Our berry own Bharath Obama fired back at his rivals regarding his intentions for Pakistan and the WoT, at yesterday’s AFL-CIO Presidential Forum, which went down on his turf (thanks, Amrita):
Mutinous backstory for his rejoinder here and here.
92 thoughts on “I heart how he pronounces “Pakistan”.”
i don’t follow politix closely, but i have to say i like obama’s speaking voice. he sounds presidential.
i like obama’s speaking voice. he sounds presidential.
That’s the exact word that popped in to my head, too, upon viewing this. What a fantastic speaker (says the ex-speech and debate nerd).
I loooove Obama’s voice, but I have had a major politico-crush on him (re: public speaking) ever since he spoke at the DNC.
I was going to say that I actually really appreciated the back and forth between Obama and Hillary re: whether or not commentary destabilizes Musharraf and where/when the public debate re: U.S. foreign relations should happen.
For all you Obama voice – groupies , some food for thought here
i’ve noticed also that he (more) correctly pronounces muslim, as well as other words of eastern origin.
i don’t follow politix closely, but i have to say i like obama’s speaking voice. he sounds presidential.
razib,
correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t habitual smoking change your vocal cords? i heard that they thicken and that this changes the quality of your speaking voice–apparently with Obama, for the better.
He pronounced Pakistan very nicely but still said ‘Afghanistan’ the way most Americans say it…even the ‘stan’ portion was pronounced differently in the two words! But he has a good voice, this is the first time I’ve actually ever heard him talk.
and didn’t I see your handle on Ross Douthat’s much maligned post on the Pvt. Beauchamp issue?
i’m everywhere. 😉 yes, i’m a presence on douthat’s blog, and note that one of his links on the right is to my blog. not as big of a deal as when non von mises heard me quoted on the radio during the radio open source show!
and since obama’s extended family has many muslims i’m assuming that he would be pronouncing it correctly (his stepfather and father were both from muslim backgrounds).
I actually found Obama really unsuccessful in the debate, contrary to what they’re all telling us to believe. He might have won his hometown crowd over, but I felt like Hillary did so much better with respect to the national audience.
He might have won his hometown crowd over, but I felt like Hillary did so much better with respect to the national audience.
hilary is blowing him away among the broad masses from what i have read.
correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t habitual smoking change your vocal cords? i heard that they thicken and that this changes the quality of your speaking voice–apparently with Obama, for the better.
That’s what the article Runa linked to says, as well 🙂
good retort by obama. nice mix of ad hominem (how dare those who voted for iraq war criticize me) and policy (pakistan, not iraq, is the real war front). but he’s really got to bang hillary harder on the whole iraq war vote. get specific. like she voted against the resolution to extend negotiation time with iraq. its his only chance of overcoming the hillary juggernaut.
i can’t believe the dems are going to run another pro-war candidate when this is their big issue and the polls are on their side. they have no balls. just like hillary.
I loooove Obama’s voice, but I have had a major politico-crush on him (re: public speaking) ever since he spoke at the DNC.
hmmmm. i don’t know, camille. you sound a little contrived. methinks you have a closet crush on Tucker Carlson.
hmmmm. i don’t know, camille. you sound a little contrived. methinks you have a closet crush on Tucker Carlson.
I think he did a good job here, though it has to be said that when he originally said, “If they don’t act, we will,” it sounded an awful lot like he was talking about unilateral action.
There is room to interpret it in different ways, of course (as I said in my earlier post). But Hillary is right that this could cause more problems for Musharraf, and it certainly would become a BIG problem if Obama were to get elected next year.
Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice. He may sound presidential — and I gather he’s almost as appealing to women as the mighty Shah Rukh Khan — but I think he’s losing ground.
r u calling me a woman????….
Anna, thanks for posting the clip. He pronounces ‘Pakistan’ correctly, and props to him, but I have to grant that both Hillary and Dodd made good points, and had him backpedalling and on the defensive toward the end of the clip. They win this round. The ‘Washington insiders’ made him look a little amateurish. Even Dodd, who’s an insider’s insider – in his 5th Senate term, came off looking good, and Hillary managed to look good inspite of being somewhat schoolmarm-ish in her response.
BTW, I wonder if we can deconstruct this thing about him ‘sounding Presidential’ a little bit. Who are we contrasting him with? Did/does Jesse Jackson not sound Presidential? Doesn’t Hillary?
Anna, thanks for posting the clip. He pronounces ‘Pakistan’ correctly, and props to him, but I have to grant that both Hillary and Dodd made good points, and had him backpedalling and on the defensive toward the end of the clip. They win this round.
Believe me, I wasn’t trying to declare a winner. I’d need to watch (and flow) the entire debate for that. 😉
BTW, I wonder if we can deconstruct this thing about him ‘sounding Presidential’ a little bit. Who are we contrasting him with? Did/does Jesse Jackson not sound Presidential? Doesn’t Hillary?
Well, I wouldn’t mind that at all– anyone who has read thus far knows what my first two thoughts were…
1) I like how he said “Pakistan”.
2) He sounds distinguished.
😀 That’s all I got from that clip. Voice, and how he used it. That’s not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less. 😉
He sounds distinguished… People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less
Voice, and how he used it. That’s not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less.
Voting be stuffed. All the women I’ve had serious crushes on in my life have had deep, throaty, seductive voices. As opposed to being shriller than Lata Mangeshkar on estrogen injections.
And no, before some wiseass makes the wisecrack, no, their phone numbers did not begin with 1-900.
My point is that voice does indeed count for a lot.
Thanks for clarifying, Anna 🙂 BTW, here’s Charlie Rose getting half of ‘Pakistan‘ right in an interview with Musharraf from last year – so he’s at least half as ‘Presidential’ as Obama! 🙂 Twice in the first minute of the set-up, it’s a long clip, and he consistently gets it half-right..
is he a guy I can have a beer with?
Certainly a Lion Stout, or at least a Tusker! And that would only be the beginning. Oo la la.
Man, speaking of sexy/presidential voices, I loooove Gregory Peck as Atticus in To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time I saw the movie (in class, gag), I was totally goofing off, and then the VOICE OF GOD (a.k.a. Peck) came on, and I was totally entranced.
Not saying Obama has the same kinda voice, but it IS that baritone, robust, “make you feel safe” kinda voice.
Not saying Obama has the same kinda voice, but it IS that baritone, robust, “make you feel safe” kinda voice.
the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, “Huh? What did you say?” as you have to express these things sotto voce.
it’s tragic, trust me.
I never understood how Barry White was such a ladie’s man if his sweet nothings, upon reaching the woman’s ear, were nothing more than muted rumbles.
Oops. Here’s ‘Pakistan‘ as it should have been in #22.
the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, “Huh? What did you say?” as you have to express these things sotto voce.
Really? But I love the bari. I would agree with you if he were a bass, but his speaking tone is just warm enough (and higher pitched) to feel enveloped. Kind of like the difference between an alto II and a tenor I in tone quality.
1) I like how he said “Pakistan”.
2) He sounds distinguished.
😀 That’s all I got from that clip. Voice, and how he used it. That’s not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less.
Man, speaking of sexy/presidential voices, I loooove Gregory Peck as Atticus in To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time I saw the movie (in class, gag), I was totally goofing off, and then the VOICE OF GOD (a.k.a. Peck) came on, and I was totally entranced.
the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, “Huh? What did you say?” as you have to express these things sotto voce.
I think this might make a good topic for a separate discussion – what sort of voice do you look listen for, and what sort of voice do you wish you had?
I don’t think having Muslims in your family would necessarily lead you to pronounce a Farsi/Sanskrit word correctly. Most Arabs I know say “Bakistan”, quite incorrectly, and they’re as Muslim as Maulana Maududi. But I like how Barack didn’t try fake authenticity by using the Benazir Bhutto pronunciation — “Pakistaahn”. Where did she get that?
As for substance, I thought Barack’s initial views were crap (see Sepoy at Chapati mystery for details), but Hilary’s response was trite. Even someone as clueless as Andrew Sullivan now acknowledged that a MMA (or JI whatever) government in Pakistaahn is never going to happen. Obama’s views are off-track, but Hilary’s just repeating reality-free beltway convention. A pox on both their houses.
Yes, Obama’s voice is very sexy.
Rahul, thanks for the beer article… so much for Bush’s portrayal of the “everyman” president. I have to say that I love the idea of Bush as a Yale cheerleader, although that is apparently questionable as well (http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/08/31/cheerleaders-for-truth/). sorry, for some reason my link button isn’t working.
Camille, I totally agree with you about Gregory Peck. =)
Obama sounded very presidential (if that’s a word). And as to Hillary saying you need to think practical (don’t think loud), I wonder if that is something that will capture the hearts of the masses. She has a valid point but her point will appeal to only someone who cares to analyze the issue properly. General population may think that Obama sounded assertive and is interested in taking actions whereas Clinton is just interested in showing the problems and not acting upon (indecisive).If you noticed the crowd cheers/boos it appears the case.
Rahul, thanks for the beer article… so much for Bush’s portrayal of the “everyman” president. I have to say that I love the idea of Bush as a Yale cheerleader, although that is apparently questionable as well (http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/08/31/cheerleaders-for-truth/). sorry, for some reason my link button isn’t working.
heh, heh. till this day i’m not sure why these low blows at bush (cheerleader–ie, gay–draftdodger, chickenhawk) never stuck while kerry, a football playing war hero got swiftboated easily as an effeminate fancophile. kerry, conmtrary to what the liberal media says, ran an extraordinary vicious campaign, questioning bush and chenry’s patriotism while instructing his wife to say osama has been caught and bush will spring an october surprise. but nothing stuck. i was gobsmacked.
And as to Hillary saying you need to think practical (don’t think loud), I wonder if that is something that will capture the hearts of the masses. She has a valid point but her point will appeal to only someone who cares to analyze the issue properly.
I think a recent issue of TIME magazine characterized Hillary as very “bran muffin”-like. 😉
She’s not the sort of candidate who is meant to capture hearts. She’s the sort of careful, kinda wonky, pragmatic, dependable candidate who would probably do a decent job, but she’s no heart-taker. And trying to have her play that game is as smart as dressing Al in brown.
Hillary just said: a) we shouldn’t discuss Pakistan policy in public, and b) Musharraf is the only bulwark against fundies. The first is asinine, the second is objectively false (low electoral support for fundies), but more importantly she’s echoing Dubya’s policy. This puts her in a tactically bankrupt position IMO and disqualifies me from taking her seriously. She’s just more of the same.
Besides which, this family oligarchy business is really best left to South Asia and the Philippines 😉
He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??
Thought so.
And trying to have her play that game is as smart as dressing Al in brown.
BTW, I never got the putative logic of dressing Gore in ‘earth tones’ – how could it have made him look more folksy and charming, even in principle? (Always meant to ask that…) 🙂
was I the only one who was incredibly impressed by Clinton in this clip? As a person who’s cast a ballot for her husband and for GW, I’m still pretty surprised at how intelligent she sounded. To be fair though, good image aside, Obama was rightly getting burned for his stupid comment.
heh, heh. till this day i’m not sure why these low blows at bush (cheerleader–ie, gay–draftdodger, chickenhawk) never stuck while kerry, a football playing war hero got swiftboated easily as an effeminate fancophile. kerry, conmtrary to what the liberal media says, ran an extraordinary vicious campaign, questioning bush and chenry’s patriotism while instructing his wife to say osama has been caught and bush will spring an october surprise. but nothing stuck. i was gobsmacked.
Bush can’t be gay and anti-patriotic, he’s Christian! The American public looks to him as their moral compass (God… or Goddess… help us all.) Too bad Bush scrambled onto the “savior of the Nation” platform first… Kerry didn’t stand a chance.
He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??
Thought so.
Poor Hillary. She didn’t even really show off her goodies… this whole uproar about her cleavage kind of reminds me of the way Indian aunties, sweating in their salwar-kameez, will stare you down if you walk past them on a hot day wearing shorts and a tank top. She’s a woman. I’m not her biggest fan, but get over it, people.
(Sorry about the rant on shorts, I’ve never gotten over suddenly feeling immodest when I pass an Indian family on the street, unless I’m swathed head to toe.)
P.S. Does anyone have the full story on Obama’s calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? I missed any discussion on it.
I agree with Manish, especially if we consider that Dems should be running against the war-in-Iraq. “More of the same” ain’t gonna cut it. Change, change, change, CHANGE. Differentiate yourself from the unpopular “leader” who got us in to this CF…how is that so difficult to grok?
::
Divya, I think every desi girl has known that clammy feeling, that immodesty-triggered anxiety. 😉
P.S. Does anyone have the full story on Obama’s calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? I missed any discussion on it.
Divya, it’s important to note that Hillary called herself that, first, as a joke. Obama’s campaign just took it and ran with it.
We had a few posts about this…Amardeep’s “Obama got less brown-friendly”, my “How now brown voters?” and then, I was on NPR/WNYC discussing just that. I’m having the intern dig for fire links, as I type. 😉
Poor Hillary. She didn’t even really show off her goodies…
Divya, I hope you realized that I was joking. 🙂
It just goes to show the paucity of ideas that the media have that something like this gets so much attention.
Prasanth – I don’t think you should read much into the crowd. It was obviously a pro obama crowd in his home turf. Obviously they’re trying to win the more liberal votes now, but Obama’s comment was more hawkish then Clinton’s response.
Manish Vij – I heard Hillary eats babies just like Dubya and Rethuglicans too. Explains the NARAL backing.
Somewhat more to the point, your arguments were logically bankrupt. 1- she didn’t say you can’t discuss pakistan foreign policy– in fact she’s elaborated many times on her on view of pakistan policy. Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they tend to overplay one’s hand in complex foreign policy situations and often results in intransigent black and white answers which are embarassing, hurtful from a negotiative stand point and unnuanced (‘Axis of Evil’ anyone). Obama did precisely that. Who do you pick now? They’re both backing Bushesque policy at some point which according to you automatically makes it wrong. That prompts another really important question–How do you feel about the cuteness of puppies, considering Bush’s endorsement of such a notion during Barney’s puppyhood in the white house http://www.whitehouse.gov/barney/ ?
As for the second part, are you making the argument that Musharraf’s overwhelming electoral majorities in his past couple free and fair elections demonstrate he could withstand any fundie push? Have you picked up a paper lately? Read anything about the red mosque? And by the way, how did Musharraf originally come to power? I’m sure that in Pakistan of all places, Musharraf’s democratic strength will save us from a fundie push.
hmm, I think more than Obama’s voice, what is way more is more interesting and discussion worthy are the points raised by Obama, Hillary and Dodd. But then maybe we have beaten that to death in previous threads.
For anyone else who missed the whole memo incident, here’s how it was resolved:
Poor Hillary. She didn’t even really show off her goodies…
I suppose if she becomes President some wiseass is going to call her a Goongi goodie-ya.
He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??
I know delectable cleavege, but what is this electable cleavage of which you speak?
Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they… often results in intransigent black and white answers.. Obama did precisely that…. They’re both backing Bushesque policy at some point which according to you automatically makes it wrong.
I’m Manichaean on this, we should have arrested or killed bin Laden long ago and it’s silly that Musharraf’s rope-a-dope with U.S. aid is restraining us. Obama’s policy is not Bush-esque in that it actually focuses on the problem. Dubya took 9/11 as an excuse to mop up some other business. He’s deeply unserious about getting the 9/11 culprits, whose executors reside in the NWFP and whose funders reside in Saudi Arabia. Actually focusing on the right countries is the opposite of Bushism.
Have you picked up a paper lately? Read anything about the red mosque?
Umm, yes. But the fundie parties in an election rigged in their favor crested at 11%.
Personally don’t believe Obama or Clinton are electable nationally.
Clark maybe, but I think he probably would get thrashed too.
Other generals do not like very bright generals.
I’m Scotch-Irish German; family’s been here since 1762; have voted Democratic since 1972.
Don’t forget Bloomberg. He’s who I will vote for.
I hear you. I mean considering how easy Osama is to capture (especially considering the area he’s in–full of our allies and devoid of difficult terrain he could hide in) its a crime we haven’t just waltzed in and put some cuffs on him so that we can give him a saddamesque trial.
As for the seriousness of Dubya on getting the culprits of 9/11 and Obama blindingly narrow vision towards it, that’s really a much larger question. You can legitimately claim Iraq wasn’t at all involved with 9/11 and is a distraction to caputuring bin laden, but its obvious that Bush’s approach was always enveloped by his neo con advisors more wholistic strategy of fighting a larger war with ‘islamic terror outfits’. And lets not jump the gun. Obama hasn’t enacted any of his ‘policy’ yet. His rhetoric has been interesting, but we’ve yet to see him follow through on it when he’s actually in office. This is a serious issue–remember Bush seemed like an isolationist prior to 2001. His messages were also very ‘precise’ before 9/11. The axis of evil comment did refer to three specific regimes which had been serious global and US antagonists. Being a Manichaean refers to your moral position, not a tactical one–something which Clinton emphasized is a problematic distinction that Obama seems to have ignored.
The lal masjid comment was sarcasm–i should have italicized it.
As for the 11% claim—so now you’re saying that because a nascent nationally powerful MMA coalition only got 11 percent of the vote 5 yrs ago they don’t have enough influence? Two huge problems. One the lal masjid incident and continued iraq/afghan/western pakistan operations have seemingly made the populace even more anti west and more open to these parties than before — opinion polls bear that out. Secondly, 11% for a party which hadn’t yet tried to expand itself from its regional scope with the type of pr savvy that is now available is pretty darn good especially when the leaders are only pulling in about 25%. On top of that the MMA literally controls probably the most powerful militaristic and terrorist capability outside of the army. The fact that you think that it has no ability to control the country is pretty weak–I mean its not like they could destabilize things if Mushie was assassinated
i don’t follow politix closely, but i have to say i like obama’s speaking voice. he sounds presidential.
That’s the exact word that popped in to my head, too, upon viewing this. What a fantastic speaker (says the ex-speech and debate nerd).
I loooove Obama’s voice, but I have had a major politico-crush on him (re: public speaking) ever since he spoke at the DNC.
I was going to say that I actually really appreciated the back and forth between Obama and Hillary re: whether or not commentary destabilizes Musharraf and where/when the public debate re: U.S. foreign relations should happen.
For all you Obama voice – groupies , some food for thought here
i’ve noticed also that he (more) correctly pronounces muslim, as well as other words of eastern origin.
in somewhat related news:
Pakistani TVs say Musharraf to declare emergency
razib,
correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t habitual smoking change your vocal cords? i heard that they thicken and that this changes the quality of your speaking voice–apparently with Obama, for the better.
and didn’t I see your handle on Ross Douthat’s much maligned post on the Pvt. Beauchamp issue?
He pronounced Pakistan very nicely but still said ‘Afghanistan’ the way most Americans say it…even the ‘stan’ portion was pronounced differently in the two words! But he has a good voice, this is the first time I’ve actually ever heard him talk.
and didn’t I see your handle on Ross Douthat’s much maligned post on the Pvt. Beauchamp issue?
i’m everywhere. 😉 yes, i’m a presence on douthat’s blog, and note that one of his links on the right is to my blog. not as big of a deal as when non von mises heard me quoted on the radio during the radio open source show!
and since obama’s extended family has many muslims i’m assuming that he would be pronouncing it correctly (his stepfather and father were both from muslim backgrounds).
Because, Amitabh, …..he’s…….Indian!
I actually found Obama really unsuccessful in the debate, contrary to what they’re all telling us to believe. He might have won his hometown crowd over, but I felt like Hillary did so much better with respect to the national audience.
He might have won his hometown crowd over, but I felt like Hillary did so much better with respect to the national audience.
hilary is blowing him away among the broad masses from what i have read.
That’s what the article Runa linked to says, as well 🙂
good retort by obama. nice mix of ad hominem (how dare those who voted for iraq war criticize me) and policy (pakistan, not iraq, is the real war front). but he’s really got to bang hillary harder on the whole iraq war vote. get specific. like she voted against the resolution to extend negotiation time with iraq. its his only chance of overcoming the hillary juggernaut.
i can’t believe the dems are going to run another pro-war candidate when this is their big issue and the polls are on their side. they have no balls. just like hillary.
hmmmm. i don’t know, camille. you sound a little contrived. methinks you have a closet crush on Tucker Carlson.
Manju, I find it hard to take a grown man who still wears a kiddie bow-tie seriously.
I think he did a good job here, though it has to be said that when he originally said, “If they don’t act, we will,” it sounded an awful lot like he was talking about unilateral action.
There is room to interpret it in different ways, of course (as I said in my earlier post). But Hillary is right that this could cause more problems for Musharraf, and it certainly would become a BIG problem if Obama were to get elected next year.
Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice. He may sound presidential — and I gather he’s almost as appealing to women as the mighty Shah Rukh Khan — but I think he’s losing ground.
r u calling me a woman????….
Anna, thanks for posting the clip. He pronounces ‘Pakistan’ correctly, and props to him, but I have to grant that both Hillary and Dodd made good points, and had him backpedalling and on the defensive toward the end of the clip. They win this round. The ‘Washington insiders’ made him look a little amateurish. Even Dodd, who’s an insider’s insider – in his 5th Senate term, came off looking good, and Hillary managed to look good inspite of being somewhat schoolmarm-ish in her response.
BTW, I wonder if we can deconstruct this thing about him ‘sounding Presidential’ a little bit. Who are we contrasting him with? Did/does Jesse Jackson not sound Presidential? Doesn’t Hillary?
Believe me, I wasn’t trying to declare a winner. I’d need to watch (and flow) the entire debate for that. 😉
Well, I wouldn’t mind that at all– anyone who has read thus far knows what my first two thoughts were…
1) I like how he said “Pakistan”.
2) He sounds distinguished.
😀 That’s all I got from that clip. Voice, and how he used it. That’s not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less. 😉
Sure, I could imagine having a Chateaubriand dinner with a white wine and shallot reduction, paired with a 1985 vintage Cabernet Sauvignon, but is he a guy I can have a beer with?
Voting be stuffed. All the women I’ve had serious crushes on in my life have had deep, throaty, seductive voices. As opposed to being shriller than Lata Mangeshkar on estrogen injections.
And no, before some wiseass makes the wisecrack, no, their phone numbers did not begin with 1-900.
My point is that voice does indeed count for a lot.
Thanks for clarifying, Anna 🙂 BTW, here’s Charlie Rose getting half of ‘Pakistan‘ right in an interview with Musharraf from last year – so he’s at least half as ‘Presidential’ as Obama! 🙂 Twice in the first minute of the set-up, it’s a long clip, and he consistently gets it half-right..
Certainly a Lion Stout, or at least a Tusker! And that would only be the beginning. Oo la la.
Man, speaking of sexy/presidential voices, I loooove Gregory Peck as Atticus in To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time I saw the movie (in class, gag), I was totally goofing off, and then the VOICE OF GOD (a.k.a. Peck) came on, and I was totally entranced.
Not saying Obama has the same kinda voice, but it IS that baritone, robust, “make you feel safe” kinda voice.
the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, “Huh? What did you say?” as you have to express these things sotto voce.
it’s tragic, trust me.
I never understood how Barry White was such a ladie’s man if his sweet nothings, upon reaching the woman’s ear, were nothing more than muted rumbles.
Oops. Here’s ‘Pakistan‘ as it should have been in #22.
Really? But I love the bari. I would agree with you if he were a bass, but his speaking tone is just warm enough (and higher pitched) to feel enveloped. Kind of like the difference between an alto II and a tenor I in tone quality.
I think this might make a good topic for a separate discussion – what sort of voice do you
looklisten for, and what sort of voice do you wish you had?Now, getting back to the current discussion: Here’s who will win the 2008 Presidential election. According to somebody anyway…
I don’t think having Muslims in your family would necessarily lead you to pronounce a Farsi/Sanskrit word correctly. Most Arabs I know say “Bakistan”, quite incorrectly, and they’re as Muslim as Maulana Maududi. But I like how Barack didn’t try fake authenticity by using the Benazir Bhutto pronunciation — “Pakistaahn”. Where did she get that?
As for substance, I thought Barack’s initial views were crap (see Sepoy at Chapati mystery for details), but Hilary’s response was trite. Even someone as clueless as Andrew Sullivan now acknowledged that a MMA (or JI whatever) government in Pakistaahn is never going to happen. Obama’s views are off-track, but Hilary’s just repeating reality-free beltway convention. A pox on both their houses.
Yes, Obama’s voice is very sexy.
Rahul, thanks for the beer article… so much for Bush’s portrayal of the “everyman” president. I have to say that I love the idea of Bush as a Yale cheerleader, although that is apparently questionable as well (http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/08/31/cheerleaders-for-truth/). sorry, for some reason my link button isn’t working.
Camille, I totally agree with you about Gregory Peck. =)
Obama sounded very presidential (if that’s a word). And as to Hillary saying you need to think practical (don’t think loud), I wonder if that is something that will capture the hearts of the masses. She has a valid point but her point will appeal to only someone who cares to analyze the issue properly. General population may think that Obama sounded assertive and is interested in taking actions whereas Clinton is just interested in showing the problems and not acting upon (indecisive).If you noticed the crowd cheers/boos it appears the case.
heh, heh. till this day i’m not sure why these low blows at bush (cheerleader–ie, gay–draftdodger, chickenhawk) never stuck while kerry, a football playing war hero got swiftboated easily as an effeminate fancophile. kerry, conmtrary to what the liberal media says, ran an extraordinary vicious campaign, questioning bush and chenry’s patriotism while instructing his wife to say osama has been caught and bush will spring an october surprise. but nothing stuck. i was gobsmacked.
I think a recent issue of TIME magazine characterized Hillary as very “bran muffin”-like. 😉
She’s not the sort of candidate who is meant to capture hearts. She’s the sort of careful, kinda wonky, pragmatic, dependable candidate who would probably do a decent job, but she’s no heart-taker. And trying to have her play that game is as smart as dressing Al in brown.
Hillary just said: a) we shouldn’t discuss Pakistan policy in public, and b) Musharraf is the only bulwark against fundies. The first is asinine, the second is objectively false (low electoral support for fundies), but more importantly she’s echoing Dubya’s policy. This puts her in a tactically bankrupt position IMO and disqualifies me from taking her seriously. She’s just more of the same.
Besides which, this family oligarchy business is really best left to South Asia and the Philippines 😉
He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage?? Thought so.
BTW, I never got the putative logic of dressing Gore in ‘earth tones’ – how could it have made him look more folksy and charming, even in principle? (Always meant to ask that…) 🙂
was I the only one who was incredibly impressed by Clinton in this clip? As a person who’s cast a ballot for her husband and for GW, I’m still pretty surprised at how intelligent she sounded. To be fair though, good image aside, Obama was rightly getting burned for his stupid comment.
Bush can’t be gay and anti-patriotic, he’s Christian! The American public looks to him as their moral compass (God… or Goddess… help us all.) Too bad Bush scrambled onto the “savior of the Nation” platform first… Kerry didn’t stand a chance.
Poor Hillary. She didn’t even really show off her goodies… this whole uproar about her cleavage kind of reminds me of the way Indian aunties, sweating in their salwar-kameez, will stare you down if you walk past them on a hot day wearing shorts and a tank top. She’s a woman. I’m not her biggest fan, but get over it, people.
(Sorry about the rant on shorts, I’ve never gotten over suddenly feeling immodest when I pass an Indian family on the street, unless I’m swathed head to toe.)
P.S. Does anyone have the full story on Obama’s calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? I missed any discussion on it.
I agree with Manish, especially if we consider that Dems should be running against the war-in-Iraq. “More of the same” ain’t gonna cut it. Change, change, change, CHANGE. Differentiate yourself from the unpopular “leader” who got us in to this CF…how is that so difficult to grok?
::
Divya, I think every desi girl has known that clammy feeling, that immodesty-triggered anxiety. 😉
Divya, it’s important to note that Hillary called herself that, first, as a joke. Obama’s campaign just took it and ran with it.
We had a few posts about this…Amardeep’s “Obama got less brown-friendly”, my “How now brown voters?” and then, I was on NPR/WNYC discussing just that. I’m having the intern dig for
firelinks, as I type. 😉Obama vs. the Senator from Punjab.
June 15, 2007: Obama Just Got Less “Brown” Friendly
June 18, 2007: How Now Brown Voters?
June 25, 2007: WNYC “Brian Lehrer show” re: Obama and the desi community
While Anna and/or Intern dig up the D-Punjab discussion, here it is in mainstream media: link
Speaking of botched humor, does anyone remember the Gandhi running a gas station in St Louis joke, as narrated by Hillary Clinton? She subsequently retracted it though.
Divya, I hope you realized that I was joking. 🙂 It just goes to show the paucity of ideas that the media have that something like this gets so much attention.
Prasanth – I don’t think you should read much into the crowd. It was obviously a pro obama crowd in his home turf. Obviously they’re trying to win the more liberal votes now, but Obama’s comment was more hawkish then Clinton’s response.
Manish Vij – I heard Hillary eats babies just like Dubya and Rethuglicans too. Explains the NARAL backing.
Somewhat more to the point, your arguments were logically bankrupt. 1- she didn’t say you can’t discuss pakistan foreign policy– in fact she’s elaborated many times on her on view of pakistan policy. Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they tend to overplay one’s hand in complex foreign policy situations and often results in intransigent black and white answers which are embarassing, hurtful from a negotiative stand point and unnuanced (‘Axis of Evil’ anyone). Obama did precisely that. Who do you pick now? They’re both backing Bushesque policy at some point which according to you automatically makes it wrong. That prompts another really important question–How do you feel about the cuteness of puppies, considering Bush’s endorsement of such a notion during Barney’s puppyhood in the white house http://www.whitehouse.gov/barney/ ?
As for the second part, are you making the argument that Musharraf’s overwhelming electoral majorities in his past couple free and fair elections demonstrate he could withstand any fundie push? Have you picked up a paper lately? Read anything about the red mosque? And by the way, how did Musharraf originally come to power? I’m sure that in Pakistan of all places, Musharraf’s democratic strength will save us from a fundie push.
hmm, I think more than Obama’s voice, what is way more is more interesting and discussion worthy are the points raised by Obama, Hillary and Dodd. But then maybe we have beaten that to death in previous threads.
For anyone else who missed the whole memo incident, here’s how it was resolved:
Senator Obama’s statement/apology
Round-up of his statements to India Abroad and other media
I suppose if she becomes President some wiseass is going to call her a Goongi goodie-ya.
I know delectable cleavege, but what is this electable cleavage of which you speak?
I’m Manichaean on this, we should have arrested or killed bin Laden long ago and it’s silly that Musharraf’s rope-a-dope with U.S. aid is restraining us. Obama’s policy is not Bush-esque in that it actually focuses on the problem. Dubya took 9/11 as an excuse to mop up some other business. He’s deeply unserious about getting the 9/11 culprits, whose executors reside in the NWFP and whose funders reside in Saudi Arabia. Actually focusing on the right countries is the opposite of Bushism.
Umm, yes. But the fundie parties in an election rigged in their favor crested at 11%.
Personally don’t believe Obama or Clinton are electable nationally.
Clark maybe, but I think he probably would get thrashed too.
Other generals do not like very bright generals.
I’m Scotch-Irish German; family’s been here since 1762; have voted Democratic since 1972.
Don’t forget Bloomberg. He’s who I will vote for.
I hear you. I mean considering how easy Osama is to capture (especially considering the area he’s in–full of our allies and devoid of difficult terrain he could hide in) its a crime we haven’t just waltzed in and put some cuffs on him so that we can give him a saddamesque trial.
As for the seriousness of Dubya on getting the culprits of 9/11 and Obama blindingly narrow vision towards it, that’s really a much larger question. You can legitimately claim Iraq wasn’t at all involved with 9/11 and is a distraction to caputuring bin laden, but its obvious that Bush’s approach was always enveloped by his neo con advisors more wholistic strategy of fighting a larger war with ‘islamic terror outfits’. And lets not jump the gun. Obama hasn’t enacted any of his ‘policy’ yet. His rhetoric has been interesting, but we’ve yet to see him follow through on it when he’s actually in office. This is a serious issue–remember Bush seemed like an isolationist prior to 2001. His messages were also very ‘precise’ before 9/11. The axis of evil comment did refer to three specific regimes which had been serious global and US antagonists. Being a Manichaean refers to your moral position, not a tactical one–something which Clinton emphasized is a problematic distinction that Obama seems to have ignored.
The lal masjid comment was sarcasm–i should have italicized it.
As for the 11% claim—so now you’re saying that because a nascent nationally powerful MMA coalition only got 11 percent of the vote 5 yrs ago they don’t have enough influence? Two huge problems. One the lal masjid incident and continued iraq/afghan/western pakistan operations have seemingly made the populace even more anti west and more open to these parties than before — opinion polls bear that out. Secondly, 11% for a party which hadn’t yet tried to expand itself from its regional scope with the type of pr savvy that is now available is pretty darn good especially when the leaders are only pulling in about 25%. On top of that the MMA literally controls probably the most powerful militaristic and terrorist capability outside of the army. The fact that you think that it has no ability to control the country is pretty weak–I mean its not like they could destabilize things if Mushie was assassinated