Posted on 03/02/2008 5:52:01 PM PST by DBCJR
WESTERVILLE, Ohio - Democrat Barack Obama worked to fend off an intensified attack on his foreign policy credentials from rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday as their paths crossed two days ahead of a potentially race-ending showdown in Ohio and Texas.
"What precise foreign-policy experience is she claiming that makes her qualified to answer that telephone call at 3 a.m. in the morning?" Obama asked of the former first lady at a town-hall meeting. It was a reference to dueling television ads over who would exercise superior judgment in responding to a national emergency in the middle of the night.
The Illinois senator also sought to ease lingering Internet-fed concerns about his religion, in particular whether he was a closet Muslim.
"I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night," he declared at an earlier appearance in the rural southern Ohio town of Nelsonville. He said he wanted to halt "confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated."
Unlike Clinton, who has been barnstorming Ohio, Obama had only two events in the state on Sunday and was spending the night in hometown Chicago. He heads to Texas on Monday for a final day of campaigning before awaiting returns on Tuesday in San Antonio.
His aides said privately that they felt they had a good shot at a win in Texas, but were less certain about Ohio, where they braced for a possible loss.
The two senators came close to running into each other in this Columbus suburb, where Clinton spoke at one high school and Obama spoke several hours later at another. Obama supporters boasted of a much larger crowd.
Obama said his opposition to the war in 2002 was not a single speech — as Clinton has asserted — but a series of remarks during his 2002 successful Senate campaign.
Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake — or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.
"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, Rockefeller wound up voting for the war resolution.
Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.
Rockefeller called Obama "brilliant" and "well grounded" and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.
The Obama campaign also lined up a conference call for reporters with various Democratic foreign-policy experts who asserted his ability to inspire and lead, his good judgment on Iraq, and ticked legislative accomplishments. It was an effort to undercut Clinton's claim that Obama foreign-policy experience was shallow.
In addition to foreign policy, Obama talked about economic issues affecting economically depressed Ohio, as had Clinton.
Recent polls show Clinton retains a lead in Ohio, although it has been narrowing. In Texas, her once formidable lead has all but vanished and the race is now seen as a dead heat.
Most Democratic strategists see Texas and Ohio as must-win states if Clinton is to continue her candidacy, a view also expressed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
She has lost 11 consecutive contests to Obama and lags in the delete count.
But in recent days, Clinton campaign officials have suggested that if Obama doesn't win all four Tuesday contests — which also include races in Rhode Island and Vermont — it would signal "buyers remorse" and be reason to continue the campaign to the next major primary, Pennsylvania on April 22.
No, "that" (I presume you mean GPM's/Jefferson's definition of a "classical liberal"), is a small-l libertarian, not a BIG-L Libertarian.
A small-l libertarian is very much like a conservative, but without the social-conservative (statist, big-government) desire to have their personal morality written into the Constitution.
A BIG-L Libertarian is a member of a political party with only tenuous connection to Jefferson's classical liberal libertarian. For the most part, BIG-L Libertarians are what give us small-l libertarians heartburn and a bad name.
Yeah but some folks have much more fun avoiding the issues and calling names. It's easier, you don't have to think as much.
As for the facts, Obama attended schools in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10, before his return to Hawaii at fifth grade. There is no evidence he was "indoctrinated" or otherwise trained as a Muslim.
Obama Campaign Complains About Use of Middle Name
Drawing a parallel to the publication of cartoons of Mohammed, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, denounced use of the candidate’s middle name—Hussein—as “dirty politics.”
“Inserting Senator Obama’s middle name into public discourse is just as wrong as it would be to publish an image of the Prophet Mohammed (may peace be upon him),” said Fetid Miasma, deputy chairman of Obama’s Texas campaign. “It’s mocking his heritage at a time when we should all be coming together as one.”
“We’re not going around saying Hillary RODHAM Clinton,” Miasma pointed out, noting that, “We are above the pettiness of pointing out that Senator Clinton’s middle name has the word ‘ham’ in it and that this could greatly hamper our country’s dealings with Muslim nations should she become president.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
I don’t. Arnold is way better than any of the democrats. He’s just not as good as a conservative would have been.
It is completely beyond my comprehension that we would elect a president who finds the call to prayer to the Moon God of Islam the most beautiful sound in the world.
Earth to Jesus - I’m looking towards the eastern sky. I’m getting my lamp ready. I’m making sure I have plenty of oil. I’m waiting for the trump of God. My bags are packed. I have my ear to the ground.
In the mean time I’m reading my Bible anyone want to join me?
I don’t believe that it was proven. Connect the dots on who was raising him-muslim men. It’s highly unlikely he went to a Christian school.
His memories of Islam cannot be all that pleasant, since his Muslim stepfather essentially convinced his mother to get rid of him by sending him away to Hawaii.
A devout Christian - someone who really lives Christianity - is humble.
A humble person does not pay himself compliments, especially not in public.
Anyone who describes himself as a "devout Christian" is not humble and is therefore not a devout Christian, but a prideful person.
No, my friend. It is not. I described a Conservative, not a Libertarian.
It irks me that the left has stolen the term ‘liberal’ and changed its meaning to the opposite of the way our Founding Fathers used the term. I prefer to refer to contemporary ‘liberals’ as Leftists to more accurately define who they are and what they represent in the contemporary world.
“The “delete” count? I think that’s a funny typo considering the circumstances! Freudian?”
The greatest fear & pain of the Hildabeast is to be irrelevant. Her sacrifice into irrelevance during Bill’s first term, due to her unpopularity, was a high price for her turn. Her ire about the Lewinski scandal was not about unfaithfulness, but the fact that he messed up HER turn to be relevant.
Yup... no matter how many she loses... the DBM won't delete her.
First, the terms Libertarian and Conservative are not mutually exclusive. Second, Ghost of Philip Marlowe, you seem to contradict yourself calling your ideals “conservative” but calling yourself a classic liberal. By the way, Ghost of Philip Marlowe wrote “ He was referring to the term used to described Thomas Jefferson, a “classical liberal.” Classical liberalism as the term was used during the time period of our Founding Fathers is most nearly reflected in the conservative principles of today that Rush keeps harping on: small government, stronger state sovereignty, lower taxes, more individualism, more choice, greater freedom of enterprise, all undergirt by a common morality, a common culture, and a national language, all wrapped up in a pretty bow that that we call our borders.”
dayglored writes of the same as classic libertarian.
Going back & forth in time greatly confuses semantics. There are aspects of Libertarianism that fit modern day conservatives and aspects that fit modern day liberals. I have posted often recently that conservatives need to shore up what that means. When we have done that, we have done well, e.g., Reganism, Contract with America.
Yesterday’s “classical liberal” is today’s conservative.
Today’s libertarians are only partially conservative. Where there is a divide, it is an irreparable divide because the divide separates us by our principles.
Radical individualism (putting yourself and your own actions above all others) has been destroying this country since the radical 60’s. The effect of selfishness has been catastrophic.
Conservatives look to an external moral code by which all must abide. Sorry, you do not have the right to do lines of coke in your home while cleaning out your bazooka before you drive down the street with it at 100 miles an hour to go to the liquor store to buy some crack and 300-proof alcohol. Maybe in bizarro world. But our Founding Fathers never intended for liberty to be license. Their view of this ‘experiment in self-government’ was based upon a shared and respected morality assumed to be communicated through the church.
I appreciate the fact that you “explained the terms I used in the context of what are their definitions for different times. The greater confusion is that of confusing “L” with “l.””. The problem with your explanation is that it is not everyone else’s set of definitions. At least you stated your reference frame. I give you credit for that.
I would also say that you have failed to carefully read my posts.
I do agree with your most recent observations about libertarian perspective tending toward radical individualism. Our personal choices affect others, even with Jeremiah Johnson.
I think a way that is helpful for me to view the issue is to divide the issues and stances into Cartesian Quadrants where one pole deals with social issues and the other fiscal issues. Libertarians tend to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Reganism was more fiscal conservative and social conservative. Bush and Huckabee talk “compassionate conservatism”, inferring a degree of social liberalism, perhaps including McCain.
I have posted this often: Conservatives need to figure out who they are if they expect to muster a winning stratgey.
Very funny stuff! Thanks.
This is an internet rumor. It was probably started by Clinton. It is not true and smacks of racism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.