libs never get it. Charles Krauthammer understands the nuanced hypocricy of the left better than anyone I know.

Obama's 'Distractions'?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 25, 2008; A23

Real change has never been easy. . . . The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November.
-- Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline),
Pennsylvania primary night speech
With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics" and "trivializes the profound issues" that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.
Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline) and John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline) than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Saturday+Night+Live?tid=informline)" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)
Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tony+Rezko?tid=informline), the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jeremiah+Wright?tid=informline), the racist reverend; William Ayers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/William+Ayers?tid=informline), the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.
In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his latest -- 21st and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting, God-loving Pennsylvanians.
Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Department+of+Motor+Vehicles?tid=informline). In fact, Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers's home. Obama's own campaign says that they maintain "friendly" relations.
Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Weather+Underground+Inc.?tid=informline) comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Pentagon?tid=informline), the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, "I feel we didn't do enough."
Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? Would you even shake his hand? To ask why Obama does is perfectly legitimate and perfectly relevant to understanding what manner of man he is.
Obamaphiles are even more exercised about the debate question regarding the flag pin. Now, I have never worn one. Whether anyone does is a matter of total indifference to me. But apparently not to Obama. He's taken three affirmative steps in regard to flag pins. After Sept. 11, he began wearing one. At a later point, he stopped wearing it. Then last year he explained why: because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."
Apart from the self-congratulatory fatuousness of that statement -- as if in this freest of all countries, political self-expression is somehow scarce or dangerous or a sign of patriotic courage -- to speak of pin-wearing as a sign of inauthentic patriotism is to make an issue of it yourself. For Obamaphiles to now protest the very asking of the question requires a fine mix of cynicism and self-righteousness.
But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than 2 to 1. Ran close to 10,000 television ads -- spending more than anyone in any race in the history of the state -- and lost by 10 points.
And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NAFTA?tid=informline) or the other "issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.

Charles Krauthammer is dishonest neocon Hypocrite!

Got any proof? LOL!!!

It is always interesting to watch the far right.

When a candidate appears that they are most threatened by...........the "character" attacks are always the weapon of choice.

It's a great barometer. And for me a great indicator that maybe this candidate is worth taking a second look at. Anything that scares the far right can't be all bad.

Guilt by association is such a weak argument...but hey, if that's all you got, I guess you have to go with it.

You're C & P's are always entertaining, if for no other reason that they display the desperation.

Len

It is always interesting to watch the far right.

When a candidate appears that they are most threatened by...........the "character" attacks are always the weapon of choice.

It's a great barometer. And for me a great indicator that maybe this candidate is worth taking a second look at. Anything that scares the far right can't be all bad.

Guilt by association is such a weak argument...but hey, if that's all you got, I guess you have to go with it.

You're C & P's are always entertaining, if for no other reason that they display the desperation.

Len

You're right on! Steam and the rest of the cons are scared to sh!t of Obama, so he will lower himself to a google search and COPY/PASTE anything that suits him. Lets just call him COPY & PASTE STEAM!

Shoot, if I go to Google and type in: "Charles Krauthammer is dishonest neocon Hypocrite"
I get 923 pages.

Steam you're becoming a bigger troll every week.
How about an opinion and reasoned thought backed up with independent thought? You're like a loud speaker that very quickly become background noise. You might have a point to make but none of them are yours in the overwhelming majority of your last few dozen thread starts. go back and count. Try to process and make your own assertions rather than just flicking on stuff. Some of the stuff you copy and paste has merit perhaps but to tell the truth I'm more interested in your opinions. That would make a forum as opposed to a scrapbook.

are somebody else's sentiments exactly

must be fun having other people form your opinions

OK, Here is a example of a COPY & PASTE STEAM, but I will also supply a LINK to the sourse, something Steam needs to do.

See Steam, anyone can do this, so easy.

LINK: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/25/91429/8715

Charles Krauthammer: Dishonest Hypocrite
by BarbinMD
Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM PDT

When you consider the competition Charles Krauthammer was up against, penning the most dishonest op-ed in today's Washington Post was no mean feat, but he did it.

It's amazing really. In an attempt to make the case that Barack Obama's "character and cultural attitudes" somehow disqualify him from the presidency, Krauthammer distorts (Jeremiah Wright as an inciter of racial hatred), uses code words (jihad and tribal), lies (political career "launched" in William Ayers home), and projects ("self-congratulatory fatuousness"), which of course says quite a lot about Krauthammer's own character and cultural attitudes, not to mention his journalistic ethics.

But if Krauthammer wants to pretend that he's concerned about "the character and beliefs of a man who would be president," perhaps he can use his national platform to delve into the character and beliefs of John McCain. A few potential areas of concern:

McCain seeking out and embracing endorsements from "men of God" who accuses the Catholic Church of conspiring with Hitler, who believe that Hurricane Katrina was a just punishment for the people of New Orleans, and who believe that our nation's destiny is to destroy the "false religion" of Islam. Kind of trumps what Reverend Wright had to say, doesn't it?


McCain, who in his official capacity as a Senator, protected his Republican brethren from being exposed in the Jack Abramoff scandal.


McCain's anger management issues that have led to his trying to have women fired for crossing him and spewing profanities at colleagues who disagree with him. A temper so vile that Republican Senator Thad Cochran once said that the thought of McCain as President "sends a cold chill down my spine."


McCain admitting to multiple affairs while married to his first wife, finally divorcing her to marry his current, millionaire wife who is 18 years his junior, which transformed him from a run of the mill adulterer into a cradle-robbing gigolo.
Any character issues there that you want to talk about, Chuck? I didn't think so.

libs never get it. Charles Krauthammer understands the nuanced hypocricy of the left better than anyone I know.Come on, folks. I don't agree with a lot of Krauthammer's opinions, but we liberals can certainly do better at rebutting him and Steam than just to throw a lot of unsubstantiated ad hominem invective at Krauthammer.

I have different values and aesthetics than Krauthammer, but I've always found his writing to be very intelligent and intellectually honest. His criticisms of Obama have some validity and all of us who like Obama ought indeed to be troubled about some of his judgments on whom to associate with and do business with.

Where I differ with Krauthammer and Steam is that they focus on some of Obama's flaws that I see as rather minor regarding his potential performance as president and magnify them while disregarding the broader context of the choice we face in this election.

Unfortunately, we don't have any perfect candidates. All have flaws, so the question becomes not, "Is Obama flawed?" but "How do his flaws and virtues compare to those of his competitors?"

There's room for honest debate on these issues, but when it all descends into trolling and namecalling it becomes boring, doesn't it?

Where I differ with Krauthammer and Steam is that they focus on some of Obama's flaws that I see as rather minor regarding his potential performance as president and magnify them while disregarding the broader context of the choice we face in this election.

They have made this magnification of human flaws an art form, and have relied on inflammatory wedge issues. I mean this lapel flag pin issue. Gimme a break.


Unfortunately, we don't have any perfect candidates. All have flaws, so the question becomes not, "Is Obama flawed?" but "How do his flaws and virtues compare to those of his competitors?"

You're a reasonable human being considering the cons point of view. Experience should teach us that they only consider the progessive view in order to destroy it to consolidate their own power and standing.

There's room for honest debate on these issues, but when it all descends into trolling and namecalling it becomes boring, doesn't it?

I don't like debate for the sake of debate. Look at the SCOTUS. Look at the appointments. Blackmon, appointed by Nixon, author of Roe v. Wade, who would no longer tinker with the machinery of death. Souter appointed by GHWB, judicial conservative, but open minded. Warren appointed by Ike, "biggest damned fool mistake I ever made" according to Ike. Stevens appointed by Ford, part of the Liberal wing of the court. Contrast them with Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Everyone knows what they will rule on every single issue before them. There used to be debate but there is no debate at all anymore.

Does anyone really think if Gore was ahead in the 2000 election, the SCOTUS, the felonious five, would have anonymously stopped the voting. C'mon, that's the problem, there is no real debate...

Now a man who calls his own wife a C U Next Tuesday, now that's a guy of impeccable character. A straight-talking maverick, some would say. :rolleyes:

And if Obama's a scumbag due to his associations with Rezko, I guess Karl Rove is too. Any more news on that front, oh great Rezko expert?

cut and paste this

Now a man who calls his own wife a C U Next Tuesday, now that's a guy of impeccable character. A straight-talking maverick, some would say. :rolleyes:

And if Obama's a scumbag due to his associations with Rezko, I guess Karl Rove is too. Any more news on that front, oh great Rezko expert?

"But Ma, everyone's doing it." Oh well, I guess it's ok then.

... Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes ...
Funny. I recall Obama saying, in effect, those were stupid questions and it was a waste of time to ask them. Interesting how Krauthammer will bend the truth and distort even recent history to suit his argument.

Funny also how he says the media have treated Obama with kid gloves (uh, McCain anyone?), and then referencing those questions from the debate. A debate, which, for the first 45 minutes or so centered around attacks on Obama's character. So which is it, Charles?

Krauthammer is a neocon unbalanced Hypocrite, and you only see him on FIX NEWS!

"But Ma, everyone's doing it." Oh well, I guess it's ok then.

You call your wife a C U Next Tuesday?

nice.

are somebody else's sentiments exactly

must be fun having other people form your opinions

It saves him the trouble of thinking, and it saves me the trouble of reading the article.

You call your wife a C U Next Tuesday?

nice.

Where did that come from?

You said everyone does it, no big deal.

You said everyone does it, no big deal.

Oh, that explains it. You thought my wife was just like yours, my bad.

hypocricy .

Not only do you not know the meaning of the word, you can't even spell it*. However, you are the consummate hypocrite, living vicariously through an endless procession of forgettable ne're-do-wells.

On the bright side, your "I have no life" spewings have us, once again, rolling in the aisles; and, in addition, kudos for the irreverent killing babies thread (We thought, "What a great idea for a Monty Python skit).

*With our luck, we'll misspell something and have to eat our words!?