Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

The torch relay protests and his colleagues in Congress and who knows what else (but definitely NOT the do-nothing 'in the tank for Obama' pseudo-lefty blogosphere) has worked on Obama, and he got right on the "boycott the opening ceremonies" issue late yesterday:

Obama Joins Clinton in Calling for Bush to Boycott Olympics' Opening Ceremonies
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Barack Obama joined Hillary Clinton Wednesday in calling on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing if human rights conditions do not improve. . . .

Earlier Wednesday, Obama spokesman Bill Burton told FOX News Obama disagreed with Clinton's call for a Bush boycott, arguing it deprived the president of using that threat as leverage in private discussions with the Chinese on repression in Tibet and support of the Sudanese government.

Obama said Monday he is "deeply disturbed by the recent events in Tibet," but at the time did not call on Bush to boycott the games.

"The Chinese government must take immediate steps to respect the dignity, security, human rights and religious freedom of the Tibetan people, to provide foreign press and diplomats with access to the region and to finally work with the Dalai Lama toward meaningful autonomy for Tibet. If they do not, there should be consequences," he said.

Here is Obama's full statement:

If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur. Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games.

This is the same as Clinton:

4/7/2008
Statement by Hillary Clinton on Olympics

. . . At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent. . . .

Which makes headlines like the following wrong:

Clinton, Obama split on Olympics
Posted April 10, 2008 8:00 AM
The Swamp

by Christi Parsons

LEVITTOWN, Pa.--Hillary Clinton says President Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing, but Barack Obama thinks Bush should wait and make the decision closer to the time of the games.

By the way, there's a groundswell of Democratic legislators coming out in favor of "boycotting the opening ceremonies unless":

Thursday April 10, 2008
Byrd joins Hillary Clinton in urging for boycott of Olympics in China

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., along with Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, is calling on President Bush to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Sens. Byrd, Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J. wrote a letter to Bush suggesting that his presence at the opening ceremonies would show tolerance for human rights violations and disrespect for the spirit of the Olympics. . . .

"The Chinese government was awarded the Games on the understanding that it would work to significantly improve its human rights record," they wrote. "Clearly, it has not. In fact, its actions are completely contradictory to the Olympic spirit."

The senators added, "If the Chinese government is ever to treat its people with basic human rights, it must be sent a bold and clear message that its record of violence and suppression is completely unacceptable. Few actions can speak louder than if the president of the United States were to condemn the Chinese human rights record with the entire world watching. Refusing to attend the opening ceremonies would accomplish that."

In the letter, they also noted that Buddhist monks and ethnic Tibetans were brutally punished and killed for participating in protests in Tibet. They also referenced the Chinese government's continued unwillingness to bring an end to the genocide in Darfur because of its unique leverage with the Sudanese regime.

And the torch protests and political push may be working on Bush:

Bush Presence at Olympic Gala Uncertain
By FOSTER KLUG - 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has said he plans to attend the Beijing Olympics, but the White House has not ruled out the possibility that he may miss the opening ceremony, which China hopes to use as an international showcase.

Critics of China say that Bush avoiding the event would be a powerful sign of international anger over China's violent response to demonstrating Buddhist monks in Tibet. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokeswoman said Wednesday that Brown will not attend the opening ceremony.

Over two days, White House press secretary Dana Perino has faced questions about Bush's attendance at the opening gala for games that China hopes to use to make a statement about its rising economic and political power. She says Bush will go to the Olympics. . . .

Meanwhile, the House passed a resolution criticizing China for its crackdown on protesters in Tibet and urging Beijing to hold direct talks with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan religious leader, on the future of the region.

The resolution also demanded that China release Tibetans imprisoned for participating in peaceful demonstrations and allow international monitors and journalists unfettered access to the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas of China. It passed 413 to 1.

[If China were to make most of the relatively easy concessions in the House resolution, I think the implication is that the boycott would be called off.]

The Senate later unanimously approved a similar resolution introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore. . . .

Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday joined Clinton in calling for Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies for the Olympic Games in Beijing. Clinton had commended [Britain's Prime Minister] Brown for announcing that he will skip the August ceremonies in China's capital, and called on Obama and likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain to join her in urging Bush to do the same.

Obama did later in the day; his campaign issued a statement in which, for the first time, he urged Bush to boycott the festivities.

By the way, Clinton apparently was under the wrong impression, as Gordon Brown had already told the Chinese back in March that he'd only be attending the closing ceremonies. He's not on the boycott team.

Final by the way: Obama shows basic misunderstanding of the relationship between China and the U.S. with this remark: "It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong." The U.S. is an essential market for China's products, while China is an `essential' banker for U.S. debt. In such a stalemate a President has a lot of freedom to act, judiciously, and Obama needs to learn that.  Obama made the remark a couple hours before his team finally issued their "boycott if" statement, so maybe he did reconsider those remarks' naivete, and I don't wanna jump on that kind of 'gotcha' b.s. (Though I do hear echoes of a common Obama refrain of (neoliberal, fatalistic) "nothing can be done"-ishness.) More on exactly what he said, in context, here:

April 9, 2008, 3:19 PM
Obama: "It's Hard to Tell Your Banker That He's Wrong"
Posted by Maria Gavrilovic

MALVERN, PA. -- Barack Obama today said the Bush Administration does not have leverage to pressure China on human rights abuses in Tibet because of the flawed economic ties between the two countries.

"It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong, all right?," Obama told voters here. "And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It gives us less leverage to talk about human rights."

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Olympics (all tags)

Comments

64 Comments

Let me get this straight?

Does this mean that Obama values money over human rights?

by linc 2008-04-10 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me get this straight?

So you're jumping on that lame Obama statement. It does show a very simplistic misunderstanding of the basic economic relationship between the U.S. and China. But he's a smart guy and hopefully someone set him straight? Austan Goolsbee? Maybe not . . .

by fairleft 2008-04-10 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me get this straight?

Just b/c we're a market for our goods does not mean that they won't stop lending us money.  They can export to other countries.  If our credit gets that bad our economy's taking a nosedive.  

Now, they most likely will continue to lend us money, b/c we are their biggest market.  But that doesn't mean we should jump at a chance to piss them off.  Your banker might not cut off your loan (especially if you're consistently making the payments) if you piss him or her off, but they won't give you leeway either.

It's a complicated relationship and making sudden, dramatic decisions when the Games are months away is completely unnecessary.

by nklein 2008-04-11 10:49AM | 0 recs
That's why this mild effort for

low-key goals is appropriate and about all the U.S. should attempt to do. Obama was too hesitant and whimpy when you look at the actual, mild 'demands' in the House resolution.

On the other hand, wild-eyed "FREE TIBET" demands would not be successful and might inspire an angry, irrational response by China. It's in China's interests to keep this conflict low-key and also to prop up the HUGE U.S. market for its goods.

by fairleft 2008-04-11 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: That's why this mild effort for

I think you ignore China's peril at our nation's risk.  A wise nation always is cautious to not provoke it's strongest rival.  We are miles ahead of China, but they are gaining fast.  What was it Sung Tsu said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

This, though, does not mean copitulation (which I believe has been the policy of Bush to his banker).  But perhaps substantive action is more important and less provocative.  I hearily wish that Bush would take them to the WTO for their numerous violations of their treaty obligations.  Or perhaps more to the point of Tibet and Darfur, we should begin calling for Security Counicl action on embargoing Sudan or calling for foreign press to be allowed into Tibet.

It appears though that this discussion is irrelevant, because Bush is even unwilling to engage in this symbolic act of protest.  How sad! Our nation was once described as a "sleeping tiger" by Admiral Yamamoto; the actions of our current president has reduced us to a dying tiger.  Bush allows China to poke and prod the U.S. and the world with no response.

by nklein 2008-04-13 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

He is a BIT of a follower, isn't he?

I mean, I could just chalk it up to lack of experience, but I think there is something more - a lack of understanding.

but whatever.  I've suffered thru 8 years of Bush, 12 years of Reagan/BushI - so if Obama gets in, 4 years isn't so bad.

and yes, I truly believe no matter who gets into the WH - any of them - they will be a one-termer, because they will make unpopular decisions.

very unpopular.  

by colebiancardi 2008-04-10 08:48AM | 0 recs
He's quite 'fatalistic' & 'nothing u can do'

That's why his speeches lack substance, because 'everyone knows' in this neoliberal globalized world there's nothing much government can really do anymore. Just an impression (and looking at his leading economic advisors) of what lies beneath the 'hope' words.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:00AM | 0 recs
Always a follower .

He never seems to lead on anything.  Usually turns up with his POV about a week after Hillary - and uses what she's already said and claims it as his own.

Sad.  So sad.

by Shazone 2008-04-10 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Always a follower .

You could see this coming from a mile away.  The same way in the debates...

All I can see is the SNL skit of Russert asking Obama the same question...too funny.

by TxDem08 2008-04-10 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

By that definition Senator Clinton is a follower too since Speaker Pelosi came out for the boycott first.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-10 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

So, this is a Faux Noise headline--LOL!!! I sincerely doubt that either McCain or Obama 'joined' Clinton--they each made up their own minds.

And Pelosi was first now wasn't she--and I sincerely doubt McCain joined in with the 'Democrats' on this either.

by Wary 2008-04-10 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

I saw John Mccain on the view saying he too would boycott the opening ceremony.

I am glad they all listened to Hillary Clinton when she challenged both John Mccain and Obama to do that.

That is what leadership is all about.

by lori 2008-04-10 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

well, by your logic, the real leader on this would be Nancy Pelosi....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

Just one more instance of Obama saying, "me too".

by americanincanada 2008-04-10 08:51AM | 0 recs
That's cool!

Very, uh, Vice Presidential of him.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

Well, that is essentially what Hillary said....to Pelosi's stand on the Olympics.

by Kysen 2008-04-10 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

But it's Obama this time so it must be wrong.

Just sayin'.

by grass 2008-04-10 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

I still think boycotting the opening ceremony amounts to nothing more than a symbolic protest that won't really affect the changes that need to occur...  It may even have a negative impact as giving China a black eye is not in Tibet's best interests as it may spur a backlash against them by China.  

If we have as much leverage as you say, we should be advocating using that to affect real and substantive changes....

Furthermore, after the Olympics, do we simply not care anymore...?  I doubt we will...  did we care two months ago?

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

did we care two months ago?

I did.  This isn't just about Tibet either.  It is also about China pressuring Sudan, in regards with Darfur.

A lot of people care about this.  We need to have a gov't that does play hardball with China.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-10 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

I agree... and have been an advocate for a stronger line on China over Tibet, Taiwan, and Sudan for quite a while...

I just don't think a symbolic gesture will do it.  And may actually cause more harm than good.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

But the point is that there was very little of this outrage about the Olympics until very recently.

Hillary called for a boycott, and suddenly all her supporters are up in arms that Obama hasn't...where was that anger the day BEFORE Hillary called for the boycott?

It's all feigned.    

by freedom78 2008-04-10 09:23AM | 0 recs
Whatever works!

Whatever our motivations, we're getting something good accomplished, putting pressure on Bush to do the right thing. And good to have Obama on board.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever works!

I have nothing against the pressure on China or Bush or Obama...like you said, something needs to be done to get this accomplished.

But the feigned outrage from some is a bit much.  

by freedom78 2008-04-10 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

I don't think overplaying our hand will work. This is a 'minor' boycott and its goals are NOT a 'free Tibet' or whatever. I think the goals are clearly most of what is in the House resolution, which I've bold-faced in the article. Very doable for China, and they did agree when they won the Olympics that they'd improve their human rights performance.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:06AM | 0 recs
Why wrong?

What is wrong with this statement?


"It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong, all right?," Obama told voters here. "And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It gives us less leverage to talk about human rights."

Are you saying that Obama is wrong because it's an untrue statement, or are you saying Obama is wrong for acknowledging reality?

by maddogg 2008-04-10 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Why wrong?

it is untrue - because we import goods from China - we can boycott them in a heartbeat if we really wanted to.

so, Obama isn't acknowledging much other than hedging his own bets.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-10 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Why wrong?

have you ever tried to boycott Chinese products for a month...?  Even a week..?  As soon as you need a disposable (as opposed to durable) good, it gets complicated...

It is pretty tough.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 09:03AM | 0 recs
jen, good lord

we are not talking about the end user here.  It is not about you and I not buying cheep shit at walmart.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 09:09AM | 0 recs
Shorter you...

..."don't ask me to do anything that would be even slightly uncomfortable".

Snort.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: jen, good lord

Teresa Good Lord...

I was responding to a comment that mentioned boycotting China and mentioned how difficult that would be.

And I don't shop at Wal-Mart... here isn't one anywhere near me believe it or not and I prefer The Andersons.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why wrong?

hahahaha do you actually think we would?

no honestly, ALL we called for was a boycott of the opening ceremonies thats it. we have been on China for YEARS about their human rights issues we have never done a boycott.

do you honestly think we would? do you know just how much stuff in your house right now was made in China?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-10 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why wrong?

not as much as one would think.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-10 11:21AM | 0 recs
Obama and you are both wrong

...well not so much wrong as guilty of misunderstanding the issue.  The idea that China controls us because we owe them money is cheep political rhetoric.  We have a great deal of power and they are NOT going to call in their debt.  Unless we pay them, it is nothing but meaningless paper. Just like the bank doesn't want your house and can't stop you from walking away from it if they squeeze too hard, China can not call in our debt to them with out shutting down their own economy.

Obama is either clueless or pandering to the clueless.  
My opinion is that he is just not very well educated on this matter and should not have opened his mouth to say such a ridiculous thing.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama and you are both wrong

If all China had over us was that we owed them money, the bankermortgage analogy works.  However, this is not the case.

China is lending us more money every single day because of what we're doing in Iraq and giving money to those who pay our pols.  We cannot pay our bills unless someone lends us more money every day.

The problem isn't that we OWE China money, it's that we need them to lend more money to use every single day.

by maddogg 2008-04-10 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Why wrong?

In a stalemate the U.S. has tons of leverage. China HAS TO buy our debt if it wants to prop up our economy so its products can be sold in the U.S. A major depression/recession in the U.S. causes a major recession/depression in China.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why wrong?

So if we boycott them, we send both of our economies into a tailspin.  While possible, do we really think any politician, let alone McCain, Clinton, or Obama, would do that?

by maddogg 2008-04-10 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

"I agree with Hillary"

rotf

by colebiancardi 2008-04-10 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

I wonder if he called her at 3am to ask her about what he should think?

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

Did Hillary make the same call to Pelosi?

This whole facade of Hillary being out front on this matter is laughable. Don't get me wrong...I am well pleased that she voiced her opinion....I just know that it came many many many months after China was given the Olympics. That it came almost 2 weeks after Pelosi voiced the same opinion. That it came long after THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of 'regular' folks spoke out about it and protested.

I am glad that Hillary and Obama have now both spoken out about it...but, let's be real, neither has taken the lead nor the tail position on the matter. Neither holds the First or Last label, they both took their sweet ass time saying something (and after months and months...a couple days between their announcements is nothing).

Frankly, I don't care who belatedly said something 'first' ('first' between the 2 of them)....the important thing is that they both have finally said something.

by Kysen 2008-04-10 09:55AM | 0 recs
It came 2 weeks after the Tibet crackdown

She's the first Presidential candidate to call for a 'boycott if'. Can't you concede that her taking the lead relative to the other two major candidates was a good thing? And that, yes, her taking the lead put pressure on Obama to do the right thing. Which was also a good thing, for Tibet.

Pelosi's statement 2 weeks ago of course didn't put pressure on Clinton, Obama, or McCain.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
Breakingzzz!

Hillary follows Pelosi, other real leaders on boycott!

Something to that effect...

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Breakingzzz!

actually, no. Hillary has been vocal about this since 1995

Hillary Clinton Talks About Tibet In Her Memoir
International Campaign for Tibet
June 23rd, 2003

Hillary Clinton has, in her much-publicized memoir Living History (Simon & Schuster, 2003) revealed the strong interest that she and her husband, Bill Clinton, had in Tibet and the Dalai Lama. She refers to three events involving Tibet that had a deep impact on her.

Living History talks about Clinton's disdain at Chinese restrictions placed on Tibetans from exile wanting to participate in the UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995.

"It is indefensible that many women in NGOs who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend or have been prohibited from fully taking part," Clinton is quoted by the media as telling the conference then.

There is a more extensive reference to the discussion that the Clintons had with President Jiang Zemin during his state visit to the United States in 1997 and during their return visit to China in 1998.

Hillary Clinton writes, "Jiang Zemin and his wife, Madame Wang Yeping, came to the Untied States for a state visit. Jiang spoke English and conversed easily. Before the visit, many of my friends had asked me to raise with him the issue of China's suppression of Tibet. I had met with the Dalai Lama to discuss the Tibetans' plight, and so I asked President Jiang to explain China's repression of the Tibetans and their religion.

"'What do you mean?' he said. 'Tibet has historically been a part of China. The Chinese are the liberators of the Tibetan people. I have read the histories in our libraries, and I know Tibetans are better off now than they were before.'

"But what about their traditions and the right to practice their religion as they choose?

"He became passionate, even banging the table once. 'They were victims of religion. They are now freed from feudalism.'

"Despite a developing global culture, the same facts can be and often are viewed through starkly different historical and cultural prisms and the word 'freedom' is defined to fit one's political perspective. Still, I didn't think Jiang, who is quite sophisticated and had succeeded in opening up and modernizing the Chinese economy, was being quite straight with me on Tibet. The Chinese, for historical and psychological reasons, were obsessed with avoiding internal disintegration. In the case of Tibet, that led to overreaction and oppression, as obsessions often do.

"During our visit to China, Bill and I again raised our concerns about Tibet and the general state of human rights in China. Predictably, the Chinese leaders were adamant and dismissive. When I'm asked why a U.S. President should visit any country with whom we have such serious differences, my answer is always the same: America, the most diverse nation in human history, now wields unparalleled power. But we can be quite insular and uninformed about other countries and their perspectives."
 

and this is not from Hillary's site, but from the International Campaign for Tibet

http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.p hp?id=442&printable=yes

by colebiancardi 2008-04-10 08:58AM | 0 recs
Good for her.

No, seriously, I respect that. But the diarist's point is far narrower, namely to construct the usual bash-Obama narrative by pretending that Hillary took the first step in calling for a boycott, which she, of course, demonstrably did not.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:04AM | 0 recs
Hillary's media coverage got the job done

Pelosi wouldn't be able to get the job done, but Obama and/or Clinton and/or McCain could've. Only three people had that power, because of the media focus on them in the Presidential race. One of them, Hillary Clinton, chose to use that power in the right way. And now a second one of the three has joined her.

Now that Obama and Clinton are on the same team, this puts more pressure on Bush to put pressure on China. OR, this issue becomes a net positive for the Dems going forward.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:13AM | 0 recs
Funny.

Over here in the real world, not primary-positioning-is-all-that-matters world, the Speaker of the House has quite the platform.

But again, if we assume for argument's sake that this boycott is a good idea, it was Pelosi who started that conversation, not Hillary. That's just an objective fact.

But as I pointed out yesterday in my heavily-trolled diary on this very subject, a primary where people are looking for any excuse to bash their opponent isn't necessarily the best venue to discuss policy. All the strenuous posturing tends to distract from substance, I find.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:22AM | 0 recs
Media is VERY heavily focused on Hill-Bama-Cain

in the real world, exceeding by 100s of times its focus on Pelosi. That you deny that makes you a troll.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Media is VERY heavily focused on Hill-Bama-Cai

As I am sitting here watching CNN and they interrupted their news including their coverage of a tornado warning in Arkansas because Reid and Pelosi were going to respond to the President's remarks on Iraq, I would say the Speaker of the House has a considerable platform.

And the commenter is not a troll by any measure.  Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 09:55AM | 0 recs
Media focus on Hill-Bama-Cain

is 100s of times greater than its focus on Pelosi (pretending that is not the case to make an anti-diarist comment is trollish). That media focus gives those three 100s of times greater media power than Pelosi's.

One of Hill-Bama-Cain handled her 'during the campaign' media-focus-based power to advance a worthy cause. Another followed her lead a few days later.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Media focus on Hill-Bama-Cain

an anti-diarist comment...?

You mean the comment disagreed with your diary's premise?  Again, that is not trollish behaviour.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 11:00AM | 0 recs
Here's what MBNYC said

But the diarist's point is far narrower, namely to construct the usual bash-Obama narrative by pretending that Hillary took the first step in calling for a boycott, which she, of course, demonstrably did not.

Where in my diary or comments am I "pretending that Hillary took the first step in calling for a boycott"? Nowhere, and MBNYC knows that or should know that, but that fact would make impossible a "bash-fairleft narrative". And anyway how is noting that Obama followed Hillary on this matter, which is true and for some telling, a "bash-Obama narrative"? It isn't.

I then make the following obvious point about how Presidential candidates -- compared to House speakers -- get massive press coverage and can and should take advantage of that to advance good causes:

Hillary's media coverage got the job done (none / 0)

Pelosi wouldn't be able to get the job done, but Obama and/or Clinton and/or McCain could've. Only three people had that power, because of the media focus on them in the Presidential race. One of them, Hillary Clinton, chose to use that power in the right way. And now a second one of the three has joined her.

Now that Obama and Clinton are on the same team, this puts more pressure on Bush to put pressure on China. OR, this issue becomes a net positive for the Dems going forward.

MBNYC's response is falsely non-comprehending and changes the subject again:

Funny. (1.75 / 4)

Over here in the real world, not primary-positioning-is-all-that-matters world, the Speaker of the House has quite the platform.

Did I say the Speaker doesn't have a platform? No, I didn't, I said her 'platform' is hundreds of times less prominent than the 3 Presidential candidates' platforms right now. But ignoring my point is the only way MBNYC can construct a "bash-fairleft narrative." And then he goes on to again mention the irrelevant fact that (according to MBNYC) Pelosi first pushed for this boycott.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:13:06 PM CDT

by fairleft 2008-04-10 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Media is VERY heavily focused on Hill-Bama-Cai

Absolute ratings abuse on your part.

Ridiculous.

by Kysen 2008-04-10 10:01AM | 0 recs
Denying that Media focuses 100s of times

more attention on Clinton, Obama, and McCain than they do on Pelosi just to make a false point against me, the diarist, is being a troll. Honorable commenters concede to reality, especially when it involves disparaging a diarist's or another commenter's motives.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Denying that Media focuses 100s of times

It wasn't a false point against you....!  It was a matter of a difference of opinion.  

Apparently you consider differences of opinion to be trollish...  

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 11:02AM | 0 recs
NOT breaking on Dailykos

It didn't have a damn thing on its front page on the Tibet/Olympics protests on Monday, Tuesday, and most of Wednesday. Heroically progressive site that it is, it was/is in the tank for hemming and hawwing Obama the follower.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:02AM | 0 recs
And good for you, too.

So you should post this diary on Daily Kos and remedy this appalling deficit. Meanwhile, I strongly doubt that pointing this out to me personally is going to affect the editorial choices of Daily Kos, but hey.

by MBNYC 2008-04-10 09:06AM | 0 recs
"front page" prominence needed for Tibet

And, anyway, no diaries in any way 'anti-Obama' make the recommended list. And unfortunately for Tibet, Hillary taking the lead on this issue is 'anti-Obama'.

And finally, I was dkos banned last year for being too fair and balanced on Israel and/or Clinton (Stalin doesn't tell you why he disappears you).

by fairleft 2008-04-10 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: "front page" prominence

Stalin doesn't run DKos...  And I have a feeling that you did something other than just being "fair and balanced" if you got kicked off.  But thanks for the use of Faux Noise's tag line...

And Hillary calling for a boycott of the opening ceremony will have little effect on Tibet as boycotting the opening ceremony will not suddenly make China rethink its stance.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 11:06AM | 0 recs
Doing a little good is all this mild boycott

is about. The art of the possible, which Clinton shows a knack for in this case. Nothing grand and 'free Tibet' utopian, just most of the content of the House resolution:

. . .the House passed a resolution . . . urging Beijing to

1. hold direct talks with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan religious leader, on the future of the region. . . .

2. release Tibetans imprisoned for participating in peaceful demonstrations and

3. allow international monitors and journalists unfettered access to the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas of China.

And the Stalin thing was meant figuratively.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 12:12PM | 0 recs
nobody follows Pelosi

isn't that clear yet?

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-10 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: nobody follows Pelosi

Oh gee, you're right... that whole FISA thing...  that wasn't leadership or anything....

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-10 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!

will Obama ever come up with something by himself? He shows no leadership qualities. The only person whi has been a leader is Sen. Clinton. Now what about the ineffectual speaker Pelosi? Her house members do not follow her, but I guess she can stick with BO.

by tarheel74 2008-04-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
Good.
I would have been deeply disappointed if Obama had failed to do the right thing on this.
by sricki 2008-04-10 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama joins Clinton on Boycott!
One burning question on my mind: Did Clinton yell "firsties!"? And another manufactured outrage scrolls on by...
by jwolf 2008-04-10 12:15PM | 0 recs
She had the right position first, and that

put pressure on Obama to get his position 'right'. And then he did, and we're moving forward with some progressive pressure on Bush and if that's succesful human rights pressure China.

by fairleft 2008-04-11 11:26AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads