Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Thomas Friedman: "we need a president tough enough to tell the truth"
THis is an excerpt from Friedman's May 4th column:
Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.
Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.
I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”
It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach forAmerica. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”
Comments (26)
That's what lead me to vote for Barack in the Wisconsin primary, his greater vision for this country. I didn't consider his words a vague, empty speech as his opponent suggests, but the words and attitude required to return this nation to greatness. Let the Senator from New York who speaks about her love of details concern herself with the details as the Senator from New York. Let Obama with his greater vision run the country and bring folks together.
May 6, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put. I don't think people realize that America's future is hanging in the balance. "borrowed time" is right.
May 6, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Little Tommy Friedman of the famous Friedman Unit? The one who rooted us to war in Iraq beyond all common sense, who thought it would right all wrongs and set up Israel on the way to paradise?
Careful who your friends are, other people judge you by them.
May 7, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely spot on! Tom Friedman is one of the world's great buffoons and slick talkers. On a par with Slick Willie. Let the buyer beware. Tom Friedman is the master of misrepresenting himself.
May 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is Friedman Unit Friedman who I gave up reading years ago but I was sent this in an email. Sometimes even idiots can say something truthful
May 7, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome, Desidero! A true believer 'til the end! A Hillsketeer still marching under the guilt by association banner! Up with Death Throes!
Who's the leader of the club that's made for you, not me?
H-I-L
L-A-R
Y L-I-E-D...
May 7, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Friedman speaking before an audience at some school of foreign policy in Winter '02/'03, and he was very clear that Iraq would be a disaster unless it was handled very carefully, and was very specific about his fears about how Bush & co. would go into Iraq. It may be that his printed columns were more hawkish, or that his position evolved after the invasion, but back then, he was anything but "rooting us to war."
May 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, right, and the surge by Friedman was a-okay, and everything was going to turn around in just 6 months, every 6 months. He's so much smarter than us. No, this isn't guilt by association. It's guilt by being a high-paid omnipresent idiot. Go read Atrios' archives for the last 5 years.
May 7, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not denying that he's an idiot or that he's been a big supporter of the war, I'm just saying I don't remember him being a big cheerleader prior to the invasion.
May 7, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
so was friedman LYING when you saw him speak, or when he wrote that day's column ???
WHICH IS IT
the man made two statements which were diametrically opposed to each other
one of them HAS TO BE a lie
which is it
either way, you're defending a KNOWN liar
May 7, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just went back and re-read Friedman's 3-part series on Iraq from January 2003, and I'm sticking with my previous statements. He took a very moderate stance on the war, one which said that getting rid of Saddam would be beneficial for the region, but also that we should proceed only if we have a broad coalition of support from the international community, and that we should do everything in our power to avoid destabilizing the country.
As I said, he may have changed his tune post-invasion and become a blind hawk championing Bush and his war, but I can't find anything in the run-up to the war where he was abandoning all logic and common sense and rooting for war without qualification.
I'm not defending him. I disagree with Friedman about a wide range of economic, political, and foreign policy issues and I think he can be a pompous jackass sometimes. I'm just saying that describing him as, "The one who rooted us to war in Iraq beyond all common sense," flies in the face of recorded history.
May 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fallacy you're looking for is "ad hominem," in which, because you don't like something about the speaker or a different position he has taken, you then discount everything he says.
Oh, wait. That's the fallacy I'M looking for.
You may not agree with Friedman 99% of the time, but that doesn't discount what he's saying now. Argue what he's saying now, or comment on it, please.
FWIW, I wholly agree with the post. Obama's the one who's come closest to giving the American people "straight talk."
May 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also worth noting that Friedman is no fan of Bush. I'm just saying. We at least have that in common.
May 7, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he can! and when he does we will. Did you notice that he wraped up his speach last night with a call to sacrafice.
May 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the one thing that I most liked about Obama from the start. He wasn't afraid to tell the truth. And the reason he is able to do this is because he wasn't as reliant on Wall Street and other major corporate donors as was his competition. Yes he gets donations from those groups. And yes it has the odor of an old fish barrell. It's just not as smelly as the others. And frankly, Americans are starved for the truth. Most Americans know in their hearts that we have let 4067 Americans die in Iraq because we didn't have someone in the WH who was interested in the truth. That gives us 4067 reasons to elect Barack Obama. Barack examined all the same facts as every other senator and he voted not to go to war with Iraq because the truth of those facts didn't warrant it. So at the very least I have to conclude Obama isn't going to let Americans die needlessly. Considering where George Bush and some other senators have taken us that's good enough for me.
May 7, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blame it on the people who voted Bush in and sat out 2000 because they thought Bush and Gore were the same. And who voted back in the Republicans in 2002 despite all evidence of corruption and cronyism. There's not much an opposition Senator can do in the face of rampant insanity except try to stem the tide.
May 7, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still blame it on a corrupt election official in Florida, but mainly on the Supreme Court.
May 7, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Them too, but there area a number of reasons it shouldn't have been that close. Yuck, why is Arianna Huffington next to me as I post. Get away, get away...
May 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part (note word) of the problem in 2000 was that a critical part of the electorate was tired of the Clinton scandals and revelations of the 2nd term (Lewinsky / impeachment / Lincoln Bedroom /etc.)
It says a lot when a VP of 8 years is trying to run away from an administration that saw excellent economic times.
May 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was trying to run away from the press and find his breakthrough meme, similar to Hillary. It's difficult when you've got the press raging against you for the prior 1 1/2 years (contrary to the "inevitable" meme - see my rundown comment here.)
May 7, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need some one tough enough to continue telling the American public that we can see real progress in Iraq, just wait another six months and we might be able to pull some of our troops out of Iraq.
But, to address Friedman's thesis without cynicism, he can't mean McCain. McCain has told so many lies, flip-flopped on so many issues, has embraced The Way of Bush so wholeheartedly he can't possibly be trusted to tell the truth to anyone about anything. He can't mean Senator Clinton either. I'm not sure what she really stands for except taking care of children and pragmatism. She really hasn't done much to stand up and tell the painful truth about anything to the American public.
That leaves Obama. He ain't perfect, but he's a darn sight better than the others when it comes to standing up for the truth and what's right over pragmatism and lies.
May 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman is a gasbag.
May 7, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman is the poster boy for what is wrong with American journalism. The very fact that a fatuous and shallow commentator like "suck on this"-Friedman can be considered anything other than a cute boychik trying so hard to be serious and profound is an indication of how dysfunctional and sick is the corporate media to which we are we are subjected.
May 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved last night's speech, thought it was an excellent work of American rhetoric.
I have felt for a long time that Obama is a lot like RFK. RFK wasn't afraid to go into Black neighborhoods and preach responsibility; nor was he shy about telling college students that the draft was unfair because it exempted people like them while poorer men who were unable to afford college had to put on the uniform.
There are so many reasons I support Obama. But the thing that I liked the most was the feeling that, perhaps, all things ARE possible, if only we have the right kind of leadership.
Yes we can, and yes we will.
May 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats must win in November. I wish I had you assurance about Obama. I started the campaign equally excited about Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I now believe only Clinton can beat McCain. I will vote for Obama and hope. But I have grave doubts about the man, and the candidate.
May 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you concerned about his policies or his electability, OttoF?
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment