Where's The Beef?

Hillary Clinton, in her remarks on foreign policy today at George Washington University, still hesitates to make an affirmative case that Barack Obama is singularly unqualified to be president of the United States and would not be ready to be commander in chief from day one. The language in here is starker than the language she's used before, but the argument is basically the same.

BTW: Clinton was endorsed today by Maj. Gen. (ret). Anthony Taguba, he of Taguba Report fame -- or infame, to Rumsfeld. -- a 34 year veteran of the Army.

Key excerpts from the speech are after the jump.

We need a president who understands there is a time for force, a time for diplomacy, and a time for both, who understands that we enhance our international reputation and strengthen our security if the world sees the human face of American democracy in the good works, the good deeds we do for people seeking freedom from poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, and oppression.

With me, this is not theoretical. This is very much who I am, what I have done, and what I will do. The American people don’t have to guess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis or whether I’d have to rely on advisers to introduce me to global affairs.

I’m lucky to have had a pretty good inside view, over eight years in the White House and now over seven years in the Senate, of what the president goes through day in and day out dealing with all of these challenges. Obviously the work that I have done on human rights, democracy, international development gives me a deep appreciation of the importance of winning the hearts and minds of those in societies whether or not they are for us today. I believe that we can seed democracy and create new strong alliances overseas.

And I also know from my years serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee that our military power is absolutely essential but it cannot be viewed as the solution to every international problem. Yes, we must use force when necessary but as a last resort, not a first resort. As one piece of a comprehensive strategy to defend our nation and promote our values.

Senator Obama, meanwhile, represents another choice. He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve the world’s most intractable problems. To advocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world. Electing a president should not be an either/or proposition when it comes to national security. We need a president who knows how to deploy both the olive branch and the arrows. Who will be ready to act swiftly and decisively in a crisis? Who will pursue strategic demands of hard diplomacy to re-establish moral authority and our leadership? In this moment of peril and promise, we need a president who is tested and ready, who can draw on years of real world experience working on many of the issues that we now confront. Who knows when to stand ones ground and when to seek common ground? Who has the strength and fortitude to meet the challenges head on without fear and without sowing fear?

I believe I am the candidate most ready today to be that kind of president and commander in chief. I will never let America’s good name be disgraced. I will always protect and defend our nation and I will always advance the traditions and values that have made our country, as Lincoln said, the last best hope on earth. Thank you all very much.

Comments

The language in here is starker than the language she's used before, but the argument is basically the same.

So it wasn't a "major" foreign policy address at all. Would you agree that the nets were justified in not carrying it live?

For the life of me, I can't figure out how Hillary thinks these arguments help her candidacy, given her votes on Iraq and Iran.

And if this doesn't describe our situation in Iraq, I don't know what does:

[A]dvocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation from our allies in the most sensitive region of the world.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 5:10 PM

So she's claiming that she's ready to be CIC because of Bill and then 7 years in the Senate. Nice. That will stack up well against McCain!

The only way a Democratic candidate can beat McCain on this issue is to frame it in terms of change, judgment, and a new approach. Hillary's insistence that she would be a better CIC will never be enough to get Dem voter to forget that she voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

Posted by Craig | February 25, 2008 5:11 PM

For many months in the runup to the Iowa caucuses I supported and planned to caucus for Senator Clinton. Even though I switched to Obama by the time of the caucuses I still had tremendous respect for Hillary and Bill. I would have been happy to have her as our nominee.

My, how the times have changed! I cannot believe the Clintons have squandered every ounce of goodwill so many of us Democrats have for them.

Posted by Steve Kranz | February 25, 2008 5:13 PM

I am shocked....it took the democratic party how long to throw the Clinton's to the curb?

Gosh....the rest of us knew they were scum from the very beginning!

The important thing, I guess is to recognize that even democrats can learn something!

Posted by A Texas Republican who will vote for Obama! | February 25, 2008 5:18 PM

I am shocked....it took the democratic party how long to throw the Clinton's to the curb?

Gosh....the rest of us knew they were scum from the very beginning!

The important thing, I guess is to recognize that even democrats can learn something!

Posted by A Texas Republican who will vote for Obama! | February 25, 2008 5:18 PM

Hillary. Has. No. Argument.

Obama is a classier guy than me, so he won't bother to point out that pillow talk with Bill doesn't count as experience. Obama has more real legislative experience than she does, and considering he's organized a campaign that is about to take down one of the most powerful machines in American politics today, I think it's safe to say he also wins the management argument as well.

Why the media continues to treat her as a credible candidate on the heels of 11 straight double-digit losses, and especially when her campaign is flailing about like this, is beyond me. Media bias indeed.

Posted by SDinIA | February 25, 2008 5:23 PM

My, how the times have changed! I cannot believe the Clintons have squandered every ounce of goodwill so many of us Democrats have for them.

Steve, I couldn't agree more. I'm actually quite depressed by how much my esteem for Bill has been reduced, and I've gone from thinking that Hillary would be a tough fighter and formidable candidate in the general election to someone who I think would be terrible for the party and, more importantly, bad for the country.

Incidentally, Marc, wasn't this stump speech at GW (not Georgetown)?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 5:30 PM

Jeff:

Hillary Clinton voted for the AUMF for Iraq, as everyone knows, which doesn't mean she "advocated using military force."

Obama did make a really naive statement last August about Pakistan. You don't call a news conference to state the obvious (that a president would act based "actionable intelligence" - which is almost true by definition) as it concerns using military force. It's like you don't call a news conference and say "if we are ever subject to attack by a nuclear device, we will massively retaliate." Yes, everyone knows that, but it's not something you say to prove how tough you are.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 5:37 PM

Let's see, if Obama had given a "major foreign policy" address that said nothing about: Iran, North Korea, Europe/NATO, Japan, Russia, Latin America, what do you think Clinton or the MSM would have said? That he's inexperienced? A lightweight? Not ready for prime time?

Well, Clinton just gave such a speech -- and then has the chutzpah to claim that she is the one with experience. Give me a break. What a fairy tale.*

*With apologies to WJC

Posted by IHD | February 25, 2008 5:44 PM

It looks to me like no one is willing to take Hillary at her word any more. Judging from this excerpt, this is not a bad speech. The criticism of Obama is fair. While I support his candidacy and think that the terms in which he opposed the Iraq invasion in '02 do show excellent judgment, I've always felt that he dug himself a hole when he said he'd meet 5 rogue leaders in the first year of his presidency - and he's just kept digging that one deeper instead of walking it back. Conversely, suggesting unilateral action on Pakistani territory against al Qaeda may also prove to be 'naive.'

I agree that on some level claiming wifely witness as experience is problematic, but at the same time I suspect that while many people are ambivalent about such 'experience,' that ambivalence includes a sense that the experience is valuable.

The core weakness of Hillary's attack on Obama's judgment is the fact that she (tepidly) supported Bush's rush to war in early '03 while Obama opposed it. That said, when she says here "yes, we must use force when necessary but as a last resort, not a first resort," she is echoing precisely the language of her Oct 2002 speech in support of the resolution to use force in Iraq. (Her failure to my mind came later, when she did not oppose Bush's termination of the inspections and rush to war.)

I think Hillary does sketch out the right balance of soft power and hard power here. The tragedy is that she did not follow her own prescriptions. That's in large part why I voted against her. But this still strikes me as a good speech.

Posted by Asp | February 25, 2008 5:46 PM

Comments were at GW, not Georgetown.

Posted by sam | February 25, 2008 5:47 PM

Tim K, that is some truly expert parsing. You do much credit to your candidate. It's too bad that beautifully subtle distinction doesn't reinforce or validate her (allegedly) superior wisdom or her (alleged) 35 years of experience.

As to your other point, I'm not well informed on this Pakistan statement. Is this where Obama said that he would authorize a military strike inside Pakistan if circumstances warranted (and if so, is my characterization accurate)?

I can't imagine it counts coming from a guy who doesn't particularly mind when Israel blows up nuclear reactors in various hostile countries, but in theory and subject to various conditions and caveats, this doesn't particularly bother me either. But like I said, I'm not well informed on this particular statement.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 5:47 PM

The speech was at George Washington University.

Posted by Michael | February 25, 2008 5:49 PM

"Obama did make a really naive statement last August about Pakistan."

Actually, Obama's comment there was pretty darn smart. The "you don't say what you're going to do" line of argument is never going to resonate with the voters, and if McCain tries to make that attack Obama can pivot the discussion back to how badly the Bushies have bleeped up Pakistan policy. A lot of the stuff Obama says comes out of that "thinking two steps ahead" perspective.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 25, 2008 5:51 PM

Just read up on the Pakistan comments; no wonder I had only a vague recollection, as they struck no particular chord with me.

It appears that Obama said (and refused to repudiate) that as president, he would pursue military action against al-Qaida targets in Pakistan with or without the permission of the president of Pakistan, given actionable intelligence.

I do not have a problem with this, at all. Given that the ISI leaks like a sieve, and -- stretching the imagination -- we might be able to envision a scenario where the president of Pakistan might have his own set of problems (or -- and this is a little wacky! -- might be someone other than whom we've been dealing with), then I wouldn't want to see specialized elements of our military sitting idle while identified high-value targets act with impunity. Shades of Tora Bora if you ask me.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 5:59 PM

You know, if someone like Ike gave this speech while running, I'd say 'right on.' Cause the guy had been at the sharp edge of the spear, had run the European theater, etc. He had the experience to back up his assertions.

Where does Hillary come off making herself out to be so experienced? It's bizarre. She keeps trying to portray herself as something she isn't instead of dealing with reality. Is it any wonder she's been losing voters?

Posted by Helter | February 25, 2008 6:04 PM

It's alright, Tim K, we all know that you can't defend Clinton's willingness to allow al-Qaeda to hide out in Pakistan while we wait for Musharraf to do something about it. After all, why should out aspiring Commander in Chief do anything? All she has to do is appear ready on day one. Day two doesn't count, because that's a red state kind of day, or involves caucuses, or black people vote the in excessive numbers. Nope, day one it is!

Posted by maxent | February 25, 2008 6:05 PM

Shorter Clinton: I will be ever so nice and spend a lot of money overseas. On this basis, I am ready to lead! Hardly the stuff of serious or even approximately realistic foreign policy. This is a speech that evades foreign policy, in favor of platitudes, falsehood, and a miserable failure to deal in the hard realities of our post-2001 world. Typical Clintonian inability to lay out a platfrom worthy of respect.

Posted by ardais | February 25, 2008 6:08 PM

Tim K.,

your statement is self-contradictory:

"Hillary Clinton voted for the AUMF for Iraq, as everyone knows, which doesn't mean she 'advocated using military force.'"

what does that little acronym stand for? could it be the AUTHORIZATION for the USE of MILITARY FORCE In Iraq Act?

nice try.

Posted by BA | February 25, 2008 6:12 PM

As the old saying goes, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Hillary's "35 years of experience" seem to consist of having lived that long since graduating from law school, and it's a shame that so many otherwise intelligent people have swallowed that line uncritically. It's a relief to see a belated national awareness that being married to a president is not credible experience to be one - on the contrary, having practiced a goodly amount of nepotism in those 35 years, wielding power in an unelected and unaccountable manner, Hillary has the worst possible experience for a would-be president.

Posted by Paulette Altmaier | February 25, 2008 6:19 PM

As the old saying goes, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Hillary's "35 years of experience" seem to consist of having lived that long since graduating from law school, and it's a shame that so many otherwise intelligent people have swallowed that line uncritically. It's a relief to see a belated national awareness that being married to a president is not credible experience to be one - on the contrary, having practiced a goodly amount of nepotism in those 35 years, wielding power in an unelected and unaccountable manner, Hillary has the worst possible experience for a would-be president.

Posted by Paulette Altmaier | February 25, 2008 6:19 PM

Jeff:

Here is the quote as best I can find it.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges...But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,0,5330469.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

I don't really care what "resonates" with the voters in this particular instance. Let's be clear what we're discussing here: speculation about military strikes within the sovereign territory of nuclear power without their permission. That's not something that would or should ever be undertaken lightly, and certainly should not be the basis for hypothetical scenarios, or, in this case, random comments from presidential aspirants.

So, on the one hand, Obama promises to reward the leaders of five rogues regimes and state sponsors of terrorism with a presidential meeting within his first year. On the other hand he chooses to rattle the saber at an ally for no reason other than to show he's willing to use force, and shows a lack of awareness of how destabilizing those kinds of remarks can be.

That kind of unsteady, unready, confused views on foreign policy are really something to think about.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 6:28 PM

Tim K, you have a sadly confused view of life if you see meeting representatives of other nations as a "reward". In the world outside the Clinton bubble, we call it constructive engagement, and see it as a sign of confidence, not petulant Clintonian weakness. Clinton's posturing immaturity is simply a continuation of the failed policies of the Bush junta, so it's hardly surprising that Ms Enabler decided to keep playing for that particular team.
After all, what credibility can any candidate have who doesn't bother to read intelligence estimates, votes to enable Bush's war in Iraq - and refuses to admit that she was wrong? This ain't strength, it's gutless, weakwilled, petulant obstinacy. We've had 8 years of that, thank you, and we don't need more.

Posted by zathranax | February 25, 2008 6:38 PM

Tim K, are you seriously pushing this Pakistan thing?

If so, then I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE:

CIA Operation Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized

Posted by Craig | February 25, 2008 6:43 PM

zathranax:

Thank you, I don't think I could have summed up the kind of naive view of diplomacy and international relations represented by Obama's remarks if I had tried.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 6:44 PM

Tim K, thanks for the reply. I was going to say that I largely agree with zathranax's assessment, but I see you've considered and dismissed that viewpoint. So I suppose you and I simply have a difference of opinion.

Basically I don't see presidential meetings as a reward when it's obvious to me -- and to, I think, any serious observer -- that Obama's objective with these meetings is to pursue world stability and our own set of interests, NOT to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood between of the Pan-Oceanic Organization of Radical Leftists and State Sponsors of Terror -- all on the taxpayers' dime.

At this point, I'm ready for a different approach from what's been tried for the past seven years, since that quite clearly doesn't work.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 6:50 PM

Judging by your defense of Clinton's snivelling platitudes, I'd suggest you need to learn the meaning of "diplomacy" and "constructive engagement". Carry out this assignment, grasshopper, and then come back to us. Until then, don't embarrass yourself in public.

Posted by zathranax | February 25, 2008 6:52 PM

Craig:

It seems like some people here - I don't want to imply you are one of them without knowing for sure - are having trouble understanding the distinction between the kind of actions we would expect any president to do, and the kinds of statements we would expect any president to make about them, or worse, speculate about.

Someone brought up the example of Israel's strikes in Syria (and Iraq in the 1980's)... I don't remember Ehud Olmert getting up in a news conference and saying "if any one of our neighbors is in possession of weapons we find threatening, we're going to strike out at them." There are plenty of criticisms that can be leveled at Israel's government, but when it comes to national security it cannot be said that they are naive.

When Barack Obama says "I wouldn't be running for president if I didn't think I was ready to be commander-in-chief" that's supposed to mean he should know better than to say these things. If he's, indeed, ready to be c-in-c then we already know he would act to protect America against Al Qaeda, that's a given.

And, by the way, it's not about whether Obama "thinks" he himself is ready, it's about whether he actually IS ready. And that's a different question.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 6:53 PM

"So, on the one hand, Obama promises to reward the leaders of five rogues regimes and state sponsors of terrorism with a presidential meeting within his first year. On the other hand he chooses to rattle the saber at an ally for no reason other than to show he's willing to use force, and shows a lack of awareness of how destabilizing those kinds of remarks can be."

OTOH we seem to talk to Saudi Arabia all the time, which is the sponsor (money and men) of the 9/11 attacks. Why wouldn't we talk to other countries, especially ones that have no ties to terrorists that have attacked us? On the Pakistan issue, if we could take out Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and the government wouldn't let us, then why are we giving them so much aid in the first place? They aren't our allies if we don't get anything back from them.

Posted by JordanT | February 25, 2008 6:57 PM

Tim K:

Excuse me while I laugh. Laugh out loud. What you are suggesting Obama say is this, "There are a lot of things I would do as CIC. But I am not at liberty to talk about them." This guy is trying to give specifics as to what he would do as CIC since, you know, that's what everyone is criticizing him for. He's not running for president of Pakistan. He's running for president of USA. And his judgment has been prudent.

Posted by Craig | February 25, 2008 6:58 PM

Jeff:

I liked that line about the "brotherhood between of the Pan-Oceanic Organization of Radical Leftists..." That was pretty funny.

There are a few problems I see with promising to meet with these people within the first year. The first problem is promising to meet with them at all, without even being one day in the White House... without having had briefings from the State Department, National Security Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff, you get the point. Who knows what could change in the international scene in respect to Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, or anywhere else, between now and then. But it doesn't matter because Obama has already promised an unconditional meeting. Another closely related problem is the time-table of one year... that's not a lot of time to do all the necessary preparation for 4-5 major visits to countries of certain. We're not talking about meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, here. And then there's the issue of this potentially being used as a propaganda tool by this rogue's gallery of dictators.

Nixon went to China, but he didn't do so with no preconditions and during his first year in office.

Obama quotes JFK (ad nauseum and whenever this comes up) about "never negotiating out of fear, but never fearing to negotiate." But JFK never agreed to meet with Kruschev during his first year and without preconditions.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 7:02 PM

Craig:

There are lots of things to talk about when it comes to the conduct of foreign policy. What Obama said in that instance was the political equivalent of walking into a bank and waiving a gun around.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 7:04 PM

It's very strange that Hillary would claim to have national security credentials on the grounds of having been First Lady -- because she did not hold a security clearance in the White House, nor did she ever attend a meeting of the National Security Council.

Posted by TKD | February 25, 2008 7:07 PM

Tim, I guess I'm not unduly concerned about the promised meetings, as I imagine these things will work themselves out when and if the time comes. It would be unfortunate if an inability to fulfill that promise led to hurt feelings among the leaders of fairly odious regimes, but I still can't imagine that a policy of engagement (even imperfectly impletemented) could possibly be worse than those of the previous seven years, in which we managed not only to piss off various odious regimes, but also some of our dearest friends and allies.

Or then again, why not just have the 2009 P.O.O.R.L.S.S.T. Party Congress on the front lawn of the White House ;) Prepare for the rumors to begin circulating among right-wing blogs...

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 25, 2008 7:12 PM

Jeff:

I don't think the promise to meet those leaders is some kind of calamitous mistake that will somehow doom US foreign policy. I just think it could be indicative of either a tendency to pander to the left of the Democratic party for the purposes of a political campaign, or a naivety in respect to how diplomacy should be conducted. I'm not totally against meeting any leader of any country, but I do think there's a smart way to go about it and a dumb way to go about it. With the Pakistan case I think it goes beyond a mere indication of naivety and ventures into being troubling. I think he said it to send a message about how he's willing to use force, and I don't think that appropriate.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 7:16 PM

Hillary Clinton voted for the AUMF for Iraq, as everyone knows, which doesn't mean she "advocated using military force."

If it's really true that HRC didn't think Bush would take us to war if the AUMF was passed, she has worse judgment than I thought, and has no business claiming otherwise.

Posted by justinb | February 25, 2008 7:29 PM

Tim K, you really do have a knack for getting yourself all tied up in an indefensible position. First you object to meeting other regimes, then you start talking about realistic foreign policy, and finally you discover that meeting them wouldn't be so bad, but somehow there's a smart way to do it after all. In other words, I am willing to meet them, I just don't think Obama was right to say so. Is this really all that you can offer as a foreign policy? Please, a little consistency here!

Posted by ksm | February 25, 2008 7:32 PM

I agree with Tim K on Pakistan, disagree on meeting with national leaders.

The unfortunate timing of Obama's remarks on Pakistan was the main problem imo. There had just been some fairly violent demonstrations (not reported by the US media, of course) in Pakistan, tied to the belief that Musharref was a puppet of the US government. The papers there, of course, immediately picked up on Obama's comments (and similar, slightly earlier comments made by certain people in the Bush administration who should have known better because of their positions - I don't want to mention any names here).

The meeting comment was intended to counterbalance Bush's not only refusing to meet with other countries, but refusing to communicate in any way and, indeed, insulting them publicly. That isn't a foreign policy, that's playground bullying. As Obama later said, he certainly didn't mean he was going to invite them to stop by for tea on his first day in office.

The lesson to be learned is...don't answer hypothetical questions in public! Every politician learns this sooner or later, some more than once, and I doubt Obama will soon forget it. If someone says you 'have' to answer the question because you're running for President, tell the truth: no, you don't. A candidate has to convince voters he or she will protect Americans from harm, but getting trapped into Scenarios That Will Never Actually Happen is, indeed, naive.

Do I consider any of this a 'show-stopper' with regards to supporting Obama? Of course not. I don't expect 100% perfection, and looking at McCain and Clinton I see much more serious problems. The good news is, Obama learns from EVERYTHING that happens - one of the many reasons I want to see him elected President.

Posted by Tom J | February 25, 2008 7:39 PM

Tim K is a bone smoker who needs to shut his trap.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 8:37 PM

ksm, I believe Tim K. is being perfectly consistent: he consistently abides by each and every talking point issued by the Clinton campaign. If these points contradict each other, don't blame Tim. After all, he's just a mouthpiece.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 25, 2008 8:49 PM

KSM:

I can see from Ryan W.'s comments that my failure to respond has been taken for me accepting your criticism. I certainly do not accept it.

A realistic foreign policy would involve keeping the channels of communication open with any regime in the world. We have a State Department, special envoys, ambassadors and intermediaries who can play major roles in those types of on-going discussions There is however, a significant difference between that and presidential level meetings without preconditions. The prestige of the presidency is something that should always be utilized sparingly and not in the context of hasty, unconditional meetings. There's no contradiction between pursuing diplomacy and refusing to agree to meet without preconditions.

Posted by Tim K | February 25, 2008 9:05 PM

I'm curious, what do y'all see as the main diplomatic failures of the last 15 years?
To my mind, the theme of diplomatic failures has been an underestimation of the weaker party's NEED to act a certain way in public, to act strong in the face of power imbalance... to posture a lie for the sake of national pride. You know what I'm talking about. Stubborn pride.
That's why it always seems so weird to me when Pres. Bush would take that same posture. The stronger party usually gets more done by showing respect, not might.

Thoughts?

Posted by Tara K | February 25, 2008 10:19 PM

Obama quotes JFK (ad nauseum and whenever this comes up) about "never negotiating out of fear, but never fearing to negotiate." But JFK never agreed to meet with Kruschev during his first year and without preconditions.
Posted by Tim K

Nor did JFK ever negotiate or seek relations with Red China, N Vietnam, Cuba, the Congo, N Korea. He refused to talk directly with those leaders. He also snubbed India and joked about how pathetic they were for their economic failures and ties to the Soviets.

All good moves, IMO, that Obama and his Cult know nothing about in extracting a JFK quote out of context and braying it again and again as manifestation of the Magic Negro's superior judgment and foreign policy cognitions.

Posted by chris ford | February 26, 2008 12:32 AM

Right there with you Chris until the "Magic Negro" part.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 1:29 AM

Kennedy and Khrushchev didn't negotiate?
cough cough... Cuban missile crisis, space program...

Posted by Tara K | February 26, 2008 5:16 AM

Although I'm a racist tool, clearly Obama isn't qualified to be President. My insane jealousy with his success aside, he's a windbag. Please excuse my Oedipus complex and longing for a strong Mother figure to straddle my face, but Hillary is a Goddess.

Posted by Tim K | February 26, 2008 6:55 AM

Right there with you Chris until the "Magic Negro" part.
Posted by Tim K

"Magic Negro" is a literary device 1st publically identified by Spike Jones who used "Negro" deliberately to flag the "retro" nature of the character.

The Magic Negro is a recurrent character in both literature and movies - the Negro from humble origins or basically nowhere that shows up to wisely advise and morally redeem the confused white protagonist. The "magic" part is that the Negro occupies a secular spot, but dispenses his or her great insight in a manner so superior to the protagonist that writers effectively substitute the Magic Negro for divine intervention - most writers find a "magic negro" device easier than inserting God or an angel into a story or movie.

Lee notes that before the "Magic Negro", other backwards primitives in the Rousseau tradition also worked nicely. Gunga Din. The superhuman, super-moral American Indian of the Leatherstocking novels.

Some critics note that the educational establishment has also taken up the cause of the Magic Negro in designating black figures from history as uniquely noble and deserving of acclaim far past the actual impact of their accomplishments.

Past the deification of MLK, we also have students surveyed believing that 8 of 10 of the greatest Americans who never became President were the blacks their textbooks laude uncritically. And, if you will, the "movement" has now introduced the Magic Negro, the black figure of hope and redemption of all whites in need - into Presidential politics.

Read up on it sometime, TimK. You cannot understand the Barack Obama phenomenon, his worshippers motives - without becoming familiar with the Magic Negro narrative.

Posted by chris ford | February 26, 2008 8:24 AM

Lmao @ chris ford. Chris, you are one seriously warped dude. What's scary is that you're not the garden variety troll or miscreant; it's obvious that you're an intelligent guy. How you acquired your bizarre views on the wide range of subjects you regularly hold forth on, we'll never know. I guess it doesn't really matter; what's important is that unsuspecting people are warned and made aware of your subversive and majorly fucked up way of thinking. Really amazing.

Posted by Wally | February 26, 2008 9:07 AM