The Call is Coming from Inside the (White) House
Richard Cohen on last week’s revelation from Iran:
For a crisis such as this, the immense prestige of the American presidency ought to be held in reserve. Let the secretary of state issue grave warnings. When Obama said in Pittsburgh that Iran is “going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice,” it had the sound of an ultimatum. But what if the Iranians don’t? What then? A president has to be careful with such language. He better mean what he says.
SecState Hillary Clinton was on Face the Nation on Sunday morning, only her second Sunday morning appearance that I can recall, since she was sworn in back in February. President Obama appeared on more shows than Clinton, just the Sunday before. He’s everywhere, saying everything. Clinton’s appearance — she had very little new to say — seemed almost like a demand: “I’m still here!” Obama is simultaneously debasing his own currency while wasting one of the stronger assets in his cabinet.
There was a terrible ’80s horror flick called “The Unnamable.” How bad was it? It’s never had a DVD release. It’s so bad that, if I remember correctly, despite the title the monster had a name.
Anyway, that’s the movie that popped into my head this morning. Because if President Obama was a bad ’80s horror flick, it would be called “The Inescapable.”
A president has to be careful with such language. He better mean what he says.
That would be a first for the current President. In all fairness, he says so many different and frequently contradictory things, that it would be impossible for him to mean everything that he says.
As an unashamed Hillary supporter last year, I can ojnly hope she is waiting for the right moment to dissociate herself fomr this administration so she can make her move for 2012.
Has a first-term sitting president ever not been nominated by his party for reelection? Obama himself is trying to set precedent with Gov. Patterson, so maybe now’s the time.
Going with the flow that Obama has never lead, governed, or ever had the thought process that comes from being accountable, except for one narrow concept of organizing people to demand more money from someone else.
Obama is more like-minded to Chavez and Armidinajad then to the American concept. I think Obama thinks Iran has a right to nukes. He will spout the verbal motions but when he goes to do something he will attack Israel and U.S. citizens.
Obama can’t play on a playing feild where he can’t play his skin color.
Tim,
If the Democrats are so bad off in 2012 that they don’t want to renominate the president, it is just about certain a Republican wins. Dems message would essentially be “we suck but try this one.” It is what it is. Obama’s a moron and so is his party by result of letting him lead it.
Sorry, but I have to say something about this.
tim, “unashamed”? Hillary was an accomplice-after-the-fact to a rape. I keep having arguments with a fiery young feminist friend who’s all about fighting violence against women and hearing the experiences of women who claim abuse — but she supports Hillary and dismisses Juanita Broaddrick as a partisan liar. I don’t know what your basis is for supporting Hillary, but why wouldn’t her treatment of Broaddrick obliterate all middle ground? There are plenty of people with the same ideas as Hillary who have not thrown a rape victim under the bus. Why not switch your support to one of them?
“Anyway, ["The Unnamable"] popped into my head this morning. Because if President Obama was a bad ’80s horror flick, it would be called ‘The Inescapable.’”
Might we recommend a worse horror movie from the same year for the same use? “Uninvited” — this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096341/ And, strangely enough, it comes out on DVD this month….
Um, arhooley, how can Hillary be such an accomplice?
First, there’s the issue that the only evidence we have is Broaddrick’s claim itself. Then there’s the fact that she had previously filed a sworn affidavit denying the assault. So we have hearsay from a woman who has contradicted her own sworn statement.
Even if there were physical evidence of an assault, how does that relate to Ms. Clinton, unless Willy confessed raping a woman to his wife? I don’t see that happening…
Before anyone pops a gasket, I’m not saying this proves Broaddrick was lying, or that Clinton is innocent. What I am saying is that there’s no proof it happened, aside from Broaddrick’s claim; a claim she directly contradicted just a year previously. There’s also no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with, or was aware of any assault. Hence claims of complicity are -at best- dubious.
Let’s stick to actual facts, shall we?