But, this week, I started watching MSNBC and I felt the need to talk about what some are calling a shift in this race.
Clearly Keith Olbermann is this bastion of liberalism, the exact opposite of what you will see on FoxNews channel. (Given how busy I have been over the last weeks since my return from Philadelphia, I haven’t had much time to watch ad nausea any new programs. I’ve even missed CNN’s “Black in America”special, but I plan to watch on Saturday because apparently they’re repeating it.) So I was watching Keith and I was mildly disturbed by the extreme close-ups of him, and he was going on about how Iraqi President Malaki agrees with Obama for a time line that would lead to troop withdrawal.
Well isn’t that just about egg on the face of the one who quipped that if it took 100 years, we’d still stay in Iraq.
I flipped to FoxNews and I heard Hannity ranting that Obama refuses to admit that as a result of the surge, then US troop withdrawal can take place.
Hmmmm….
Well, this is just my opinion and I’m welcome to be corrected, because as I’ve said, I haven’t been quite as close attention as I have in the past, but I’ve yet to see any correlations between “the surge” and the alleged downturn in violence. I think that the military powers-that-be that backed this surge have done a very good job of spinning the outcome of that decision into their favor. The reason I say that is because there are a lot of factors that could play into a downturn of violence in Baghdad and the surrounding regions. Some of which could be attributed to a government that is getting more and more stable with each passing day, an Iraqi police force that is getting more and more comfortable in their jobs–and yes, even a change in mindset of the Iraqi citizens.
Well, clearly we know the conservative approach and the liberal approach to this.
Democrats and other self-proclaimed liberal pundits are saying that Malaki’s agreement with Obama’s stance is more evidence that US troops need to leave. And the Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives are saying that only as a result of the surge was Malaki able to say that he wants US troop withdrawals.
I think that this riff and the overall trip goes to show just how unpopular Senator John McCain really is. Particularly when it came to this European leg of the tour and Obama’s stop in Berlin–clearly crowd numbers have not been on McCain’s side. At this point, when you garner a crowd of 200,000 and your intent is that you are just coming to visit as a US Senator and not the Democratic presumptive nominee, theeeeeennnn, I think McCain needs to go back to drawing board.
Also, McCain, who’s getting the name McSame sticking pretty well (despite my wanting to Weathervane McCain to stick) runs the risk of being called a flip-flopper if he changes his opinions, even though I’m convinced that this is yet another thing that the Obama camp now has fodder to say that McCain hearkens back to Bush.
This morning as I watched MSNBC, they were quite aware of the thin line that he’s walking between campaigning for the presidency while not being too assuming of the job: meaning that he can’t speak of certain changes while currently George Bush is our POTUS. It was a funny interview because I know he was fighting so hard not to be smug because he was forced to explain such big coverage about his trip. He explained, which is true, that McCain went on the same trips following his presumptive clinch of the Republican nomination–then the reporter jumped in and said, “But he didn’t get as much coverage as you did?” and Obama smiled, trying to keep from laughing and said “No he didn’t.”
I’m with The Black Snob on this one, if Obama somehow looses this election, I’m hollering foul. Despite my personal objections to him, for my own personal reasons, the dude is hella popular. I’m quite sure that the rest of the world, aside from Israel, is looking for a change in US policies, probably both home and abroad, and clearly, for them, their hope is in a man named Barack Obama.
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., waves as he arrives at the Victory Column in Berlin, Thursday, July 24, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
Joshua Lawrence Lazard 
I have no objection to any of the aforementioned persons per se, Joshua. I do object to their being put forward as “the voice of Black America” when black America is so diverse that there are a multiplicity of voices. I particularly object to persons like Smiley’s presumption that, if a particular black person–candidate for President or not–does not appear on his forum, that person is somehow illegitimate. We have got to develop a willingness to be a broader, more diverse coalition if we are going to survive…and that means not falling lockstep behind any of them–Obama or Jackson.
@Margaret:
I don’t know if this was the post you intended to respond to, but I will address your issue. The way I interpreted Smiley’s objections was that prior to Obama even announcing his nomination, part of “The Covenant” was to hold politicians accountable. I am convinced that had Clinton objected that Tavis would have been just as loud in his objections–although I wonder if it would have been equally as newsworthy.
Furthermore, I don’t think Tavis took a “my forum” attitude to it all, but rather, this is “our forum.” In hindsight, I wish Obama had went in 2007, this year I gave Obama a pass seeing as how it was the height of the primary season.
I honestly think that both have a valid argument.