So, Rev. Jesse Jackson is a credible analyst now?
JectWon
(@_@) 1,654 Posts
Debate ends, I smoke a bowl, get a beer sit back down....BAM!...Jesse Jackson all in my grill. Where did he come from? And, I might add he wasn't doing a great job of defending Obama, which sucked. He did a terrible job of paraphrasing what Obama thought of the Farrakhan endorsement.I guess my question is, do news networks assume Jesse Jackson is a credible analyst when a Black candidate is in the race?
Comments
More to the point, is Farrakhan 'endorsing' a candidate only a question for a Black candidate? That is some serious bullshit.
al sharpton won every democratic debate in '04 despite the fact that he only got to speak about 10% of the time. why wouldn't jesse jackson be a credible analyst? he got more support than Ron Paul and Guliania combined.
Jesse made an interesting point about Hillary being allowed to say that a woman would change everything about how business is done and how if Barak made that comment about being black it would be seen very differently. Jesse is very sad to watch these days.
that was his weakest moment. the question was insulting and obama should have just dismissed it. russert can be such a douchebag. senator obama, now we know your not a supporter of farrakhan, but your pastor has a relationship with him...and farrakhan has made anti-semitic statements. would you care to comment on that? haha. gtfohwtbs.
i thought hillary was chiming in to tell russert he was being unfair. so that was probably her weakest moment too.
it was hillary's best moment squandered. she was right to point out the Obama was dancing around the issue. I mean, for starters he shouldnt even refer to him as "minister farrakhan." He should have rejected the support. "I can't help it if he thinks Im a ggood guy" What kind of Frickin' answer is that? Denouncing is certainly different than rejecting.
But then Hillary backed off, because the crowd boos when she contradicts obama.
here, i think ann althouse disects it pretty accurately.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-farrakhan-and-how-hillary-clinton.html
agreed. but..the whole line of questioning was stupid. russert thinks the people want a night filled with "gotcha" moments and its like he is constantly trying to make himself part of a news story with these - will you pledge now that when you get in the white house you will do _____ scenarios. senator obama, you said you will take matching federal funding a year ago, do you stand by your word?? cmon. who gives a shit about that. the guy is getting a majority of his money from ordinary people who want him to win the election. you think they are sitting at home saying - i hope he doesn't use it just so he can be consistent?
russert basically set hillary up for an easy slam and she fucked it up - instead it became one of obama's stronger moments when it should have been his weakest, where he had to dance between 'i condemn his anti-semitic beliefs' and condemning the people who see value in some of farrakhan's positions ... instead he came off as being above clintonian semantics. she ended up helping him when she tried to slam him
at least he wrote his own material. more than you can say.
classic material
no. russert set obama up for an easy slam with the ridiculous question. obama should have called him out, end of story. instead, he dug himself a whole and hillary had 2 options - to either son russert for being a douche, or hit obama for an answer that wasn't very strong. she chose the latter, which was a mistake, but there is 100% a difference between saying "i reject farrakhan's support" and "i condemn his behavior". she made the point and he said okay, i reject his support. if you were gullible enough to think that he didn't understand the difference before she pointed it out, well no wonder you don't see any faults in the guy. obama cult revealed.
Hillary's complaint about the press, while not wrong, was such a terrible look. She almost shrieked a couple of times... she seems very exhausted and pissed. The debate was not at all the right forum for that commentary.
Lastly, Russert's point afterwards, in the analysis, was absolutely correct about the "first question" argument - Clinton had the floor, and instead of making a firm case on a meta-level about why she would be better equipped to be president, she dove right into Health Care wonkery! Russert pointed out that a) we do not currently even have a universal health care program, b) if or when we do have it, it will bear little similarity to what's being discussed right now, and c) the minute policy details between Clinton and Obama on this issue are not significant enough to change people's minds one way or the other. 16 minutes she argued about this issue which, while very important in a broad sense, is almost irrelevant on the micro level she was approaching it from. Terrible planning from the Clinton team.
the question was bullshit but there wasnt an easy way out of it - threatening to alienate a sizeable part of your base that does consider farrakhan a positive person isnt something you jump into.
I love when she gets all "This issue is too important" aka "I need to keep talking and respond to his response to my response to his response to my response..."
Someone with a proven record of failure on health care reform should really step off that issue. Just sayin.
Like her entire campaign. Yet she's ready to lead the Free World on day one? LTFOL.
are you on drugs? what possible percentage of the democratic base could consider him as a possitive person, compared to those he alienates by even being associated with his name?
he also believed in legalization.
And Ill tell you Fatback, thats the difference between the Dems and the Repubs. We can actually tollerate different views within the party. The Democratic base is so intent on purging those that dont agree with them lock-step, that the only candidate that could survive is the one that just speaks in platitudes about, "hope" and "change." Because nobody with an actual record or strong views on an issue can satisfy the crazy's that make up your base.
is there a way to put someone on ignore for just political threads? please reread what you wrote here and explain how this makes any sense, and doesn't expressly support hillary calling obama out on that distinction.
She's shown that she cannot run a successful organization, despite all of the knowledge in the world. The smartest person in the room is rarely the President - it is usually the person who is not in the limelight but has far more actual power in terms of enacting policy. This is not just true of our government, but in the business world and the academy as well.
AHHHHH. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!
Come again?
the nafta questions were idiotic. its not a black and white issue. if she supported it in the 90s, when globalization didn't have the same far-reaching effects, its irrelevant. obama's answer to the NAFTA question was that he agreed with what Hillary said.
obama held back in the debate last night? did he also do that in the prior 19 where he objectively lost many more than he won?
'farrakhan is a prophet and i think you oughta listen to ...'
I mean look, I have never disagreed with you that Clinton is the more well-versed of the two when it comes to policy. I do not disagree that she has an edge in experience. I simply think Obama would make a better president for two reasons: 1, he has a better connect with the American people, which is by far the most necessary quality for any President to have, and 2, he is less polarizing or adversarial (partially because he has spent less time in Washington).
What I said in the post above is the TRUTH - The President is not the person with the best encyclopedic knowledge of policy. Not just the President of the USA, not the President of a business, not the President of a University, nothing. That is the PUBLIC FACE of the organization. Qualities for a President include: setting tone and morale internally, selling changes and policies down the chain of command, FUNDRAISING, and public image. Clinton has failed miserably on these points, and it's been a year. I think, at this point, there's not really an argument to be made.
hold what back? certainly not his many legislative achievements, long years of service or sacrafice. I think you need to distinguish betweeen "holding back" and having not a lot of substance to put forth in the first place.