean “had his name listed somewhere on the case” which doesn’t take much for even a first or second-year associate.
For the first years he was an actual associate attorney until he was elected to the legislature. After which he spent the remaining three being listed “of counsel” which enabled the firm to associate themselves with a State legislator who was basically a “lawyer in name only.”
Read: they wanted a State legislator to teach a fluff class on the weekend or evenings.
Depends on the quality of the instructor and the course. For example, a “lecturer” without any publications in the area of constitutional law, is probably just there to give a lecture (or God forbid “lead a discussion”) and pick up a check.
'Japanese Americans' Unlike the current touchy-feely times, was accurate nomenclature - the majority were duel nationals, the majority of those refused to renounce their loyalty to Japan. Hence they were enemy POWs.
Unless one believes, deep in one's heart, that Germany allowed the English, Russians, and Poles to wander their streets unmolested, as did Japan to the Americans and Australians in Its occupied PI?
Rational voter? Valid criticism? Your criticism is as valid as the views of "psychologists" who read into celebrities' body language in paparazzi photos. "Tom is leading Katie by the hand. He's controlling her life!" "Brad is pointing his chin downward, meaning he's very depressed. He and Angelina must be getting a divorce!"
"I think he's unpatriotic because of a frame-grab from a TV show" is beyond laughable. Get over your ODS before it's too late.
i can assure that those in the U Chicago Law faculty and administration would take issue with your characterization of Obama's teaching responsibilities there.
as for the rest, whatever, think what you think.
Can anyone clear this up?
And let me add a bit of info to the discussion. In the last years or so, I have seen polls that found that roughly 20-25 percent of Americans did not think this was basically a good country. Most of the people holding that opinion were Democrats. If Michelle Obama is in that group -- a plausible assumption -- one can understand why she said what she did, though she may not have meant it literally.
Those who think this is a winning strategy for the Democrats may want to (1) look at how quickly Obama "corrected" his wife, and (2) review the 1992 presidential election.
it wasn't off the cuff. she delivered three speeches around the same time that expressed a roughly similar sentiment (although the widely reported version is the most extreme).
You've gone so far as to diagnose me with a derangement disorder. If there are any false psychologists here, I think it would be you dude.
And it's also you who's asserting that it's a single frame grab with no other evidence. Snopes has the video man.
It's time to give up.
You can vote for Obama. But I think the vast majority of people in this country will think twice before pulling the lever who clearly doesn't think public displays of patriotism are important. Welcome to America.
Um, have you never heard of Charles Krauthammer's Bush Derangement Syndrome?
And it's also you who's asserting that it's a single frame grab with no other evidence. Snopes has the video man.
Whoop-de-do, guess you didn't read the rest of the Snopes entry?
So he did it some other times, BFD. Can you now explain how in the hell this matters to anything going on in the world?
But I think the vast majority of people in this country will think twice before pulling the lever who clearly doesn't think public displays of patriotism are important. Welcome to America.
I'm of the belief that people have become quite tired of mere "public displays of patriotism" when those who so loudly declare their patriotism blunder and lie into wars of choice, institute regimes of torture, and declare the president above the Constitution.
But what do I know? I must hate America because, to me, someone's patriotism isn't determined by their hand's placement during the anthem.
Perhaps the answers to a similar question by the people who ran previous wars would be a help. I wonder Clinton, Bush, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Wilson, McKinley, Lincoln, Polk, and Madison answer the question egarding their particular wars?
Do we still have troops in Kosovo?
More of the same. I answer your args and you come out with more strawmen. No thanks. Just face a wall and shout words at it. There's at least a chance you will win that argument.
Sad.
I rather doubt it because admitting that someone with no previous teaching experience or scholarship in the subject matter was qualified to teach something other than a fluff class (“Current Issues in Racism &the Law” puhleaze) would be like Dan Rather having to admit that any of the guys from Powerline or LGF could probably do his job just as well as he could.
To bad he can't understand the basics of the constitution.
<i>I rather doubt it because admitting that someone with no previous teaching experience or scholarship in the subject matter was qualified to teach something other than a fluff class (“Current Issues in Racism &the Law” puhleaze) would be like Dan Rather having to admit that any of the guys from Powerline or LGF could probably do his job just as well as he could.</i>
Uh, I know the people that worked with him, some rather well. Also, he was there BEFORE he was a state senator. He was there after HLS when he was writing dreams of my father. You don't know what you're talking about.
I’m not sure how much of an issue that is when you’re asked to teach “Current Issues in Racism &the Law.”
It would be interesting to compare the fist time pass rate of people who have taken such classes with those who have not.
"Does a course like “Current Issues in Racism &the Law” help one pass the bar exam? Are there other courses that would be more helpful in passing the bar? If we give the most helpful course a rank of 10 based on it's benefit in passsing the bar, what rank would be given to “Current Issues in Racism &the Law?”
This sounds like the utilitarian aspect of communist education. All knowledge is for purpose! Credentials are more important than merit! What narrow and disappointing agenda.
I'd rather go to U Chicago than any school that would associate with the anti-intellectual strand of thinking of the preening Elliot123.
Don't you dare question her/their patriotism--and anyway, American patriotism is childish, misplaced, fascistic, and racist.
I rather doubt it’s on the bar exam, even in Illinois. Con Law I (commerce clause) and Con Law II (First Amendment) are usually covered though. It sounds more like the “cultural studies” and “feminist perspective” courses that are generally regarded as a joke at the undergraduate level. They’re not about serious academic scholarship but rather about political indoctrination based along lines of
Remember, Obama admitted that his decision to vote against the Roberts confirmation was because he didn’t think Roberts had the proper empathy for what it was like to be a teenage mom. That’s the best this “constitutional law professor” could come up with and it gives you a pretty good idea about what a vapid excuse for a lecturer he must have been and why he wasn’t trusted with any of the important subjects. After all if your administrative law or civil procedure professor isn’t up to snuff, it could put you at a disadvantage both on the bar exam and in practice. But if the law school equivalent of a “cultural studies in the law” turns out to be a flake, what did you really expect?
I rather doubt it’s on the bar exam, even in Illinois. Con Law I (commerce clause) and Con Law II (First Amendment) are usually covered though. It sounds more like the “cultural studies” and “feminist perspective” courses that are generally regarded as a joke at the undergraduate level. They’re not about serious academic scholarship but rather about political indoctrination based along lines of
Remember, Obama admitted that his decision to vote against the Roberts confirmation was because he didn’t think Roberts had the proper empathy for what it was like to be a teenage mom. That’s the best this “constitutional law professor” could come up with and it gives you a pretty good idea about what a vapid excuse for a lecturer he must have been and why he wasn’t trusted with any of the important subjects. After all if your administrative law or civil procedure professor isn’t up to snuff, it could put you at a disadvantage both on the bar exam and in practice. But if the law school equivalent of a “cultural studies in the law” turns out to be a flake, what did you really expect?
Then why did you quote from a federal statute that says "should" and not "must," and that merely prescribes flag etiquette? Are you claiming that Obama didn't follow appropriate etiquette? Omigod, next thing you'll be telling us that he uses the wrong fork to eat his crab cocktail!
Do you have anything other than one photo showing him standing at respectful attention while the anthem is being played to demonstrate that Obama is not patriotic? If you want to come off as a rational voter, you'll have to submit something more rational than that.
This year's process sucks lemons, when a guy with support from a minority of the GOP can get the presidential nomination. Liberal Democrats aren't with me on that one, either.
Sometimes it is.
Replace "biblical" with "socialist" and you're right on target.
The antipathy that he generates, though, is no answer to valid criticism of his policies, beliefs, and advisers. There's a lot more to worry about than whether he neglected to place his hand over his heart, or whether his wife made some ill considered and possibly self-centered remark. Does anyone think that anyone who is undecided about Senator Obama will be swayed by what his wife did or did not mean, or when she has or has not been proud of the U.S.?
I think the lawyers and law profs on this site will back me up when I say that law school is a decidedly different beast, with a different purpose, than the colleges who still hew to the idea of producing a quasi-Renaissance Man. Same with medical school, vocational schools, and trade shops, for that matter. Nothing Communist or utilitarian about it.
And at the risk of being incorrectly labelled a racist, I'll point out that the name of the class in question, combined with his work as a civil rights attorney, combined with the tone of his books, all points to Obama holding a very distinct mindset. The polite way to put it is "Obama is very heavily invested in identity politics". The unpolite way to put it would be to quote some of Bill Clinton's recent comments.
From the LA Times. I'm not techy enough to get the link to work.
She talks about how brilliant he is and often implies that voters would be crazy not to vote for her husband, calling him "the only rational choice." She calls his candidacy a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to be graced with a man like him."
Graced? Wow! I doubt even Hillary thought we were graced to be with Bill. Who am I kidding, she probably did.
"We don't need a world full of corporate attorneys and hedge-fund managers," she told a crowd in a Baptist church in Cheraw, S.C., last month. "But see, that's the only way you can pay back your educational debt!
Now she's plagarizing Hillary with the "Hedge fund managers" talk.
Story from Dealbook, NY TImes. Again, not techy enough to get the link to work.
You fall into the same trap as your friend LRLR. You two should find each other and create an echo chamber. Then you can finally say you convinced someone.
1. Your first question is nonsensical. You said it's ok not to stand for the national anthem. I cited a federal statute that says you should.
The natural argument, apparently, for crazy people is that I want to arrest Obama. And your argument in support? That my statute says "should" and not "must."
Uh, ok. Isn't "should" less indicative of a desire to arrest Obama than would be "must"? I think so.
2. That photo isn't "all I have." As the other commenters have discussed, there are several instances where Obama and his wife have questionable track records on public displays of patriotism.
Now, it's fine that you don't care about that. That works well for you. You can stomach a vote for Obama.
But the vast majority of Americans like to see their politicians praising America and publicly displaying their affection for the country. You are an exception. That's fine.
But don't pretend that you're view is the majority one.
Boy, do you need some straightening out.
1. If another poster agrees with me here, it doesn't weaken my argument, it strengthens it.
2. The strength of my argument doesn't depend on whether I convince you or anybody else. It depends on my own argument.
3. You cited the federal statute. I merely pointed out that it does not impose a requirement. It's a rule of flag etiquette.
4. It wasn't me that asked whether you wanted to "arrest" Obama. Another poster quite rationally pointed out that would be the consequence of "disobeying" a law. But of course Obama hasn't "disobeyed" any law.
5. You say the photo isn't "all you have," but you haven't submitted anything more. Expect me to trust you when you say you have more? Please let us see "what you have."
6. You don't know what I feel or think or believe about patriotism and it's peurile for you to insinuate that you do. I'll tell you one thing, when people accuse others of lack of patriotism without any rational basis for doing so, I suspect the accusers of being scoundrels. (Thank you, Dr. Johnson.)
7. You say I can "stomach a vote for Obama." Again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Who I vote for, whether I have made up my mind yet about who I'll vote for, or anything else about my voting habits happens to me a private matter with me. Is that OK with you?
8. You say I don't like to see politicians "praising America and publicly displaying their affection for the country." Again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Have you see the flag flying in front of my house on national holidays? Well, drive by some day and check it out.
9. You claim to know what "the majority" of Americans think about patriotism. Hey, why don't you wait until the votes have been cast and see what the majority of Americans think about anonymous unsubstantiated attacks on a candidate's patriotism before you claim victory. Again I smell a scoundrel. (Thanks you again Dr. Johnson.)
1. Not really. Two people saying false things doesn't make them stronger. Or, I'll put it in your own terms "OH MY GOD. I can't believe you're saying that whenever 2 people say the same thing, they're automatically right."
Yeah, see how strawmen aren't persuasive?
2. Yes, I agree. And your arguments are woefully lacking.
3. Yes but you foolishly said it was evidence that I wanted to arrest Senator Obama. Not even you believed that when you wrote it. Shameful.
4. You're changing your position. People are supposed to put their hands over their hearts during the national anthem. That Obama didn't isn't grounds for arrest. It's grounds for people to vote against him. Re-read my posts before responding. It will save you time.
5. You clearly haven't been reading what you've been criticizing. The post is about Michelle Obama. And I posted the Snopes video of Obama's failure to put his hand over his heart.
Way to reveal your ignorance about the very subject you're debating.
6. Is this a young child I'm arguing with online?
Of course I can say you don't care about public displays of patriotism. This has been your point from the beginning.
7. I said you can stomach a vote for Obama. That appears to be true. I have no idea who you're actually voting for.
This is getting old, isn't it?
8. Non-sequitor.
9. I have to wait till November to offer any opinions on the predilections of Americans? I can't even base my opinions on previous elections or personal experience?
That seems like a terrible rule. Especially when you claim that people don't care about less-than-patriotic actions. How do you know? Wait till November, then you can talk.
I'm done. You can respond with more random attacks and crazy inferences, but I won't continue to engage someone so willing to embarrass themselves in public.
Thanx for reminding us of Obama's own statement:And pluribus:I've already posted two different photos [one linked right in my reply to you. Are you awake?]; and wt posted a video. So go ahead, try moving those goal posts one more time. Because moving the goal posts is all that Obama's apologists have at this point.
BHO is half Kenyan. Maybe he's half patriotic, and only honors the National Anthem half the time. [A sure test of whether he was wrong will be the next time the Anthem is played. If he's a man of principle, strong in his convictions, he won't put his hand over his heart. Let's observe him, shall we?]
If Obama is as smart as Oprah says ["He's brilliant! He is brilliant! He's brilliant! Brilliant!"], then it is damn hard to understand why he would give such a slap in the face to our National Anthem in front of a national audience. But that's exactly what he did, and all the bloviating from his apologists will not make any difference. [You want to really make a difference? Try photoshopping those pix. heh].
Obama states that he knew -- from age 2 -- that he is to place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. The fact that he very deliberately refused to do so tells us plenty about his lack of patriotism -- and that he shares his wife's his disdain for America.
Finally, after reading Thorley's post above, could anyone not suspect that Affirmative
RacismAction is the primary reason Mr O got into Harvard, over students with better transcripts? Not one course is in the hard sciences. Or even economics [let's ask this brilliant guy to explain the difference between backwardation and contango]. Rather, the courses appear to be explicitly designed for a student who was originally accepted via affirmative action, to now teach softball courses with emotion-laden words like ...problems in American race relations... promote minority voices, or simply segregate them... structuring the race debate... approaches to racism... the continued prevalence of racism in society... incidents of racism... discrimination on the basis of race...None of this would matter much [well, except for dissing the American Flag], but Obama and his supporters keep insisting on the fact that he's 'brilliant.'
Prove it.
I'd rather go to U Chicago than any school that would associate with the anti-intellectual strand of thinking of the preening Elliot123."
I have never encountererd a lawyer who didn't have a utilitarian purpose in going to law school. Perhaps you tell us about some?
On one thing we do agree. I would never go to any law school that associated with my preening anti-intellectual thinking. I'd prefer one that prepared one to pass the bar and have a successful legal career.
So, would you recommend CURRENT ISSUES IN RACISM &THE LAW. 54302 for the utilitarian student whose primary focus is on passing the bar? I wonder if the subject matter is included in those bar exam prep courses?
Don't you know anything? Democratic presidents are always brilliant, subtle, sophisticated, and well-intentioned. Republican presidents are always stupid, primitive, and evil.
This elaborate computer program detects that you have nothing worthwhile to post, no facts to discuss, and no clue.
Carry on.
You really like ad hominen arguments, don't you?
Whew! All of this is one post, and all supposedly inspired by patriotism! Dr. Johnson really knew what he was talking about. I appreciate your promise to disengage.
Don't forget "nuanced". Democrats are big on nuance. It sounds so...French!
Trust him, and everything will be fine. Promise!
Maybe the claim of brilliance is what one uses when there is nothing else? On the other hand, maybe it is a coat tails effect. We all agree we are brilliant, so it's our place to confer brilliance on another.
I am surprised that you failed to place the Michelle Obama quote into it's proper context within what she said that day, and instead just focused on her explanations afterward. This isn't about support for any candidate, it is instead an appeal for truth, and further indication that contemporary conservatism has become a blight upon this nation. This whole incident has been shameful with its hyperbole and half truths.
Here is a transcript of what Michelle Obama actually said. It is my transcription from this online video, so if there are errors and/or typos, they are my fault. I would submit that contemporary conservatives are afraid to investigate what Michelle Obama was attempting to convey that day:
For this O'Reilly spoke of a need to investigate, in an effort to discern if a lynching was warranted? Conservatives should investigate inward into the present manifestation of their own dogma, before the Nation finds it necessary to release the hounds, and take them to ground.
It's fine if you believe that the USA is a major obstacle to your vision of a one-world, socialist utopia. You just have no business being President if you do.
Your loud clamoring about Obama being half-patriotic (hmm, wonder what kind of reference you were going for there?) is revealed to be what it is: nonsense.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear about Obama's patriotism.
I'm sure he's 100% patriotic: 50% to Kenya, 50% to the U.S.A.
Or, maybe 50% to the UN/EU, 50% to America...
Two relevant observations:
1. Obama will never be 100% pro-America
2. Obama will never fail to put hand to heart between now and 11/08.
I'm taking bets.
Not fair? You're the anti-American, why should anyone be fair to you?
So sorry you got your panties in a knot. My condolences.
I'm still taking bets: Odumbo will never fail to put his hand over his heart between now and the second Tuesday in November [assuming that he's the candidate. Otherwise, no bet]. See, I think he's an unpatriotic hypocrite deep down.
Wanna bet?
How could anyone who professes Christian faith, and this assuredly includes Michelle Malkin, speak in glowing terms of their own pride. Is this not apostasy?
Nope, but you did manage to demonstrate that you are no more a biblical scholar than Obama is a constitutional scholar.