In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office. At the time, this pledge represented conventional thinking among Democrats and was guaranteed to play well with primary voters. But in the year and a half since then two improbable, though not unforeseeable, events have occurred: Obama has won the Democratic nomination, and Iraq, despite myriad crises, has begun to stabilize. With the general election four months away, Obama’s rhetoric on the topic now seems outdated and out of touch, and the nominee-apparent may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far.(via Instapundit)
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
QOTD
George Packer in the New Yorker:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The Dems have been failing to grasp that, as long as they require anyone to be far left in order to win the primary, they cannot win the PotUS, which requires a middle of the road candidate to appeal to the entire electorate.
Good link. "...may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far."
Yeah, when the people who support you turn out to be just plain wrong, that's a problem.
Also, from the quote: "...violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels..." That is insane. Does the writer have the faintest idea what an apocalyptic level of violence is?
> Does the writer have the faintest idea what an apocalyptic level of violence is?
Yes -- in the liberal vocabulary, words mean exactly what they want them to mean.
Everyone should thus pay them exactly what they are worth, not a penny more or less.
Hillary Clinton would have made a great leader and President, if only the voters were not contaminated by ageism and sexism.
Oh, well.
Post a Comment