Why would Harper's Magazine do this to Obama?

[KoKo]

http://www.harpers.org/

[babylonsister]

1. It appears Mr. Fish isn't a fan... nt

[KoKo]

2. Apparently...but I never got what their problem was with Obama...

:shrug:

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I just sent a nice challenge to them to do one as nasty about the others

[KingofNewOrleans]

3. Well, it's really their cartoonists doing it

And Obama has been vague on policy up to this point.

The "fresh charisma to doomsday" does seem a bit over the top though.

[KoKo]

5. Yes...it didn't make sense....."fresh charisma to doomsday?"

what's that supposed to mean. :shrug: I didn't like his cozying up to Israel...but the rest did seem a little OTT.

[KingofNewOrleans]

13. I took it to mean that Mr. Fish

doesn't think there's a real difference between Obama and GWB on the Middle East. Obama is in Israel's pocket, yada yada...

[depakid]

4. Maybe because he doesn't have a track record

to back up his rhetoric?

[fuzzyball]

21. Obama has an advantage...he was not in senate for IWR vote

so he can choose to say whatever will sell the voters.
HRC and 80 to 90% of senators were able to examine the
evidence presented on the Saddam threat and made the right
choice based on what was known then. I give Hillary credit
for not backpeddaling on her decision in 2002. In contrast
Obama is all rhetoric designed to match what will sell.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. sounds like someone has a problem. Harpers is stupid. I just sent

a copy to Archpundit who loves skewering these guys.

[Iris]

8. can you answer to any of the points being made?

I'll admit, I'm not up on Obama and what he stands for but what ARE his positions on healthcare, Israel, gay marriage?

[faithnotgreed]

15. and iraq and iran

[k_jerome]

9. bwahahaha. nt.

[Kolesar]

10. Why didn't he just give him buck teeth and horns?

[SaveElmer]

11. He better get used to it...

This is nothin compared to what he will be faced with should he get the Dem nod...

[IndianaGreen]

18. This is very tame compared to what awaits the Democratic nominee

And even before the GOP goes on attack mode, the battle for the nomination will also be bruising and brutal.

This is not for those with weak knees.

[SaveElmer]

19. That is most definitely true...nt

[bluehighways911]

22. Want Substance

Hey Elmer. You think Obama wasn't attacked in his Senate race. I saw it all and he smashed it right back in their face and then talked about issues.

Isn't it hilarious to see posters on a message board saying Obama doesn't have substance. And of course you do. He was elected. You are babbling.

So back to substance. See this from Edwards or Hillary or the rest.

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

[SaveElmer]

26. Wooah there...what the hell is this?

All I was saying is that Obama had better get used to the political attacks, because alot worse is coming down the pike...

Not sure what your response was in reference to...

You put alot of work into it though...why don't you make that a thread of its own!!!

[IndianaGreen]

32. You should make this a thread of its own

and if you can't because of your low post number, let anyone else know and they will be happy to repost.

[fujiyama]

29. You have a good point

Regardless of who the nominee is, they're going to face a hostile press.

We won in '06 DESPITE a media that did all they could to get Repukes reelected. They misled people as long as they could into believing those scandals were "bipartisan".

I already see that the media is attacking Obama and Hillary, while giving Giuliani a free ride. Of course, they'll do anything for McCain...whom the press adores...

[jannyk]

12. I think Mr Fish and I are waiting for the same thing,...

...substance!!

95% of the population over the age of 10 knows we need a 'New Direction'. What we want to know Mr Obama is what direction is it you're pointing in - just where do you stand on the important issues of the day.

Impassioned rhetorical speeches are clever, but no more than hot air.

[roguevalley]

14. I remember, as old as I am, when all politics WAS was substance.

There are whole generations that have never known that. That is what bugs him, I think.

[KingofNewOrleans]

17. I think you've got some rose colored

memory glasses on there.

[bluehighways911]

25. Hey King

You are on a message board and complaining about substance.

Barak Obama did something. He was elected Senator in a race at the beginning maybe one percent of Illinois knew who he was.

Do you get that?

Sure is easy to sit on your computer and tell us how much you know about substance.

All I see is someone who couldn't shine Obama's shoes.

We will see you kissing his ass sometime next year. See, I told you Obama was the man.

[KingofNewOrleans]

31. Hey Blue

I was talking to Mr. Rogue and his seeming assertion that there was a golden age of politics when the debate was all about substance and somehow free of empty platitutdes or personal invective.

As for Senator Obama, at no point in this thread have I taken any stance against him. For that matter, I don't think I taken any stance against Obama on any of my posts. Try projecting your "issues' elsewhere please.

[roguevalley]

27. No. No rose colored glasses here. I remember when congress

was filled with people like Wayne Morse, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson -awesome congressperson- and many, many more. focus groups? What were those? i feel for younger people who didn't listen to JFK when he was alive and RFK. That was substance and it was common, unlike now when people focus group their toilet paper.

[KingofNewOrleans]

30. Was Joe McCarthy ever

a member of Congress? maybe he didn't use focus groups but he wasn't a man of substance.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. I was there too and everyone said Bobby had no substance

They even said that about JFK, No experience, One term senator, no substance.

BTW I'm NOT comparing Obama to the Kennedys. But it's a similar refrain.

[fuzzyball]

24. If you read about attacks on Abraham Lincoln, it will curl your hair

and political attacks were even more vicious on occasion
prior to Lincoln era.

The first attack I was exposed to was LBJ commercial showing
a Goldwater presidency would result in nuclear winter. That
was a bit of a stretch don't you think?

[roguevalley]

28. when you consider when he said extremism in the pursuit of

freedom was no vice, then not. probably. :) I remember when barry was scary, not like his later years when he was fun and dead on most of the time.

[fuzzyball]

38. Barry was a true conservative as opposed to the psuedo-cons

of today. And that makes my point. Political attacks
is a steady feature of American politics going back
to almost Washinton;s time.

[fuzzyball]

39. Barry was a true conservative as opposed to the psuedo-cons

of today. And that makes my point. Political attacks
is a steady feature of American politics going back
to almost Washinton;s time.

[Capn Sunshine]

33. So, do you want that delivered to your home

or have you actually read up on anything Obama has said/done?
Much easier to parrot back the conventional media take , isn't it.

[ripple]

37. But he's a media creation!!

:sarcasm:

[Jim Sagle]

16. Mr. Fish ain't nuthin' but shit.

He would beg to differ, of course. Whoever you are, he'd maintain that he's MUCH better than you.

He's purer and leftier than ANYONE, in his own mind - and therefore, anyone else is a sellout.

[SemperEadem]

20. because the concept of a black man potentially being president

scares these people so much that feel the need to disparage him as best they can before he gains critical mass and wins elections.

[KingofNewOrleans]

23. Actually for Mr. Fish it seems the problem

is that Obama is not far enough to the left.

[grasswire]

35. you must not know much about Harper's. (eom)

[SemperEadem]

41. and I intend upon keeping it that way.

[Bronyraurus]

44. Do you really think that's the reason?

If so, what gives you that impression?

[ripple]

36. I gather Mr. Fish will be voting for Nader

After all, it's apparent that no dem candidate can meet the standards he has set. Well ok, then.

Obama does take a stance on the issues mentioned. The Iraq accusation is particularly ridiculous, as Obama has introduced legislation detailing a plan for troop withdrawal. He's made his views clear on the other issues, as well- minus the exaggeration and spin.

The drawing is excellent. It would look much better with a factually accurate balloon bubble, not to mention a touch of humor.

[mnhtnbb]

40. Uh, to sell magazines?

[KoKo]

42. Kick...I wonder if Fish will do a Hillary?

:eyes: Given the current wars it seems the cartoonists will be VERY BUSY!

[AX10]

43. Fish isn't a fan, obviously.

We should be on the lookout to see how he treats the others, including the Repub candidates.