NBC's Mitchell: In some parts of the country, seeing Obama "celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America"
While discussing Sen. Barack Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East and Europe, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell claimed that in some "parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states," seeing Obama "celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America."
On the July 17 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion of Sen. Barack Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East and Europe, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said to anchor Mika Brzezinski: "Some senior Democrats, Mika, have even said to me that they think it might be a mistake for him to go to Europe, where the Barack Obama campaign thinks he's going to be celebrated. They see parallels with John F. Kennedy, the young president going in 1963." Mitchell added: "But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America."
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the July 17 edition of MSNBC Live:
BRZEZINSKI: Now let's talk about Senator Obama's trip abroad. You are in Amman right now, lots of different details still to be released at another time. How are Senator Obama's colleagues in Congress responding to word of this overseas trip, which is receiving some criticism from the McCain campaign?
MITCHELL: Well, some criticism from the McCain campaign, but they have a little bit of a problem there because they of course were putting up a clock on the Republican National Committee website, talking about how many days it had been since his 2006 trip to Iraq. The official part of the trip, the trip that we're talking about, will start here in Amman and then go on through the Middle East. He is going to Israel, which is a very important stop -- and we can talk a little bit more about that later -- also going to the Palestinian territories, then on to Europe.
Some senior Democrats, Mika, have even said to me that they think it might be a mistake for him to go to Europe, where the Barack Obama campaign thinks he's going to be celebrated. They see parallels with John F. Kennedy, the young president going in 1963. Obama will give a speech in Berlin and will be doing interviews, in fact, with Brian Williams that night in Berlin, a very big deal, with Nightly News coming out of Berlin. So we've got a lot to look forward to.
But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
God forbid we make nice with our main allies in the world again, seeing as how President Bush has partially destroyed good feelings between the allies. I think what Mitchell really meant to say, is that if the French think Obama is great, then of course, we'll be back on Freedom Fries again. Things like that.
Obama, can't win. They say he needs to travel abroad, he does that, and gets criticism for it. And where does Mitchell get this possible criticism from? Chances are good that if people criticize him for going to Europe, and visiting some of our allies, then they weren't going to vote for him in the first place. Also, didn't McCain just make a recent trip to Europe as well? I didn't see, or hear about any fallout from his trip abroad.
These wags really hate Americans, and have nothing but contempt for them.
Its obvious-- like Matthews' wacko opinions about "regular people," they are always derogatory, and make everybody out to be morons.
".....Andrea Mitchell claimed that in some 'parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states,' seeing Obama "celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America.'......"
The way I took this comment is that if Europeans are seen as supporting a change of government in the US. ....then that is a criticism of our country in that they have not happy with the way it has been run.
Celebrating McCain in Europe would mean they are happy with us the way things have been going with this administration and they want more of the same.
However; what I don't undertand is the reference to some parts of the Midwest and Appalacia. I think this is the most insulting part of her comment, because she is implying that certain parts of the country aren't going to take well to Europeans liking Obama. Why didn't she use a blanket statement by saying some in the red or battleground states?
Oops missed a word:
"....then that is a criticism of our country in that they have not been happy with the way it has been run....."Because, according to these pundits, many Americans hate Europe, so that anything Europeans do is suspicious, so therefore....
Oh yeah, and Granny and Elly Mae are always out by the cement pond, too, getting in trouble. And oh that Jethro!
My how soon you whackos forget about what happened during, you know, history. I'm tired of my heritage being rebuffed by you jack offs.
My how soon you whackos forget about what happened during, you know, history. I'm tired of my heritage being rebuffed by you jack offs.
Thats funny. I consider the debt well repaid long ago. During the major event called WWII. You know, when the French begged for help after grabbing their ankles.
And what exactly have the French done that so offends you? You probably can't come up with anything I'm sure. Actually, I'm sure you'll come up with something from WWII, but hey, don't forget Poland, Holland, Belgium, Italy, North Africa, Japan (and surrounding islands), and just about every other country we helped save during that time (along with our allies, you remember them don't you?).
What you fail to see is that France has been a great friend to the USA since the birth of our nation. And when you insult them, you insult me.
And when you insult them, you insult me.
Interpret it as you will. Thats up to you.
Was that a complete payback for coming to our aid just when we needed it?
I would say not quite.
If they are unhappy with the actions of the government over the last 7+ years, then a celebration of Obama would mean they are critical of our current government and that they welcome a change.
he's also French.
That would be the scariest part of your comment, if it were all true.
They probably thing Obama's slogan is "Yes, Oui Can"
If you pronounced it, how would it sound?
"Oui, nous pouvons!" :)
MITCHELL: But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America.
Uhhh...am I missing something? What is wrong with Mitchell's statement? I think she's right on the money with this one. Obama's popularity in Europe may not play well in the Midwest or in Appalachia and could be regarded as a rejection of American values. I think perhaps MMFA has underestimated how ignorant and brainwashed some elements of this country are...particularly as they are egged on by manipulative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Did I misread this piece...am I missing something? Mitchell's statement seems rather obvious to me...
For starters, Mitchell isn't even reporting on any actual criticism that Obama has received. She just throwing out her own theories about potential criticism. As Magnolialover pointed out, she's framing this as a lose-lose for Obama.
Of course there are Freedom Fry lovers out there who think you're a traitor if you visit our allies in Europe, but it's Mitchell who is using those idiots to voice criticism of Obama.
Irony,
I agree with you on this one. There are Republican/Conservatives that still resent Europe for not being more supportive in joining Bush in his ill-conceived invasion/war in Iraq. They could very well have a negative reaction if Europe falls in love with Obama. They'll think he's more one of them, than us.
And if they don't think that way on their own, I'm sure Hannity, Rush etc will tell them that's what they should think
Mitchell was spot on in bringing this subject up.
I don't see a major problem with these comments. Certainly there are people who are so nationalistic that they'll react badly to Europeans embracing Obama.
On the other hand, aren't the vast majority of people with that sort of attitude more likely to be Buchanan-style conservatives anyway? And even leaving politics out of it, people who are that threatened by things that seem foreign to them aren't too likely to vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama in the first place.
No one has said that it would be viewed as a negative by people in the Midwest and Appalachia. Mitchell is pulling this from her nether region. Those who would advance such nonsense wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.
What ever happened to reporting the news instead of speculating on what a certain segment of society might think about the news?
"Uhhh...am I missing something? What is wrong with Mitchell's statement?"
Too wordy. She could have just said "ignorant" instead of "...jingoistic and a little more isolationist..."
Are you making fun of West Virginia again??
Shame on you ;-)
Mitchell's statement seems rather obvious to me...
No, she's just making it up, by relying upon bigoted stereotypes of people she knows absolutely nothing about.
These people are peabrains, they have worms inside of them. Their reference points for life are corrupt and false-- and they're also running the show!
Mitchells comments reek of "elitism"<sarcasm>. MITCHELL: But what if he is so celebrated in Europe, Mika, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America. The media couldn't get over themselves with Obamas "clinging" explanation and called it elitist when I thought Obama was right on target. Mitchells statement is condecending and a little perculiar since she helps shape opinion.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
And your report shows that the US is #1 in level of responsiveness, and #1 in total health expenditure. But yet you want to spend another $800B on universal healthcare. Yeah, that outta do the trick!
Perhaps it should also factor in the number of people who need to be treated, and the length of the lines, and how long it takes to see a specialized doctor.
Oh yes, nobody dies from lack of healthcare anywhere else now do they?
Our pizza.
Randy
Many people in this country have no idea how far we are falling behind our competitors in quality of life
Thats funny. Then why does the US have a higher immigration rate that anywhere else in the world? Must be all those crappy paying jobs, freedoms, rights, and capitalism.
For the most part, immigrants these days are coming from poorer, third-world countries. Democratic Socialist countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and others are prosperous because of the idea and practice of supporting the common good of the nation as a whole - as opposed to the Conservative and Neo-Conservative points of view in the U.S. (you know, the whole "I got mine, screw you" attitude).
If America began thinking more about the common good of the nation and it's citizens, and less about personal enrichment, we could reap huge rewards - but never while conservatives are in control.
Hey, we're richer than you
Mag, this is the sucker-bait that sells it to the GOP base. I hear what sound like hard working, middle-class Americans calling into talk radio bragging about the GDP, or the military budget as "winning" over other countries, especially much smaller ones.
They don't seem to get the concept of "per capita" anything, or that the amount of money held by a tiny percentage of our population's citizens, corporations, and the government doesn't "win" the average American anything.
It's a bizarre team mentality mindset, like the guy mopping the floors giving high fives to the boss who just told him he's still getting minimum wage.
And your report shows that the US is #1 in level of responsiveness, and #1 in total health expenditure. But yet you want to spend another $800B on universal healthcare. Yeah, that outta do the trick!
The U.S. is #1 in responsiveness, but other factors drop their rank. FYI, Scandinavian countries are still very high in responsiveness.
Perhaps it should also factor in the number of people who need to be treated, and the length of the lines, and how long it takes to see a specialized doctor.
The WHO report pretty much factors those in under "patient satisfaction" and "how well the system functions". They knew what they were doing when they did the study:
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).