Michelle Obama

[Rsak]

Yes Cannon Fodder is the right term. Its the attack you launch that does you no good. An attack that has no lasting harm on the target because it is easily defeated.

[Kulaf]

Honestly neither of you is using the term correctly. It has nothing to do with what your opponent does.....it has to do with the disdain you had for those troops.....i.e. put them up front they are connon fodder. For example from the movie Braveheart:

Longshanks: Not the archers. My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. Their dead cost nothing.

In this case the Irish are offered up as so much cannon fodder to occupy the enemy and waste enemy resources. So unless you are implying that Obama is tossing his wife out as cannon fodder the term is being missused.

[Rsak]

Actually when they used cannons is the more appropriate conflicts to use this term. You send a mass of people who are not expected to survive against the enemy cannon/artillery/machine gun trench, but they distract the enemy from other soldiers who can do harm. Think WW 1 when they feed bodies to the enemy placements/killing fields in order to overwhelm them.

In politics the fodder is everything you throw at your opponent trying to find something that will stick or damage them. This issue will stay in the cannon fodder category because it will not do any lasting harm, but it might distract them from something else (personally I find it unlikely due to the lack of legs on this issue).

[Ddrak]

In this case the Irish are offered up as so much cannon fodder to occupy the enemy and waste enemy resources. So unless you are implying that Obama is tossing his wife out as cannon fodder the term is being missused.

Right, and we're saying that the slur will be used as cannon fodder by the GOP side - occupying the enemy and wasting their resources. You're not thinking the right way - it's not cannon fodder for the Dems, it's cannon fodder for the GOP.



Dd

[superwalrus]

uh when I originally used the word cannon fodder I was referring to something easily and quickly destroyed with minimal effort. So for example, I think the Republicans will utterly destroy Obama because of his wife's remarks. The remarks here being the cannon fodder.

Walrus

[Kulaf]

Well then you all have me totally confused. First Walrus referes to "really good cannon fodder"......which is something of an oxymoron.....and then you both agreed with him.

/boggle

[superwalrus]

yes, meaning the republicans will have an easy time shredding Obama over it...

Walrus

[Harlowe]

That is so fucking retarded. It isn't going to annihilate anything, except maybe your sheets....from the wet dream it's giving you.

[superwalrus]

well thats your opinion Harlowe, I just happen to think you're wrong.

Walrus

[Lurker]

The overwhelming majority of the country has moved beyond the simple minded jingoism you seem to think still rules the day. Michelle Obama's comment, even when taken totally out of context, doesn't have legs to last a week in the real world, let alone sink Obama's campaign.

The country is also not as racist as you feverishly hope it is.

[rodric]

Can't beat race's impact on politics.

50 years ago, most Americans would not have voted for Obama because he's black.

Today, there is still some of that. But can you really argue with the fact that part of Obama's appeal is that he IS black?

Interviews with people around the world show that Obama is the most popular American presidential candidate. Some people interviewed make no bones about why. They say the willingness to elect a black president would show that Americans have changed.

Some people say that once we've elected the first woman or the first black man then that will demonstrate that we have really "evolved" as a society.

But if we allow race or gender to color our selection process in our eagerness to be a part of history, isn't that another form of racial/gender bias?

Rhodric

[Rsak]

Kulaf you have every right to be confused. Ddrak and I are agreeing with the term, but not the definition that Walrus is using because he doesn't have a clue about what it means since this issue will never shred Obama or his campaign. The best case scenario for the GOP is that it will distract him and either cause another gaff (which could potentially lead to a pattern) or it allows a totally unrelated issue to stick and become damaging.

Think back to 2004 and Kerry having to answer questions about the Swift Boat Veterans. It was ultimately a non-issue, but it was enough of a distraction that he could not focus on what he wanted to say.

[superwalrus]

Weee, Lurker can now successfully be clumped into the "extremely reactionary and defensive" category with the rest of the crazies on this board like Rsak, Partha, and Embar.

Walrus

[superwalrus]

And Rsak, I was using the term correctly... political cannon fodder is anything that is easily sniped at / used by the other side. Hence, Michelle Obama's words are basically a slam dunk for Republicans.

For all of you people arguing with me over this, just stop, you're being ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Michelle Obama's statement had absolutely no impact?

a) its just a stupid thing to say because it alienates some people. These people might not be a majority, but they are at least a significant minority of people who flat out do not like what she's saying.

b) its an indefensible position. You keep on yakking up about how its taken out of context, etc. Guess what Lurker, we live in the real world, where everything is taken out of context. Explaining away does absolutely nothing. People want their information now and not later. They heard the snippet and for most people thats all they will ever have time to hear.

So please, my whole bases for this argument is an objective one. Don't look at the statement if you're for or against Obama, just look at it as "wow, that was not a very smart thing to say" just like we can all agree McCain's "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" was a stupid thing to say. Thats all I'm asking.

This board has a problem with just plain bad arguing. I asked "what impact do you think it will have" and I said I think it will have a very negative one. Rsak and others pointed out it would have a negative impact but not a long lasting one. Then others came out and rabidly spouted "ZOMG! YOU ARE STUPID FOR THINKING THIS WILL HURT OBAMA!" without really saying why.

I am also confused as to why Lurker thinks these things about me. I am a very moderate conservative. I hate religion, am pro-choice, and am all about civil rights, but apparently I am now a super duper crazed anti-negro. Get your facts straight hippy.

Walrus

[Lurker]

Then others came out and rabidly spouted "ZOMG! YOU ARE STUPID FOR THINKING THIS WILL HURT OBAMA!" without really saying why.

I explained why.

I am also confused as to why Lurker thinks these things about me. I am a very moderate conservative. I hate religion, am pro-choice, and am all about civil rights, but apparently I am now a super duper crazed anti-negro. Get your facts straight hippy.

I never said you were anti-negro. I said that you feverishly hope the country is racist enough to not vote for Obama. Your comments in the past about his electibility, your comments in this thread, and your hope that the Rebublicans win, make that undeniable.

[Rsak]

And Rsak, I was using the term correctly... political cannon fodder is anything that is easily sniped at / used by the other side

No, you are confusing political ammunition with cannon fodder.

[Trollbait]

I was merely pointing out that the addition of the word "cannon" is erroneous.

CANNON FODDER is defined as:

Noun 1. cannon fodder - soldiers who are regarded as expendable in the face of artillery fire


Or any metaphorical application of the above.

The original use of the term in THIS thread implies providing ammunition to the GOP in order to attack Senator Obama. In that case simply saying "fodder" or even "political fodder" with the term meaning:

fod·der –noun
1. coarse food for livestock, composed of entire plants, including leaves, stalks, and grain, of such forages as corn and sorghum.
2. people considered as readily available and of little value: cannon fodder.
3. raw material: fodder for a comedian's routine.
–verb (used with object)
4. to feed with or as if with fodder.


would have been more applicable.

[Arathena]

And, strategically, good cannon fodder serves a purpose. It occupies the enemies time, wastes their ammunition, and disposes of things you didn't want to have sitting around when the war was over. I don't see much of that here, but beneath the smoke screen? Who knows?

It is probably good for Obama that he is not silly enough to run on the Clinton '92 / '96 / '08 platforms of 'You get both of us!' Although, delivered correctly by Billy-Bob, the same line could have been a political coup of a tremendous order. But it needed to be used to channel rage against the neocons. It is only sad that Michelle is not a professional manipulator of people, that's all we learned here.

[Embar Angylwrath]

well thats your opinion Harlowe, I just happen to think you're wrong.

Walrus

From your history on the board, I don't think you do very often.

[Ddrak]

I was merely pointing out that the addition of the word "cannon" is erroneous.

CANNON FODDER is defined as:

Noun 1. cannon fodder - soldiers who are regarded as expendable in the face of artillery fire


Or any metaphorical application of the above.

Which is exactly the way I used it. Note the *full* term is "providing the opposition with cannon fodder". The metaphor here is the political attacks that go between the sides is the battlefield, so when you make stupid statements you are providing the opposition with the equivalent of cannon fodder - an expendable attack that they can hurl back at you to absorb the fire from your big guns while you hold your really bad material in reserve.

I don't recall any actual military situation where one side has provided the other with cannon fodder, so drawing on real-life situations may be a little bit of a stretch here. Most of the irony is in the actual term - no sane person would provide there enemy with cannon fodder, and yet this is what we see happening.

Dd