She Should have Stuck with the Dollies

Filed under: US Elections

Writing in the New York Times (where else), Caroline Kennedy (whose cousin Joe is playing footsie with Hugo Chavez) says she's supporting Barrack Obama because he'll be a president "like my father."

And certainly, Obama is totally lacking in elected executive experience, just like her father, the last time in American history a such a candidate was elected. Without a majority of the popular vote.

So, if Obama wins, according to Caroline here's what we have to look forward to:

Obama will lie to the nation about crucial facts like his health and his marital fidelity and his ties to organized crime

Obama will disgrace the nation with a failed use of mercenary troops to do our fighting for us, like the Bay of Pigs

Obama will start a war that will end badly, like Vietnam

Obama will not complete his first term because he'll do something mind- bogglingly stupid like riding through Texas in an open car

Obama's vice president will succeed him and be even worse, so that he won't even be allowed by his own party to seek reelection

Obama will allow Russia to dupe him with a grandstand play like the Cuban missile gambit into abandoning a key U.S. strategic position in Europe

Isn't that exciting? What a paradise it will be! It turns out the Democrats are offering us a choice between another Kennedy and another Clinton. Oh joy! Rapture!

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Comments

elmer says:

Kim, let's be fair here. The entire field of candidates for US Prez is, well, lackluster, for one reason or another.

However, Obama is not running as a Kennedy. That was left to Slick Hilly and Billy - they tried mightily to convince people that they were another Camelot, when, in fact, they appear to be more like Shrek.

Obama stands out among all the candidates for these reasons. First, he is very much brighter than Slick Hilly and Billy. Second, he is truly an outstanding speaker, whether one likes him or not. Third, he is very likeable, far more so than Hitlery. Fourth, unlike Slick Billy and Hilly who are psychotically egocentric (me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me), he focuses on people and issues.

He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

And he waxed the Slick Hilly and Billy machine BIG TIME in South Carolina last night.

He is running as an accomplished man who happens to be black, not as a black man. He is quite capable.

And he has truly remarkable rhetorical skills, whether one likes him or not, without the need of speechwriters like Schlesinger or Sorenson and company.

He is not trying to bring back Camelot. His pitch is "the past versus the future."

Obviously, this is a reference to the Slick Hilly machine and its desire to go back to the 90's. Just look at all the old geezers on stage with Billary at every event - the same ol'. same ol' political machine.

As between Obama and Billary, Caroline Kennedy made the right choice.

The US does not need any more of the Bart Simpson Klintons in the White House.

Power says:

For shame. I always enjoyed reading this blog because it didn't let conservative views get in the way of facts, and for a long time gave the best view into US foreign policy and world affairs.

Now we have an entire article that is purely a hatchet job on The New York Times and John F. Kennedy.

Seriously. JFK was dumb because he went out in public and got shot? For shame. You might as well say that Reagan was dumb for getting Alzheimers, or George W. Bush was dumb for not finding WMDs in Iraq. This isn't enlightening, it is just mean-spirited partisan bickering worse than I would see at Democratic Underground.

If you continue to be more interested in attacking Democrats in any way possible than in talking about politics or world affairs in a reasonable manner, then I am going to have no choice but to stop visiting this blog.

La Russophobe says:

POWER:

Ronald Reagan had no control over his disease; Kennedy was responsible for his own security. He was not even in Texas on national business, but was campaigning for reelection.

George Bush certainly WAS dumb in regard to WMDs.

Thus, your analogies are pointless.

For your information, many Americans (and certainly many Democrats) tend to lionize Kennedy (as Caroline has done) when in fact he was a bloody awful president, a total disaster who barely squeaked into office by the skin of his teeth. Therefore, it's important to educate them about the NYT's propaganda. The fact that you would wish them to spew it forth unchecked doesn't say much for the value of your own insights.

It's outrageous that you suggest there is a factual error in this post while not naming it. Smells like propaganda to me. Did I touch a nerve? JFK fan? Sorry.

La Russophobe says:

ELMER:

So you say. And yet, he's been endorsed by Teddy Kennedy and the New York Times, which I'd say undermines your point rather fundamentally.

He holds no qualifications to be president, has a weirdly murky religious background, and his policy on Russia is contemptible, utterly out of touch with so-called liberal values. The fact that he looks good compared to Hillary Clinton isn't much of a commendation is my view.

La Russophobe says:

For the record, I've endorsed John Edwards because of his position on Russia -- and the purpose of this post was not to attack Caroline's choice per se, but her claim that her father was a great president. He wasn't, and nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary.

elmer says:

Kim, the fact that BOTH senators from Mass. have endorsed Obama says a lot, on the Democratic side.

Even if one is skeptical the value of a Teddy Kennedy endorsement. The NYT endorsement is, of course, no surprise ("all the news that fits, we print.")

Maureen Dowd, the viper, appeared on Tim Russert yesterday. Bottom line - even the viper are sick and tired of the Klintons dragging everyone down to their level, all for the sake only of their own personal gain - and the Dem faithful, except for the really stupid ones, seem to be absolutely tired of it.

I understand that there are skeptics about Obama. But, even if one does not like him, he is inspiring - as a man, not as a black man. He paid some grudging respect to Ronald Reagan. When was the last time you heard ANY Dem do that? When was the last time you heard ANY Dem pay some respect, even if grudging, to any Repub.

The Dems, with the exception of Obama, know only one shrieking song, usually involving millions and millions of people who are either dying or homeless and starving under bridges.

Billary got all over Obama for even mentioning Reagan - and paid for it.

I think he looks good compared to any of the Dem candidates.

I would not underestimate him or his abilities. His positions may need some work, but he is eminently more reasonable than any of the other Dem candidates.

Slick Billy ran as a "New Democrat." Not even Hitlery has tried to return to that, or mentioned it. Her song is "me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me-me."

Obama is entirely different.

Seriously, I would not underestimate him.

Ken Hahn says:

For forty five years JFK has held undisputed title as America's most overrated President. If Obama is elected, there will finally be some competition. That's one reason to vote for him. Which is one more reason than there is to vote for Hillary.

B says:

Kim you endorsed John Edwards? I thought you endorsed John McCain on your Rus blog? Was your endorsement comment above a typo or did I read La Rus wrong. Please clarify. This US presidential race shows how important substance SHOULD be over style. Unfortuately, too many people live, breath, and make decisions upon 15 second sound bites. Unfortunately, my fav packed it up and went home. As for Camelot, believe me, there are alot of us out here who are tired of hearing about the 'golden era of Camelot'. Especially once we found out the truth about it, then were given "Camelot II" by the Clintons.

La Russophobe says:

"Obama might have paused a minute or two before professing his gratitude and humility at these clannish assurances. What’s he being compared to, exactly? A president whose political career was purchased by a bootlegging patriarch with a soft spot for Adolf Hitler. A candidate who ran against Richard Nixon from the right on national security, pointing to a phantom “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union. The architect of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the initiator of the Vietnam War. A commander in chief so addicted to painkillers that his recent biographers have shuddered to think of his conduct of statecraft under such intoxicated conditions. A president who lied to Congress about the deal ultimately struck with Khrushchev for the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviet striking of its own arsenal from Cuba. The bedmate of not only Marilyn Monroe but also Judith Exner, the girlfriend of mafia don Sam Giacana, whose underworld contingent carried out America’s hemispheric foreign policy for a spell. A civil rights proponent who nonetheless tried to get the March on Washington called off because of his thralldom to two glowering elements of the body politic — Southern Dixiecrats, who helped get him elected, and J. Edgar Hoover, who knew all his dirty little secrets and didn’t much care for Martin Luther King’s 'dream.'"

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/shamalot.php

XLiberal says:

Obama and JFK both benefited from the Chicago Democratic Party machine. Mayor Daley stuffed the ballot boxes to insure that JFK won Illinois. Obama got his start in Chicago politics by running unopposed- the machine disqualified his opponents from appearing on the ballot.

Obama reminds me of John P. Wintergreen, who won the Presidency on a platform of LOVE in Gershwin's musical "Of Thee I Sing."

elmer says:

Obama later ran against Dr. Alan Keyes, easily the brightest Republican candidate for President.

Dr. Alan Keyes was, of course, African-American. However, he (Dr. Alan Keyes, graduate of Harvard College, Class of 1972) was at a disadvantage in the election for Congress, since the Repubs decided to import him at the last minute to run against Obama.

I would not underestimate Obama. He is very, very bright, he has an easy grace, and he is not JFK - he is his own man.

elmer says:

Kim, I'm not going to trash JFK. The man deserves respect for serving his country in the military. Whatever you think of his policies, he delivered the great inaugural address, and the line that reminded us all that in a representative democracy/republic, citizens have duties:

"Ask not what your country can do for you,
Ask what you can do for your country"

There were mistakes - the Bay of Pigs being one.

The deal that was made in the Cuban missile crisis avoided a war.

There was an attempt to sanctify him. We are all past "Saint JFK" now, and oddly enough, the Klintons, in doing everything they could to hang on to the White House, helped trash not only JFK, but also FDR and Alexander Hamilton, among others, publicly and in the briefs they filed during Klintons impeachment proceedings.

Caroline is entitled to have good feelings towards her father.

But the comparisons to JFK are, of course, silly.

(It also reminds me of when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle that he was "no JFK." Well, Dan Quayle was referring to age, not policies.)

Obama is very bright and very capable. He is running as his own man, not as JFK.

And that's the way it should be.

仓储笼 says:

TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/620

She Should have Stuck with the Dollies

Filed under: US Elections

Comments

Post a comment

TrackBack