Seriously?

Seriously (0.00 / 0)

5% of the articles/posts/comments I read from Clinton supporters have something to do with governance, and the other 95% seem to be more about finding some justification for rejecting Obama.

I shouldn't complain.  'He's offering no substance whatsoever' is at least more marginally relevant than 'Someone who supports him said something mean.'  Even if the relative truth is reversed.

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:16 AM UTC

Sorry, Anna (0.00 / 0)

That came across as a little more strident than necessary, and than I actually feel.

The linked article is about triviality.  One voter supports Clinton because Chelsea showed humility, another doesn't because Bill was stand-offish.  Apparently, both campaigns are adapting to the local over-the-top style.  In this context, the 'I grew up on an island' isn't remarkable in any way, and is probably embedded in some context that makes it a little, but maybe only a little, less trivial.

It's a wacky way to pick the leader of the free world, and you'd think people might have learned from the I'd-rather-have-a-beer-with-the-guy-who-doesn't-drink episode that maybe this isn't all that good an idea.  And yet . . .  

Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.

---

by: CharleyCarp @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM UTC

Relying on a Second-Hand Report of an Op-Ed? (0.00 / 0)

It may be more valuable to find the original piece before judging it so harshly. The media isn't always, um, fair and accurate in its portrayal of politicians.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 13:55:10 PM UTC

In this case (0.00 / 0)

finding the original document wouldn't help me - I don't speak or read Spanish.  

However, I've read from another source that this is also apparently one of the arguments Obama's using in his commercials in Puerto Rico, and he's used the argument before in discussions of foreign policy - he mentions the fact that he's lived overseas, has traveled overseas, and has relatives who live overseas, as though that has anything to do with anything.  

---

by: Anna @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:12:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do. (0.00 / 0)

I speak Spanish. Please post a line the op ed.  I'll let you know.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:24:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You think it doesn't? (0.00 / 0)

I think where someone has lived impacts their thinking. I don't think it is a make-or-break argument, but it is worth consideration. Someone who has never lived in Montana probably doesn't understand the state.

---

by: Matt Singer @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:26:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't. (0.00 / 0)

I have traveled extensively overseas and have relatives who live overseas.  I don't feel that gives me any special insight into foreign relations.  

---

by: Anna @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:44:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then I suppose all of Clinton's travels overseas (0.00 / 0)

that she pads her resume with doesn't give her any special insight into foreign relations, either.

Thanks for clearing that up Anna.

---

by: JC @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 21:00:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Traveling overseas (0.00 / 0)

does not in and of itself give you any insight into foreign relations.

The stuff you do when you travel overseas might.  I would suggest that Hillary Clinton has done some pretty impressive things in her travels.  

Nice try though.

---

by: Anna @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 21:05:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow, is this petty! (0.00 / 0)

The source Anna uses contains somebody's paraphrase of a small part of what Obama said.  There's no consideration at all of the context of the remark, whatever it actually may have been.  But she's so desperate to find something to fault Obama on that she uses it anyway.

If she tried using "evidence" like this in a freshman composition paper her instructor would come down on her heavy for shabby, invalid argumentation.    

---

by: Turner @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 14:28:49 PM UTC

Let's take the piece at face value, (0.00 / 0)

and what do we get?

Anna dislikes that Obama chose to speak to his biography: who he is and where he came from. Talking about biography in unfamiliar political turf is near the top of the list in must-do things for any politician to survive. And it is what Clinton accuses Obama of not doing in Kentucky and West Virginia.

So biography is a damed-if-I-do, damed-if-I-don't topic for Obama. OK. That's what I expect from Anna. But is tha what really happened here?

Now Clinton on the other hand, projected a "here's what I did for you" comment. Biography wasn't necessary for her, because Puerto Rico is familiar with the Clinton's from Bill's presidency.

But let's look at the pander: "I played a big role in helping you recover from a devastating hurricane."

FIrst off, in a Google search of Google (Hillary Clinton" + "Hurricane Georges"), here's a smattering of returns:

El San Juan Star, October 3, 1998: After extolling what Bill Clinton did for Puerto Rico by declaring a state of emergency, and freeing up U.S. resources, "U.S. First Lady Hillary Clinton also visited Puerto Rico"

NY Daily News: " Clinton, as First Lady, visited the island twice after the devastating Hurricane Georges in 1998"

CNN: "the trip will give the first lady a temporary reprieve from the controversies back home that have plagued her family." (Um, like the upcoming Articles of Impeachment)

Larry, here's Clinton's spanish Op-ed.

And Obama's.

And here's an english translation. for those who can't read spanish and want to read it themselves.

To summarize, for those who want the Reader's Digest version (revised) so succinctly provided by Anna, Obama had one statement in his entire op-ed "as someone who grew up in Hawaii" about that island, with the rest of the editorial devoted to policy, positions and details.

Clinton, on the other hand, prefaced her remarks with "As First Lady, I led the presidential mission" (read, visited) ... And then she proceeded into her stump.

But when Danica Coto (the RCP author that Anna quotes for her diary here) characterizes Obama's op-ed as "Obama countered with a column saying he understands island challenges because he lived in Hawaii," she is being misleading, as when you read the op-ed, it is anything but that. Her conclusion does not follow the facts as presented in Obama's piece.

What can we make of all this?

1) Too bad Obama couldn't add First Lady to his resume. Maybe he could put a claim to accomplished tourist, too.

2) And, maybe the press isn't all so anti-Clinton, after all.

Thanks for the opportunity to learn a bit about Clinton and Obama's Puerto Rico campaign and Hurricane Georges. ;-)

---

by: JC @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 18:20:51 PM UTC

I'm enjoying this (0.00 / 0)

Since we're using classroom analogies, I would suggest that a Google search for an event that occurred ten years ago probably isn't going to turn up much.  I'd give you a D for research.  

Incidentally, when Hillary Clinton visited Puerto Rico in 1998, she also toured the Dominican Republic and unveiled a plan to fund education and promote the nation's democratic government.  Which should put the lie to Obama's assertion that her foreign policy experience consisted of having tea with foreign leaders.

I love, love, love your complaints about how unfair the media is, especially after sitting through your most recent two minutes' hate directed at Hillary Clinton this past weekend.  

---

by: Anna @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 18:34:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does the D.R. have to do with Puerto Rico? (0.00 / 0)

I would classify my remarks about Clinton and her assassination comments as "angry." I understand the distinctions between hate and anger.

Clinton exploits the tendency of her followers to conflate one with the other, so as to obfuscate the real reasons for why one would never vote for her. It will be much easier for her to accept defeat, when she can claim the the nomination was stolen from her, than it would be for her to woman-up and accept that she lost a good fight.

And I don't need for you to invalidate my feelings. I paid good money to learn how to validate them myself. Obviously you are much too young to have derived any strong feelings about political assassination through direct experience. About how the idealism and movement politics of the '60s was destroyed by bullets and fear-mongering. Having been there and felt the pain of losing so many promising young people, my pain and anger derive from 45 years of wondering, what if...? I still remember where I was, what I was doing, and how I felt when they announced that JFK had been shot.

And finally, if you give me a "D" in research, I'd give the (nonexistent) research in your piece an F.  

---

by: JC @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 18:58:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are so right, JC! (0.00 / 0)

Obviously you are much too young to have derived any strong feelings about political assassination through direct experience.

Allow me to add: I was in Viet-Nam when JFK was assassinated. It occurred shortly after the coup against the Ngo Dinh Diem regime and their assassinations. I was sitting in the mess hall across from a draftee from Texas, who proclaimed how "proud" he was that JFK was killed in Texas!

Following the assassination of JFK, the assassination of Martin Luther King occurred, followed shortly thereafter by the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. I was living in Santa Monica at the time and was in the living room of my apartment watching live coverage of RFK's campaign visit to Century City. That live coverage included his assassination. I went nuts! I screamed: "No, no, no, no...!" over and over again. My girlfriend was asleep in the bedroom and came running in to see what was wrong. I was still screaming. It was simply too much. Viet-Nam, Diem, JFK, MLK, RFK! I just couldn't take any more.

When Hillary Clinton made her repulsive remark citing RFK's assassination as an example of why she wouldn't quit her primary campaign before June, I came uncorked again. I guess you might call it a PTSD relapse or flashback or something. I agree, JC, that Anna is empty of all reality concerning what any assassination, let alone multiple assassinations (and attempted assassinations) have done to this country and its psyche. I don't know what Matt Singer means when he refers to Anna's posts as "magical." For me, she comes across as entirely callow and sophomoric, if not in fact adolescent.

I get the feeling that as a self-described "feminist" Anna believes that she is carrying a heavy load for women, including Hillary Clinton. I don't buy it. Anna is no Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, among others who did the heavy lifting to give Anna the opportunity to play pretend heroine in a tremendously successful "women's liberation" movement. It's too much to ask someone to grow up before their time, but at least, Anna, you could get over your sense of self-importance and take a break from your pretenses of all-knowing punditry. Limit yourself to your own experience, which obviously is not very much.

---

by: Bob @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 19:47:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This kind of thing (0.00 / 0)

is the reason why new people don't post comments here.  

Just pointing that out to y'all.  

---

by: Anna @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 21:22:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poor baby! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Bob @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 21:37:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never said I was a poor baby. (0.00 / 0)

You can make whatever misinformed comments you want about me.  If I didn't have a thick skin, I wouldn't still be here.  If you think you know that much about me based on some stuff I've posted on a blog, you're out of your gourd.  

---

by: Anna @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 21:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anna's WAY off. (0.00 / 0)

Actually, Obama is NOT saying "I lived on an island once".  What he is saying in Spanish is that because he grew up in Hawaii, he knows and is familiar with what it's like to live on an island, and what it's like to be proud of your island home, and that he is can appreciate the things that make that make life on a island unique.

And of course he's quite right.  Only a person who has lived on an island for a period of time can be an island boy.  I have many friends from various island countries, Guam, Somoa, etc.  And the one thing they all have in common is that they are island boys.  They even refer to themselves as island boys.

It's kinda like southern boys.  You may be from Mississippi, or Florida, etc.  But you're still a southern boy.  (or girl)

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 18:53:20 PM UTC

Pretty weak post (0.00 / 0)

I'm sure you have more substantive stuff in you than what we see here. Let's see it, please.

---

by: Chris O. @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:24:29 PM UTC

That's funny (0.00 / 0)

I said the same thing to Obama when I met him in April.

---

by: Mathello @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:47:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Barry meant to say was... (0.00 / 0)

Its only a matter of time before Barry Obama puts together a speech to clarify what he meant to say regarding Puerto Rico. He seems to be doing that a lot recently instead of focusing on exactly why he should be elected President.

---

by: msu-11 @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:35:12 PM UTC

What Barack said about Puerto Rico (0.00 / 0)

was perfectly clear and needs no clarifications. But then again, I doubt that you read his comments that I linked to above, before you put your foot in your mouth.

---

by: JC @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 21:20:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anna... (0.00 / 0)

Clinton claims she played "a big role" in helping PR recover from a hurricane....would that be a "big role" like "Brownie" during Katrina, or a "big role" as is she did a fly by?

I bet it ranks right up there with her Bosnia trip and her "big role" in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

---

by: bigsage @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 22:13:01 PM UTC

Please see (0.00 / 0)

Wulfgar's post below.  Minimizing Hillary Clinton's work among women in Northern Ireland is not helpful to your cause.  

---

by: Anna @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 16:57:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okeedokee (0.00 / 0)

I'll say it because it needs to be said.  Yes, emphatically and without reservation, Hillary Clinton has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama ... of a sort.  Anna should not be taking crap for pointing that out, 'cause it's true.  Hillary Clinton has worked with foreign dignitaries and aid workers on both women's issues (HUGE!) and disaster relief.  And I don't think denigrating that experience is winning anybody any points.

So what?  You read that right.  So what?  If I want to elect a President whose primary concern is educating women in Bolivia or the Dominican Republic, then Hillary Clinton is the obvious choice.  If the Commander in Chief's job is fostering work programs in South Africa, then bring on the Clintons.  It isn't.  And because of that, I think, as rational people should, that this whole sound bite gotcha game concerning Puerto Rico is just another distraction.  It's crap.  Really, it's crap.

I think Clinton had a point (though it has that distasteful 'buying the vote' feel to it). I think Obama has a point. And I think it misses the point completely.  CharleyCarp had it right, way on up at the top of the comments.  A "triviality" I believe was his word.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue May 27, 2008 at 23:01:27 PM UTC

You've posted some good diaries here, Anna (0.00 / 0)

but

This wasn't one of them.

I am looking forward to reading your writings after June 4th when we can finally get down to business in this presidential race.

---

by: Duncan Idaho @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:09:19 AM UTC

If Obama is the nominee (0.00 / 0)

I will support him, but I will also hold his feet to the fire.  He's got a lot of work to do if he wants to be the president, and I'm not convinced through observing his actions that he's willing to do what he needs to do.    

---

by: Anna @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 17:00:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The democratic party (0.00 / 0)

has no need for Clinton's supporters to hold Obama's feet to the fire in the general. If that is Clinton's supporter's tactic to dog him through the general, then maybe it would be better if they didn't lend him their support.

You either have a unified party, or you don't. When a segment of the democratic party continues the threat of sniping at Obama during the general, well then, they're continuing to do the republican's dirty work for them.

Either get behind Obama whole-heartedly, or back off.

There will be plenty of time to put pressure on Obama during his presidency (unless, as many of Clinton's supporters still maintain, that they'd rather McCain get elected if Clinton isn't the candidate). That may be the best thing Clinton and her supporters can do: send him legislation advancing Clinton's agenda from the Senate.

---

by: JC @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 17:40:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]