Based on the fluctuations of an individual's maturity and the unique events that shape each human's behavior, it is dangerous to assume that someone who was once 15 years old, still holds the same beliefs as they approach their 20s, or 50s. As you know, an individual's beliefs and priorities can change dramatically over the course of their life.
One thing to observe about John McCain, as seen again tonight at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, is his 'willingness' to spread false context about Obama without apology even with contempt; this is a grave telling sign of his current state of character. In addition, how he allows his running mate, Sarah Palin, to go around erratically swing falsehoods at Barack Obama without McCain’s responsible correction or intervening leadership. All of this should send a sober warning to the American public about McCain's judgment and how he plans to govern right now in 2008.
Instead of asserting sound evidence that supports his arguments in his campaign; McCain continues to choose the low road. The low road will get the American people nowhere fast and fuel the attitude of cynicism already express against America government. Consequently, Americans will lose out in the end. The American public need a consistent trustworthy voice that encourages individuals to take the road less traveled, and gives them straight context about the issues they face everyday; not guilt by association speeches and videos.
McCain’s present strategy is praying on the hope that Americans are not going to spend time researching political policy positions. Does McCain believe that the American public is too naive to discern between what is true and what is false? As McCain stated to one gentleman tonight, most Americans have near heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, right?
Last night I talked with an informed friend and neighbor about who she would vote for in November. Mind you she lives in California, which is not a battle ground state, but not all for Obama either. Thoughtfully, she said Obama is too naive about the world issues, security especially and she will be voting for McCain because he has experience in these matters. We then broke away from this topic and chatted about other things. Not wanting to loose a vote, I approached her later with this question: if Obama was to name his cabinet members early, before November and fill the positions with experienced, credible people will this change her vote? Her answer: yes.
I've been railing against the "Obama supporters" who have been writing that they have stopped, or will stop, supporting Obama because of one issue or another. An Obama friend sent me a message in which he advises friends to ignore those "supporters" and he describes them as "trolls." I've been on mail-lists for many years now, and I've seen my share of trolls. Those people are not trolls.
Thanks! I'm gonna go with this on my blog, but I wanna note that the ones that never really did support McCain are not simply "trolls," i.e. people making argumentative comments simply to keep things stirred up just for their own amusement and ego. Whether they are paid by secret slush-funds or are simply enterprising Republican amateurs, they are enemy agents, saboteurs trying to impede the changing times! The few who are genuine glass-half-empty (or "what glass?") single-issue "supporters" who threaten to withdraw their support are naive turn-coats. I feel sorry for them. Whether Obama wins or loses, they will be ashamed of their short-sightedness, and if Obama loses, of how their infidelity will have ended up hurting their particular cause(s).In any case, these acts of treachery should not be used as an excuse for dirty-tricks against the McSame campaign; if discovered, such old-fashiioned low-politics would be used to tar the Obama Campaign. To paraphrase something we used to say when I was a kid: they're rubberized teflon, we're glue, whatever bounces or slides off them sticks to us.Henry M
Thanks! I'm gonna go with this on my blog, but I wanna note that the ones that never really did support McCain are not simply "trolls," i.e. people making argumentative comments simply to keep things stirred up just for their own amusement and ego. Whether they are paid by secret slush-funds or are simply enterprising Republican amateurs, they are enemy agents, saboteurs trying to impede the changing times!
The few who are genuine glass-half-empty (or "what glass?") single-issue "supporters" who threaten to withdraw their support are naive turn-coats. I feel sorry for them. Whether Obama wins or loses, they will be ashamed of their short-sightedness, and if Obama loses, of how their infidelity will have ended up hurting their particular cause(s).
In any case, these acts of treachery should not be used as an excuse for dirty-tricks against the McSame campaign; if discovered, such old-fashiioned low-politics would be used to tar the Obama Campaign. To paraphrase something we used to say when I was a kid: they're rubberized teflon, we're glue, whatever bounces or slides off them sticks to us.
Henry M
Please contribute to Obama if you can: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gddt
I wonder what the Campaign is waiting for to react to McCain "naïve-boat".
He's insisting painting Obama as naïve, inexperienced, even ignorant.
He wants to educate Obama on Iraq !
McCain wants to educate Obama on Iraq, while McCain doesn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
What's exactly his foreign policies expertise, when he doesn't even understand Iran political systems; when his knowledge on Iran isn't better than average Americans'
For McCain Amadinejad is the leader, because that's what "average Americans understand".
And...
"Iran is training Al-Qaida"(sic)…
He didn't need advisers when it came to foreign policies, when it was for attacking Mitt Romney, but what he would know if it wasn't Lieberman to make him understand Iran wouldn't train Al-Qaida.
So, what are we waiting for? Don't we have to act as we did for Hillary about her experience pretention.
McCain is becoming unsustainably pretentious, I would say nasty at this point.
We can't afford him to create that unfair image of Obama. The Campaign has to react before he makes more damage….
John McCain, inept campaigner that he is, has chosen the perfect moment to call Barack Obama "naive" for his willingness to talk to leaders of other countries or movements who are not friends of the U.S.We see in the news this week three sparkling examples of leaders of other nations talking to their worst enemies, or at least to other leaders to whose policies and actions they are adamantly opposed. The Bush administration opposed or opposes each example (in vain) and McCain would presumably do the same:Israel Talks to Syria.The startling news which broke this week of the new Israel-Syria negotiations sponsored by our friend Turkey was revealed not just in the world press, but yesterday, May 21, was openly declared on the website of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We learn from the N.Y. Times coverage that the Bush administration at first opposed the meetings (no surprise), but had to yield when it became clear that Israel was going ahead with or without Washington's blessing. The delicious irony here is that this news comes less than a week after Bush indirectly lectured Obama on talking with terrorists in his address in Jerusalem to the Knesset: " Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before." Tzipi Livni, sitting in the Knesset audience and knowing her talks with Syria were about to begin in Istanbul, must have swallowed hard over this line. We can put Israel down on McCain's "Naive Leaders and Nations" list.France Talks to HamasOn Monday of this week, Bernard Kouchner, France's Foreign Minister, confirmed that France has been having off-the-record talks with Hamas and that in fact he had met a month ago in Gaza with Ismail Haniya, the Hamas Prime Minister. Kouchner was careful to add that these talks were not negotiations but only "contacts." He explained, "We must be able to talk if we want to play a role." This revelation, common-sensical though it is, must have driven the Bush White House, and by extension, John McCain, up the wall. Didn't Kouchner pay attention to Bush's speech in Jerusalem (see above)? Is Kouchner deluded? Does he not realize this is appeasement? The Israeli government, for its part, is well-aware of the "contacts" between France and Hamas and is undoubtedly not happy about them, but is evidently acquiescing in them. What else could it do when its representatives are in Istanbul talking to Syria? So much for France's naivete. It must go on McCain's list of the naive.The U.S.-backed Lebanese government settles with HezbollahIn Lebanon, after several days of especially bitter and deadly clashes between the government and Hezbollah, the pro-western, U.S. - backed governing coalition not only talked to Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed group second only to Al Qaeda on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations with whom one must never speak, it made a deal with it. The deal was done in Doha under the sponsorship of Iran, Syria and, take a deep breath, Saudi Arabia -- our best friend in the Arab world. Normally Iran and Saudi Arabia do not speak to each other, let alone to terrorists sponsored by one or the other. Add the majority coalition in Lebanon to McCain's list of the naive.What we see happening here is that the existential imperatives of peace and survival are driving some of our best friends to jump over their own, and Bush's, rhetoric and talk to the people with whom they must come to terms. Barack Obama, to his credit, has shown a realistic recognition that this must happen -- that all parties, including above all the U.S., must be prepared to talk to their adversaries -- and he has not been afraid to state his willingness to talk to the "enemy," and he has taken much flak (including, sadly, from Hillary) for doing so. McCain, with Bush, remains locked in a mind set long since trumped by reality that says, "we can get what we want by refusing to talk to the people who have what we want."The Coalition of the Naive knows better.
Two of the big cannards of the Clinton campaign & its attempt to push Hillary over Obama are that Obama
1. is wrongheaded to talk about accomplishing anything via bipartisanship
2. doesn't have as good a health care plan as Hillary, particularly because he isn't really interested in truly universal health care coverage.
Here, from The New Republic's Jan. 30, 2008 edition, is this week's G-Blog "Quote of the Week," and a factual response to Hillary's criticisms of Obama:
Obama's determination to embrace would-be adversaries sounds just a little naive, given the scorched-earth strategy Republicans and their lobbyist friends have waged... [But as] it happens, Obama has his own history with health care reform. From 1997 to 2004, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama advocated several proposals to make medical care more accessible, culminating...in a bill designed to force the creation of a universial coverage system for Illinois...[these] provide a window into the governing style he would pursue there.Time after time, Obama broght adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported. In other words, he used the very strategy he's been describing on the campaign trail...And yet, if you talk to liberals in Springfield, the ones who've spent decades fighting for universal health care, you don't hear a lot of disappointment with him. As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked. ...Whatever the meris of his presciption, [Obama's] commitment to make medical care more affordable isn't in question. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
Obama's determination to embrace would-be adversaries sounds just a little naive, given the scorched-earth strategy Republicans and their lobbyist friends have waged...
[But as] it happens, Obama has his own history with health care reform. From 1997 to 2004, as a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama advocated several proposals to make medical care more accessible, culminating...in a bill designed to force the creation of a universial coverage system for Illinois...[these] provide a window into the governing style he would pursue there.
Time after time, Obama broght adversaries into the process early, heard out their concerns, then fashioned compromises many of them ultimately supported. In other words, he used the very strategy he's been describing on the campaign trail...
And yet, if you talk to liberals in Springfield, the ones who've spent decades fighting for universal health care, you don't hear a lot of disappointment with him. As far as they are concerned, Obama's signature inclusiveness was always a means to an end--a way to push the limits of reform rather than accept them. And, they say, it worked.
...Whatever the meris of his presciption, [Obama's] commitment to make medical care more affordable isn't in question. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
Have you ever the saying the deivil in the church. Well. hee is even more damageing then the one on the street. You listen to the devil int he church without question, and when you have a doubt it quckly passes by. Nader's run helps the Republicans. Maybe if he did not run in'00, we might be in Iraq. He graduated Harverd Law School, like Obama( althoh Obama's smarter). A Harverd law grad dose'nt just run in a election and get no where. He has become rich by his silly runs for the presdency. While the poor and middle class are hurting even more. His only accomplishment was makeing the standered of cars lower. He asked for airbags, but thenthe metal started being thinner. As a lawyer, he did not say anything.
Jhon MCcain has the Thomson corp. logo on his campian signs. He supports corparations . He attacked Obama on ''wateful'' spending. What he was talking is funding for schools and hospitials. HMM What is not wasteful spending? Wold be wasting tax dollars on a war that should have never been fought. That is wasteful spending. Hillary is no different. She said in front of hard woking Mexcians, making the minum wage, that they had ''lived the Amercian dream" She was Republican and a corparate laywer. ignore rhetoric. STAND FORCHANGE
- John Achoukian
Rocky Mtn Woman Salida, CO (Sent Friday, November 02, 2007 4:02 PM)
-------------------
Go Rocky Mtn Woman from Salida, CO!
I tend to see Republicans comments around 9/11 as trying to build themselves up at being so good at reacting to the crisis. What I would have liked to see instead is them being so good at anticipating the crisis.
I find using the 9/11 tragedy for political gain repulsive, and Mayor Guiliani seems intent on using his crisis management experience as his primary example of being a good leader under fire. Well, we saw how President Bush handled the first six minutes of the crisis and it was NOT the reaction I would have expected for the leader of the United States.
Seems to be the "naive" politicians of this first decade of the 21st Century are those who think the way to bring peace to the middle east is through bullying or bombing.
Fortunately, Senator Obama does not seem rattled by this latest round of name calling. No, I'm thinking that both Hillary and Rudy have a lot to learn about this Statesman and Senator from Illinois.
Hillary and Rudy might believe they are experientially superior but if I were them, I'd take a long hard look at the strength of character and competency level of Barack Obama -- accusations of naivete do not make him tremble. Afterall, he's the one who is showing that he is not afraid to meet with leaders of rogue nations, which is in this author's opinion, exactly what we want the next President of the United States to do, before they go off half-cocked and plunge into an ill-conceived war that we can only win by borrowing another trillion dollars from China, Japan, and who knows where else, then sticking the 60 Billion dollar per interest bill onto the tax bill of our grandchildren.
Remember George Bush with his, "Bring it On" taunt to Saddem Hussein? Hawks like Rudy and Hillary love this kind of bully-talk, as they claim that anyone who doesn't adopt their perspective on the world is "naive" and "inexperienced".
Jeepers, how much longer must we endure the politics of division and fear?
Barack Obama - a breath of fresh and the kind of candidate we need for the next generation.
The following is an Op-Ed I submitted to the Bowdoin Orient, my college newspaper, for the Friday, October 26, 2007 edition: (http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2007-10-26§ion=2&id=3)
Why Leadership in Foresight, Not Hindsight, Is Important:
Just when the situation in Iraq could not have gotten any worse, it has. Aside from an imminent Sunni-Shiite civil war, fears of future genocide, Iranian intervention, and a recent Congressional vote patently acknowledging that Iraq as we know it will never exist again and must be partitioned into tribal regions, Turkey is now threatening to invade Iraq from the north.
The political-military implications of this for the United States may be disastrous on a level we have not yet seen in this war, even with all the past blunders of the Bush Administration. And yet nationally, Democrats seem to be completely indifferent as to why we got into this mess in the first place.
The truth is, this foreign policy quagmire is as much the fault of the Bush Administration as it is that of our Congress, a coequal branch of the Federal Government. More specifically, it is the fault of those who were unable to examine the then-proposed war as anything more than a political "do" or a political "don't," or from a black-and-white "pro-war" or "anti-war" stance.
Among the members of this Congress and its proponents of the "blank check" for the Iraq War were Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. I cannot imagine that Clinton and Edwards hoped for such a disaster, though I fear debating the war's potential outcome was not among their chief priorities. The vote, after all, was scheduled one month before the General Election.
Incidentally, these two senators are also now running for President.
Meanwhile, another candidate for the 2008 Presidency, Senator Barack Obama, spoke out against the war from the start. Despite being both in the precarious position of running for office (again, with the elections one month away) and having to do so 13 months after September 11, Obama declared during his now-famous anti-war speech before the war's authorization:
"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein...The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him...But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, [and] that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Obama also warned that an invasion in Iraq would lead to deadly separatist conflicts among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, and that the war would require an extended U.S. occupation.
However, what I am arriving at here is not so much the issue of having once been pro-war or anti-war. What I am concerned with is our future president's ability to make decisions based on nuanced judgments rather than what is politically safe.
Given the facts, it is ironic that Ms. Clinton has accused Obama of being "naive." What she means is that Barack Obama has had two years less experience as a Senator than she, and decades less experience than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have had as Washington politicians. This, for some reason, must inhibit his ability to analyze and assess the critical foreign policy decisions facing our nation.
What we should really be calling "naive" is one's inability to predict the most obvious outcomes to our country's irreversible actions.
This is my submission for soundbite of the week.
Dear Fellow Bloggers: please read below. It starts out as the standard political diatribe, but then morphs into a rather colorful and, I hope, interesting proposal. Any comments will be greatly appreciated.
We cannot wait until 2010, as Hillary proposes, to deal seriously with Iran and Syria (OK, Hugo Chavez can wait, but what's the point?)
Who has the moral high ground with Syria sheltering a million refugees from our war and our failed occupation?
Who needs whom? Thinking that we can get out of this war with our heads held high and our regal "POTAC" prestige intact is a naive and irresponsible pipe dream. (BTW I find all this POTAC stuff on the Hillary sites and from her supporters a little creepy and again, 1984-like - you know, the robot-like "All Hail the POTAC, All Hail the POTAC").
Well, nobody wants to hear the following, and I don't know when the correct time to say it to the broader public will be, but we are definitely going to have to eat some humble pie to get out of this disaster.
There are 5 well-known stages of major loss: shock, denial, anger, grief, and acceptance.
We're still in anger, and now is not the time to serve up the humble pie - we'll just get it thrown back in our faces in righteous, confused anger. However, those of us who are ahead of curve on this one (and have been since 2002) better get out our recipe books to figure out how to cook up various versions of old humble pie that will be tolerably palatable as we move into the stage of grieving for our lost war.
Now, humble pie is a delicacy (remember, the main ingredient is crow) that is certainly not to everyone's taste, but everyone knows in their heads that its good for them when they really need it, whether they like it or not, and consumption will speed up our transition out of that unpleasant grief stuff and into the acceptance stage, and that pleasant feeling of "I guess we're not that bad after all". But you don't get the dessert before you've eaten the pie.
Dear Fellow Bloggers: What do you think of all this? Am I way off target with my colorful musings or on the right track with this stuff? Do you think there's any hope for a humble-pie fest in 2008?
Ltr to Maureen Dowd – NYT 29 July
Dear Coach Dowd,
I been rememberin' ya March 3, 2007 article “Where’s His Right Hook?” alot.
It seems that your Ingrid Bergman channeling has finally kicked in, eh?
[Dowd compared herself to the coaching nun in "The Bells of St. Mary's]
And the kid's smart - he didn't pick a fight with his tormenter, but waited until she made the mistake of lashing out first with that "naive and irresponsible" personal attack.
Our champ turned that one around on a dime!
And then following through with that Bush-lite number! Whamo! Ka Bam!
She even had to scurry to ask Tom Vilsack to defend her, not to speak of all the right wing commentators and TV talking heads.
What's the good Sr. have to say about the rookie now? I hope your beaming with pride.
Next moves to work on are the whole inexperience thing. Good thing there's an excellent coachin' tape from a master - see Bill Clinton on experience, 1992: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k .
Do you think those formative childhood years with a Muslim step-father in Indonesia and African family reunions may just be the type of real-world experience Bill is talking about? Or does the Dame's gliterrati, coddled jet-setting count more? Which is more likely to be really useful in our current situation?
Then comes the incompetence set-up. You know how if a white gal and a black guy walk in to apply for a job, we automatically perceive the white as more competent, even if our head says that's unacceptable (reams of studies to prove it).
Don't you think our guy might actually be being pre-judged because of his skin color?
I mean everyone's always talking about how the Lady's being judged for her gender (clothes, chest, hair, ooops, sorry, she's praised for being proud of how much attention she pays to her hair, its the guys who get in trouble for gender-bending, which is of course justified, not discrimination, unlike with the dames. Women can be women and men, but guys gotta be guys - dem's da rules! Leads to more guy-like behavior overall, which is of course exactly what we need).
Racial bias, na, ridiculous, it'll never fly. Not in America, not in our progressive day and age. People will never admit to it, and we may as well not even bring up the argument. We'll be booed out out the ring for trying that worn-out, wimp liberal move that everybody hates, even if it is true.
Well, that's it from this sports fan.
Dyin’ to see your upcoming columns on the big verbal slugfest.
Your loyal reader,
