For the critics of Obama's speech last week

[never cry wolf]

I posted this in GD but it got swampped, probably more properly belongs here anyway.

Many of you may recall the thread in LBN last weekend posted by sabra quoting from an article about a speech made by Barack Obama at Harvard:

Obama says Democrats must hold White House accountable

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - (KRT) - Sen. Barack Obama urged fellow Democrats on Saturday not to automatically view President Bush's proposed reconstruction of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast with a cynical eye, but said: "It is absolutely imperative that we call him on his bluff."

"In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, I think it's important that we don't just assume that George Bush is lying when he says he's finally been awakened to the fact that there is poverty and racism in our midst," said Obama, D-Ill. "It's tempting to do so, especially when he decides to put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1788574

This created a lot of discussion slamming Obama for not just out and out calling shrubby a liar, which I disagreed with, I thought his statements were brilliant.

Well, he made another speech the other day which I believe more fully explains where he is coming from:

Obama said he chose not to be cynical about President Bush's speech from the storm-ravaged city last week, saying that his wife didn't want to hear the speech but he watched it.

"I understand why people would be cynical, when (Bush) makes the decision to give tax breaks to Paris Hilton instead of providing child care and education, but I listened," the senator said. "It was the first time in his presidency he acknowledged poverty in this country."

In a speech Saturday at a Harvard Law School event, Obama said the president should be held accountable for fixing the problems of poverty the hurricane brought to light. He said essentially the same thing Wednesday.

"I suggest we call George Bush on his bluff," he said. "If we dismiss him as not telling the truth, we let him off the hook. But we can't let ourselves off the hook. Some of the shame should be ours. For too long we have been silent and complacent."

more----> http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-0509220212sep22,0,1763797.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

I realize that some of you don't trust him at all and others are reserving judgment until he has more of a track record but I happen to adore MY junior senator and I still believe these speeches were brilliant, using the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" tactic to make implant the thought that it is normal to be cynical of * and think him a liar.

For anyone interested in more info the Tribune has been doing a series on his 1st year in DC which can be found here---> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-flash,1,5706269.flash?coll=chi-news-hed

Todays installment details Obama's tour of former USSR states to inspect weapons caches with Lugar: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0509230360sep23,1,1523152.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[electropop]

1. I think it's a good tactic too.

Implying that everybody knows the most likely thing when Bush speaks is that he is lying, but on the off chance he is telling the truth, let's call his bluff.

[sui generis]

2. I love subtlety

and I mostly like Obama's stances, except for his stance on same sex marriage, but sometimes plain speaking is what's called for more than a brilliant silver tongue. I think the mark of a good statesman, as Obama is proving to be, is the ability to use both marvelous prose and a memorable punch line.

Some republicans are too damn stupid to know you just put a knife in their chest unless you tell them too.

[reality based]

3. When Obama advocates giving Bush the benefit of the doubt

he ignores the man's history and demonstrated character. At some point Bush should have been held accountable. In reality, it's probably too late to accomplish that now (unless someone, some day sends him to the Hague). The fallacy of the appeasement Democrats is that they don't realize that the qualitative difference between a Bush Republican and a Dole Republican requires that they treat them differently-- for the country's sake.

[never cry wolf]

4. Allow me to translate

Essentially he is saying, "Now, everyone knows bush is a lying sack of shit but this time lets call the M-Fer's bluff and hold him to his word. We've let him get away with this crap for too long so let's hold our nose and pretend he is sincere for once and make sure he follows through for the citizens of NOLA."