Jen, I wanted to weigh in on the story in Haaretz as well, the one that reports:
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”
“Ironically, I’ve got a Chief of Staff named Rahm Israel Emmanuel. My top political advisor is somebody who is a descendent of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate,” Obama said.
“I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there’s the feeling of the friend of my enemy must be my enemy, and the truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and to the West,” Obama went on to say.
These statements combine some of Obama’s worst traits: arrogance, condescension, and detachment from reality.
Obama regards himself much like a teacher who oversees a classroom of sometimes unruly, sometimes dim-witted children. His magnificence is sometimes hidden from them. And so it is left for America’s philosopher-king to explain — in simply, easy-to-understand words — why things are the way they are.
In this instance, the anxiety Israel feels toward for Obama is not rooted in his unwise policies or his disgraceful past treatment of the Israeli prime minister. No, the cause is Obama’s middle name.
In addition, Israelis are a bit too dull to see the miracles that have resulted from Barack the Great’s outreach to the “Muslim world.”
The truth is that whatever Obama’s outreach to the Muslim community is designed to do, it has — as Jen points out — been a complete failure. Israel’s wariness toward Obama is rooted in his pursuit of an agenda that is as harmful to Israel. But all of this is beyond the realm of comprehension for Obama. For him, it all comes down to his middle name. We have rarely, if ever, seen self-delusion on a scale quite like this.
“Obama is very, very liberal and he cannot run forthrightly on his beliefs.”
This is quite true. It is also true that McCain can run on some of his beliefs,such as “free market fundamentalism”. Ironically, we have just “nationalized” our mortgage system,and this process of Government takeovers is not spent yet. So how does McCain’s belief in the free market square with current events?
Married Dean, embrace Pelosi as mother in law and adopted Brazile as sister…. A complete disaster.
We should remember that Fannie and Freddie were the “free market” solutions to the supposed problem of insufficient mortgage liquidity. And friends, they didn’t work too bad at that, being the buyer of mortgage risk, for a good while and certainly as opposed to other propositions to cure this vaporous problem they were “free market”. No wonder the free market has such a bad odor. As is always the case in a QUANGO, they socialized the risks and privatized the profits. Genius. As if that weren’t enough then came along the Community Investment Act to cure the alleged problem of inusfficient lending to Democratic constituencies like the bankrupt and the ne’erdowell. Document requirements for loan applications were just dropped. “Liar Loans” these were called in the industry. And now the guv must explicitly do what it had implicitly promised: use MY money to make up for THEIR errors. The solution to Fannie and Freddie is one big fire sale wherein the buyers, the builders and the banks all take whatever they can get from the open market. No, it doesn’t seem that McCain is or would be on board with that but that doesn’t disreccomend him under current circumstances.
“being the buyer of mortgage risk”
Hi Mega, Don’t forget F&F’s other function,which is to sell CDO’s to China to bring the big bucks from the trade deficit back into our housing market. Don’t you think China’s fear of their shrinking assets had something to do with the takeover?
Mega, do you think that McCain understands that nearly all real estate experts are in agreement that for the next year or two, many of today’s homeowners will find themselves locked into where they are now living. Their situation is much like medieval serfs were tied to their land. They can’t sell, because the market price won’t cover the mortgage they owe, and they don’t have the savings to pay the difference. Homeowners understand that, so the “Market”has become the jailer to millions of middle classers. A few of them may vote against their jailers.
Noah, I disagree. Good conventions–essentially speeches-produce good bounces. Of course, not speeches per se: delivery, style and general themes. And in this case, showcasing a candidate, Palin, who was as vilified by the media as any in recent memory and rose above it with the noise, speed and beauty of a Fourth of July fireworks display. Obama is indeed vulnerable on the issues you cite and that’s why it’s so imperative for McCain to go after his liberalism. If he does, the bounce won’t disappear so rapidly and McCain will be competitive.
Paul — I think the average voter can easily see through gassy rhetoric, and this is why, precisely at the same time non-political obsessives like us are tuning into the race, Obama’s sheen is fading. You might be able to get a small bounce with some nicely-turned phrases at a convention, but if good speeches produced winning tickets, Obama would be trouncing McCain.
A big part of Obma’s problem is after two years of constant exposure, we still have no idea who he is. After a week, we all know who Palin is, in fact most of us know dozens of Plains. And I just noticed I am comparing the bottom of our ticket with the top of theirs, but that’s another post.
Noah, why would you downplay good speeches at a convention when, I would guess, you wouldn’t with the great speeches of the past that have made leaders, rallied people and carried others to new heights? I’m not accusing you of dismissing the importance of communications, just, particularly in relation to the Republican convention, underestimating it. I’ll show you my hand: Reagan at the Republican convention in 1976 and his speech for Goldwater in 1964. These were not policy treatises. McCain’s and Palin’s were not either. If what you said were the case, the platform committee would have submitted their work in prime time.
The Mediacrats are like Lucy and Charlie Brown. They really married Dean when they appointed him DNC chairman. And he actually is the problem. Terry Macauliffe had front-loaded the primaries with Hillary states so the road would be paved for her without serious opposition. Dean figured it out and undid the whole thing. The result is Barry the O–the least qualified, most leftwing figure to seek the presidency in the country’s history.
I won’t pull the football away this time….Honest!
Discrete.
Noah,
it’s not just Obama’s policies that most Americans dislike. They dislike Obama personally. He was always an obvious fraud and inveterate liar, but the Old Media blanket that used to protect him has been torn off by the AltMedia. This exposed the man along with his policies.
Fresh Air:
Excellent point. Ironic that two states Obama desperately needs (Michigan and Florida) were screwed by the Dems in the primary process as punishment for their premature primary transgressions. Doofus Dean may have just handed the election to the Republicans as Hillary likely would have won both states. Karl Rove is Lucy and Dean the hapless Charlie Brown. This election is “gonna leave a (permanent) mark” on the fragile progressive pysche.