The Fallen Heroes in the Audience: Another Open Thread

The candidates are definitely tired. Here's Barack Obama in New Mexico on Memorial Day, opening his speech with:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Via Instapundit. On Obama's website, the line is missing from the text of his speech.

Was it video-shopped or did he say it? [Added: The video on his website includes the line, so it's real. Must have been an ad-lib]

Obama also played for the women vote in New Mexico today, singling out women veterans as particularly susceptible to post-tramautic stress disorder: [More...]

OBAMA: We're going to have hundreds of thousands of new veterans coming in, many of them who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. They are not being diagnosed quickly enough, they're not getting the services that they need quickly enough.

And, sadly, the group of veterans that are probably being most neglected in this area are women veterans. We've got to do a better job of creating facilities.... specifically for women veterans.

And part of what we need is to recognize that oftentimes our women servicemembers are more prone to post-traumatic stress disorder partly because they -- there's a sad, but real, problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse for women veterans, and that makes them much more prone, then, to have post-traumatic stress disorder.

A little too obvious for my taste.

< Late Evening Open Thread | McCain Misrepresents Obama's Stance on Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obvious, (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Iphie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    there's a sad, but real, problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse for women veterans
    and what is he proposing to do about it?

    Nobody has done more for (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:55:36 PM EST
    oh hell, never mind

    Oh c'mon now... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by k on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:02:58 AM EST
    He's sad. sniff



    He'll extend the DADT policy (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:26:32 AM EST
    to include it.

    Did he really say that? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:48:19 PM EST
    Is that smooth a video shopping possible?

    actually, the line is in the video on his website (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by popsnorkle on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:50:23 PM EST
     but its not in the transcript.  

    His website says: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    Senator Obama delivered these remarks (as prepared) today in Las Cruces, New Mexico...

    On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong. Because while we gather here under open skies, we know that far beyond the Organ Mountains - in the streets of Baghdad, and the outskirts of Kabul - America's sons and daughters are sacrificing on our behalf. And our thoughts and prayers are with them.

    Right... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:56:00 PM EST
    But if you scroll down, they have a link/vid embed to the same YouTube you've embedded.

    yes, you're right (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:58:02 PM EST
    I added that to the post. So it wasn't in his "prepared remarks" which are printed on the website, but he said it, so it was an ad-lib.

    I think Obama was looking at... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by JoeC on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    ...a lot of folks who'd fallen asleep during his speech, and that unscripted remark was a tired dig at them. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it ;-)

    WORM: "I See Dead People" (5.00 / 12) (#30)
    by shoephone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:24:03 AM EST
    Sorry. I couldn't help it.

    LOL!!!! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    Well That Is The End Of Obama (none / 0) (#34)
    by talex on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:31 AM EST
    First we had Bush who speaks directly to God...

    And now Obama who SEES dead people!!

    I suppose his cabinet meetings would begin with a Séance?

    Perhaps conversations in the Lincoln bedroom with Abe himself? These are scary times. God forbid that Obama would pull out of Iraq and announce it on an aircraft carrier. :-O


    a seance might be interesting... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:33:38 AM EST
    but now I'm having flash backs to Jean Dixon in the Reagan WHouse.

    It was Joan Quigley, astrologer (none / 0) (#104)
    by Xeno on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    oops... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    wrong astrologer.

    But I think a seance might still be cool. Maybe we could get those Ghost Hunter guys to come too.


    Uh huh (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by janarchy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:54:07 PM EST
    And part of what we need is to recognize that oftentimes our women servicemembers are more prone to post-traumatic stress disorder partly because they -- there's a sad, but real, problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse for women veterans, and that makes them much more prone, then, to have post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Do they periodically get down or let their claws come out?

    Can you say obvious pandering in light of allegations of sexism, sweetie? Yeah, me too.


    One can only hope (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:57:43 PM EST
    that if Sen McCain makes a play for women voters he does a better job than this one.  Obvious pandering may not be the best approach.  :-)

    His gaffe (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LoisInCo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:59:19 PM EST
    would more likely be: they let women in the armed forces now? Who knew!

    I almost admire Obama (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    for his attempt at multipandering -- he's taking a run at both women and the military in the same sentence.

    "Multipandering" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by shoephone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:25:10 AM EST
    That is priceless.

    I have to confess (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:36:46 AM EST
    I semi-stole it from another thread who used 'polymarginalize'.  I would have given credit but I couldn't find the original poster.

    Nice one! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:43:42 AM EST
    I'm so burnt out on all of this that I can't even snark in anything more than single syllables.

    well i don't admire pandering. it is insulting. (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:56:16 AM EST
    Except From Hillary (3.00 / 1) (#117)
    by squeaky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    But then it is not pandering but gospel.

    HaHaHa (none / 0) (#14)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    Really fancies himself as an insightful (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:34:04 AM EST
    being. Problem is, everytime I hear him pass off one of his insights he couldn't be more off the mark and illogical in his assessment.

    Women are not the weak beings he is constantly trying to make them out to be.

    He is so darned patronizing toward women.


    Yes, pandering (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by daria g on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:50:11 AM EST
    And unnecessary.  I don't know if there is data on PTSD rates for men vs women.  But is this really a topic on which it's important to make gender distinctions?  So many are suffering from PTSD, and there familes are affected too, and they all will be for generations.  I can't speak for women in the service, but I wonder if they would appreciate this, being singled out as more susceptible.. especially given the reluctance of many to even seek help for PTSD.  It seems a little tone-deaf.  I might be wrong though.

    Jake Tapper wrote a piece a couple days ago on Obama being a one-man gaffe machine lately.


    Lots of PTSD cases (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:02:02 AM EST
    go untreated and unreported (men and women) because it's potentially a career ender.

    I've known soldiers to not talk about it cause they know that it'll wind up in their folder...and that will effect future clearance needs.

    I think there are some stats out there. But the number is prolly bigger than actually reported.


    ptsd (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by urduja on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:06:15 AM EST
    The women are not more prone to PTSD, they just happen to have a higher likelihood of experiencing military sexual trauma on top of the combat trauma.  

    Now he could have said that people with a history of previous trauma or abuse are more prone to PTSD after combat, but that's an entirely different thing.


    Men women, PTSD (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by janedw420 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:54 AM EST
    Women tend to handle stress better than men, but sexual assault is a horrible experience,so women tend to endure more stress than men in the military. His remarks have the same "sweetie" tone-odd when he is speaking to men and women who put their lives on the line.  worked on several military studies in college. In addition to rape and sexual assault, domestic violence has a higher rate on military bases. Seems men have difficulty ramping down out of the Kill mode when they come home at night.
    One of the main reluctance to seek help is the work record, -men are less likely to seek help when suffering from PTSD, Too.

    That's what I was thinking... (none / 0) (#64)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:19:37 AM EST
    Having worked for a Domestic Violence organization, it's clear to me that men are far less likely to report being victims of DV even though their rate of victimization is nearly, just as, or higher than the victimization rates of women (depending on which studies you listen to)...  Never more than 5% of the organization's clients were male.  The societal expectations and gender roles make it unacceptable for a man to consider himself a victim of domestic violence from a woman.

    In the same vein, I would expect men to be far less likely to report or seek help for PTSD, as in our society it's far more acceptable for women to admit to experiencing emotional trauma, whereas men who admit to suffering the same way have a litany of names thrown at them (although the women are still attacked with stereotypes too).  It's simply ridiculous to suggest that women are "more prone" to PTSD than men, even if they report it more.

    If there are more cases due to sexual harassment and assault against women, that's an entirely different matter that needs to be addressed in a far different, aggressive manner.  PTSD would be simply a symptom of that problem and it'd be shameful if Obama's response to that was "more medical centers for women".  Hmm, how about maybe taking steps to reduce sex crimes committed against women in the military first?


    I appreciate your work and admire you (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:50:49 AM EST
    for it -- but I think this otherwise very good (if necessarily brief, I know) summary misses something.  Studies I've read of, with, and by women in the military (and in the police forces, for that matter, although not so often overseas so not removed from their support systems) factor in that they are in a different culture.  They are not "in our society" in which it is more acceptable for women to seek treatment.

    They are in the military culture, still 85% male, and are to meet male norms -- or even to exceed them, of course, as women so often have to do.  So they may be as or more reluctant to seek treatment as are men, and the career penalty can be even more severe for women -- already facing so many obstacles in the military.

    There is much more, of course -- but the main point you make is the most important: that the treatment must be different and greatly improved from what it is now.  Their stories are beyond . . . well, I simply have no words, but I've read many accounts of what they endure from the military academies to the battlefields and back.  And that I am funding their terrible treatment with my taxes also angers me more than I can say.

    So I'll just say again -- thank you for what you did in the war against domestic violence, too.


    I know that the leaders of (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:03:34 AM EST
    some men's groups claim the rates of DV against men and women are virtually the same, but I think that is bunk, and that is the nice way of saying it. I have not worked in DV but I have studied it and I know people who run domestic violence shelters and... there is no evidence to show that men are victims at anything approaching the same rates as women.

    Any studies you want to provide that don't come from the zealots in the male psychology movement I would be more than happy to look at. Otherwise, I believe this is a dangerous and cynical canard that is put forth to dismiss the horror of women's DV experience.


    And in the not-military (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:58:22 PM EST
    I object to 'sad'.  'Sad' makes it sound like it can't be helped.  Being diagnosed with cancer is sad.

    The very real problem is 'outrageous and must be stopped.'

    Note, I'm not holding 'sad' against Obama, I'm just sayin'.

    That's a good point. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Iphie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:11:16 AM EST
    Not only does sad make it seem like it can't be helped, it also makes it sound like a distant issue not something that is present and happening now, very possibly to women who were in the audience. There's a sense of remove in the statement that makes it seem like it's happening somewhere else.

    One cool remove -- the name of a Greg Brown song that seems fitting (the phrase, not the song itself).

    I don't know why people don't think he can relate to their problems, he seems so accessible and understanding.


    Totally off-topic (none / 0) (#33)
    by shoephone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:29:16 AM EST
    I love that song! I understand if this comment gets deleted...

    It's an open thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Iphie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:44:47 AM EST
    but me too, about the song.

    Okay, well since I'm allowed... (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:47:03 AM EST
    The quintessential version, IMO: Shawn Colvin and Mary Chapin Carpenter. But I do love Greg Brown.

    Well, then here ya go. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Iphie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:48:47 AM EST
    And for anyone else who's interested.

    Awesome (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:30:24 AM EST
    Thanks, I needed that!

    That's where I'm having a disconnect (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:56:31 AM EST
    if women have a higher probability of PTSD because of sexual abuse, umm . . .  shouldn't we stop the freaking abuse?!

    Please, keep your facilities and stop the problem.


    The "more prone" thing bothers me... (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:02:51 AM EST
    female and male soldiers are both prone to PTSD. And I've known quite a few soldiers who will never admit that what they are suffering from is PTSD.

    Sexual Harassment happens over there and here.

    But it doesn't make women more prone to PTSD.

    I'm not getting something...

    I imagine he meant to say (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:06:28 AM EST
    that PTSD is exacerbated by sexual harassment.

    But he didn't.


    That was a prepared script (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:10:22 AM EST
    he was supposed to be reading. And if that passage is in the prepared script, then that's what he meant to say as delivered to him by script writers who apparently don't know what they are talking about.



    WORM rules (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Iphie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:16:29 AM EST
    usually apply to extemporaneous things he's said -- this one was scripted. I think we need to come up with a subset to apply to this specific situation.

    It bothers me too. (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:14:20 AM EST
    I know he's trying to cover for past sins, but that's a really clumsy way to do it.  

    Are more women sexually harrassed and abused in the military than other places?  Couldn't the same women be equally sexually harrassed and abused without joining the military?  

    I'm not getting it either.    


    There is a high level of sexual harassment (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:19:52 AM EST
    in the military. I was watching one solider talk about how she was harassed by some of her fellow soldiers...reported the harassment and then was harassed by the very supervisor she'd reported the initial harassment to.

    That being said, the levels are high across the country...campuses (date rape) and so on.

    But for some reason, the levels are pretty high in the military.

    And that is outrageous, not sad.


    I've said for years that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:10:56 AM EST
    all the problems in the military seem to be with straight  men.  Instead of worrying about how having women and gay men will set off the straight men, we should ban the straight men and have a military made up of women and gay guys.  The fabled "unit cohesion" would be fabulous!

    Heh, I know a straight woman in uniform (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:02:45 AM EST
    right now who could make you wonder if the "problem" is straight people.

    Please read (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:47:52 AM EST
    I said straight men, not straight people.

    And I'm saying that I know (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    a very disrespectful sexually harassing hetro married female in uniform and her rank is currently Maj and she is second generation military officer.

    Thanks Tracy... (4.00 / 2) (#118)
    by kdog on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    but you're not gonna win many fans around here saying that sh*t.

    Stick to women are all that is glorious and good, and men are all that is rotten and evil:)


    I have to say that stateside (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:50:17 AM EST
    There is a lot less sexual harassment within the military these days.  When I still worked I had to put up with it sometimes and it used to really flame my husband big time because so much had been done within the military to eradicate it.  He felt like I worked around a bunch of animals at that time. My husband hasn't experienced it/witnessed it within our war zones but he's "old" and usually hangs out in more senior areas, and if he shows up elsewhere he is senior so if anyone is pulling anything they are going to quit when he makes an appearance.  We've talked about the rape problem in the war zones though and he says that our soldiers have been seriously dehumanized and they can act like animals in the combat zones, they have been treated like animals by this administration and our leadership.  He says that soldiers having served so much violent combat must be reminded daily of their humanity but that isn't happening.

    Well, women are more prone to rape (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:50:01 AM EST
    and rape is most often by men, and in the military it's most often by military men, but I guess the solution to that wouldn't have been good to say on Memorial Day.  Lordy, but the guy is awkward with some of the most basic women's issues.

    Btw, alternatively, he could have applauded women in the military who endure attacks by their own as well as by the enemy and are extraordinary examples of strength.  He could have spoken of women who have been POWs -- including in the Gulf War, including one who was raped by her captors (the military didn't want to talk about that) but went forward with her life well, because of her strength.

    He could have talked about what he was gonna do about the attacks on women by their own, anyway.  But -- no.  And military women I know will not appreciate the way that he put it this way; it's the last thing that they need, when he could have talked about the most basic things that they need.    Like respect as equals in the armed forces.


    agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:58:59 AM EST
    there are any number of different ways he could've gone with it...and I think he chose poorly.

    You're right...lots of military women are not going to look kindly upon his statements. It puts them in a weaker spot...someplace they have fought to get out of.

    Hell...lots of women I know are not going to look kindly upon being considered "more prone" to suffering PTSD because they are women and therefore more susceptible to rape and harassment.


    Awkward (none / 0) (#62)
    by janedw420 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:08:09 AM EST
    this should raise eyebrows with NARAL??

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:48:04 AM EST
    all they apparently care about are the checks rolling in. Not issues anymore.

    naw, naral is too busy reviewing their (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    new donor lists. good luck with that naral, your old one has a lot of deletions.

    I don't understand (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by standingup on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:11:14 AM EST
    why he would even bring up sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the context of remarks about PTSD.  He either completely misspoke or PTSD is yet another issue where he is lacking on knowledge of the subject.  

    That's part of what I didn't get... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:15:19 AM EST
    I don't think he has a clue as to the topics he addressed.

    PTSD from sexual attacks (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Newt on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:24:40 AM EST
    is what he was referring to.  We have an epidemic of women in the military being treated for PTSD because of what they face from our own service members.

    Then it was worded badly... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:59 AM EST
    I thought that was what he meant. (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:35:21 AM EST
    Of course, I also know what Clinton meant with regards to Bobby Kennedy, but that didn't help her at all.

    That could be (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by standingup on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:52:18 AM EST
    but I hope he will take the time to inform himself well on the issue so that he can discuss it credibly and intelligently if he intends to bring it up in his campaign. PTSD is a sensitive topic and too serious a problem that does not need to complicated with statements that can be misconstrued.

    I'm a woman veteran with PTSD (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Newt on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:06 AM EST
    and I can tell you from personal experience that the differences between men and women are exacerbated in the military because of how each gender responds to brainwashing/training techniques.  Many men become exactly what the techniques are designed to create.  Most women don't.  Women can do what's required of them, but for the most part we really don't become soldiers in the same way men do.  We just don't approach horror and trauma the same way.  Hence, I believe women truly are more susceptible to PTSD, even without the added sexual harassment we face.

    But his point... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:55 AM EST
    seems to be a causal one that connects the sexual harassment to the PTSD when they are two distinctly separate things.

    You can suffer from PTSD and not be harassed sexually.

    The sexual harassment factor doesn't make you more prone to PTSD.


    From your comment (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by LoisInCo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:37:24 AM EST
    women would not be more prone because they are women, but rather because of a lack of different training techniques.

    Newt (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    no offense, but weren't you a man the other day?

    Discomfort (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:03:23 AM EST
    If he is not being adored, he appears completely uncomfortable and nervous.  

    or if he doesn't have a teleprompter (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:10:20 AM EST
    Was this the only speech he gave today? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:19:16 AM EST
    I was flipping through channels and Blitzer talked about a passionate and moving speech, was this it?  

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Kathy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:53:33 AM EST
    It single handedly solved his problem with women voters because he was speaking to their issues and needs (according to CNN)

    I have been tired (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    beyond exhaustion as I work in Emergency Medicine and with an international NGO that responds to major disasters. I have said some royally disconnected things which have had my co-workers looking at me like I was from another planet. One of them usually points me towards a bed. But Obama is either reading from a teleprompter or a paper in front of him. So whoever wrote that speech should be fired and if Obama was the author, someone who has had some sleep needs tp proof read it.

    And i need to proof read better (none / 0) (#26)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST
    that should be "to" not "tp". Gooey fingers from BBQ ribs.;-)

    Dowd (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by daria g on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:55:07 AM EST
    I think she does hate women.  She's so invested in her neat little deck of stereotypes that she reshuffles for every column, and all the ones about gender are completely reactionary.  I wish the NYT would give the column space to someone who wasn't 100% mean spirited.

    She does hate women (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:44:52 AM EST
    passionately.  All her columns are exactly like what you described her appearance as.

    Today, Hillary Clinton. (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:28 AM EST
    Skimming over Eugene Robinson's latest unhinged tripe, I wonder about something. Robinson, I think, has allowed his dedication to Obama turn him into a raving anti-Clinton fool.

    While many of those afflicted with CDS only see Obama as a vessel for their attempts to defeat Clinton, there are quite a few who are willing to destroy anyone who gets in Obama's way. Witness the pillorying of anyone who resists--Paul Krugman, Julian Bond, Mickey Kantor, etc.

    Suppose Obama becomes president. How many other people--Republicans, Democrats, or others-- will need to be destroyed during his administration? Is the poisonous behavior we're seeing deployed against Clinton now what we're going to see repeatedly over the next four years?

    That's terrifying... (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:08:51 AM EST
    And is the sort of thing that is most likely to lead to a Republican White House from 2012 to 2028.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:06:44 AM EST
    He's our Bush. Everyone who opposes him must be destroyed. No one must mention that the emporer has no clothes etc.

    This is the kind of stuff that makes me not too upset at his likely loss in Nov.


    who wrote that schlock? who said he could ad lib? (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by roxieu on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:46:02 AM EST
    every time he ad-libbed, my ears hurt.  Fallen heroes in the audience?  I saw a replay of it on TV this morning and had to run to check the internet to make sure I heard it correctly because I didn't think anyone could bungle that badly.

    Tonight on Real Live Ghosthunters -- Barack Obama tells us about his Memorial Day vision!  The rest, well, the best laid plans.  Let's just not go there.

    I would suggest not campaigning at all on Memorial Day, but I suppose I completely forgot -- the dead are still allowed to vote in Chicago.  Spending more time campaigning than remembering those who DIED in the line of duty, now that really is exquisitely tasteless.

    So sayeth this veteran...

    Does that mean his next grandiose statement (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:52:02 AM EST
    will be "I see dead people". (I am not mocking anyone who had died in the service of our country. Hardly!) It seems as if along with Obama's other great and mystical powers, he's now a medium too. Who knew?

    It seems as if he really could have picked a better subject (or two) to discuss on Memorial Day, including Vets rights in general.


    Janarchy, I think you are wrong to only give him (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:47:51 AM EST
    parapsychology powers.  

    He is THE ONE, The SECOND COMING, he resurrect people!!!  Just because common mortals do not see the resurrected, it does not mean anything: they are there.

    On a realistic note, I get it that he misspoke, no big deal.  My issue is about the garbage related to women in the military being more prone to PTSD because of their exposure to sexual violence and abuse.

    Violence and abuse against women his with us wherever we go, work and live.  By his own logic then, we are all prone to all kind of mental stress and disorders because we are preconditioned to them.  
    He is pointing out that this is a "mental weakness" women have than make us less able to deal with stress, that calls for the establishment of mental care facilities.  

    Sort of what the medial profession has done for years: prescribe sleeping pills and Valium to abused women, they'll get better. It is a medial problem not a societal problem.

    He'll be better off if he never, ever, talks about women's issues.  The foot-in-mouth cow disease comes to mind.


    what's really screwed up is (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by roxieu on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:44:36 AM EST
    Evidently nobody has ever told his camp that the VA has had a separate Women's Trauma Recovery Program for more than a decade -- sure it needs more funding, just like any VA program, but it is indeed extant.

    Maybe his camp thought that looked good in the moment, but it looks incredibly benighted to anyone who has actually done their homework.

    An ounce of prevention is worth a tonne of "treatment".  How about focusing on crime PREVENTION?  Oh wait, Memorial Day: how about just focusing on those who died in the line of duty?

    I was going to leave this steamer alone, but for him to suggest that the professional volunteer women in any of America's seven Uniformed Services are somehow cut out of weaker emotional cloth is just plain insulting to every woman who has ever stepped forward, raised her hand and signed her life on the line in the name of our Constitution.  It's doubly insulting to any woman who ever gave her life in the line of duty.

    Perhaps he should consult some WAAC, WAC, WAVES, SPARS, USMCWR, ANC, NNC, WAFS, or WASP ghosts.


    by "steamer" do you mean (none / 0) (#92)
    by english teacher on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:28:18 AM EST
    "steaming pile"?  as in, this part of his speech was a big steaming pile that would be better not to step into?

    galoshes (none / 0) (#116)
    by roxieu on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    What's that old saying?  When you've stepped in a Wellie, you've stepped in it!

    go figure, Hillary was the only one... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by roxieu on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:11:34 AM EST
    to directly reference anything of the dead that would provide clear relevance to segue into speaking about the living: the Archibald MacLeish poem "The Young Dead Soldiers Do Not Speak".  That poem makes a very strong argument for speaking of the living!

    Neither Obama nor McCain gave any reason why they glossed over those who died in the line of duty and focused so much on their campaign points.

    Some of those points in Obama's speech when grammar just suddenly vacated the premises, well, sheer gobsmacking astonishment at it is making my own grammar leave me!  Grammar conflicts galore, talking to ghosts, his complete lack of emotion, plus racing through his speech like William Shatner hastily reading a grocery list -- my mind is just plain boggled!


    New Clinton Ad (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by facta non verba on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:20:30 AM EST
    for South Dakota:

    South Dakota Clinton Ad

    in fairness to sen. obama, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cpinva on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:35:00 AM EST
    where is it written that you have to be dead, to be a "fallen hero"? i suspect many a soldier who has lost a limb in combat considers themselves fallen, and rightfully so. i'm not saying that's what he actually meant (because i have no clue what he actually meant), but that could well be a reasonable interpretation of the comment.

    with respect to his comments on women vets, what can i say? the man does seem to know how to offend on a moment's notice.

    Memorial Day is honoring those who (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:47:57 AM EST
    have died in uniform, so unless Obama is CHANGING the purpose of Memorial Day, the "fallen heroes" would be dead.

    On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes

    i'm well aware of the (none / 0) (#86)
    by cpinva on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:03:36 AM EST
    original purpose of memorial day, having grown up in a military family. i was merely attempting to provide a possible (not likely, i'll grant you) explanation for what appears to be (probably because it is) a really weird comment on sen. obama's part.

    I really can't think of a more arrogant politician (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:00:30 AM EST
    at this time in history.  He wants to be our President but he really is clueless and disconnected from the United States military.  He serves in the Senate, our nation is at war and he has voted funding for it and 9/11 really did happen.  It isn't a fairytale.  Time and again when it comes to understanding what has happened to our soldiers and what is happening to our soldiers and where we must go from here......Barack Obama is an idiot.

    Women Warriors (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by DFLer on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM EST
    Re the earlier discussion about rape in the military, there was a good op ed piece in the NYT yesterday on this subject by HELEN BENEDICT

    For Women Warriors, Deep Wounds, Little Care

    in part:

    Women make up some 15 percent of the United States active duty forces, and 11 percent of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly a third of female veterans say they were sexually assaulted or raped while in the military, and 71 percent to 90 percent say they were sexually harassed by the men with whom they served.

    Can you imagine (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:00:31 AM EST
    the message it would send to the military if a woman was their Commander in Chief?

    That's what Obama should be saying in his speech: elect Clinton.  We all know she's better.  I'll be VP and then, after I learn from her, I'll run again.


    Well, it makes perfect sense (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by akaEloise on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:37:22 AM EST
    Even the dead want to go see Obama because he is Teh Awesum. (snark)
    I listened to the Newshour excerpts of all three candidates' Memorial Day appearances; they used a better clip than this of Obama, but basically saying nothing of substance, just nice appropriate sentiments that no one could disagree with about honoring the dead's vision of America.  McCain explained why he didn't support the Webb bill -- basically, that he wanted to use better veteran's benefits as a reenlistment carrot -- and Clinton discussed some specific, detailed proposals for improving veteran's benefits.  It was a very telling moment about the differences between the candidates.

    and yes, he will make all the (snark) (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    former feminine leaders look like nothing compared to his superior insight into these things. why that speech he gave wiping hillary off his shoe was just an experiement in that type of behavior so he would understand it better. yes, let the hordes of adriana, randy, and the like swoon, but please excuse me from the group.

    Fallen heros in the audience? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Moishele on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    Great Sounds like another line we'll hear played over and over in the general election. (tongue in cheek here) Dang Hillary for making him say it!

    ? about FL 2000 recount-- I have strong memory (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by jawbone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    of a FL election law expert, on CNN iirc, saying that the Gore campaign was limited in its ability to request recounts to those counties in which it could, essentially, prove that a recount would have a high probability of making a change in the machine recount.

    I also know that Gore has been criticized over the years for not demanding that every county have a recount. My memory makes this criticism seem unfair, but it may be that once he went to the FL supreme court that he should have done so. However, it was the court's decision to do so which was aborted by the SCOTUS' Bush Fave Five.

    My memory was that they campaign had to limit its recount requests and could not just say recount everything by hand. I do know now that 18 counties never had any recount whatsoever (per Jeffrey Toobin).

    Does anyone have knowledge of this, or remember seeing the same info about the FL situation?  

    The FL expert was a former election official of some kind in FL, an older man -- again, iirc.

    Jeralyn? Other election/election law wonks? Interested observers at the time?

    One more Gaffe (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by gaf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    I have posted a diary on mydd - http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/27/122748/421

    Other than the dead people thing, one more gaffe about his uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz.

    Since Obama's mother (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    was an only child, it must have been his father's brother who helped liberate Auschwitz with the Soviet army?  

    Seems to me he may have a problem with reality.


    that seems...odd. (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    Obama seems to be (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    more and more gaffe prone as this goes on. Add to that his electability issues and we have aproblem.

    Hillary is peaking at just the right time.

    Let's nominate her.

    Well, Barry's never been ... (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    that good at the adlibs.

    Good thing prepared statements and teleprompters are  always provided when a President needs to make an important decision.

    They aren't?

    Oh ... my bad.

    Yuck (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM EST
    As a female veteran I don't particualrly like having my demographic singled out. We've had a hard enough time getting acceptance. This statement makes it sound like we are more likely than our male counterparts to not bear up under stress. It's right to acknowledge harassment and abuse and assure women veterans that as CiC you will do everything in your power to ascertain that thse guilty of it be punished but singing out a particular demographic is actually a bad thing from a military perspective IMO.

    Talk about who will do and say ANYTHING .... (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:56:19 PM EST
    to win. But I guess that at this point in time, it makes no difference since HE's WON THE NOMINATION? How unfortunate.

    Not yet he hasn't (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:58:57 PM EST
    He doesn't get the nomination until (and unless) Hillary withdraws or votes are taken at the convention.

    I came home to find... (none / 0) (#65)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:29:51 AM EST
    an "invitation" to a fundraiser with Speaker Pelosi. A donation of $1000 will get you into a cocktail reception, while raising amounts ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 will get you varying levels of Convention Packages.

    I know that politics takes money, and I don't mean to single out Pelosi, who I generally think does a decent job, but combining this with the treatment Hillary Clinton has gotten, I'm finding it hard to recognize my Democratic Party anymore.

    Whose freedom? (none / 0) (#74)
    by teachermom on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:36:36 AM EST
    Whose freedom did American soldiers fight for in Vietnam? Of course Obama was a child gaining valuable foreign policy experience at the time...

    BTD, please set Duncan straight (none / 0) (#83)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:52:35 AM EST
    Head Scratching

    I know I'm not alone in the League of Mostly Nonaligned Bloggers in being rather puzzled by Clinton supporters. I don't mean all people who supported her, but the ones who are still pushing for her candidacy. As far as I can tell they want her to be the candidate and really just don't care how that happens as long as it does. At this point only a drastic rule change combined with a massive shift in support from superdelegates even gets her close to the nomination. In another words, cheating combined with the smoke-filled room residents overturning the outcome of the primary process.
    I never really cared all that much about who won this thing, but at some point Obama became the only one with a legitimate path to the nomination. I just stare and scratch my head and wonder what it's all about. I appreciate that there are people who don't like Obama for whatever reasons and prefer Clinton for whatever reasons. But he, you know, won?


    I think there's been some Kool-Aid drunk -- or (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by jawbone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:01:38 AM EST
    maybe just the fumes have affected Eschaton and Atrios.

    Of course, if he is really, really concerned about DNC rules, he should be calling for 50% representation for FL and MI -- not the imposition of the suddenly newly made-up Draconian rule of zero representation. But, hey, with the Kool-Aid comes the right way of thinking.


    we can't allow any kool-aid. (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by roxieu on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    We cannot allow the nominee to be chosen by only 48 states.  Any true statesman would agree.  Millions of individual voters cannot be silenced simply because a different voting date was chosen FOR them.  That's un-American.  To reinstate the delegates but split them up any differently than they originally should have been -- likewise un-American.

    Millions of voters cast their vote in good faith, believing that their vote would be fairly counted and weighed according to the rules of their own state, and that needs to be respected.  Anything one slight less is corrupt and a very grave distortion of democracy.

    A candidate getting nominated by only 48 states, two entire very-populous states being clearcut right out of the decision, looks even worse both here at home and to our foreign neighbors than a candidate who gets elected due to "hanging chads."  A true stateman would be insisting the DNC reinstate the FL and MI delegates -- without changes -- just to make sure that, win or lose, there is no black cloud hanging over their shoulder.

    Americans know what a slippery slope is.  First it's a couple hundred thousand hanging chads and voters who can't get to the polls.  Second it's MILLIONS of people voting on some arbitrarily decided "wrong" day.  What's third?  We ditch the popular vote all together?


    Obama is dropping by? (none / 0) (#87)
    by indymom on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EST
    The word is at my daughter's high school that Sen. Obama will be dropping by to speak to students today if his schedule allows it.  I should be excited about this....but I am not.

    Nevermind (none / 0) (#100)
    by indymom on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    It was Mitch Daniels<- -- also unexciting.

    Is it even true that women are more likely (none / 0) (#105)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    to suffer post-combat PTSD? I would actually guess the opposite, but I wouldn't make any claim without seeing the evidence.