BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
Membrana Obama
By JAMES TARANTO
May 9, 2008
(Note: We'll be traveling and thus absent the early part of next week.)
For all the hype about Barack Obama being some new kind of politician, in one respect he is very similar to recent Democratic presidential nominees: He takes criticism very badly, responding to it by getting both defensive and nasty. It is a most unattractive quality.
CNN1 reports on a case in point:
"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing," Obama told [Wolf] Blitzer, when asked his thoughts about McCain's comments that the terrorist organization Hamas wants Obama to be president. "Because John McCain always says 'I am not going to run that kind of politics,' and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his.
"I've said it's a terrorist organization and we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they are willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. So for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name calling in this debate."
Commentary's Abe Greenwald2 has the background on the so-called smear:
Jennifer [Rubin, a Commentary blogress] is too modest to mention it, but she played a considerable role in the "smear" to which Obama [yesterday] referred. It was during a blogger conference call on April 25 that she, in fact, asked John McCain to comment on Hamas's preference for Obama above the other presidential candidates. As it happens, I was on that call as well. And it's worth noting the nature of McCain's response to Jennifer. He began his reply by saying, "All I can tell you, Jennifer, is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next President of the United States."
Considering the situation, this is about the most delicately phrased response that one could have expected. It was not in the least a smear. Jennifer introduced Hamas's very real preference into the conversation. John McCain essentially chose to let the facts speak for themselves.
As we noted last month3, Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did in fact endorse Obama, in an interview with WABC-AM's John Batchelor. McCain's statement that "it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president" is far less of a smear than Obama's characterization of McCain as having "lost his bearings," plainly an attempt to stereotype the septuagenarian McCain as suffering from dementia. No wonder Hillary Clinton does so well among superannuated primary voters.
Obama's perturbability in the face of criticism was also evident in his response to the various comments by Jeremiah Wright*. Sept. 11 was chickens coming home to roost? Hey, we all have uncles who say crazy things. "God damn America"? He meant it in the best possible way. Barack Obama is acting like a politician? That got him angry, although it was almost as indisputably accurate as McCain's statement about Hamas.
One difference between Obama's and McCain's policies toward Hamas, as The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb4 points out, is that Obama is eager to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the public face of Iran's revolutionary Islamic regime, which is the terror group's chief patron. The purpose of the meeting is unclear, but Obama seems to suggest that he would somehow charm Ahmadinejad into submission. Can there be any doubt, though, that Ahmadinejad is now taking note of how easily rattled his prospective interlocutor is?
* The man of whom Barack Obama says, "He was never my quote-unquote spiritual adviser," although he served on the Obama campaign's quote-unquote spiritual advisory committee.
Elect Me, I'm Electable5
Yesterday we noted Hillary Clinton's unfortunate comment in an interview with USA Today6: "There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again. . . . I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."
Peggy Noonan quotes an Obama supporter as saying of Mrs. Clinton's remark, "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white, even with the Southern strategy." We suppose Nixon was a smoother politician than Mrs. Clinton, and using the word "white" was (as we told her yesterday) a mistake. But there is a reason she is speaking in these terms.
The Tampa Tribune's William March7 reports that Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz released a statement making essentially the same point, although without being explicitly racial about it:
Senator Clinton continues to demonstrate that she has what it takes to win the Presidency . . . while Senator Obama does well in areas and demographic groups that the Democratic nominee will win anyway.
It isn't only Mrs. Clinton's side that is insulting Democratic voters. These remarks are of a piece with Barack Obama's statement about "bitter" working-class Pennsylvanians. Jay Cost8 of RealClearPolitics had an insightful take on that:
Mr. Obama presumed to explain the behavior of the voters he is courting. We might not know for sure exactly how he was explaining them, but we know that he was trying to. This is something that is best left to political scientists, not candidates. They should never speak of voters in any but the most flattering terms. Otherwise, there is a risk of alienating them. When you analyze people, you are signaling that you are separate from them. You are an "other." What is more, nobody likes to feel that they are being analyzed. The analyst can come across as haughty. "Who the hell does he think he is to explain me?"
Why are they insulting voters? Because at the moment, they are not trying to appeal to voters but to so-called superdelegates, the elected and party officials who will actually decide the Democratic nominee. Both candidates are trying to persuade the superdelegates that they have better prospects in November, and that is why they are referring to the voters in the third person.
In the olden days, of course, these conversations would have taken place in smoke-filled rooms, not in public. Being dragged through this is a fitting punishment for the woman who banned smoking in the White House.
Answers to Questions Nobody Asked9
From Bloomberg News (second item):
Sorry, next president. Al Gore is not available to be your interior secretary, or secretary of state, or whatever.
"I won't accept a cabinet post regardless of which of the three candidates wins the presidency," Gore said yesterday.
"I am looking for a way to bring about change in other ways," the former vice president and former Democratic presidential candidate said. Gore is in Rome to present the Italian version of his Current Media Inc.'s Current TV channel.
Big deal. We won't accept a cabinet post either. Not only that, but even a vice presidential nomination isn't good enough for us--which is more than you can say for Al Gore.
Compulsory Dissent10
No doubt you've heard the trope that "dissent is patriotic," as well as the trope that no one has a right to dictate how anyone else expresses his patriotism (see flag pin, Obama and). Now the far-left town of Amherst, Mass., is enforcing the former trope at the expense of the latter. The Daily Collegian, student newspaper at the University of Massachusetts' Amherst campus, reports:
A private citizen's group, which has run Amherst's Fourth of July parade since 2002, is angry that the Town of Amherst's decision to hold a similar event may force them out.
The town established a parade because the citizen's group has prohibiting signs "protesting various actions by government," according to a recent press release.
The private organization, which referred to itself as the July Fourth Parade Committee, according to the Amherst Bulletin, still plans to hold a parade in 2009. However, they face an obstacle: the permit the town has taken out extends from the morning to the evening of that day.
Amherst, incidentally, is the town that on Sept. 10, 2001, passed an ordinance banning11 the display of the American flag after one Jennie Traschen declared, "The flag is a symbol of tyranny and fear and destruction and terrorism." All of which raises an interesting question: Is it really dissent when the government mandates it?
When Facts Aren't Enough12
From today's New York Times:
When the Pentagon announced in March that Maj. Gen. Jay W. Hood would become the senior American officer based in Pakistan, it reflected the military's aim to put a crisis-tested veteran in a critical job at a pivotal time in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan's tribal areas.
But nearly two months later, the military has quietly canceled the assignment of General Hood, a 33-year Army veteran who was excoriated in the Pakistani news media for one of his previous jobs: commander of the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
During General Hood's command from 2004 to 2006, military authorities force-fed with tubes detainees who were engaging in hunger strikes at the Guantánamo prison, a step they justified as necessary to prevent the prisoners from committing suicide to protest their indefinite confinement. Also during General Hood's tenure, reports that an American guard may have desecrated a Koran stirred wide protests in the Islamic world.
Shouldn't the Times have mentioned that those reports about Koran desecration were false?
Villains to Victims13
If you're over 6, you remember when the press used to vilify owners of sport-utility vehicles for polluting the air, wasting energy and hogging the road. Now that gas prices are high, SUV drivers are victims of the Bush economy, as the Boston Globe reports:
After paying $75 to fill his black Dodge Ram pickup truck for the third time in a week, Douglas Chrystall couldn't take it anymore.
Feeling pinched at the pump, and guilty as well, Chrystall, a 39-year-old father from Wellesley, is putting ads online to sell the truck, and the family's other gas-guzzler, a Jeep Grand Cherokee. He knows it will be tough to unload them because he is one of a growing number of consumers downsizing to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. . . .
Last July, 20-year-old Sannan Nizami, of Lowell, bought a 2007 Toyota 4Runner SUV for $32,000 when it cost about $65 to fill the tank. Six months later, as a gallon of gas soared to $3.50 and more, and tank refills climbed over $80, Nizami put the vehicle up for sale. He posted it online for $27,000 but received no responses for months.
Frustrated and unable to afford prices at the pump, Nizami last month turned over the Toyota to a dealer who only sells vehicles from private owners. Nizami is still paying the $450 loan but now is bumming rides to work with a cousin and worrying about making enough from the sale to cover the car loan.
"I didn't think gas would shoot up this much. I'm willing to take a hit just to take the pressure off," Nizami said. "I'll probably get a really cheap Camry or Corolla. Something that gets more than 18 miles to the gallon."
Maybe we need a federal bailout for the victims of predatory SUV salesmen who now can't afford to buy gasoline.
We Blame Global Warming14
"Fire Destroys Home in North Pole"--headline, Fairbanks (Alaska) Daily News-Miner, May 8
We Shudder to Think What the Second-Best One Did15
" 'Best Santa Ever' Arrested on Child Sex Charges"--headline, Associated Press, May 9
We'll Never Drink Glögg Again16
"Mortuaries Mull Dissolving Bodies as Burial, Cremation Alternative"--headline, FoxNews.com, May 8
A Lot to Be Humble About17
"3 Accused of Using Humble Corpse Head to Smoke Pot"--headline, Houston Chronicle, May 8
This Time, He'll Kick That Football18
"Charlie Brown Wins, Is Unopposed in Fall"--headline, Chesterton (Ind.) Tribune, May 7
And They Say John McCain Is Old19
"For his 45th birthday in 11 days, David Wells wants something pinstriped."--New York Post, May 9
It's Always in the Last Place You Look20
"European Satellite Spots Some of Universe's Missing Matter"--headline, CBC.ca, May 7
Help Wanted21
"BSO Seeks Gunmen Who Rob Fast-Food Joints"--headline, Miami Herald, May 8
Breaking News From 198522
"Challenger Has Smooth Launch"--headline, Detroit News, May 9
News You Can Use23
"Public Humiliation: A Surefire Way to Guarantee Timesheet Compliance"--headline, Advertising Age, May 8
Bottom Stories of the Day
• "Ithacans March to End Iraq War"--headline, Ithaca (N.Y.) Journal24, May 9
• "Plame Seeks to Resurrect Lawsuit in CIA Leak Case"--headline, Associated Press25, May 9
• "Sharpton Plans Another NYC Protest Over Police Shooting"--headline, Associated Press26, May 8
Killer Comedy27
Our item yesterday on the Austrian man who "fathered seven children with his daughter while keeping her imprisoned in his cellar" and then complained that the media were "unfair" for failing to credit him with not killing all his offspring brought this comment from reader Rosanne Klass:
That's twice recently you have used the hoary lawyer's joke about the guy who killed his parents, and both times you have misquoted it and screwed it up, demolishing the point of the joke and its pertinence. The joke is that the guy threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan--not not not NOT because the press (or anyone else) failed to report that he was an orphan (which makes no sense). The point of the joke being that he had orphaned himself and then claimed the benefits of being an orphan--nothing at all to do with reporting or not reporting it. Please get it straight the next time you use it. (It's older than the hills; any lawyer can tell you how to tell it. My Dad was telling it when I was in my infancy. But at least don't kill the good old punch line.)
Well, Ms. Klass, we happen to think our version of the joke is better. But then, what do we know? At the orphanage where we grew up (after we killed our parents, but we fail to see why that would be relevant), we didn't have a caring male role model around to teach us how to be funny like you did. So c'mon, cut us some slack.
It reminds us of an old joke . . . ah, but you've probably heard it.
online.wsj.com |
