Sarah Palin and several others are claiming that Barack Obama is unpatriotic or un-American for suggesting that US forces are (in her words) 'air raiding civilians' in Afghanistan.
The problem is that US forces are in fact, "air raiding civilians" in Afghanistan.
Everybody on the ground there from the president of Afghanistan to our NATO allies knows this is true and they are complaining loudly about it. Especially since US planes murdered a wedding party last summer and US commanders tried to deny that it happened.
How do I know?
Because our Canadian allies were reporting this story in August and September. Seems the ungrateful Afghanis don't appreciate being murdered at family gatherings.
Why do these air strikes happen?
According to allied commanders it's because US forces operate under different rules of engagement in Afghanistan than NATO forces. NATO rules are more conservative with the result that there have been far fewer civilian or friendly fire casualties inflicted by NATO than by the US.
Barack Obama was speaking about facts that are well understood by everyone.
Everyone but John McCain, Sarah Palin and the red-meat loving right.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
America's News Media - Ready For This Election?
Hillary Clinton "Kitchen Sinked" Obama.
That phrase, meaning she threw everything, including the kitchen sink at Obama, will now take it's place next to "Swift Boating" in the American lexicon of colorful political shorthand.
How does one "kitchen sink" an opponent? One waits until the 11th hour of a campaign. Then one flacks the press with a rapid fire combination of commercial messages, language and positioning. Insinuations and half truths are spun with opinions that would make a pit-bull dog pause for breath.
When the flack began to fill the airwaves on Monday I noticed how little journalistic work or editorial control was actually being done. The need for speed had disabled deliberation. The Clinton campaign announced it's story and the reporters of the commercial media dutifully flocked to Texas and presented it to Senator Obama in the form of questions at a news conference.
This is the sorry state of our "popular" news media during the most important Presidential election in a generation. And by the way, this isn't just about Senator Clinton. This is about how news organizations have covered national stories since before and after 911. She is merely exploiting their obvious weakness.
Let's say that someone in the Obama camp were to state tomorrow morning that Hillary Clinton made a deal with a Mexican Mafia associate to deliver votes in Texas. Let's say the claim was based on a statement made by a convicted drug dealer in a Mexican jail. Shouldn't a reporter check out the source before delivering an accusatory quote and demanding a response? If the story can't be confirmed as fact shouldn't it be obvious that she need not defend herself to the press?
There is a reckless and irresponsible trend that is damaging the electoral process.
Watch dogging the candidates and their claims is what the news media should be doing. As things stand, The Clinton campaign gets away with the airy claim that they are merely "vetting" their opponent. And why shouldn't they? We don't have editors who stop rumor mongering or reporters who check facts before filing stories. What we're getting is press releases and short attention span theater.
"....John McCain is old. Senator Obama: Is he half black or half white? And Hillary Clinton is a bitch. More after this..."
America's largest news organizations have lost control of the election story. If they want it back, they're going to have to become damn good journalists.
UPDATE 3.6.08 (8:29 AM)
More information has come to light about a Canadian story picked up by US media regarding The Obama campaign and NAFTA. This new report from the Globe and Mail (Toronto) says that Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, said the Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign had tried to reassure the Canadian government about NAFTA.
"OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
"...Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment."
UPDATE: 3.6.08 (10:30 AM)
Check this out:
From ABC NEWS.COM - Political Punch by Jake Tapper - NAFTA Confusion
"Buried in a Canadian Press story about the NAFTA controversy is the intriguing notion that all of this began, as ABC News'Jennifer Parker has reported, with the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
Read the linked Feb. 29 story by Jennifer Parker. ABC News knew the story went from Ian Brodie to CTV.
That phrase, meaning she threw everything, including the kitchen sink at Obama, will now take it's place next to "Swift Boating" in the American lexicon of colorful political shorthand.
How does one "kitchen sink" an opponent? One waits until the 11th hour of a campaign. Then one flacks the press with a rapid fire combination of commercial messages, language and positioning. Insinuations and half truths are spun with opinions that would make a pit-bull dog pause for breath.
When the flack began to fill the airwaves on Monday I noticed how little journalistic work or editorial control was actually being done. The need for speed had disabled deliberation. The Clinton campaign announced it's story and the reporters of the commercial media dutifully flocked to Texas and presented it to Senator Obama in the form of questions at a news conference.
This is the sorry state of our "popular" news media during the most important Presidential election in a generation. And by the way, this isn't just about Senator Clinton. This is about how news organizations have covered national stories since before and after 911. She is merely exploiting their obvious weakness.
Let's say that someone in the Obama camp were to state tomorrow morning that Hillary Clinton made a deal with a Mexican Mafia associate to deliver votes in Texas. Let's say the claim was based on a statement made by a convicted drug dealer in a Mexican jail. Shouldn't a reporter check out the source before delivering an accusatory quote and demanding a response? If the story can't be confirmed as fact shouldn't it be obvious that she need not defend herself to the press?
There is a reckless and irresponsible trend that is damaging the electoral process.
Watch dogging the candidates and their claims is what the news media should be doing. As things stand, The Clinton campaign gets away with the airy claim that they are merely "vetting" their opponent. And why shouldn't they? We don't have editors who stop rumor mongering or reporters who check facts before filing stories. What we're getting is press releases and short attention span theater.
"....John McCain is old. Senator Obama: Is he half black or half white? And Hillary Clinton is a bitch. More after this..."
America's largest news organizations have lost control of the election story. If they want it back, they're going to have to become damn good journalists.
UPDATE 3.6.08 (8:29 AM)
More information has come to light about a Canadian story picked up by US media regarding The Obama campaign and NAFTA. This new report from the Globe and Mail (Toronto) says that Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, said the Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign had tried to reassure the Canadian government about NAFTA.
"OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
"...Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment."
UPDATE: 3.6.08 (10:30 AM)
Check this out:
From ABC NEWS.COM - Political Punch by Jake Tapper - NAFTA Confusion
"Buried in a Canadian Press story about the NAFTA controversy is the intriguing notion that all of this began, as ABC News'Jennifer Parker has reported, with the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
Read the linked Feb. 29 story by Jennifer Parker. ABC News knew the story went from Ian Brodie to CTV.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Clinton and The Media Outclassed
Words mean things.
My father taught me that as we listened to political speeches.
He was chairman of the speech department at UCSB and a PHD in rhetoric. He used to play speeches for his senior classes and I was his young son watching him prepare for lecture.
He would pace the floor during a Nixon speech and shout, "Did you hear what he just said?"
I would repeat what was said.
"No no, did you hear what he meant by what he said?"
He explained that in the arena of politics and professional speech with writers and candidates on the national stage - words are chosen carefully and people say exactly what they mean.
I've listened to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and the other candidates for office. And I can tell you that Gary Wills should already be working on a new book because Barack Obama represents fundamental change to political speech in America. He has also exposed the shortcomings of political reporters who hear what's being said but don't have much to say about what it means.
Obama is the Tiger Woods of political oration and as of right now he is playing in a league of his own.
In a speech given Tuesday night in Houston, Barack Obama repeatedly crushed his opponents and specifically answered Hillary Clinton while keeping himself elevated above the mudfight that the far right, the Clintons and the media have been managing for 16 years.
Here are three examples of what Obama said on Tuesday night:
1)
"As wonderful as this gathering is, as exciting as these enormous crowds and this enormous energy may be, what we're trying to do here is not easy, and it will not happen overnight.
It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...
(APPLAUSE)
... because lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence, because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to bridge their differences so we can get something done.
(APPLAUSE)
The problem is that we haven't had leaders who can inspire the American people to rally behind a common purpose and a higher purpose. And this is what we need to change today..."
****
2)
"...I'm not running because of some long-held ambition. I know that some people have been looking through my kindergarten papers, but that's not why I decided to run.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me. I'm running because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now.
(APPLAUSE)
****
3)
If you're ready for change, we can assure that every child in America has the best education this country has to offer...
(APPLAUSE)
... from the day that child is born to the day that child graduates from college. The problem is not the lack of plans, the lack of good ideas. The problem is a lack of political will, a lack of urgency.
****
The public instinctively understand this man.
By contrast, the speech of Hillary Clinton is barely any different in tone deafness and flat delivery from John Kerry. Further, Obama isn't arguing ideology against Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He is arguing that he is a better person because he has a higher purpose. That is a breathtaking statement! And it wasn't focus group tested either. This guy just knows who he is.
Here's my critique of the three examples from Tuesday:
1) Obama catches Hillary's "just words" critique and turns her into a frumpy policy wonk who doesn't inspire the people and is a captive of special interest money.(Ohhh - -SNAP!)
2)Obama captures the public perception of Hillary and a sense that she feels she is owed something. Then mocks the opposition research that involved his Kindergarten papers. It's a slap and a dismissal followed by a quote from Dr. King that piles dirt all over the sinking Clinton campaign.
3)This is Obama asking Hillary if she still thinks she is the smartest kid in class.
The speech is a carefully constructed demonstration of his power.
Hey, I know rhetorical analysis is pretty geeky stuff. So what. We're being taught by a master orator that words MEAN things. After 8 years of Mr. Bush, I'm positively giddy.
(The entire transcript of The 2.19.08 speech by Senator Obama can be found at The Turner Report
My father taught me that as we listened to political speeches.
He was chairman of the speech department at UCSB and a PHD in rhetoric. He used to play speeches for his senior classes and I was his young son watching him prepare for lecture.
He would pace the floor during a Nixon speech and shout, "Did you hear what he just said?"
I would repeat what was said.
"No no, did you hear what he meant by what he said?"
He explained that in the arena of politics and professional speech with writers and candidates on the national stage - words are chosen carefully and people say exactly what they mean.
I've listened to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and the other candidates for office. And I can tell you that Gary Wills should already be working on a new book because Barack Obama represents fundamental change to political speech in America. He has also exposed the shortcomings of political reporters who hear what's being said but don't have much to say about what it means.
Obama is the Tiger Woods of political oration and as of right now he is playing in a league of his own.
In a speech given Tuesday night in Houston, Barack Obama repeatedly crushed his opponents and specifically answered Hillary Clinton while keeping himself elevated above the mudfight that the far right, the Clintons and the media have been managing for 16 years.
Here are three examples of what Obama said on Tuesday night:
1)
"As wonderful as this gathering is, as exciting as these enormous crowds and this enormous energy may be, what we're trying to do here is not easy, and it will not happen overnight.
It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...
(APPLAUSE)
... because lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence, because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to bridge their differences so we can get something done.
(APPLAUSE)
The problem is that we haven't had leaders who can inspire the American people to rally behind a common purpose and a higher purpose. And this is what we need to change today..."
****
2)
"...I'm not running because of some long-held ambition. I know that some people have been looking through my kindergarten papers, but that's not why I decided to run.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me. I'm running because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now.
(APPLAUSE)
****
3)
If you're ready for change, we can assure that every child in America has the best education this country has to offer...
(APPLAUSE)
... from the day that child is born to the day that child graduates from college. The problem is not the lack of plans, the lack of good ideas. The problem is a lack of political will, a lack of urgency.
****
The public instinctively understand this man.
By contrast, the speech of Hillary Clinton is barely any different in tone deafness and flat delivery from John Kerry. Further, Obama isn't arguing ideology against Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He is arguing that he is a better person because he has a higher purpose. That is a breathtaking statement! And it wasn't focus group tested either. This guy just knows who he is.
Here's my critique of the three examples from Tuesday:
1) Obama catches Hillary's "just words" critique and turns her into a frumpy policy wonk who doesn't inspire the people and is a captive of special interest money.(Ohhh - -SNAP!)
2)Obama captures the public perception of Hillary and a sense that she feels she is owed something. Then mocks the opposition research that involved his Kindergarten papers. It's a slap and a dismissal followed by a quote from Dr. King that piles dirt all over the sinking Clinton campaign.
3)This is Obama asking Hillary if she still thinks she is the smartest kid in class.
The speech is a carefully constructed demonstration of his power.
Hey, I know rhetorical analysis is pretty geeky stuff. So what. We're being taught by a master orator that words MEAN things. After 8 years of Mr. Bush, I'm positively giddy.
(The entire transcript of The 2.19.08 speech by Senator Obama can be found at The Turner Report
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Edwards Isn't Out Yet
John Edwards is quiet. Too quiet.
He's out of the race and he's not exactly loaded with influence. So why didn't he throw his support to Obama or Clinton before or at least just after Super Tues?
In a year when Edwards' 26 delegates and voter support could make or break a close race, it's interesting that he's held his fire this long. Maybe he thinks he could be the kingmaker.
Meanwhile, we're seeing the two faces of a schizophrenic Democratic party. The Senator from New York is having trouble figuring out how to reach voters with her obvious quality. Her message of "I'm Ready" isn't connecting. Is she experienced? Yes, but so are we - we've already experienced Hillary and that experience cuts both ways. Is she informed? Yes, but anyone who tells you over and over that they KNOW they are the smartest person in the room becomes annoying at best and pathetic at worst. You can't win by telling the electorate that you are smarter than they are.
Finally, Hillary is the DLC candidate, which puts her in direct conflict with party chairman Howard Dean. The DLC plays the big state strategy and tried to stop Howard Dean from assuming party leadership. There is no love lost here.
On the other hand, the Senator from Illinois is schooling both the DLC and the electorate. Obama is the "we" candidate. Hillary is the "I" candidate. Guess which one is inspiring the voters. When Obama takes the podium, he looks like a home run hitter taking batting practice. One applause line after another goes sailing over the fence. The DLC calculation of being just barely left of right is being seen for exactly what it is - an effort to secure political power at the expense of Liberal principles. In an era of badly eroded social values, Obama appears to be a principled Liberal saying, "Yes We Can!" be Liberals again. He's also embracing the Howard Dean 50 State strategy and it's beginning to pay dividends.
I predict that when the primary fight is over, Obama wins.
But the party rules and procedure fight is just getting started and we'll find out who won control of the party when we find out who gets the nomination.
Meanwhile...John Edwards is quiet. Too quiet.
He's out of the race and he's not exactly loaded with influence. So why didn't he throw his support to Obama or Clinton before or at least just after Super Tues?
In a year when Edwards' 26 delegates and voter support could make or break a close race, it's interesting that he's held his fire this long. Maybe he thinks he could be the kingmaker.
Meanwhile, we're seeing the two faces of a schizophrenic Democratic party. The Senator from New York is having trouble figuring out how to reach voters with her obvious quality. Her message of "I'm Ready" isn't connecting. Is she experienced? Yes, but so are we - we've already experienced Hillary and that experience cuts both ways. Is she informed? Yes, but anyone who tells you over and over that they KNOW they are the smartest person in the room becomes annoying at best and pathetic at worst. You can't win by telling the electorate that you are smarter than they are.
Finally, Hillary is the DLC candidate, which puts her in direct conflict with party chairman Howard Dean. The DLC plays the big state strategy and tried to stop Howard Dean from assuming party leadership. There is no love lost here.
On the other hand, the Senator from Illinois is schooling both the DLC and the electorate. Obama is the "we" candidate. Hillary is the "I" candidate. Guess which one is inspiring the voters. When Obama takes the podium, he looks like a home run hitter taking batting practice. One applause line after another goes sailing over the fence. The DLC calculation of being just barely left of right is being seen for exactly what it is - an effort to secure political power at the expense of Liberal principles. In an era of badly eroded social values, Obama appears to be a principled Liberal saying, "Yes We Can!" be Liberals again. He's also embracing the Howard Dean 50 State strategy and it's beginning to pay dividends.
I predict that when the primary fight is over, Obama wins.
But the party rules and procedure fight is just getting started and we'll find out who won control of the party when we find out who gets the nomination.
Meanwhile...John Edwards is quiet. Too quiet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
