onegoodmove

Obama said, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins." Actually, he did. He said last year, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest" because it had become "a substitute for ... true patriotism" during the run-up to the Iraq war.

Dude... This is reaching falafel-boy levels. Fucking flag pins? Or rather -- not actually flag pins, but what the candidate said about flag pins? Give it a rest. By all means, let Clinton be President, and screw Obama -- just give it a fucking rest already. Jeebus.

I am with Dzwonka on this. This is what we are talking about? Meanwhile our economy is quickly going into the toilet, the war rages on, and on and on. Please everyone shut the fuck up about flag pins.

What?! Obama is waffling about wearing a flag pin? That's outrageous!

We haven't discussed the so-called "Compassion Forum" here. Obama made the best comment of the evening.

What religious language can often do is allow us to get outside of ourselves and mobilize around a common good. On the other hand, what those of us of religious faith have to do when we’re in the public square is to translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everybody. And both Lincoln and King did this and every great leader did it, because we are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers. And it is important for us not to try to kill the debate by saying, “Well, God tells me I’m right, and so I’m not going to listen to you.” Rather, we’ve got to translate whatever it is that we believe into a language that allows for argument, allows for debate, and also allows that we may be wrong.

The flag pin thing - however inarticulately Obama defends it - is fucking annoying; I'm with Dzwonka, et al, on this one.

Clinton said "people died" ... In fact, the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.

This is also pretty nit-picky, not to menton of questionable relevance altogether.

Maybe FactCheck.org is just trying to dot all the i's, but anyways there are far more important issues to discuss.

however inarticulately Obama defends it

He wants it both ways. Why doesn't he just make the point that wearing a flag pin isn't a measure of one's patriotism. It's politics plain and simple. He's decided that it will make him look bad so he equivocates. So much for the change candidate, let me suggest we measure him on issues only not on the vacuous change and hope mantra.

let me suggest we measure him on issues only

Sounds good - which leads me to wonder why link to or excerpt from this crap at all. Glenn Greenwald put it well:

As the media assault on Obama's "character" intensifies using the petty, cliched personality themes that are the hallmark of their leader, Matt Drudge, Obama hasn't appeared to suffer much at all. To the contrary, he has steadily gained on Clinton in Pennsylvania beginning with the lapel pin/Michelle Obama/Wright/bowling/"bitter" controversies. Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the political coverage fed to them by the establishment media,

We don't need echos of this tripe here, Norm - we expect better, and usually get better - and 1gm.

uh, that should have concluded with

...at 1gm.

I may have said this before but, speaking as a non-partisan Brit, please do not lose the plot like we did in 1997. The British people were so desperate to get rid of a government of sleaze and corruption that we voted in landslide numbers for Tony Bliar, and look where that got us. Yes, I accept that many in the US feel the need to rid themselves of the Bush administration, but you need to examine the alternatives and vote for the one most likely to improve the range of situations. It's a package deal - no one candidate is perfect so look carefully at the experience, the proposals and the records of the candidates and then, as always is the case in the USA, vote for the one with most money.

The thing about Clinton might approach relevance. Obama being a "flip-flopper" on lapel pins? Wow. Just wow. This blog gets more irrelevant and more like CNN talking heads by the day. From now on, I'll get my Daily Show clips from the Comedy Central website.

So much for the change candidate, let me suggest we measure him on issues only not on the vacuous change and hope mantra.

Norm, what standard is it that you have for a change candidate that Obama constantly falls short of. I am sure edwards has worn a flag pin from time to time.

Now I agree that what he should say is that he will never use the flag as a shield and accuse others of lacking patiotism. Like the right does.

But really, if it turns out that fighting the flag pin battle polls badly and would hurt his chances, do you still think he should fight it? I think its trivial crap and Obama should do whatever he damn well pleases.

Starting with the Idea that Obama is "flawed" and Obama supporters think he is "perfect" is such a misread of the situation and how reasonable people should view this race.

And hillary attacking obama on loose associations, how quickly he denounces his own minister and wearing flag pins is so hypocritical I can taste it my mouth.

After all wasn't it substance free that made the Clinton presidency completely ineffective at doing anything other then passing items of the right wing agenda?

Jennifer flowers to healthcare reform.

White water to DOMA.

And the scandals and the failures could be listed a mile long.

When did they ever figure it out and change things and win something for the little guy?

never

There is nothing wrong with talking points if they are accurate, nor is there anything necessarily wrong with spin if that means you are presenting your candidate in the best possible light. The problem is that talking points are sometimes simply false and some spin goes beyond the best possible light into the darkness. I hope there is no one here who thinks he is free from criticism in making his points. My momma said when you point at someone there are three fingers pointing back at you. As to interesting links, I agree there have been some good ones offered, but they are also filled with talking points and spin. I can probably count on one hand the posts that I found fair in their discussions of the candidate. They are usually filled with talking points and spin. If it favors your candidate you consider it 'fair and balanced' if not well . . .

He wants it both ways. Why doesn't he just make the point that wearing a flag pin isn't a measure of one's patriotism. It's politics plain and simple. He's decided that it will make him look bad so he equivocates

That's right. And thanks to Hillary Clinton and the right-wing pundits, Obama is being characterized as some American-hating radical. And yes, it makes him look bad in the eyes of so many naive Americans.

So sad.

"He wants it both ways. Why doesn't he just make the point that wearing a flag pin isn't a measure of one's patriotism."

Because he doesn't want to deny that some people might legitimately and sincerely express their patriotism with a flag pin. He wants to say that he was tired of following the herd and wearing the pin while also allowing that other people might wear it sincerely, and without trying to turn not wearing the pin into the sign of true patriotism.

I don't know how anyone can call his positon "pure politics" in the negative sense. If it was all about politics he would have never even thought about not wearing it, let alone actually defending not wearing it. He would have jumped on board with flag-burning amendments and so on like every other Democrat who is terrified of patriot-baiting has done. If Obama beats Hillary, it will show that selling out like that is not as much of a sure-fire winner as Hillary thought it was. Obama is walking into 90% of the wimp vs. tough guy traps that conservatives have been setting since Vietnam, and which other Democrats have avoided like the plague. That does not mean that he's taking the knee-jerk, most-left wing position on every foreign policy issue that exists. But it does mean that he's been willing to defend genuine liberalism in foreign policy like very few prominent Democrats have been willing to do. He deserves a lot more credit from liberals for that than he's getting.

hope there is no one here who thinks he is free from criticism in making his points. My momma said when you point at someone there are three fingers pointing back at you

No he's not free from criticism. But most of the criticism towards Obama is that he is an unpatriotic, terrorist-loving radical who refuses to wear a flag pin and who hates American. That type of criticism is outrageous.

Criticize him on health care, Blackwater, Social Security, fine.

But the way that Hillary attacked him, along with Stephanopolous and Gibson, for one hour, about his patriotism, was just sickening.

If it was all about politics he would have never even thought about not wearing it, let alone actually defending not wearing it

Perfectly stated Dende Blogger.

He would have jumped on board with flag-burning amendments and so on like every other Democrat who is terrified of patriot-baiting has done

Right on.

The argument that this famously conservative member of the Supreme Court advanced -- actually, reiterated -- was that while he may or may not approve of flag burning, it was clear to him that it was a form of speech, a way of making a political statement, and that the First Amendment protected it. I could not agree more.

Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal

My take on the flag pin is obviously different. I think when he found his honesty wasn't playing well, rather than explain why he said he wasn't wearing the pin, he shifted his position slightly. I call that political expediency, but then I'm a well know cynic.

I think when he found his honesty wasn't playing well, rather than explain why he said he wasn't wearing the pin, he shifted his position slightly. I call that political expediency, but then I'm a well know cynic.

That's also how I see it. But he was shoved into a corner by Hillary Clinton and the right-wingers who are questioning his patriotism by hammering him with Reverend Wright, and Farrakhan and Ayers etc etc etc

I'm getting tired and discouraged. The interminable primary and all this where's-your-fucking-flag-pin-osama bullshit is slowly snuffing out my enthusiasm. I have no way of knowing if Obama is or is not what he claims to be. But he's the best option we have and I am choosing to believe him (gasp! shock! horror!) and I take him at his word.

But I do know one thing - if he did not start this process as "the usual" sort of sociopathic politician, all this parsing his every word and attacking him over stupid shit will certainly ensure that he ends up like one.

And then it will be congratulations to us - we fucked ourselves over once again. Bartender, drinks all around.

Bartender, drinks all around.

Sure. I'll have a glass of red wine..

Oops, er, uh, you know, better make that a mug of beer with a shot of Crown Royal

Oh, and while we're having our drinks, we should not forget to wear our flag pins whilst speaking out against those unpatriotic flag burners, and then we shall go out and kill a few ducks. Let us not forget to speak out against Moveon.org as we, of course, disagree with their statements on foreign policy.

rather than explain why he said he wasn't wearing the pin, he shifted his position slightly. I call that political expediency, but then I'm a well know cynic.

So how is saying what you think and then backing away on the things that don't really matter and have electoral consequences worse then politically calculating your positions in the first place?

So how is saying what you think and then backing away on the things that don't really matter and have electoral consequences worse then politically calculating your positions in the first place?

It's not.

But to say that telling the truth doesn't really matter is strange coming from a supporter of the change candidate.

It's not change and that's what he says he's about. The problems are structural and his message of being the change candidate is disingenuous. He is subject to the same structural impediments that all the others have to deal with, That he practices the same old politics of saying what the voters want to hear is necessary, but it is not change.

It's not.

But to say that telling the truth doesn't really matter is strange coming from a supporter of the change candidate.

I don't know that there is anything new about truth. It's just truth getting elected that doesn't happen.

And when it does it gets smothered in money.

If Obama can just get a few bits in then I will be happy. I don't really care that he stay 100% true to the details if that means costing us an end to first the Iraqi war and within time the debacle in Afghanistan, not to mention some kind of health care and trade and tax reform here at home.

It would be nice if our food and air safety inspectors went back to work and maybe we passed some aggressive global warming legislation.

He can wear 10,000 flag pins while driving in a car shaped like a bald eagle while does that. Whatever the fearful and the ignorant need to allow someone with half a brain to run this country.

He can wear 10,000 flag pins while driving in a car shaped like a bald eagle while does that. Whatever the fearful and the ignorant need to allow someone with half a brain to run this country.

On the other hand I think Clinton is lying to the smart people.

Sure she will be against the war if we insist, but we can't exactly insure she won't be for the next one.

I am sure she and the DLC have the next round of trade deals all ready to go.

Oh yes, and what exactly happened to help the environment during the Clinton administration, can we afford to have another administration like that?

If my son asks for my authorization (permission) to take the car and I say, I'd rather you take the bus, or get a ride with a friend, but if all those options fail yes you have my permission to take the car.

Now if I relate this story by saying that if my son asks for my authorization to take the car I simply say yes, I'm leaving out important information and yes being dishonest in my telling of the story. I'm intentionally misleading anyone who takes this version at face value.

So yes when you say Hillary voted to go to war without any context, it may be technically true, but it is dishonest.

son asks for my authorization to take the car I simply say yes

If you knew your son had a publicly known intent to drive your car off a cliff and then asked you for permission to take the car. And you authorized him using the car and he drove it off a cliff and landed on a house killing the occupants.

Then when you went to court for criminal negligence, you said.

"Giving him the car was not a mandate to drive it off a cliff to kill people, even though that was his expressed intent."

The judge would laugh in your face and lock you up.

The difference between, "Hillary voted to go to war" and "Hillary voted to authorize the president going to war." is so small and so meaningless. She knew that her vote and the vote of her colleagues would likely lead this country to war.

If you want to support Hillary, this is just one of the facts you need to accept and move on.

So yes when you say Hillary voted to go to war without any context, it may be technically true, but it is dishonest.

So when senators such as Russ Feingold and the majority of House Democrats voted against the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, were they lacking the context that HIllary Clinton and other like-minded Democrats had when they voted for the authorization for the use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq?

Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution by Russ Feingold

I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up.

It was perfectly clear to Russ Feingold that Bush intended to invade Iraq. Why was it not clear to Hillary Clinton?

Speech of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-9/11 World November 8, 2002

I also spoke about these mistakes in a foreign policy context during the recent Senate debate surrounding the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The concept that unites my thinking on these issues is guarding against fear, and more to the point, guarding against the very real possibility that fear can lead to deeply misguided policies that lead us far away from safety and security.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold,
Reaction to the President’s State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

The President's remarks on Iraq did not satisfactorily explain to the American people why they should be prepared to go to war at this time.

And yet in January of 2003, Hillary Clinton was still pro-war.

Hillary: Vote for Me, I was Duped

Now compare Clinton’s remarks with those made by other prominent Democrats during the runup to war. Even if they believed that Saddam had WMDs, many of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues opposed the war and challenged the administration’s case for an invasion.

So here are some questions for Hillary:

Other Democrats knew. Why didn’t you?

Why did you trust President Bush more than you trusted top figures in your own party?

Did you, in fact, vote for the war resolution on the basis of polling numbers and political calculations about an expected future run for the presidency?

And finally, if you won’t vote your conscience on questions of war and peace, when will you?

Hillary's Iraq Story Is Kind of Fairy Tale, Too

Hillary Clinton, of course, voted to authorize war with Iraq back in October 2002, after taking to the Senate floor and warning that Saddam Hussein had to “disarm or be disarmed.” At the same time, she rejected an alternative resolution authored by Michigan’s Carl Levin that would have required President Bush to seek international support for an invasion and to return to Congress if he failed to do so.

Back in those days, when the idea of war was politically popular and when most Americans saw an invasion of Iraq as a way of finishing what was started in the relatively seamless and painless Gulf War of 1991, Hillary won praise for showing “presidential” toughness and for casting a vote that would preserve—if not enhance—her White House ambitions. But then the disastrous occupation rendered support for the war politically toxic within the Democratic Party. So she changed her story.

Even if you accept the idea that Clinton—despite heaps of evidence to the contrary at the time—really didn’t think the Bush administration was hell-bent on war in 2002, her story still doesn’t add up. The problem: In the weeks and days before the war began in March 2003, when it was obvious that Bush would ignore Hillary’s beloved inspectors and launch the war anyway, she was silent.

On the eve of the war, a New York newspaper surveyed the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation. 11 of them said that Bush had failed to make the case for war. Seven of them said that he had. Clinton refused to answer.

You would think that she would have been irate—and frantic to stop a war that she hadn’t voted to authorize. After all, according to her new narrative, she only voted for the resolution so that inspectors could do their work. And here was the President, thumbing his nose at those inspectors and using the authorization vote to plunge the country into war. But she uttered not a peep, and the invasion commenced.

Hillary's Iraq Story Is Kind of Fairy Tale, Too

Even if I accept all of what you've written that is not a justification to distort what was voted on. So say she voted to authorize war, not that she voted to go to war. I don't think you or anyone else can know exactly what was in her mind. I accept that she was duplicitous and wanted it both ways, and still she only voted to authorize going to war.

That's true Norm. I don't know what was in her mind. But the question still remains as Ken Silverstein so aptly stated it:

Why did you trust President Bush more than you trusted top figures in your own party?

So say she voted to authorize war, not that she voted to go to war

She voted to authorize war, no doubt about that. Hell, she voted "yea" on the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

And not only did Hillary vote "yea" on the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq":

At the same time, she rejected an alternative resolution authored by Michigan’s Carl Levin that would have required President Bush to seek international support for an invasion and to return to Congress if he failed to do so.

Furthermore, check out her own website, re "War in Iraq".

February 4, 2003

Washington, DC - Senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., today released a letter they sent to Secretary Colin Powell calling on the Bush Administration to propose a U.N. Security Council resolution when Secretary Powell goes to the United Nations tomorrow. The resolution would formally reject Iraq's conditions on U-2 flights over Iraq, demand that Iraq not endanger or impede the operation of the U-2, and put Iraq on notice that any action by Iraq that is intended to harm or interfere with the operation of the U-2 would be considered a material breach of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 and would be considered an act of war against the United Nations.

And now she is proposing "massive retaliation" against Iran under certain cirumstances. Scary!

I thought that these things might be clues.

Back on June 13th of 2006 during the the Take Back America conference, Hillary said she was not in favor of timetables or deadlines. However, she recently went on record at the last primary debate claiming she has been in favor of timetables for a number of years. I smell bullshit

Hillary Clinton said:

We voted in a bi-partisan way to make it clear that this is a year of transition. But I have to just say it, "I do not think that it is a smart strategy, either for the president to continue to continue with his open-ended committment which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interests of our troops or our country

Hillary got booed at this "Take Back America" conference.

Well, Barack Obama was on the same page as Hillary Clinton in January of 2006:

Barack Obama said:

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

Clinton

nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain

Obama

a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, ... It could compound them.

I would note the major difference between the two is that Clinton opposes a timetable and Obama opposes one set by anyone other then the Commander in Chief.

Not a tremendous difference in a practical sense, but at least Obama seems to offer a rational explanation of his position. Clinton, on the other hand, is contradicting herself.

These Democratic senators had one more chance to cast a vote for a resolution that specifically tied the use of force to an imminent WMD threat from Iraq, rather than simply a more nebulous threat posed by Iraq. And the following senators still voted against this, and for the blank check:

Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Again, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller voted against this focused resolution and in favor of the blank check.

Of course, since then, Edwards has apologized for his vote, as has Biden, even though we now see they both had two chances to vote for a better alternative and voted against them both times. Hillary’s position is that she trusted the White House and shouldn’t have, but wanted to preserve the executive’s ability to use all the tools at his disposal to resolve the problem. Yet now we see that she also had two chances to vote for better alternatives and instead voted for the blank check twice.