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

The Lazarus Brigade

vastleft's picture

While Arkansas Oakley has murder on her mind, Barack Obama is resurrecting our slain troops:

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

He is the man!

No votes yet


orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

that's really funny.

raises the dead

raises 250$ mill

a miracle man for sure

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Looking at his audience, it seems as if he mistakenly believed "fallen" meant injured. That, to me, is worse than the apparent Sixth Sense gaffe since it allows the right to show him as clueless about the military in one nice sound bite.

Submitted by lambert on

Surely not! (More quotes, with a little research?)

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

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I looked at the video, in which he didn't seemed tired at all (compared to his "57 states" gaffe), saw photos showing that there was, at least, one injured vet in the audience (No, I haven't been able to find it again, but it's quite common to have injured vets present on Memorial Day), and I took a guess at what he was thinking as he said it.

However, after spending a few minutes on the web, I found he does know "fallen" means "dead," since he went on to say, "One of the best ways to honor our fallen soldiers is to honor those who came back, who survived." Only because he was so confident as he said the gaffe did I think it was something other than "seeing dead people," like his brain confusing "fallen" with "injured" for just a brief second at that moment.

It was just a guess.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... was a joke, just some ironic hyperbole.

I will say that if Hillary had picked that particular number out of thin air and used it re: Obama, we'd be reading non-stop about her dogwhistling reference to a certain John Frankenheimer movie....

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

The only video I had seen of it before was on the TV "news" and they didn't show the end. He said it so dead pan I thought he was just off his game for a night, but after seeing that clip I linked to I see he got some laughter and then smiled.

I'd prefer silly gaffes to serious ones like agreeing to meet with certain foreign leaders by 2010 "without preconditions."

And, yes, if it was Clinton it'd be deranged coverage ("Proof of Clinton's imperial plans!")

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Both candidates have played both sides of the negotiator/hawk thing, which is par for the course for American presidential candidates.

I was concerned, though, when then-Obama advisor Samantha Power exaggerated conditions on the ground in Iran more than even Bush's NIE did. That worried me a lot more than HRC saying that Iran would face our nuclear wrath if it nuked Israel. In fact, I would hope any president would do everything possible to dissuade anybody's first strike, and a threat like that -- in that context -- makes total sense. Would these folks who freaked on that one have preferred that she said "whatever" as to that scenario? Of course, they delighted in removing the context of that answer, which is most unprecedented, isn't it?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Since I can't edit my previous reply, this will have to do: I meant to write that if my guess were still somewhat true it would mean that he only confused those words for a brief second.

All right, I'm done messing up this thread.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Worried me only because it was clear that Obama answered at the debate without thinking and Clinton gave the better answer. No big deal, IMO. His answer was fine, he just didn't think about the symbolism of a personal meeting. Who cares? What was bothersome afterwards was Obama's unwillingness to simply say so and instead wear it as some sort of sign of good judgement when what it really was was being out-thought at a debate. I have a certain low regard for folks who, instead of admitting a mistake, decide to embrace it as a terrific, meaningful idea (and, of course, he's since backed away from it with Cuba and other countries because it was not a good idea, it was a lost debating point).

As a practical matter, the no preconditions would never happen. I used to do low-level international meetings in anticipation of higher level ones (cabinet, not presidential). Pre-conditions, even if it's not as big as "stop nuclear program", are always going to be there for big time meetings. If we didn't have them, the Iranians or other country would. For one very good reason - politics! Nobody wants to look bad in their home country so everybody wants some idea of what's coming out of the meeting before they agree to have it. Otherwise, there's too much opportunity for embarassment and political enemies back home to make hay.

I like some of Powers' work, particularly on genocide, but aspects scare me, too. I read somewhere, maybe here?, some of her writing about the U.S. occupying the Middle East to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Unrealistic and a bit scary. While it would be nice to save the world, I have to say as a political matter, I'm not really going to sign on to that. Perhaps we could start with a decent public education system in Mississippi and if that goes well, we could talk about policing a thousand year old religious feud.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

She's no monster.

She's smart, committed, and accomplished.

But she has exhibited the foibles that can occur when the best and the brightest start inhaling their own fumes, something that is inevitable in a prospective pedestal presidency.

Submitted by brucedixon on

Did you ever read her book Genocide, A Problem From Hell? Do you ever wonder how she missed mentioning the Congo, with six million dead since the mid-nineties in a five or six hundred book about genocide?

Here's a hint, friend. In the Congo the rapes, depopulation, and genocidal law-free zones are perpetrated and managed by an ever shifting cast of African proxies (like the late and unlamented son of Idi Amin) who guarantee the perfect business friendly environment and funnel all the mineral resources to American and western corporations.

Thus for Samantha Power, and for that matter the entire bipartisan foreign policy establishment, Darfur is a genocide but Congo, with ten or twenty times as many dead is not. Probably Somalia and Iraq, with a million dead apiece are not either. For Samantha Power, "genocide" is a brand name, to be applied only when the killings taking place are not in the service of US interests. That's not monstrous?

Bruce Dixon

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

more and more that's what it looks like.

dogooder's picture
Submitted by dogooder on

Can we elect a president who believes there are 57 states and ZOMBIES?!! Oh wait, maybe he just misspoke...

Susie from Philly's picture
Submitted by Susie from Philly on

The more convinced I become that David Axlerod wrote his books. Really. When he was president of the Harvard Law Review, he didn't write anything. Where did he learn to write like that, I wonder?

Submitted by lambert on

Notes in the HLR are not credited to authors. What would need to be shown is that by custom and practice the editors do a lot of signed articles. I'm not sur that's ever been done.

However, it would be interesting to run both books through software that could give an indication whether they were written by the same person, or not.

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

Submitted by cg.eye on

run by professors -- hell, I think regular academics can purchase it, to determine whether a turned-in assignment runs toward plagarism -- that could analyze the style of Obama's books against his other writing made before he met Axelrod. It shouldn't be too hard, but we'd have to be kerning-sure of our sources for his prior work.

kc's picture
Submitted by kc on

whoops, or are they under the bus not in it.

A poster, Harp, at noquarter said, 'I suppose he thinks Arlington Cemetery is just troops that are well dug in.' The comedians are coming out over this one.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

says "jump!"--they teased him about not going to Iraq---and he's gonna go!

when the GOP attacks, you don't agree with them and agree to what they want! jeez--a child knows that.

and cue up "Dukakis in a tank, version 2008"

Submitted by cg.eye on

and he's so aware of his Secret Service needs that his staff constantly lets slip how brave he's being -- but he lets a geezer angered war hero nuts enough to say he'd gladly forego Secret Service protection (because he's tough like that) dare him into going to Iraq?

*Before* he's nominated?

In an active war zone, run by contractors loyal to the Administration and the opposition?

Departing from a heavily (hourly?) monitored campaign schedule, with a plane of journalists who couldn't keep a secret unless it harmed the Constitution and their cocktail weenie supply? Giving any faction ample time to set up their ground-to-air missiles?

Okay, I'm saying these two words only once, just in case this fool doesn't know a real threat when he hears one: Ron Brown.

Susie from Philly's picture
Submitted by Susie from Philly on

I just think he's been packaged and marketed to a fare-thee-well, and the books would logically be part of that package. (Remember, Axlerod has had a documentary film crew following Obama around for four years now. And yet, no film of the famous "anti-war" speech. Hmm.)

I suppose what worries me is that it only adds to the growing suspicion there's not much "there" there.

Which of course leads me to wonder exactly why Wall St. and K Street have been so very fond of him from the beginning. (Bruce, your Samantha Power comment sheds a lot of light.)

Back to my original point: I'm a writer, a good one. But I've been writing professionally for 20 year, polish isn't the kind of thing that just "happens" through raw talent alone. I mean, I still look at things I wrote just ten years ago and cringe.

Those books are simply too well written - writerly - for someone who hasn't done a LOT of writing, and there doesn't seem to be much writing in the public record, does there?

Which is why I suspect Axlerod. Remember, we only recently found out Ted Sorensen wrote "Profiles in Courage" for JFK.