Assuming there's no rule against calling oneself out by name in a diary title, I'll keep this Diary up for as long as it will last.
Sometimes I wish I could be as good as Senator Clinton, but I don't know, somehow, I remain a petty cynical bastard. Most people here know me by my now infamous "Louis (Farrakhan) and Barack sittin' in a tree" diary. So they know me for the troll that I am. Not a real Democrat. A dimwit really. Resorting to the old "guilt by association" trick.
I know what I told myself at the time. "Isn't that how other people behave? Haven't I seen countless 'Hillary and so and so sittin' in a tree' comments here on this blog?" I told myself, but all that proves is just how pathetic I am.
So that's just a little history on what kind of a person I am.
Turns out Barack Obama was attacked -- I guess it was Obama he was attacking -- I mean, one would have to assume it was Obama, and deliver a response, so Commander Codpiece made his attack in a sort of backhanded way.
Here's what the Chimp in Chief said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli parliament.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before.
"We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said, drawing parallels with the 1930s capitulation to the Nazis.
This is, of course, the kind of attack that demands a unified response from a Political Party. I hear Biden let loose with an expletive. Good for him. He's out of the race, and he can do that. If a presidential candidate said what Biden said, the story would change from Bush's lame embrace of Godwin's law to a foul mouthed future president.
So of course, Sen. Clinton made a statement too:
President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.
Hm. Right. But I wouldn't have made that statement if I was her. I think about what I would have said if I was running against Obama. I would see it as an opportunity to reach out across party lines and score some cheap political points with people who perceive my opponent as too polarizing. It would occur to me that I could build an electability argument out of it.
I would try to think of a way of using Bush's attack on Obama in a way that would serve my Political Ambition, but dammit, I'd be clever about it, clever, cynical, manipulative, passive aggressive. I'd think to myself: "What could I say that would wound my opponent, but still leave me room where, if my opponent accused me of going negative, I could turn right around and accuse my opponent of whining?"
Here is what I would say:
"These attacks on Obama aren't really his fault, and I don't think it's fair, but these attacks exist, and I think it's why I can be a more unifying President for America."
But, like I said above, compared to Sen. Clinton, I'm just not a very nice person to say the least. Most people think of me as a troll and I now realize that they are right.