Where's my belt?!
"I'm punishing you because I love you..."
"This hurts me more than it hurts you..."
"One day when you're older, you'll appreciate what I'm doing here..."
For those of us who actually got whoopin's as children, we usually heard nonsensical psychobabble like this right before we got the beating of our lives. Incidentally, I'm inclined to deliver similar lines to Sen. Obama as I post this butt-whoopin' of a clip:
To be sure, I'm a huge fan of Sen. Obama. I don't think I need to qualify that any more than I already have on this blog. But sometimes, "tough love" is necessary to keep our elected officials honest. We have a duty to be critical of our leaders; even the ones for whom we have the strongest support.
That said; even though this may "hurt me more than it hurts you", what the HELL were you thinking; Senator; when you publicly said this?! If you don't want this ultimate in flip flopping to come back and bite you in your John Brown hindparts, you need to clarify your position on Iraq and explain what you meant when you said this. If not, you may cause me to reconsider how much of an advocate I'll be willing to be for you down the road. When I think of all the volunteers, bloggers, and donors that have worked tirelessly to get you in this position, I call on you to honor our commitments by setting the record straight with us. After all, it's not just your credibility that stands to take a hit (though you stand to lose the most), it's our credibility that suffers as well.
As I've said a thousand times before, I'm far more forgiving of flip floppers when they change their positions based on open-mindedness and enlightment. I'd rather see a person change their mind if they were wrong about something than to cling to false and unproven ideas solely based on stubborness, pride, or an unwillingness to see consider the other side. But if you're just playing a twisted game of fair weathered politics, you may have lost one supporter. I might just have to roll with Cynthia McKinney come November. If my saying that stings a bit, then my job of being the loving supporter was performed successfully.
- ACL
15 "Insiders" spoke their mind. Join in...:
Don't mean to say "I told you so..."
It was only a matter of time, I guess.
For one, I never declared that Obama was perfect.
Two...unlike some people who come around this blog, I can point out AND BE CRITICAL OF major flaws of the candidate(s) I support. Tell me: would you be as critical of all the lies and attacks Hill Spawn has delivered over the past year...?
Dang Dre! A little tough on the Senator, aren't we? Then again, you do make a compelling point. I for one would LOVE to hear what he meant by this. I'm sure though there's some context that wasn't captured in this brief clip.
Um...Dre? You DID see that this clip was made back in 2004, right?
KC, As I stated before: if Obama comes out and declares that (1) he did -- in fact -- change his position and (2) WHY he changed his position, I think people would be far more forgiving. I know I would. But if this flip flop goes unaddressed, trust me: the right will have a field day with this. I mean, even Hill Spawn's supporters (*you know who you are) will pounce on Obama for this.
Look on the bright side: If he takes both sides to all issues he can’t go wrong.
Andre, I guess my point is: when he made this comment - IN 2004 - it IS possible that at the time he didn't say anything about troop withdrawal. So if he says troop withdrawal in 2008, it would've been the first time he sang that tune. In that case, this wouldn't be a flip flop.
Andre, I don't see a flip flop either. Up through that interview in 2004, he hadn't mentioned a troop withdrawal. You can't punish him in 2008 for what he said (or didn't say) in 2004. For instance, I notice that your blog dates back to Sept, 2005. If in August 2005 you said "I never wrote on a blog called Inside Andre's Head", that doesn't make you a liar. If you said that in 2008, the wind shifts. I think that's what KC is trying to say.
I'm sorry folks: but when you maintain a certain position only to then CHANGE that position, it's a flip flop. But as I've said over and over again, that's perfectly acceptable for me. If you change your tune based on changes in conditions of the time, that's FINE! But you have to address it. Sen. Obama HAS to answer questions about how he went from saying "I've never said that troops should be withdrawn" to believing that an immediate withdrawal is the answer. If not, the right will have a roast party before the election. Chances are, they'll feast on these comments anyway. But at least Obama will do adequate damage control for those of us who don't support the lunacy of the right.
But Andre, four years of passive agression. For real? Is this what's it come down to?
Hey Dre,
The Iraq war is being won! (*for now) Barack now is in the uncomfortable position of defending that he wanted to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." This is the reason I gave myself a lot of wiggle room prior to the surge. I can't blame Obama for wanting to change his position. Isn't that the criticism that I read here several times about Bush? That he was refusing to recognize the "facts on the ground"?
KC, this isn't some superficial and off-the-cuff remark that Obama could've forgotten about over the years. This is a SPECIFIC CHANGE IN POLICY. You just don't up and forget those kinds of things.
The reason why I'm so hard on Obama about this clip is because -- as far as I can tell -- he hasn't publicly addressed those old comments. Failure to do so will likely provide the right with as much ammunition as they'll need. I mean, think about the backlash Obama has received from associating with Bill Ayers for instance. Barack was like eight when Ayers blew up that statue; yet he's somehow getting crucified by the right for his association. Though that was a loooong time ago, they're feeding on this story like it happened yesterday. What do you think conservatives will say about Obama's unexplained change in policy that occurred but a few years ago?
Hippie,
(1) You know there isn't a such thing as "victory" in Iraq. The minute somebody says "We won", another building is gonna get blown up.
"Barack now is in the uncomfortable position of defending that he wanted to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." This is the reason I gave myself a lot of wiggle room prior to the surge. I can't blame Obama for wanting to change his position."
Again, if I heard this coming from Obama's mouth and not yours I think he'd be in the clear. But until that day, the GOP will have fodder that will be substantiated by the general public's inability to see Obama's dilemma.
"Isn't that the criticism that I read here several times about Bush? That he was refusing to recognize the "facts on the ground"?"
Bush's problem is with consistency. Better, his problem with being TOO consistent. If things are going bad, stay the course. If things are going good, stay the course. If things are going good, but then shift to going bad, stay the course. Nowhere in his agenda will he EVER concede to being wrong. That's why people can't stand him anymore.
"but when you maintain a certain position only to then CHANGE that position, it's a flip flop. But as I've said over and over again, that's perfectly acceptable for me. If you change your tune based on changes in conditions of the time, that's FINE! But you have to address it."
The Republicans will attack Obama whether he addresses the issue or not. If he doesn't address his change, he's labeled a flip flopper. If he does address it, he's seen as incompetent, inexperienced, and unable to make sound decisions. He can't get off either way. So I would suggest he let this blow over.
Directly in the purpose
Post a Comment