[Peace-discuss] Not that Obama's any better

[C. G. Estabrook]

No, the subject line is explained by the fact that it's true, and the opposite 
implication is false.

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Three hours, huh. Well, maybe that explains the subject line, then. That 
> kinda nasty stuff rubs off real easy.
>  --Jenifer
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     But it's important that a certain primitive psychological splitting
>     doesn't lead
>     people to imagine that Hillary's awfulness makes Obama look good.
> 
>     And BTW I had a long auto trip last week and listened to Limbaugh's
>     full three-
>     hour show. It's interesting to hear how he does it. What he says is
>     nuts and
>     worse, but he has polished a rhetorical form that's supple and
>     inventive. It's
>     good audio theatre. --CGE
> 
> 
>     Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>      > Good article, Carl. Thanks for posting it. However, the subject line
>      > should have read "Hillary Strangelove" as that's what the
>     editorial is
>      > about. "Not that Obama's any better" is off-topic and soooo
>     totally Rush
>      > Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly.
>      > --Jenifer
>      >
>      > */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
>      >
>      > GLOBE EDITORIAL
>      > Hillary Strangelove
>      > April 27, 2008
>      >
>      > AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the
>      > rhetoric in a
>      > campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary
>      > Clinton and
>      > Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be
>      > crossed.
>      > Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary,
>      > when she
>      > told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she
>      > would
>      > "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
>      >
>      > This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media
>      > coverage. But it
>      > reverberated in headlines around the world.
>      >
>      > Responding with understatement to a question in the British House of
>      > Lords, the
>      > foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown,
>     said of
>      > Clinton's implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: "While it is
>      > reasonable to
>      > warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear
>      > weapons and
>      > what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably
>      > not prudent
>      > in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in
>      > many cases
>      > civilians resident in such a country."
>      >
>      > A less restrained reaction came from an editorial in the Saudi-based
>      > paper Arab
>      > News. Being neighbors of Iran, the Saudis and the other Gulf Arabs
>      > have the most
>      > to fear from Iran's nuclear program and its drive to become the
>      > dominant power
>      > in the Gulf.
>      >
>      > But precisely because they are most at risk from Iran's regional
>      > ambitions, the
>      > Saudis want a carefully considered American approach to Iran, one
>      > that balances
>      > firmness and diplomatic engagement.
>      >
>      > The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign
>      > politics of the
>      > madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance
>     that has
>      > distinguished Bush's foreign relations."
>      >
>      > The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy.
>      > But they
>      > understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the
>      > hands of
>      > Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a
>      > nuclear
>      > weapons capability. They argue that Iran must have that capability
>      > in order to
>      > deter the United States from doing what Clinton threatened to do.
>      >
>      > While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in
>      > Pakistan,
>      > her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to
>      > realize that
>      > she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian
>      > people have been
>      > more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the
>      > Middle East.
>      >
>      > A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran -
>      > and,
>      > presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran -
>      > should not be
>      > answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.
>      >
>      > ###
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Peace-discuss mailing list
>      > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>      > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
>     Mobile. Try
>      > it now.
>      >
>      > >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
>  >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss