If you have "no place to go," come here!

Dallas Protection of Obama Shameful

Xenophon's picture

What the fuck? What the hell kind of chicken shit outfit are they running in Dallas? This is one Kennedy analogy we really don’t need. If you don’t know how to properly secure a venue, call me. Jack Douglas of the Star Telegram:

Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena. The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Come on protect the man!!

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The last fucking this country needs is another moment where some jackass who was supposed to take responsibility for something important says "no one could have anticipated...."

Anticipate, dammit, and protect these candidates!

EvilPoet's picture
Submitted by EvilPoet on

Who was the rocket scientist that made that completely stupid and nonthinking decision? Unfreekenbelievable.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

At YearlyKos07 we were given instructions about what we could bring into the breakout sessions but there was no metal detector that I could see. I thought that was a little odd as the Secret Service just glanced into my bag. But somehow, I didn't get the idea that they thought we were security risks. Maybe they checked the registration lists and determined who we were. Maybe they have technology that we aren't aware.
But it *is* kind of unsafe to just leave him exposed 1.5 hours before an event. Unless they know something we don't.
I don't much like Obama but it would be tragic if something bad happened to him.
Come together at The Confluence

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

When I saw Clinton in New Hampshire, we didn't get any screening at all. The USSS was there, but it was a watchful presence more than anything else. And I think she has to be as big a target as Obama is for the crazies (I presume they both get mail that makes Bill O'Reilly sound like a moderate voice of reason and sanity).

There is always an issue with campaigning because to really make any candidate safe, you essentially have to make effective campaigning impossible. The candidates are going to want to be as approachable as possible by as many people as possible. They are not going to want potential supporters to feel hassled or leave a rally because the wait for screening was too long. Since they had screeners in place, I can't help but wonder if it was taking too long and the campaign was freaking out. Because, and I have some professional experience in this area although I wouldn't say I'm an expert, it's very unusual for the USSS to set up a security plan and then simply abandon it for no reason. And more often than not, the candidates are willing to accept more risks and, ultimately, the USSS lets them because they aren't president yet.

In my dealings with the USSS, they'd wrap every one of the politicians in bubble wrap, put them in a vault, put the vault in a bunker, bury the bunker in a mountain, and set an army on top of it, if they got their way. They must love Bush, btw, because he almost never leaves the White House and, if the Service had its way, that would be true for all presidents.

But yes, it would be tragic for Obama (or Clinton) to be killed by some hate-filled crazy. Terrible for the country.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Should've said the USSS would wrap every protectee in bubble wrap, not politician.

wasabi's picture
Submitted by wasabi on

I don't think this is a big deal. The secret service will provide enough of a cordon around the candidate that someone with a pistol or a bomb would not take him out. Hopefully the SS would notice if someone brought in a rifle.

They can only do so much. I think the idea that wherever a President goes has to be locked down by metal detectors is impractical at best. It may work during campaigning, but would never work for the entire presidency.

Submitted by lambert on

I can sympathize with all the commenters here who are saying "No big deal," but the last thing the country needs is, well, 1968 all over again, with MLK, RFK, and all that. That was bad enough, but we didn't, I don't think, have huge corporations whose business model is waiting for (or creating) huge shocks and then profiting from them. For that, we have to than k the Chicago School...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I cannot even imagine the terrible fallout if someone managed to commit such a horrible crime.

But I do think that it's impossible to know why the security changed at the Obama event, it may very well have been Obama's choice and he did it for the same reason JFK chose to loosen security around him on that day in Dallas. Not very reassuring, I know.

But also, ultimately, if someone wants to kill Obama or Clinton or McCain badly enough, they may succeed not matter the security. That's not a reason not to have security - and to make sure it's good security - but it's a constant battle between giving people access to their candidates and elected officials and protecting their candidates and elected officials from the small percentage of those people who want to hurt them. And the safest thing for the USSS or security forces to do is to always weigh the scale in favor of locking down the official, but that's not always possible or even desired.

Living in a free society is a risky business, for the leaders as well as the people.

Which, again, isn't to say that Obama shouldn't have the best security possible, but that there are limits and trade offs that will inevitably get made and risks taken even with the best security possible. Was that the case here or was this just a classic fuck up? I don't know.

And I realize all of this just makes everything more terrifying in a way because I agree the fallout from any attack on Obama would be huge and very destructive to the country. So let's hope they will strike the right balance and he'll get the protection he needs. But I recognize hope is not a guarantee and when the stakes are this big, we'd all prefer a guarantee.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

Has maintained and will maintain their legendary standards in protecting the Senator from Illinois. I'm sure there was a midget sniper somewhere in a waterbottle should any shit hop off.

But, I don't think they realize how on edge the nation is. This is not the man we want to lose. The entire world is watching and judging America. How Obama is treated will determine the fate of America for the next generation. America has an abysmal record of fidelity to it's ideals, especially when it comes to people of color. The world is judging the sincerity and integrity of our experiment and constitution by the rise of Obama.

These are interesting times.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I've been wanting to say something like that for some time but didn't know how. Glad you did.

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

...we didn’t, I don’t think, have huge corporations whose business model is waiting for (or creating) huge shocks and then profiting from them.

How about Ford?


Or Dow Chemical/ Monsanto?

Or General Dynamics?

Or Raymond International, Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, and J.A. Jones Construction, better known these days as Halliburton?

All respects, Lambert, but this has been going on a long time.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of shock the Company loves to exploit. Handled with cold-blooding media exploitation, this has the potential of setting back race relations 20 years. Plus, given an Iranian Oswald, it could be effective in setting off a war all the NeoCons have the hots for.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky