Obama at the Wall:
As regular readers know, I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but I am enjoying thinking about how pictures like this one are playing in "white nationalist" circles.
Oh, and kudos to the member of the Obama advance team who supplied him with a nice-looking kippah, instead of the typical cardboard or black "funeral" ones visitors typically get.
UPDATE: McCain also had a nice kippah for his visit to the wall. Bush, however, had a dorky one, looks like a kids' size.
Senator Barack Obama made a pre-dawn visit to the Western Wall before leaving for Germany.
Wonder what headgear he'd consider appropriate for his next stop? Perhaps a jaunty cap with a death's head or a couple of stylized lightning bolts?
If you are, does the same reasoning extend to McCain and Bush?
Of course it doesn't. McCain and Bush are true believers. BHO is merely a pretender taking advantage of the faithful when it is politically expedient.
--PtM
True believers in what? Judaism? And if so, is it a bad thing that they're fleecing the goys by pretending to be Christians?
It's hard to know exactly what your point is, but it seems to rooted in ignorance about current relations between Israel and Germany:
Amazingly enough, Israelis actually remember what happened. But they also know Germany has changed a lot.
:siren: OBAMA PLACES MUSLIM PRAYER IN WESTERN WALL :siren:
Kippa , Yarmulke
In my youth in Boston to support my endeavors I worked in a deli &found the customers would refer to the kitchen help as svatzas , in this instance of headdress questioning I wonder if the lack of cultural understanding or Yiddish is in play
Interesting there was no mention of the protests against the chosen one.
Well done.
I'm enjoying thinking about how pictures like this one is playing in "black liberationist" circles like TUCC, Obama's spiritual home for the past two decades.
Oh and FYI, the kippah was to cover up those always hard-to-hide horns.
Also not pictured: A small slip of paper slipped into a crack in the wall by Mr. Obama on which was written, simply, "Please God,let them buy it for four more months, thats all I ask!"
At last night's KKK meeting, we were getting ready to endorse Obama but then this photo surfaced. Now, we are so disillusioned. We thought he was a different kind of politician.
Why is it considered "respecting" a person's religion to pretend you are in their faith when you are not? If you are Christian and visiting a Jewish holy site, you should dress according to your faith and not that other persons, except that some basic reverence should be shown. In other words, don't wear crocks. :-) But when I want to show respect I wear a suit. That's all that is necessary.
And, btw, if Pelosi really wanted to "play the part" she would have put on a burqa.
http://www.vanitykippah.com/the-obamica.html
When I visited the Old New Synagogue in Prague, we had to wear kippah to enter.
--PtM
This is silly.
Is it pretending when I (not Jewish) wear a yarmulke at a Jewish friend's wedding? I do it out of respect for my friend's faith and the solemnity of the occasion. Imagine the outcry if Obama went to the Wall without wearing the kippah.
WTF?
The Western Wall is a holy site for both Jews and Muslims. Why is the burqa more appropriate? Or is this a subtle way of saying that Pelosi is an enemy of the United States and should have been wearing terrorist garb? If that's the case, then why not complain that Obama isn't wearing a keffiyeh?
--PtM
I simply detest pols
who play to the cameras during an election.FIFY.
--PtM
Frankly, I am happy to see him there. It might help him understand how the Jews feel about Jerusalem.
I know the Jewish custom is for men to have their heads covered. Is there any reason the covering should be a kippa?
In mosques in Turkey, I always covered my head and removed my shoes, and I had a strong sense that this was what was expected. Catholics would expect non-Catholic males to remove any head covering in a church or chapel. But we make an exception for Jews and Muslims whose practice it is to cover their heads. Our sense is that this is how they would show respect for a house of God in their own tradition, so that is appropriate for them in our churches.
So what to do? It was hard to keep my head covered, since there's a strong /habitual/ tendency when a Christian becomes aware that he has something on his head in a house of worship to quickly doff it as a sign of respect.
Huh?
I'm Jewish. When I go to a church for some reason I bow my head for the prayers like everyone else and I don't wear a yamulke. I'm not pretending to be Christian, just, IMO, acting respectfully.
What's the alternative? A ten-gallon hat? A Yankees cap? A fedora or a bowler might be a bit more acceptable, but it seems like almost anything other than a kippah would look sort of ridiculous and might possibly come off as disrespectful. Plus, I assume that kippot are provided at the site for visitors.
I fully understand that it would be offensive if I did not do these things, but I am with several other commentators in not understanding why. (Except the no shoes rule. I get that I would destroy the "cleanliness" of the mosque, believer or no.)
But why would it be offensive not to cover my head in a Temple, or bow it in a church? Why is pretending considered respectful?
I'm having trouble thinking of reasons. Perhaps because it is distracting if I don't? If I refuse to bow my head people notice and then cannot focus on their own prayers.
Maybe that's the answer, but it seems weak.
The Western Wall plaza is a synagogue, and it would be disrespectful for a man to approach it bareheaded.
Houston Lawyer, no, there's nothing special about a kippah; its only advantage is practical - it's small and lightweight, compared to any other kind of headgear. But it carries no particular religious significance.
But crocs are a basic part of my religious tradition...
Seriously, I cannot fault Obama for showing respect by covering his head. I certainly would when I visit the Western Wall. In fact, I am shocked he set aside his self-importance for a minute-- if only for the selfish reason of a photo-op.
First of all, and I don't intend to be offensive, but you sound pretty silly when you talk about "militant" atheists. That phrase gets strung together all the time without thinking about it.
Yes, I am an atheist. (I've never been in the military, I've never knocked on someone's door to convert them, and I've never harmed someone because they didn't agree with me, so I'll drop the word "militant".) I wouldn't say that I recognize NO power higher than myself - I think that I have to do what the police tell me to, for example - but I would not consider God to be a power higher than myself because I think there is no God.
I still don't think you answered my question. I don't believe in God. You know that I don't. Why is it considered "respectful" for me to pretend that I do while in a church/temple/mosque? Why is it disrespectful when I do not pretend?
I think it's the same reason that polite people do not comment on their food dislikes at dinner as a guest. There's no need to bring attention to a point that may be offensive at that time and place. Mentioning to the host that you are a vegetarian in passing a week or so prior is a different thing.
Not that it matters, but I'm an atheist too, but I have religious family members and I do my best to be quiet and respectful during prayers or if I'm in a church or synagogue. Reciprocally, they do their best not to draw attention to my lack of belief. Politeness all around.
They, too, understand that HE IS THE MESSIAH!
An hour with Olmert and he is an expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict? I spent more time than that in Target yesterday!
Its funny how we try to be respectful of other people's faiths. When I was in the military, I was a groomsman and the organizer of a sword arch, where the groom walks under swords held by his peers outside the church. It was a Catholic Church, and I briefed the other members of the sword arch detail to not bring their swords into the sanctuary, but to leave them in the entrance vestibule, as I had read that weapons in a church would be disrespectful. Well an hour before the ceremony, the priest cruises by, sees the swords, grabs one, and starts acting out a scene from the Princess Bride, up and down the pews - he was pretty funny. One of the guys turns to me and says "does this mean we can wear the swords?"
Given any thought to how this is playing in black racist circles (and you will not I did not use the ironic quote marks around the phrase black racist)? Plenty of Zionist conspiracy thought amongst the likes of Wright, Sharpton, and Farrakhan. Oh wait, those guys are smart enough to know that this is just a cynical ploy to placate Jewish voters so Obama can get elected.
Bush's kippah is not as much "dorky" as it is a sign of "outsider". The same would apply to anyone wearing any sort of satin kippah or most non-black velvet kippot. That's not really a problem, since he's clearly not a Jew, but it would be more of a faux pas for a Jewish official.
Obama's kippah is difficult to discern. My first impression is that it is white suede, which would probably say "outsider" but not to the same extent. It is possible that it is satin, but it doesn't sit on his head like a satin kippah was. It's also possible that it's knit, but the reflection off of the edge suggests to me that's not the case.
McCain's kippah is the most interesting to me. It's clearly a knit kippah- in Israeli parlance a srugi or a kippah srugah. You can see a larger example in this picture of Barak Obama, on the man to his right, the picture's left. Srugim are generally associated with the Religious Zionist movement. Members of the National Religious Party would typically wear srugim, as would religious members of Likud. I'm not sure that McCain's wearing that kippah is meant as a show of solidarity with that community, but it could be.
No we don't. You've been listening to the 'Mamas and the Papas' again, haven't you?
DG--But the priest was acting out the swashbuckling scene in the knave, and not in the sanctuary.
But while I'm getting technical, the swords were actually left in the narthex--where we kept the catechumens many long years ago. Until the 14th Century came along and ruined everything.
"Vestibule" can be used without causing confusion. But we RC's tend to lean toward the Medieval terms for church architecture.
And, besides, isn't "narthex" one of the coolest words there is?
Mr. X:
If a friend brought me to church it would be exactly like taking a vegetarian to a churrascaria. I guess my friend/stranger distinction would still apply though.
Hoosier, I got the joke.
Um, no. Covering one's head at a jewish holy site is not pretending to be jewish. It's a sign of respect. If you enter a mosque you remove your shoes. Doesn't mean you are pretending to be muslim.
It's a decorum thing.
When I visited Costa Rica I got REALLY funny looks because I was wearing shorts in the city. that is totally inappropriate (I learned).
At the beach, you can wear shorts no shirt, no problem. And wimmins can wear da thong.
I was not pretending to be costa rican by wearing long pants in the city.
You can respect basic rules of decorum w.o pretending ANYTHING except that you have manners. Lord forbid
You need not pretend. Jews believe the uncovered head is disrespectful in the synagogue because the talmud says to cover one's head inthe presence of the lord.
You are not tacitly saying you even believe in god, by wearing the head covering. You are respecting others by not causing them to believe god's law is being broken in their house of worship.
Iow, assume that god doesn't exist and/or you don't believe in him, or don't believe in the jewish god- god of abraham and.or that the talmud has any validity. What HARM is there in covering your head? none.
Manners are about doing for OTHERS, not for your own selfishness.
Manners are about respecting others. You are not saying "I am respecting god" (necessarily). You are saying "I respect that you believe that it's disrespectful not to cover my head, so I will do it out of respect for YOU".
If god exists, he thanks you. If not, you still respected other people, and how is that a bad thing?
Thus, respect to the Jewish deity is respect to the Christian deity. Jews may disagree, but it's perfectly reasonable for Obama to adopt the local custom showing respect to God.
If the Slobovians believe that you show respect to God by wearing a Budweiser T-shirt, then that too would be respectful of Obama on a visit to a holy site in Slobovia.
I don't have a problem with it, and I don't know an atheist that does. (Take Christopher Hitchens, a "militant" atheist if such a thing were to exist. He wrote in God is Not Great that "When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head. I once even observed the etiquette of an ashram in India, though this was a trial to me.")
My question was why it is considered disrespectful not to do these things, and I think there have been some decent answers to that.
Interesting how you're trying to make something out of almost nothing. Let's review how the Israeli press handled these so-called "protests."
The Jerusalem Post is here. I can't find any mention of any "protests." Can you? Haaretz is here. I can't find any mention of any "protests." Can you? Those are the two major Israeli papers that have an English edition.
israelinsider is reliably right-wing and anti-Obama. Here's what they said about "protests:"
Wow. One guy yelling an ambiguous slogan. Some "protests."
Arutz Sheva is reliably right-wing and anti-Obama. Here's what they said about "protests:"
Wow. One guy yelling an ambiguous slogan. Some "protests."
I'm guessing that you're been spending too much time reading Malkin, who ran this headline:
Her evidence? The Times of London, which ran this headline:
What does that article actually say? This:
Wow. One guy yelling an ambiguous slogan. Some "protests."
Now, we all know the liberal American press would not even mention that one guy yelling. Oops, they did:
Wow. One guy yelling an ambiguous slogan. Some "protests." But at least he had a "booming voice."
Oh yes. There was also some kind of news conference, where certain organizations demanded that Obama "express unequivocal support for the unification of Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty" (link, link). As far as I can tell, jpost and haaretz both decided this "news conference" wasn't newsworthy enough to even mention.
Let us know if you have any actual evidence of actual "protests." As it is, you look like someone who likes to make things up. Along with Malkin and some other folks.
I resemble your insinuation.
I attend chuch basically every Sunday and I never bow during prayer. It's never caused a problem and you get to look at all the other people who aren't bowing.
Indeed, I've never understood the idea of closing one's idea during common prayer. If you really wanted to be focusing on the prayer you should be looking at the speaker. Did you close your eyes and bow your head during college lectures?
And by the way, why has his visits to the Palestinians been basically blacked out by the media. I would like to see pictures of him hanging with Abbas, who Obama clearly equates as an equal to Israel and very likely prefers over Israel.
Yes, people who pray should really be more open-minded.
Sorry, but we seem to be on a roll.
Good point. Especially since papers in Israel (like jpost and haaretz) have been giving that angle lots of coverage. You just have to look for it very, very closely. Let me know when you find any. While you're at it, see if you can find any at faux.
Then again, if we look at a right-wing source like israelinsider, their home page currently has headlines like this:
- Obama heckled as he makes pre-dawn visit to Kotel in Jerusalem's Old City
- Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
- Breaking the Contiguous Code: Obama's Anti-Israel Message
So surely that page also covers Obama's "visits to the Palestinians," right? Oh my goodness. It's been "blacked out by the media," even there.
But surely Obama's "visits to the Palestinians" hasn't also been "blacked out" at the Arutz Sheva home page (another right-wing source). Uh oh. It has. I guess the conspiracy against the Zionist conspiracy is even more insidious than we feared.
And here's some further proof that the world has been turned completely upside-down. Someone has infiltrated NYT and forced them to report on the Obama-Abbas meeting, complete with a photo of the two of them.
And even CBS News mentioned (ahead of time) that this meeting was planned.
Hopefully you can help us make sense of these bizarre and troubling developments.
So am I behaving "militantly" when I sit, rather than kneel when I attend Catholic services and others kneel?
Many, many times. At least until I learned that the chairs in the library were more comfortable...
No, I believe you are still being respectful. The key is to be respectful of those around you in a religious setting. If you stood up and looked around (drawing attention to yourself) then you would be acting disrespectful.
Hoosier,17 points in Scrabble, an extra 50 if you play all of those letters in one turn.
The F@#king nerve of these freaks!
The wall has been pimped out for a photo-op.
I DEMAND UMBRAGE BE TAKEN!
This does not bother me, but on the Wall would be disrespectful -- and is what I thought you meant.
Like JoshL I think that McCain's knitted kippa is significant.
On a different note, is the Temple Mount currently open to non-Muslim visitors? Did Obama decline to go there?
I think you do.
I am an atheist raised in a catholic country, and I remain standing while other people kneel in catholic services. I would not kneel because it would feel going from respectful to hypocritical, but sitting feels to me going to the other extreme.
Sorry, you're too late. The guy with the "booming voice" was already seen leaving with the last umbrage.
Anyway, you haven't even mentioned the other problem with those Obama signs: they're not in English. Why does Obama hate America?
OK-- Now that IS rude. If you don't kneel--and Catholic or not, you don't have to--please sit. It makes it difficult for people to see the altar if someone a pew or so in front of them is standing up. And we are expected to be prayerfully participating in the Mass.
Atheists have no rule against sitting, right?
(Unless I misread you: The lower case "c" in "catholic" may mean simply that you sometimes attend eclectic, theologically vague services. In which case I suppose you are expected to do whatever you want.)
Why, he loves America so much that he is only now getting around to learning about much of the rest of the world. Hell, he hasn't even visited his SFRC subcommittee.
I wonder if that's what made him claim yesterday to be on (chaiman of?) the Banking Committee: He just loves this country too much to think about others (?).
I make it a policy to never blend in anywhere lest people think I belong.
That's why I'm a Unitarian.
It seems to be a form of protest - making it apparent to all that you disagree with their beliefs.
Which is pretty much risk-free when you're dealing with Catholics!
I don't think I've ever been the only one standing at any service I've ever attended, there is always several other ones.
In Catholic services (capital C) there are portions that you sit, portions in which you stand and portions in which you kneel. I stand when people stand, sit when people sit and remain standing when peole kneel.
And i've been in services in pretty cool places all the way and up to St. Peter, and i've never been the only one standing. However I don't recall people sitting while others kneel (unless you are old or infirm, but then you don't stand either)
I see what you did there.
You're repeating a talking point that McCain used. But as usual, the old man is having a hard time getting his facts straight. McCain said this:
Yes, "Obama is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's 11-member Subcommittee on European Affairs." But trouble is, "that subcommittee doesn't have direct oversight of Afghanistan, as the McCain statement suggests. … According to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' membership and jurisdiction guide, Afghanistan would fall under the authority of another committee."
That text is from here. More on this here. McCain is picking up an attack Hillary tried to use. With great success, obviously.
Anyway, the whole thing is exceedingly ironic:
Even though that's a place "where young Americans are in harm's way as we speak." Glass houses, pot-kettle-black, etc.
He said this:
He should have said, and apparently meant to say, that it was "my bill." Because he did indeed co-sponsor the bill, and it did indeed pass the Banking Committee last week. But even though he co-sponsored the bill, the McCain campaign said this:
Gotta love that "straight talk!" That's a little like saying my father had nothing to do with my birth. Then again, that's what we expect from the guy who said the surge started before the Awakening, even though it didn't. Along the lines of a funny thing you said before, I have to say that the McCain campaign is looking more and more like Trip, Stumble and Fall.
That joke is the best I could do because I ran into a dead-end when I tried to figure out how to connect the words knave and knishe. (That second word hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, but I figure it's only a matter of time.)
That wins the Understatement of the Thread Award.
Obviously if Obama had any sincere concern for Israel he'd release his LSAT scores.
No one else appears to have taken up a challenge to this tale. Oh, well.
Actually, there is an important exception to the rule that men remove their hats -- and the exception is if a man is armed. The Knights of Columbus in full dress carry ceremonial swords, and they keep their feathered headgear on their heads inside the church. The exception exists for other (openly) armed men as well, such as police officers in uniform. In recent years, I've seen many officers remove their hats, but it was by no means the custom when I was a kid. (Granted, that was a long time ago.) I don't think that carrying the ceremonial swords into church would have been interpreted as disrespectful.
(It wouldn't be a VC comment thread without somehow working in the bearing of arms, now would it?)
As for the sit/stand/kneel, the conventions differ from diocese to diocese. There are some where parishioners never kneel. We keep the rules confusing to trip up the outsiders!
I've enjoyed your posts. Until now.
But this attack on McCain for his age is really low. Think of how you'd respond to an attack on Obama based on his race. Make that "McCain" and "age," and you now have my reaction.
But I didn't bother reading your entire post, since I scanned it and saw where it was going. You seem to have taken some talking points from your guy, no?, since you went right into the Afghanistan issue. I was referring to his much, much broader tendency to make no use of a subcommittee that he (allegedly) chairs. (Cf. "Obama's European Problem" by Joe Conason, 'Salon': December 29, 2007).
Lead Para:
Doubts about Barack Obama's presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January. That startling fact, first uncovered by Steve Clemons, who blogs on the Washington Note, prompted acid comment in Europe about the Illinois senator's failure to visit the continent since assuming the committee post, and even speculation that he had never traveled there except for a short stopover in London. (END)
NO hearings in the course of a YEAR? For a guy who—won't you admit?—is very short on experience, this is a terrible decision. Yet he uses his chairmanship of this committee as evidence of his "preparation" for the Big Job.
You also exempt him from any blame for getting his committee assignments wrong, viz.,:
"Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran
He should have said, and apparently meant to say, that it was "my bill." "
I don't know what he "meant to say." I don't know how you do. But he has made some whoppers recently, including his statement that he plans on working with the leaders of Europe for the next "8 to 10" years.
Well, we all misspeak. Perhaps he just old, and so he forgets.
Wait. He can't even use that one.
It is considered respectful to cover one's head at the Western Wall or another synagogue for the same reason that it is considered respectful to wear pants when in a synagogue. Or in your house, if one is your dinner guest. Covering your head is not considered a sign of worship or of submission. The closest secular analogy I can give you (if you're really so dense) is that you would be expected to wear a shirt in a courtroom.
Nobody expects you to participate in Jeiwsh prayer. But if you can't bring yourself to show respect for Jews who are worshipping in a synagogue, you should probably stay away. Same with the place of worship of any other religion.
BTW, I was always taught that in a Catholic church, it was considered a sign of respect to stand when people stand, but that one was not expected to kneel, which more universally is taken to be is a sign of submission rather than a sign of respect. When attending a mass, I sit during the kneeling portions, and have been told that this is respectful.
Once, at a Hindu temple, there was a sacrifice of some fruits to the deity, following which those present ate those portions of the fruits that were not placed before the idol. The sacrifice was purchased and offered by a friend of mine to ask for the god's intercession in a familial problem. I ate the fruit offered me (though it might have been construed as prayer to the god contrary to my own religion) out of respect for my friend and empathy for his problem.
Could it possibly be that Senator Obama is just another demagogic politician (though more talented than most) who pads his resume and tells his audience what he thinks it wants to hear? Say it ain't so!
If that's so, then his entire reason for running, and his stated reason for electing him, are frauds. "No CHANGE We Can Believe In!" "YES WE CAN have politics as ususal."
If he "pads his resume," and it is so thin even with that padding, the what possible claim can he have on the Oval Office? (Other than his own ambition, of course.)
When Obama's defenders counter with the Claude-Raines-Defense ("He's a politician? I'm SHOCKED!"), they make me wonder what the Hell it is that causes them to support the guy.
Aiken Blue: You seem to have confused VC with Youtube. Here, we kinda expect some substance.
That's because no else is as ignorant as you about the security at Yad Vashem (on any day, let alone a special day). Anyone who manages to get inside is not a threat to Obama or anyone else.
Also, the Israeli authorities have PR interests not that different from Obama's. They like the idea of American tourists being in the museum, and meeting him, and it's obviously very easy for them to make that happen.
I would completely agree with you, if it was a gratuitous attack. The attack would be gratuitous if McCain wasn't showing serious signs of being impaired by his age. Unfortunately, he is. Yes, I know no one is perfect. Yes, I know a certain number of gaffes are unavoidable. Yes, I know Obama has made some too. But with McCain, they are piling up at a rapid rate. Also, many are regarding subject matter that's substantive, and that's in his area of supposed greatest strength: foreign policy.
The GOP already gave us one president with issues like this. One expert claims that Reagan "did not have diagnosable Alzheimer's in the White House," but that nevertheless "it was certainly creeping up on him during the late years of his Presidency." Reagan turned 70 a few weeks after he took office. McCain is about to be 72.
It's a little bit like the situation with Bush, where many situations require an observer to decide that he's either dishonest or dumb, and that it has to be one or the other (if not both). I think it's a serious problem that McCain has trouble keeping track of the difference between Sunni and Shia, without getting help from Lieberman. Likewise for when he said that it's "common knowledge" that Iran is training AQ. Likewise for when he told us the surge was over, even though it wasn't. Or when he said he supported "every investigation" into Katrina, when in fact he voted against that twice.
And of course very recently he told us the surge predated the Awakening, even though it didn't. And he's trying to squirm out of that by telling us that when he said "surge" he didn't really mean "surge." In other words, the surge started before the surge started. Makes perfect sense.
Here's a little one you'll probably never hear about, because there are so many others. He said "I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States." He was criticizing Obama for making speeches outside the US. But McCain made a campaign speech in Canada barely a month ago.
We both know that this is far from a complete list. Some more are mentioned here.
So choose your poison: dumb, dishonest, or demented. I see no way to explain his statements, without choosing one (or more!) of those items.
You don't know that McCain's record is worse, because, as you said, you "didn't bother reading [my] entire post." Also, I don't remember any prior occasion when anyone claimed that we should evaluate senators based on the number of hearings they convene. If this is really a meaningful metric (and not just a superficial, opportunistic talking point), then someone should do a thorough comparison of every senator's record, in this regard. The fact that no such study has ever been done (as far as I know) tends to create the impression that no one really thinks it's a very meaningful metric.
I know that supposedly this metric is more important in Obama's case, because he's a young person running for president. But if the metric has real meaning, it would be interesting to look at it for lots of other people, too. How come no one has ever cared?
I'm tired of hearing about McCain's allegedly extensive experience. In his whole life, he was worked for essentially two institutions: the Navy, and Congress. They are both large government bureaucracies. And there's a difference between having, say, 30 years of truly varied and extensive experience, as compared with 1 year of experience that you happen to repeat 30 times. I think McCain's career leans in the latter direction.
And sometimes the person allegedly "short on experience" is exactly what's needed to see things in a new way, and turn things around. McCain is a creature of the system. He reeks of it. This makes him the wrong person to fix it.
Not all gaffes are equal. No one seriously believes that Obama seriously believes that he will be president for 10 years (although he could have been thinking about expecting to be an active ex-president). But there is reason to seriously believe that McCain thinks that Iran is training AQ, and isn't terribly clear about terms like "Sunni" and "Shiite". So there's a world of difference when you make this comparison.
Obama is obviously smart, alert, and does his homework. He surrounds himself with smart people, and he listens to them, and he manages them well, and his campaign generally runs like clockwork. He'll manage the presidency the same way. McCain is barely keeping up.
The person who changes the machinery of politics is inevitably going to be someone who starts by understanding the machinery of politics, and is willing to use it. That means messiness, disappointments, and paradoxes. This is hard to accept if you live in a world of ideological purity and simplicity. But you can't do that and also be an adult.
This is explained very nicely in the current New Yorker piece about Obama, which is long, detailed, and intelligent.
If you think our current political machinery is working just fine, then McCain is your man. And that machinery is indeed creating outstanding results for certain people (video), so it's no surprise that they will support him.
What's the big deal here? I bow my head when those around me do, just trying to follow the local customs. If I want to get into an argument about religion, or make a big show of disagreeing, I'll do it someplace else.
As far as focusing on the speaker, there's a story about a man and his son praying in the synagogue. At one point the father says to his son,
"I can't hear you."
The son looks up
"I wasn't talking to you."
Looking at the speaker is just as ritualistic as bowing one's head.
"I can't hear you."
The son looks up
"I wasn't talking to you."
That's good.
Where did this come from? I would like to use this and a source cite would be helpful.
Sorry, I don't know the source. It's just joke I happen to remember.
Glad you like it.
I know that supposedly this metric is more important in Obama's case, because he's a young person running for president
"Supposedly"?! So his experience in the Senate; and thus his learning from his time in the Senate; and thus our ability to judge him based on his work in the Senate--These should be based on what? His speeches in the Senate? Or his website? I mean, which of the two?
I don't think it is very honest to dismiss this matter as easily as you do. Obama's supporters are willing to explain away his failure to show up for votes, to call for hearings, to attend hearings--such as confirmation of new ambassadors--and his short time in the Senate. You want people to vote for him. Based upon what?
I'm tired of hearing about McCain's allegedly extensive experience.
I'm sure you are. You'll have to go into news black-out, though. Because you will be hearing this a lot.
And there's a difference between having, say, 30 years of truly varied and extensive experience, as compared with 1 year of experience that you happen to repeat 30 times. I think McCain's career leans in the latter direction.
Am I to read this as claiming that Obama has "extensive experience"? You can't mean this. Really, you can't expect anyone to take this seriously.
I also have many years of "varied" experience: Collecting snakes for zoos, researching legal briefs for attornies, teaching history classes, digging up fossils, playing guitar in a grunge band. That is varied experience, juke. It doesn't qualify me for the White House.
As to one year several times over--Is this where I mention the 5 1/2 years in Hanoi must have seemed like that to McCain? Beacuase I think I'll be mentioning that in the future.
No one seriously believes that Obama seriously believes that he will be president for 10 years (although he could have been thinking about expecting to be an active ex-president).
For only two years? How odd . . .
Perhaps you are just looking for excuses for his gaffes?
And sometimes the person allegedly "short on experience" is exactly what's needed to see things in a new way, and turn things around.
Yeah. That's what my Republican friends said in 2000, when I supported . . . McCain.
juke, I don't want to get into a fight with you. So I have to temper my response to this claim, which I hear frequently, and which causes me tremendous concern. I'll leave it with a simple statement: No one who is "short on experience" ought ever to be entrusted with the presidency of the United States.
This is hard to accept if you live in a world of ideological purity and simplicity. But you can't do that and also be an adult.
And McCain has shown that he is an adult, not an ideologue; you've noticed that Michelle Malkin and the blonde with legs whose name escapes me are not supporting him for this reason, no?
But which is Obama? And how can I know? He's smart. So is McCain, whether you admit it or not. But, Hell, I am smart. I am surrounded by bright people. And most importantly, I agree with myself on just about every significant issue.
BUT I am totally unqualified to be president. And so is Obama.
If you think our current political machinery is working just fine, then McCain is your man.
Talking points aside, I have been struck by the way that Obama seems more and more a standard-issue pol the more we see him. Jeremiah Wright was correct about that one, wasn't he?
He's a pol. And he's ambitious. But he has no record by which to judge him. So you are seeing what you want to see in the Rorschach Test. Don't balme the rest of us if we don't share your imagination.
According to Maariv, (via Time Magazine), Obama wrote "Lord, protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."
That's a pretty humble request.
--PtM
I think you're fetishizing some kinds of experience the way Zarkov fetishes LSAT's. I'm not denying the value of experience, but that value is only in its imperfect ability to predict future performance. If we had reason to believe you'd make a good President, it really wouldn't matter that all you've ever done is collect snakes and play in grunge bands.
Remember that nobody running for a first Presidential term has direct experience, so just what kind of experience predicts competence is a hotly contested issue. In fact, isn't it axiomatic for Republicans that 26 years in Washington qualifies somebody only to be voted against? I've certainly heard it often enough from lots of you guys that Congressional, especially Senatorial experience teaches all the wrong lessons, and the only useful experience is executive experience. Like running a state, or a city, or a company... or a presidential campaign.
You have to admit that Obama hasn't just run a better campaign than McCain; he's arguably set a new standard. That speaks to all the key executive functions: setting policy, priorities and strategy, and managing people, time and money. And the quality of their respective job performances isn't only evident in political and economic terms, but also in the steadiness of campaign operations and the continuity of senior rosters. I don't see anything in either of their histories that speaks more clearly to their competence as executives than the contrast between those campaigns. I'd bet confidently on Obama's executive skill and pretty hesitantly on McCain's.
And yet when the National Journal compiled its annual ratings last year which infamously suggested Obama was the most liberal Senator, only four Senators had missed too many votes to be included on the list: one because of a brain hemorrhage, one who died, one who replaced the one who died, and John McCain. Apparently running for President is pretty time-consuming, and I'm guessing even more-so if you don't manage your time very well.
[BTW, as Norm Ornstein, among others, have pointed out, those ratings were pretty much of a joke. But that's another story, and one that's been covered on other threads.]
(Sorry, AZ. Not trying to dwell. Just correcting the typo.)
Yeah. *Relevant* experience. I'm kinda funny that way.
Do you know what the term "infamous" means? (E.g., FDR's use of the term after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, beginning his speech with "December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy ...") If so, explain how the National Journal's vote rankings are in any sense "infamous". Here is the specific article in question, from the National Journal. Then again, you've proven to be elusive when it comes to empirical or rationally founded discussions.
But let's consider some legislation, let's be empirical and rational.
Obama spoke out vociferously against the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment in 2007, he was arguably the most outspoken critic of the amendment. (Obama and McCain were the only two senators who missed the formal vote on Kyl-Lieberman - they were both campaigning - but they both spoke out concerning the Kyl-Lieberman Iran vote, Obama adamantly against and McCain in favor of the amendment that designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.)
Likewise, Obama sponsored, in January, 2007, legislation that would have squashed Petraeus's surge strategy and would have precipitously and very likely calamitously begun a pullout of troops from Iraq, with a deadline of March, 2008 for the pullout of all troops. Or perhaps you'd enjoy seeing such calamity - similar to post-April, 1975, excepting this time likely having far greater regional and global implications?
I've begun to think of you as jukeboxgrad II - as clown #2. But perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you can substantiate your claim and can do so on the basis of an empirical/rational line.
(Btw, if Obama's legislation and voting record in 2007 would have precipitated a debacle in Iraq - similar to what occurred in Vietnam, post-April, 1975, excepting with greater implications in terms of regional and global stability - would that suggest Obama deserves the "infamous" designation, certainly moreso than the National Journal?)
For your benefit, and anyone else’s for whom the context wasn’t obvious, I meant "infamous" as "notoriously inaccurate," not "notoriously evil."
As I've pointed out to you before, any system that ranks Obama more liberal than Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and an actual Socialist, Bernie Sanders, is too obviously flawed to require explanation. Nonetheless I provided a link to Norm Ornstein's AEI article, and he does explain some of the defects. But you ignored that, and implied my assertion was unsupported anyway.
Why would you do that? It can't be that AEI is too liberal for your taste. No, as far as I can tell you've simply made it a practice to ignore the evidence I offer, imply with an astonishingly straight face that I didn't offer it, and change the subject. And since you know I'm not the only one who's called you on it, I suppose it was a somewhat clever tactic to associate me with jukeboxgrad, as if that would somehow discredit these facts.
As it happens, I often do agree with jukeboxgrad. What a shocker... we're both liberals! We also have our disagreements, and our most recent one was about you. I confessed that my bleeding liberal heart compels me to give you the benefit of the doubt that there's someone in there interested in a respectful dialog. He's convinced that trying to engage you in a serious discussion is a complete waste of time. Juke's a smart guy and I've been wrong before.... I guess time will tell.
Anyway, not that I hold out much hope you'll pay more attention to this than to anything else I send your way, but here's another piece of "empirical evidence" that the NJ rankings are aberrational. As I'm sure you know, the American Conservative Union compiles its own Congressional rankings. And for 2007, the year NJ called Obama the most liberal senator, those Stalinists at the ACU ranked him more conservative than 31 other Senators. Go figure.
No, you're not being empirical and rational. You're changing the subject again. The question isn't whether Obama is liberal. It's whether he's the most liberal. So unless you're telling us something about his legislative positions relative to everyone else's -- and you're not -- waving your arms about how liberal his positions are is irrelevant.
I've now substantiated it with at least two piece of empirical/rational evidence, two more than you have your counter-argument. But if past is prologue, you may not let that deter you from insisting otherwise. So think whatever you want, Michael. Your now habitual ignoring what I say, claiming I didn't say it, mischaracterizing what you admit I did say, changing the subject, calling me names and otherwise attacking me personally have, believe it or not, begun to lost their charm. Not that I necessarily expect you to care, but my patience with it is running out.
lost=> loseThere are a variety of ways to judge Obama, aside from this work in the Senate. And with regard to his (or anyone's) work in the Senate, I think looking at number of hearings called is a fairly poor metric. It's like saying someone must be a good cop because they write lots of tickets. And as has been pointed out a couple of times, McCain is in an exceptionally weak position to complain about people who don't spend enough time in meetings and hearings. Just like he's in a poor position to complain about people who make campaign speeches outside the US. Just like he's in a poor position to complain about people who make allegedly incorrect predictions about the future course of a war. Etc.
Speaking of dismissing matters: this little subthread between us started with me calling McCain "old," and you saying this was "really low." Then I explained why I think my statement was fair and appropriate. But in your response, you've said precisely nothing to address the concerns I raised about his many statements that seem to be a sign that he is dumb, dishonest, and/or demented. I don't think it is very honest to dismiss this matter as easily as you do.
What LM said. Also, when I look at Obama's bio, I see a series of decisions that impress me. I also like what I see with regard to character and temperament.
I don't like the way McCain treated his first wife. In my eyes, what he did is much worse than a blowjob with an intern, and it tells me everything I need to know about his character.
I think we have had exactly one president who has been divorced: Reagan. Now the GOP wants to give us another one. Some of my best friends are divorced, etc. But it's still interesting to make this observation about the so-called family-values party.
With regard to temperament, it concerns me greatly to see statements like this: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine ... He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." From another Republican senator. Cochran also claims he saw McCain physically assault someone. During a diplomatic meeting.
Another Republican said this: "It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." Another Republican said this: "He is a vicious person." Another Republican said this: "I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger." There's a lot more.
Do you dismiss this as easily as you dismiss his many misstatements and gaffes?
Obama said this:
I already said why I could imagine him picking a number greater than 8: he expects to be an active ex-president. And why stop at 10? Because he was specifically making reference to individual leaders, and it's logical to expect that they would be in the job for a number of years, but not forever. In other words, it would not make sense for him to say 'I expect to be an active ex-president, so I expect to be dealing with these individuals for the rest of my life.' However, it does indeed make sense for him to say 'I expect to be an active ex-president, so I expect to be dealing with these individuals until they leave office, which is perhaps roughly 10 years from now.'
It would be nice if you explained McCain's multiple misstatements, but I notice you didn't even try. I don't think it is very honest to dismiss this matter as easily as you do.
The problem with Bush was not so much that he was short on experience. The problem is that he was long on the wrong kind of experience: being a drunk and a failure.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I didn't claim that McCain puts too much emphasis on the idea of ideological purity. I claim that you do, when you say something like this: "if that's so, then his entire reason for running, and his stated reason for electing him, are frauds." Or this: "I have been struck by the way that Obama seems more and more a standard-issue pol the more we see him."
Someone who refuses to adopt certain characteristics of "a standard-issue pol" has zero chance of getting near a presidential nomination (let alone beyond that), under our current system. Sad but true. But it's not a binary thing. He's still much less of "a standard-issue pol" than anyone else we've seen in a long time. Maybe ever.
If you don't like the idea of electing "a standard-issue pol," then you shouldn't vote for McCain. He's way further down that scale than Obama.
I'd like to see some evidence that McCain is smart. I see mostly evidence contrary to that.
There are many stages in his life where he had to make a choice. I like the choices he made. That's definitely a "record."
It's his opponents who are using a lot of imagination. What they imagine is nicely summarized in the New Yorker cover.
The bill has a provision called "Suspension of Redeployment," which gives POTUS power to suspend the redeployment if "doing so is in the national security interests of the United States." So why did you say "precipitously?"
The bill also has a provision called "Retention of Certain Forces in Iraq," which says that certain forces can remain for the following purposes:
So why did you say "all?"
Obama's legislation, S.433; the (potential) exception doesn't make the rule, to the contrary. E.g., taken verbatim from the legislation: "The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 ..." If it had been passed, it could well have been catastrophic and rather than "de-escalating" the war, may well have escalated it and caused far greater instability. Iow, it wasn't the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007," it was the "Iraq War Re-Deployment Act of 2007." Hence Obama couldn't so much as honestly represent his legislation - in the very title of the legislation.
Regardless, for those who care, they can read the legislation and come to their own conclusions. The link is now available.
What a mobius strip, solipsistic world you inhabit.
Firstly, infamous or infamy does not mean "notoriously inaccurate." (If a spelling bee contestant is "notoriously inaccurate," do you think her parents or anyone else is going to regard the day she misspells several words as a day that will live in infamy?)
When you're wrong about something as simple as the meaning of a term, admit it, don't continue to deal from the bottom of the deck. I elaborate a bit concerning your attitude toward this term because it's a superficial, unreflective and intransigent attitude that permeates your commentary.
Further, I'm wondering if you've read your own link - to Ornstein's piece. I read it, and I see literally nothing in it beyond hand and arm waving. I even hunted down and read some of Ornstein's recommended reading and found much the same thing. For example, Ornstein (who is an advocate himself, while pretending to be some type of impartial judge) recommends reading M. Sherer and S. Benen on the subject. I did so and found them both to be partisans, giving short shrift to notable differences. I could expand on this a great deal, but you whine because you're not being coddled and you're intractable even when it comes to the meaning of a term, so I hold out no hope that you'd be amenable when it comes to yet more complex subject matter. Still, some examples: see my prior comment where I note a piece of legislation Obama himself introduced, legislation that almost certainly would have been catastrophic for Iraq. Also in that prior comment, note mention of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment - an indicative vote. See also the National Journal's methodology when compiling their list, which begins as follows:
"A panel of National Journal editors and reporters initially compiled a list of 216 key congressional roll-call votes for 2007 -- 107 votes for the Senate and 109 for the House -- and classified them as relating to economic, social, or foreign policy."
Finally, this mobius strip world you inhabit is no doubt comforting, but that you need to be coddled, in the political arena, is your problem, not mine.
(And pointing to an insubstantial sneer and arrogation by jukebox, as if it represents some type of proof, serves to offer further bemusement still. Plainly, this is difficult for you to conceive, but you actually do need to support your charges and arguments in a cogent, coherent manner. Simply saying something is true doesn't make it so, Mr. Infamy.)
Citing "the rule" is not an honest way to portray the bill, when you cite the rule only and pretend the various exceptions don't exist. But of course that's what you did. And that's what you're still doing: emphasizing the word "complete," as if the bill didn't specify various important exceptions to that word. But, as has been demonstrated many times (links cited earlier), you're all about presenting information dishonestly. So it's no surprise that you're doing it again.
If I had bought a lottery ticket last week, it could well have been the winning ticket. Your statement is highly speculative. Here's a fact: since the day Obama's bill was introduced, we have lost this many Americans: 1,121. This is how many have been injured: 6,760. 2007 was the worst year of the war. For some portion of these eight thousand families, what was "catastrophic" was the defeat of Obama's bill. You should show us your proof that all those dead and injured were truly necessary, and were the best and only way to get to where we are.
And speaking of things that "have been catastrophic," that's a good way to describe the decision to invade, in the first place, which obviously had McCain's vigorous support. McCain has a long track record of making predictions about the war that turned out to be wrong:
Later on, he sang a different tune:
He has made many similar statements. He would like us to not remember that he was a leader of the group that created and sold the "gross misunderestimation."
Infamous means 'well-known for a bad quality.' Being inaccurate is indeed a bad quality. But I guess you don't know that.
'Infamy' does not have to mean something involving matters of life and death, like Pearl Harbor. When Bill Buckner blew the World Series in 1986, he did indeed make himself infamous. That's why it's awfully easy to find articles which use that exact word to describe what he did.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Indeed.
What was pointed to indeed contains proof that you're a joke. More proof can be found via here. Of course that's aside from the proof you've provided in this thread.
Obama could make a Reaganesque speech: "Mr. Jehovah, tear down this wall!"
If they had asked me, I could have loaned any of those pols my "Gore-Lieberman 2000" kippa....it's a nice blue one. (Actually I think McCain might go for it.)
I am not willing to engage in a debate about your bigotry.
"McCain is in an exceptionally weak position to complain about people who don't spend enough time in meetings and hearings."
That was not the point, and you know it. Why don't you just say "I like Obama, nyah-nyah!"? I mean, it would be equally as convincing.
"I don't like the way McCain treated his first wife. In my eyes, what he did is much worse than a blowjob with an intern, and it tells me everything I need to know about his character."
Even a blowjob from an intern while on the phone with Sonny Callaghan seeking his support for deploying troops to Bosnia? That tells me everything I need to know about your character.
(Crying toddler—Must go. More later.)
Pointing to how sports writers use hyperbole to pepper their stories does not redefine the term and does not serve as corollary with a situation wherein no irony and no hyperbole is intended. (Also, continuing to link to an earlier exchange, wherein you had previously quoted either Hitler himself or one of Hitler's apparatchiks - and then expected me to comment further does not bode well for thinking of you in any vein beyond that of Clown #1.)
I didn't pretend anything whatsoever. Both in an earlier thread and in this thread I provided the link to the legislation and specifically noted, "regardless, for those who care, they can read the legislation and come to their own conclusions."
Simple question: in your universe, is it possible for someone to be too old to be president? And if someone was too old to be president (however you choose to define that), would it be "bigotry" to point that out?
Fine, let's not have a debate about my "bigotry." Let's have a debate about whether or not McCain has a problem making sense. What I'm really noticing is the distinct absence of any attempt to explain McCain's ever-growing list of remarkable misstatements. Just today, he said "I didn’t use the word timetable." Even though he did. Etc.
It was you who said this: "he [Obama] hasn't even visited his SFRC subcommittee." I don't see "the point" of you making a fuss about that, since McCain has a very poor attendance record. It's hard to argue that attending meetings should be a high priority for Obama, since McCain has placed a low priority on attending meetings. The McCain campaign seems to consist of criticizing Obama for doing things that McCain has also done (e.g., miss lots of meetings, make campaign speeches outside the US, etc). This tends to create the impression that McCain has a poor memory, and/or is a hypocrite.
I know that rumor appears in various places, but I've never seen a reliable source for it. I also couldn't find it in Monica's testimony or in the Starr report. Do you have a source? Just curious.
Aside from that, I can't imagine why anyone (aside from Monica) would care what Bill was doing while she was doing him.
Aside from that, I've never voted for anyone named Clinton (or Gore).
Aside from that, yes, I think that what McCain did to his first wife is far worse than getting a blowjob from an intern, "even a blowjob from an intern while on the phone with Sonny Callaghan seeking his support for deploying troops to Bosnia."
Yup, they sure do. Like the sportswriter who wrote this:
Who wrote that? Michael Goldfarb, the Deputy Communications Director of the McCain campaign. With any luck, Goldfarb can bring some hyperbole to the Straight Talk Express.
Goldfarb probably learned the proper usage of the word "infamous" from his fellow writers at Weekly Standard, who have said things like this:
You get the idea. There are many more, but I got bored.
The hyperbole bug has also infected Power Line:
But maybe this problem really started at the White House, where all of the following statements can be found:
I wish you luck on your anti-hyperbole crusade. You've got your work cut out for you.
There you go again, distorting the facts. There were multiple earlier exchanges, covering a variety of issues, and the one part you're mentioning was (at most) a very minor portion of them. In fact, although I remember using such a quote here, I don't think it was part of any of the threads I have cited. In fact, I think I have never used that quote here in any thread where I have addressed you, at all.
So I hope you'll show us where I quoted the person you say I quoted.
You provided the link after you didn't provide the link. You only provided the link only after I challenged you. (And in that challenge I provided the link myself, although I now realize the link I pasted in is broken.)
It goes without saying that "those who care" can chase down the link and see for themselves that you summarized the bill in a deceptive manner. That doesn't make it OK to summarize the bill in a deceptive manner. But you're doing a nice job of proving that only a fool would accept any statement of yours at face value. Everything you say needs to be verified, because you rarely miss a chance to mislead and distort.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President had a second sexual encounter two days later (still during the government furlough), on Friday, November 17. She was at the White House until 8:56 p.m., then returned from 9:38 to 10:39 p.m.(170) At 9:45 p.m., a few minutes after Ms. Lewinsky's reentry, the President went from the Oval Office to the Chief of Staff's office (where Ms. Lewinsky worked during the furlough) for one minute, then returned to the Oval Office for 30 minutes. From there, he went back to the Chief of Staff's office until 10:34 p.m. (approximately when Ms. Lewinsky left the White House), then went by the Oval Office and the Ground Floor before retiring to the Residence at 10:40 p.m.(171)
Ms. Lewinsky testified:
We were again working late because it was during the furlough and Jennifer Palmieri . . . had ordered pizza along with Ms. Currie and Ms. Hernreich. And when the pizza came, I went down to let them know that the pizza was there and it was at that point when I walked into Ms. Currie's office that the President was standing there with some other people discussing something.
And they all came back to the office and Mr. — I think it was Mr. Toiv, somebody accidentally knocked pizza on my jacket, so I went to go use the restroom to wash it off and as I was coming out of the restroom, the President was standing in Ms. Currie's doorway and said, "You can come out this way."(172)
Ms. Lewinsky and the President went into the area of the private study, according to Ms. Lewinsky. There, either in the hallway or the bathroom, she and the President kissed. After a few minutes, in Ms. Lewinsky's recollection, she told him that she needed to get back to her desk. The President suggested that she bring him some slices of pizza.(173)
A few minutes later, she returned to the Oval Office area with pizza and told Ms. Currie that the President had requested it. Ms. Lewinsky testified: "[Ms. Currie] opened the door and said, 'Sir, the girl's here with the pizza.' He told me to come in. Ms. Currie went back into her office and then we went into the back study area again."(174) Several witnesses confirm that when Ms. Lewinsky delivered pizza to the President that night, the two of them were briefly alone.(175)
Ms. Lewinsky testified that she and the President had a sexual encounter during this visit.(176) They kissed, and the President touched Ms. Lewinsky's bare breasts with his hands and mouth.(177) At some point, Ms. Currie approached the door leading to the hallway, which was ajar, and said that the President had a telephone call.(178) Ms. Lewinsky recalled that the caller was a Member of Congress with a nickname.(179) While the President was on the telephone, according to Ms. Lewinsky, "he unzipped his pants and exposed himself," and she performed oral sex.(180) Again, he stopped her before he ejaculated.(181)
During this visit, according to Ms. Lewinsky, the President told her that he liked her smile and her energy. He also said: "I'm usually around on weekends, no one else is around, and you can come and see me."(182)
Records corroborate Ms. Lewinsky's recollection that the President took a call from a Member of Congress with a nickname. While Ms. Lewinsky was at the White House that evening (9:38 to 10:39 p.m.), the President had one telephone conversation with a Member of Congress: From 9:53 to 10:14 p.m., he spoke with Rep. H.L. "Sonny" Callahan.(183)
"Simple question: in your universe, is it possible for someone to be too old to be president?"
Possible, sure.
But in your universe, it doesn't seem to be possible for someone to be too inexperienced. And that concerns me.
Since you can't possibly have the vaguest clue about the world I inhabit, this can only be a window into your own fantasies, if not your projection.
Where did I say it does? Here's what I said:
What part of "meant" don't you understand? I was clarifying my intention, not defending my prior usage. Of course, as jukeboxgrad well documented, the narrow, proper definition seems to be observed pretty often in the breach. And in addition to all the examples he gave (which barely scratch the surface), encyclopedias, scientists and British MP's have been known to stretch the definition. So has Fox News, if that's more familiar to you. In fact, even some legal scholars you may have heard of have done it.
Does that make the alternative definition(s) "correct?" Who the hell cares, so long as you get the drift? You understand exactly what's meant in every one of those examples, just as you knew what I meant in this one. Yet you seem to think you've scored some kind of notch in your belt by correcting a popular, colloquial mis-usage on an internet comment thread. If you want some actual insight into my world, that pretty much sums up my idea of "pathetic."
Wonder all you like. As I recall, Ornstein makes at least three criticisms of the NJ rankings, two substantive attacks on the methodology, and an anecdotal one that's obviously accurate to anyone without an agenda. You've given no indication you even know what his criticism consists of, much less have you attempted to respond to any of it. All you've done, and you just did it in your last comment, is quote a few lines of the NJ's methodology. Coincidentally the methodology critiqued in Ornstein's article to which I linked two comments ago.
So you quote today what I answered two comments ago, and you have the nerve to claim I haven't backed up my argument? And anyone is supposed to believe you just added something to yours? I've given you ample evidence, none of which you've addressed, that the NJ rankings are unreliable, and in return all you've done is further verify your proven determination to ignore, avoid, deny and misstate. Putting it generously, you just caught up to being only one step behind the discussion. I suppose that's progress by some measures, but finally, unfortunately, it's just way too little, way too late for me.
To be fair, you did get one thing right in your diatribe. Admitting one's mistakes and moving on is the best course.
You were right. I stand corrected. Trying to have a productive dialog with him is a complete waste of time.
P.S.
Thanks for the info. I was thrown off by the fact that you spelled 'Callahan' 'Callaghan.' I was also thrown off because the Starr report doesn't contain the word 'Bosnia.' It turns out that the subject matter of the phone call was not stated in the Starr report. It was in a separate statement issued by Callahan.
But it was fun to take this trip back in time. It makes me nostalgic for the era when it was considered proper to spend millions of dollars ($40m+) investigating and documenting all the tiniest details of a president's possible misconduct. Those were the days! 7,793 pages. Wow. SSCI 2004 is only about 500, and that's without accounting for many pages that are redacted (aside from the fact that it only examined the IC, not the White House). But at least now every future president knows that the consequences of lying about a blowjob are much more severe than the consequences for lying us into war. I sleep better at night knowing that future presidents will be more careful about keeping their blowjobs secret. And it's also helpful to have this reminder that some groups find gratuitous sex more offensive and disturbing than gratuitous violence.
You're agreeing that it's possible for someone to be too old to be president. But you didn't answer the second question: would it be "bigotry" to point that out? And I notice, still, that no one wants to try to explain why McCain says so many wacky things.
Of course it's possible for someone to be "too inexperienced." But this is yet another area where McCain is in a weak position to throw stones. McCain has been a chief executive this many times: once. Thirty years ago, he had about a thousand people working for him, for 13 months. That's good, but it's an awfully brief interval, and I'd like to know more about what happened (especially, for example, with regard to the role his family played in getting him into and through the job; I'm not the first to describe this as AA, or Admiral Action). It's surprisingly hard to find out. I know that various people (including and especially him) claim that he did wonderful things there, but I've seen few hard facts. His 500-word official campaign bio devotes this many words to that period: zero. He skips over it entirely. As far as I can tell, he also says very little about it in his books. I know more about Rev. Wright's speeches than I do about McCain's only executive experience. The former subject has received, what, roughly a thousand times more coverage? I even know more about Obama's birth certificate.
A lot is known, and said, about McCain's POW experience. Very little is said about his experience as an executive. Trouble is, it doesn't take a lot of talent to intercept a surface-to-air missile with your own airplane (and I know of at least one other person who agrees with me on this point). Therefore, I want to know more about what McCain did as a manager, but it's hard to find out. Most of McCain's service record is still secret. He never signed SF-180. When Kerry decided to run (at least in part) on his war record, the demands that he sign SF-180 were quite loud. McCain is definitely running on his war record, but most of the documents have never been released, and no one seems to mind. IOKIYAR.
McCain's management resume is thin. Therefore I have to look at his current management record: the way he's running his campaign. McCain will run the presidency the way he runs his campaign. In this comparison, Obama comes out way ahead, with regard to skills in leadership, management and organization.
I know I've said this before, but I want to make sure I'm clear about this. I think it's a waste of time only if you think his shabby behavior is going to improve. It's not a waste of time when you realize he performs an inadvertent public service. Despite himself, he's a great teacher, because he's such a vivid and archetypical embodiment of the forces that got us to where we are.
I'm not on an anti-hyperbole crusade, but forget infamous and the repeated uses it sustains in that vein, as already noted, jukeboxclown #2 was using it straight, not as hyperbole, hence here, here and here. I didn't question its repeated use as hyperbole, indeed, I specifically took note of that usage. I'll forego an explanation of what the term "meant" means.
But rather more to the point, you've not shown that the National Journal rankings are inaccurate. No one is saying they represent "The Truth," but they are one standard and it's a perfectly viable standard. Regurgitating your prior b.s., your facile arrogations and denigrations, lends nothing to support your assertion.
"Since you can't possibly have the vaguest clue about the world I inhabit, this can only be a window into your own fantasies, if not your projection." LM
No fantasies whatsoever, I'm judging your commentary by what you offer up herein - and nothing beyond that. It's that simple, it's patently obvious it's that simple, you know it - yet it needs to be pointed out to you.
In general and in terms of these empirical/rational discussions you claim to adhere to, it's as if the two of you are selling kool-aid on the corner for 10¢ a glass, are failing to turn a profit, yet are promoting yourselves as the reincarnation of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Hence all your facile arrogations and spittle and patting one another on the back adds up to a grand total of: nothing, all that puffery notwithstanding.
But you do represent and effectively do embody a certain political type, a certain common political type. In that sense, both individually and as a tag team, you are instructive.
As usual, you adopt lots of assumptions, and then expect everyone to accept them as facts. Even though you don't even bother to clearly describe the assumptions. How do you define "using it straight?" And what is your evidence that he was or was not "using it straight?"
You pointed to some dictionaries. I hope you'll tell us why. I don't see how they support anything you're trying to say.
There you go again, distorting the record. Your first post about this did indeed fail to note "its repeated use as hyperbole." You first "took note of that usage" here, only after it was pointed out how silly it was for you to completely overlook "its repeated use as hyperbole." And even then, you "took note of that usage" in a begrudging manner. You implied, incorrectly, that only sportswriters would indulge in "its repeated use as hyperbole."
This latest attempt by you to distort the record is very similar what you did a bit earlier, when you tried to take credit for posting a link, when in fact your first post omitted the link, and you didn't post the link until after I criticized you for not doing so.
In the meantime, you're still ducking lots of questions. For some strange reason you're not telling us what you were talking about when you said this:
You're suggesting I did so in one or more of the threads pointed to via here. Really? I can't find it. Where is it?
No, I didn't so much as suggest that "only" sports writers use it as hyperbole. I'm beginning to feel I'm disparaging clowns by granting you that title. Forget your obsession with "infamy" and "infamous," it's not worth the effort.
And I'm ducking nothing. That I don't take you seriously - not your malice, not your mendacity, not your flim flams, not your clownish maunderings, not your misdirection, not your pile driven head up your patoot in general - does not suggest I'm "ducking" anything. Self-flattery is precisely and only that, self-flattery.
Here's your Hitler (or Hitler apparatchik) sneer. The blockquote you provided is either from Hitler himself or one of his henchmen. It's the very link you provide in one of the other comments you link to herein, Einstein.
Then you should explain what you meant by this:
If you understood all along that it's commonly used as hyperbole, why did you make a fuss to begin with? And where is your evidence that the usage in this thread was not hyperbole?
And you should explain why you said this:
Where is it that you "specifically took note of that usage?"
The one with the obsession is you. Someone used a word in a perfectly normal manner, and this elicited a reaction from you that was highly abnormal.
Thanks for helping me find it. You're right, I should have been more clear. When I posted a link to a post here, it was simply a convenient way to reference other citations in that post (to here, here, and here).
Those posts lead to a large body of material which demonstrates that you're a waste of time. The Hitler thing is a very minor portion of that material. But it's no surprise that you're trying to pretend the rest of it doesn't exist.
Thanks for helping you find it? Glad I could hold your hand and lead you back to it. As noted, it's a link in the very comment you already linked to, in this thread and in two or three prior threads.
And where's LM, aka clown #2, you're in desperate need of him, you work better as a tag team.
Please keep trying to focus lots of attention on the part that doesn't matter much, so one will notice what was proven here, here, and here.
And we're still hoping you might tell us where you "specifically took note of that usage." And then you can explain why you made a fuss about someone using a common word in a common way.
You laid all your cards face up on the table, big man.
I have a feeling the handle-stealer might be The Ace, given the apparent gambling fetish.