« What Do McCain's Public Interest Group Allies Say About His Campaign Finance Claims? | Main | Fred Wertheimer Weighs In » Going Viral On Conservative Websites Today27 Feb 2008 07:08 pm Comments (94)
Is this even real? (1) why is the camera loopy? (2) why is obama blurry? 
And the problem with this is? Oh yeah, the chickenhawks want constant fear and war to scare people into voting Republican.
Yikes! If this is for real, I can see why he hasn't been saying much expect for HOPE. This won't fly with the general population. Maybe the extreme left loves it but he has to win a general, I hope he knows.
The problem with this is that it sounds like Obama is trying to disarm the U.S., even though that's clearly not what's going on. It's an easy scare tactic -- helped by the shadowiness of the video -- that Obama is going to make it easier for terrorists to hit the U.S. One Youtube page with this says "Why Obama Cannot Win the General Election." It almost seems like an early ad that they were thinking of making re foreign policy credentials but then scrapped. Assuming it's real.
Yes, this is real, although I don't know the source. There's nothing he's saying here which he hasn't said in print or in public elsewhere. The no-nukes idea was actually taken from Kissinger, Schultz, and a bunch of other old-style realists who proposed it a few years ago in an editorial printed in.... the Wall Street Journal. (a famous peacenik rag)
This could be absolutely devastating on the eve of the TX/OH primaries. His campaign needs to nip it in the bud asap.
It's not about substance, it's about perception. It's obviously part of a larger clip that got edited and looks menacing. Without explanation and context, it appears to the average voter like BHO is trying to make the U.S. weak. Campaigns are perceptions games. I bet Clinton campaign got a hold of it and is hoping it'll go mainstream a day or two before TX and OH, before BHO can explain. It has dirty trick written all over it. As for the general, if it's out now, plenty of time to explain.
If this is legit, you would think that Hillary would have used it long ago. Maybe she knows that it would be ineffective with Dem primary voters. Dunno.
Devastating ? Are we watching the same video ? How is that devastating ? By the way, did you notice the Clinton campaign is the one which sent them to the video ? Classy.
That is good. If this is the worst they have beyond the xenophobic crap I feel better about the general election. I think that the most important thing for the Obama campaign or the Clinton campaign (whomever gets the nomination) to tie McCain to Iraq and Bush with chains. And to do it every day until it becomes as ubiquitious as ready on day one and that hopemonger spiel. They have to take the time to brand the guy. I think Dean ought to be pushing the 100 years in Iraq angle every flippin day as well as the campaign finance stuff. We gotta walk AND chew gum if we're gonna win this one for the Democratic party this year.
Nothing new there. There's a good writeup about the uselessness of nukes in the last issue of the New York Review of Bush. Impolitic or not, Obama's solutions are probably the wisest and the most developed (and btw, per the NYRB, Mitt Romney's advisers had similar projects). All the nuclear proliferation experts agree that the best way to actually deal with the threat of terrorists using the A-Bomb is to deal with Pakistan, to establish an international bank for nuclear fuel, and to dispose of as much of our (and Russia's) stockpile as possible. Besides, Obama's done extensive work on this with Richard Lugar (R-IN). He even co-sponsored a bill that with that notorious peacenik. That's what the Obama campaign will retort: this is part and parcel of a bipartisan agenda. Lugar's on board.
I have my doubt about this video. Some parts of his delivery seem disjointed as if they were edited heavily or stitched together from various sound clippings. And, as others have noted, the image is quite distorted. If it is confirmed as authentic I think he just lost the election, but that's a huge if.
There is nothing in there that should be of major concern to Obama. Scrapping Star Wars and doing away with ICBMs? Not launching multi-billion dollar boondoggles designed to fight the Soviet Union? Welcome to the post- Cold War world. I have only one thing to say to those who think this will sink him: It's time to get beyond your pre-9/11 mindset.
It IS authentic, and it's completely boring: 1. Opposition to militarization of space. 2. Slow growth in military spending; spend wisely, not rashly. 3. Eliminate nuclear weapons. These are all traditional Democratic positions. What's the big deal? Only on the internet do you find people who think trivia like this is 'game-changing'
He's already made a major policy speech on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html
George McGovern.
Let's take a pause right here and do a history lesson. When the Bush folks came in in early 2001, they decided to reject Richard Clarke's advice that Al Qaeda was a big deal and decided that they were going to focus instead on missle defense. Then in August 2001, Bush took the longest vacation in presidential history despite intelligence saying that Al Qaeda was planning an attack. Bottom line, the Bush people's changing the focus from anti-terrorism to missle defense in early 2001 might have contributed to 9/11 not being prevented. But maybe that is the point....because whenever terrorists attack, Bush's poll ratings go up and the electoral fortunes of the right wing increase considerable. Some of us find it troubling how much aid and comfort the terrorists give to the right wingers of this country.
So, he's for fiscal discipline and Reagan's policy of cooperating with the Russians to reduce nuclear stockpiles. What's there for Republicans not to like?
These are most certain NOT traditional Demo postions. These are traditional left positions. Are you prepared to write-off the whole South and Midwestern Demo's? The Blue Dogs will never sign off on this.
Anyone who thinks that Obama can't fully explain and defend these positions--all of which make perfect sense, and mean absolutely nothing in terms of capacity to "defend the homeland"--hasn't been watching the guy through his short but spectacular career as a national political figure. The only remotely difficult thing in there politically is the "eliminate nuclear weapons" plank. But Obama has stated elsewhere that he won't do this unilaterally, and any step in this direction will be thoroughly infused with the old (and smart) Reagan dictum: "Trust, but verify." While the fringe right might be A-OK with wasting billions on outdated or inoperative defense programs from SDI to tanks designed to defend West Germany against the Warsaw Pact, most Americans presumably would like to see that spending redirected. Among them, at least at one time, was John McCain, who in his pre-Potomac Fever period was an eloquent and often devastating critic of wasteful Pentagon spending.
Some context... One case in point is a retired Air Force general named Scott Gration. In 2006, Gration joined the senator on a trip to Kenya, and the two men have been close ever since. Gration is a fluent Swahili speaker who grew up in the Congo, the son of evangelical Christian missionaries. He flew nearly 300 missions as a fighter pilot in Iraq and spent part of the second Bush era as a nuclear planner.
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending ... " Does he mean military spending here? "...I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems..." Would these be the same unproven systems that successfully shot down a satellite last week? "... I will slow our development of future combat systems..." Does that mean he'll allow the US military to atrophy and technology to obsolescence? The last few sentences are hard to know how to make of. While they sound reasonable when you parse them carefully, he's coming across as a pretty radical anti-war leftist. It sounds naive.
The best part about this is that my dad, who spent 50 years in the defense industry and has never voted Democrat, agrees with most of Obama's prescriptions. This is about loosening the grip of defense contractors on our country. Each year we spend tens of billions on systems to fight an enemy that disappeared nearly 20 years ago. I actually feel better about Obama after seeing this. This isn't leftist, it's common sense, and would make us better able to fight terrorism.
I don't disagree with anything he said there. But this is politics and I can see how that can be spun, especially when combined with Obama's other statements and positions on national security issues. After awhile they can start painting a picture. If this video breaks out into the mainstream the Obama campaign should move fast to clarify some of these statements.
TimK is right. He sounds like George McGovern. He comes across as a peacenik lefty. To all the Dems on this comments board who find his positions perfectly defensible, *it doesn't matter*. This is a campaign. Clinton's easy tack is, Obama's going to lose the election because he's naive and sounds like he wants to disarm the U.S. The Republicans are already eating this up. The Dems on this board who think it's great as substance are missing the broader point -- without context and explanation, by itself this video makes Obama look both too exotic (because of the camera) and a crazy lefty, substance be damned.
Its funny that this is circulating the Conservative web, as this video was uploaded by a Hillary supporter (see the Texas/Hillary icon on youtube).
OMG Obama is going to be a fiscal conservative, run for the hills!
I'll bet you right-wing nuts that every single one of his positions here is popular with a majority of Americans. You guys are just out of touch with America. No wonder you've been getting your asses kicked repeatedly recently.
This guy is crazy. "Slow our development of future combat systems"?? Are our efforts in the war on terror too advanced and innovative? Is this some sort of inane Little League mercy rule? "Hey, let's let the bad guys catch up in order to make this fair, otherwise it's just not competitive"!
Mike, that's just name-calling. Everyone knows the public's views are largely shaped by the media and opinion-makers. On national security issues it's heavily influenced by elite and expert opinion.
Sarah's post proves my point. Again, a position defensible if explained; but on its face, it sounds crazy.
Who exactly is against developing more advanced weapons systems? Don't more advanced weapons not only serve as a more effective deterrent, but are also increasingly precise? That means fewer civilian deaths.
Tim K, let me quibble with this point: "...I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems..." Would these be the same unproven systems that successfully shot down a satellite last week? Honest question, are you unfamiliar with the difference between an unproven ABM system and established (since the mid-'80s, at least) ASAT capabilities? Because the capabilities are fairly distinct. Besides, as far as I'm aware, most of the successes in the modern Star Wars program have taken place under very carefully controlled circumstances. Unless you think the NoKos will be so kind as to a.) announce the date and time of a missile launch; b.) equip their missile with a mil-grade GPS transponder; and c.) provide us a direct link to the missile's telemetry, I'd wager that we're going to be somewhat less successful than we've been thus far. Furthermore, there are good reasons to believe that the ultimate utility of an ABM system is limited by the simple fact that it's relatively simpler to loft multiple missiles than it is to defend against them. If it costs x to launch a missile, and 10x to defend against it, the attacker has a considerable inherent advantage.
Tim K, I think the argument would be tied to both reining in spending and trimming a bloated Pentagon bureaucracy. And he said "slow," not "stop." But again, you're proving my point.
Chris: I think you're correct to highlight that word *slow*. So we shouldn't cancel the development of new weapons systems, just *slow* them down. So, does that mean he agrees they are necessary, as long as we don't have them too soon? I agree with Sarah, it almost makes it sound like he'd prefer America's adversaries to catch up. Obviously we know that's not the case, but the word *slow* sounds bizarre in that context. Jeff: Was there not a time with ASAT capabilities were also unproven. There is always a time in the life of any established system when it is theoretical, then unproven, then proven and finally established. Wouldn't that be the universal course of any innovation in technology? But also remember he doesn't just say to cut investment in ABM technology, he promises to slow development to new "combat systems" in general. How is that not akin to a promise to disarm over time?
Will this need further explanation? Of course. Is it damning among any demographic but the neo-con hawks that will vote for McCain anyway? Nope. The only problem is the absolutism of it; these are arguments that need to be put forward in a more nuanced manner. Although I suspect that's what you'd hear if we had the rest of the video. Our enemy these days isn't the Soviet Union, it's clandestine terrorist groups. They're not going to launch ICBMs at us, they're going to sneak in dirty bombs in freight containers. The answer isn't "Star Wars", it's better intelligence, port security, etc.
TH: So you're saying the development of new combat systems couldn't possibly aid in the fight against Al Qaeda? Where did precision bombs come from? or predator drones?
Danger for the primaries is that Dems will see this and think he can't win the general and break for Clinton. I haven't seen the video on Drudge yet, but if it goes there, that could be the argument. I don't see much danger for the general because there's so much time between now and then. Really, it's a question of (a) scaring off indies, and (b) scaring off folks voting for Obama based on electability.
Who exactly is against developing more advanced weapons systems? Most taxpayers that don't get their paychecks from a defense contractor? Don't more advanced weapons not only serve as a more effective deterrent, but are also increasingly precise? Nope. You need to realize that we spend almost $2 *billion* dollars a day on the military. We're so far ahead of the rest of the world it's nuts. Are you seriously suggesting we need to spend *more* money so we can kill more people more easily and more quickly?
justinb: Sorry to tell you this but the viewpoint you just expressed, while perfectly valid, is out of the mainstream. Most Americans want a strong defense.
Chris wrote: "Danger for the primaries is that Dems will see this and think he can't win the general and break for Clinton. I haven't seen the video on Drudge yet, but if it goes there, that could be the argument." Nothing that Barack has stated is outside the mainstream of democratic politics. I don't think he will face any challenge by democrats because he's advocating their views, particularly in the primary. There are legitimate questions to be asked about how he defines terms, and the like. What I'm seeing on this board, absent answers to those questions, are people asserting that Obama is advocating the dismantling of the military. This is absurd. Pose the questions, get answer's to the questions, but people shouldn't assume that he's "weak" on the military. This is a republican meme vis-a-vis the democrats.
So you're saying the development of new combat systems couldn't possibly aid in the fight against Al Qaeda? Where did precision bombs come from? or predator drones? You *seriously* think that fighting AQ is that dependent on killing people in ones and twos? Combating religious extremism, in all it's guises, is a PR and humanitarian effort. One of the first steps in that effort is to stop raining cluster bombs and precision guided ordinance down on wedding parties, farmers, and people just hanging out. You, like Clinton, think this is an air war. It's not.
Not only do most Americans want a strong defense; most Americans like the idea of hegemony. The argument that "we spend more money on defense than every other country in the world combine" attracts lefty dems and Buchananites, but not many others. The idea of not being light-years ahead of the world and not having unrivaled military power are anathema to most of the country. That's why this video can be so toxic.
Sorry to tell you this but the viewpoint you just expressed, while perfectly valid, is out of the mainstream. Most Americans want a strong defense. Sorry to tell you this Tim, but the overwhelming majority of Americans realize that we *already* have a strong defense establishment, and they also realize that in order to keep it that was there's no need to continue to spend almost $2b a day. Nice strawman, though.
I think what we're seeing here yet again is the disconnect between mainstream American opinion and the Democratic party base. What's unusual about it is Democrats used to at least be aware that this chasm existed... that's why they voted for a centrist like Clinton in 1992 in order to address that. Now many Democrats seem to be under the impression that the American people endorse every Democratic value, principle and idea.
"Most Americans want a strong defense." Which is not equivalent to "throw money at it!" It's amazing to me that so many conservative Republicans don't see this. Any other issue-- education, jobs, infrastructure, health care-- conservative Republican are the first to tell you, "It's not enough to throw money at the problem." But say that about defense spending, and suddenly you're some peacenik lefty. Whether it's the military or education, you need to spend wisely, not profligately. I agree that the line about slowing the development of advance technologies sounds weird out of context; my own guess is that he means, again, we can't just throw money into weapons systems that are totally unproven, because it's a waste and doesn't make us more secure. In any case, I really don't see this video as being devastating in any way whatsoever-- it only sounds that way to those who long ago decided not to vote for the Democrat-- and I doubt mainstream voters will either.
ChrisNBama: You're right -- I should have qualified and said moderate dems and indies; I'm not so sure what Obama says in this video really is in the mainstream of Democratic politics. As I see it, Dems generally struggling with the hard power/soft power balance and the power/multilateralism balance, so things like military investment are not so clear-cut. If I'm wrong, though, point me in the wrong direction. To clarify, I agree Obama is not saying he'll disarm the U.S. I'm saying that the items he lists, the absence of context, and the eccentricity of the video help to code the message it seems to send: Obama's a lefty peacenik. That's not true, but campaigns are about perception and narrative, not substance.
The idea of not being light-years ahead of the world and not having unrivaled military power are anathema to most of the country. Hmm, I must not have gotten the memo where the last 5 years are a case study in why this line of thinking is completely and totally stupid. It would seem to me that explaining this and pointing out the obvious example that's currently preventing us from actually building a more effective military would be a slam dunk no-brainer. But that's just me.
The idea of not being light-years ahead of the world and not having unrivaled military power are anathema to most of the country. Hmm, I must not have gotten the memo where the last 5 years are *not* a case study in why this line of thinking is completely and totally stupid. It would seem to me that explaining this and pointing out the obvious example that's currently preventing us from actually building a more effective military would be a slam dunk no-brainer. But that's just me.
Well, it's really not helpful for Obama to have supporters who are so political tone deaf.
Now many Democrats seem to be under the impression that the American people endorse every Democratic value, principle and idea. Umm, all the polling would suggest that this is pretty much the case, Tim. The Republicans are really struggling. Democrats should kick them in the teeth, toss them in the lake, and throw them an anvil. Not this "play to the center" crap, when all the advisers suggesting that have a vested interest in moving the center to the right. The center isn't on the right, and it's about time we realized that.
Well then tell Obama to come out against a late-term abortion ban, parental notification laws and school prayer, and for same-sex marriage and we'll see if you're correct.
justinb: I personally don't disagree with you, and I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I actually think Obama's posiions are defensible and, from what I can tell of him as a person, are probably well thought-out. But I think Tim K is right that you're speaking from a position that is not mainstream in this country. People think Bush executed the Iraq war wrong, and relate that error back to the beginning of the war (which most people supported but now think is a mistake). But I don't think, if you polled most voters, that the electorate would disconnect amount of money from quality of program. (Dems tend to do this with the issue of education, after all.) At any rate, slowing military advancement is a terrible way to say that he wants to cut wasteful investment into unproven and unneeded technologies (e.g., Osprey).
I guess I don't see what's so concerning. Everything in that video sounds not only reasonable but prudent. I think it's right-wing myth that people would always rather spend the nation's money on more bombs when we have kids going to schools that are falling apart. What people want is prudent reaction to the needs of the nation. Right now, our nation needs better healthcare and education, not nuclear weapons in space. The fall of communism is past us. We finally stop trying to blow up the world ten thousand times over!
Reading many of these comments is giving me this sinking feeling we're looking at storm clouds on the horizon.
Tim K, I don't have very many answers on defense spending, but there are two facts that strongly suggest to me that we can afford to slow the development of various weapons systems. 1. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. 2. Appropriations for weapons systems have been evenly split among the Army, Air Force, and Navy/Marines every single year since the '60s. The F-22 is probably one-and-a-half generations ahead of any other fighter jet currently in production. There's a reasonable argument to be made that we simply don't need the diminished returns of an air superiority fighter 1.5 generations ahead of the very best of the rest of the world, and could instead make do with (say) diverting some of that money to the F-35, which is a mere 1.25 generations ahead of the rest of the world. (That's not a great example, since there what's done is done. But there are undoubtedly other systems where expenditures could be better aligned with national defense priorities and higher cost-benefit ratios.) If we slow the development of some weapons systems, and start spending smarter, rather than simple more -- well, that seems like a reasonable POV. Not the only one, but a reasonable one.
The F-22 is probably one-and-a-half generations ahead of any other fighter jet currently in production. The F-22 is 3 or 4 generations ahead of anything else even on the drawing board. IMO, it's a stupid investment, we don't have any need in the current or future environment to field such a fighter. There is *zero* chance that our air superiority will be challenged, even with current technology, in the next 10 years. Spending the amount of money we're talking about with the F-22 is just a sop to contractors, and has nothing to do with actual defense.
Jeff Larson: I'll say again I really don't disagree with the merits of what you are saying. Having said that, do you really think this is the kind of debate to be getting into? Do you think there's a chance some people might not agree or understand those arguments? Do you think this has the potential to become yet another unhelpful distraction in a campaign that should be the Democrats to lose? Well I do.
Well, it's really not helpful for Obama to have supporters who are so political tone deaf. And it's really not helpful for Clinton to have supporters that are so afraid of what their advisers are telling them the "center" is that their afraid to address real issues in real ways that will help real people, instead of just playing defense.
Yes the Clintons much prefer solving the fake issues of make-believe people in cockamamie ways. Sort of like the 27 million imaginary new jobs, or the pretend Family and Medical Leave Act, or the illusory Earned Income Tax Credit. The Clintons know how to put people first. They did it in Arkansas, and they did it in the White House. They even did it without Barack Obama's help.
If you watch this video with the sound off it looks very wierd. I may be completely real but there is definitely something suspicious.
WTF are you guys talking about? Obviously the video's making him look bad but what he's actually saying is not objectionable at all--they're completely mainstream democratic positions. Don't be such concern trolls.
The proper link to the full video is located here, cbc. Caucus 4 Priorities can be found here. (Don't skip the Oreo Cookie/Ben and Jerry's cartoon link at the website; it's a pretty concise version of their viewpoint.) I notice that no one seems to have responded to my comment above linking to General Gration's position (echoed by that bi-partisan foreign policy group) or the part where TNR makes clear that Senator Obama is "saying he would seek a world without nukes but would never disarm unilaterally."
on this subject, readers may also wish to check out this piece over at The New Republic about Obama and his pragmatism, "The Audacity of Data"- which quotes, in pertinent part - This position was almost completely taboo in respectable foreign policy circles prior to 2007, when a bipartisan group of Washington elders--Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, George Shultz, and Bill Perry--penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed touting denuclearization as a desirable goal. Since then, much of the Democratic establishment has pooh-poohed the idea, though it's caught on in less stodgy corners of Capitol Hill, like Joe Biden's Foreign Relations Committee. Obama endorsed it partly at Gration's urging last October, saying he would seek a world without nukes but would never disarm unilaterally."
Well the surprising thing is that except for that last bit and the blurry visual they really did not change very much at all from the original. There is a reason that nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War the US still hasn't made significant reductions in its nuclear arsenal: this is dangerous territory for any politician. This is one of those issues that would probably be best left until after the election. I don't see many votes to be gained talking about this sort of thing, and there certainly much room for misunderstanding. The last thing the Democrats need is a nominee who appears at all uncertain in terms of readiness to use force when necessary and to keep America's military capabilities strong. The minute those kinds of doubts start appearing you can kiss these so-called "Obamacans" goodbye. There is simply no way independents will vote for a Democrat who seems soft on defense. This isn't about needing to be a war-monger or overly aggressive. But what has to be avoided on Obama's part is any hint of being unsteady or wobbly on national security issues.
"Yes the Clintons much prefer solving the fake issues of make-believe people in cockamamie ways. I was not old enough to vote in either the 1992 or 1996 elections. But I am a student of history and I don't think that Hillary's name was on the ballot. The "Clintons" were not in office, Bill Clinton was. This is the argument that I really find foolish beyond belief. Everything that happened that was good in the 1990's, Hillary had a role in. Everything bad, Hillary had nothing to do with it but she kept quiet in order to support her husband. And we just have to take the "Clintons" word for it. Never mind the fact that the most prominent role Hillary played during Bill's administration in terms of policy was health care reform. Any why did it fail? Not because the insurance companies and right-wing Republicans stopped her, although I'm sure they tried their best. It failed because of Hillary's amazing arrogance. She threatened to "demonize" any Democratic politician who opposed her in any way, including liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bill Bradley. It was either her plan 100% or nothing.....and the American people ended up with nothing. What else is there? Her nothing role in the Northern Island peace process, I've read many different accounts of it, her name doesn't pop up much. Her creation of SCHIP.....uh no, that was Ted Kennedy's baby, she did actually play a role in this one, but a very small role. Her speech in Beijing about "women's rights being human rights".....it was very nice but like she says, "solutions, not speeches". China still has a forced abortion policy that results in countless female fetuses being aborted. Look, as I said, I think Hillary Clinton is a very smart, capable politician. But she has to stand on her own merits if she wants to win the White House. From 2001 on, enough with the '90's redux, Bill Clinton is not eligible for the nomination. Really Tim, I have not posted much here but our few interactions have been quite civil and intelligent. But this last bit of yours now, it comes off as less than what you are capable of.
Everything that happened that was good in the 1990's, Hillary had a role in. Everything bad, Hillary had nothing to do with it but she kept quiet in order to support her husband. That sounded like it came right from the Obama campaign. In fact Hillary did play a major role in the Clinton administration. She has always been Bill's chief political adviser and closest confidant. It's well known that they are a political partnership and always have been. I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
You're just parroting Barack Obama's debate lines from last night. It's true that Hillary and the administration made mistakes during the push for health care reform, which is well known. It's not as if this was the first time health care reform has failed, by the way. It's nice for Obama that he has never had to perform on a national stage on anything significant or controversial, so he hasn't had a chance to succeed or fail on a key public policy question. Passing some lame ethics package so lobbyists can eat standing up but not while sitting, or working on anti-proliferation with Richard Lugar doesn't count. Those aren't controversial. Look, as I said, I think Hillary Clinton is a very smart, capable politician. But she has to stand on her own merits if she wants to win the White House. From 2001 on, enough with the '90's redux, Bill Clinton is not eligible for the nomination. The funny thing is even if you take away her experience working in the Clinton White House she still has more experience between her career in the private sector, non-profit sector, activism and advocating, and 7 years in the Senate, than Barack Obama.
Tim K: "This isn't about needing to be a war-monger or overly aggressive. But what has to be avoided on Obama's part is any hint of being unsteady or wobbly on national security issues." If the democrats are continually playing defense on national security, that plays right into the Republican playbook, especially again somebody like John McCain. Your line of thinking is exactly the kind that got Hillary Clinton and a number of other prominent democrats to enable the War in Iraq. This whole strategy has been a systematic political failure on every level--my god, look at the past few decades. Wat we need to do is go on offense against the whole warmongering, perpetual war mindset, which at this particular moment is also deeply unpopular among the electorate. Nuclear weapons happen to be the perfect issue on which to make this case. A serious push to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles around the world, enforce and expand the non-proliferation treaty, and secure loose nuclear material is the supreme nexus of right policy and right politics. It's popular, it's easy to understand, it makes us more safe, and it enforces the frame that democrats are smarter and more mature on national security. Again, you're just a concern troll.
Korha: One of the great successes of the Obama campaign has been its ability to accurately sense the mood of the electorate in this "change" election and recognize that elections are always about the future. Bob Shrum pointed out early on that the Clintons presented "change as nostalgia" and it seems that was a fundamental miscalculation. It's important to give Obama and his advisers credit for getting their political strategy correct. The reason I mention that is because Obama's rhetoric on the whole question of Iraq seems to completely overlook the fact that elections are about the future and what is going to happen next, not about what wrong decisions were made in the past. Every time Clinton has criticized one of his foreign policy statements or positions he always brings the issue back to the original decision to invade Iraq. Even today when McCain specifically criticized him for his position on pulling out of Iraq, Obama ignored the substance of the attack and once again returned to the wrong decision to invade Iraq. My point is this: elections are about the future, so Obama is not going to be able to win the debate over Iraq simply by criticizing the decision to invade Iraq. That's not a plan. Now, on this whole "concern troll" business. I've never made any secret that I am a strong support of Hillary Clinton. Even though I've always been a bit ambivalent about the Clintons and haven't always agreed with them, Hillary's performance over the length of this campaign (especially her performance on her feet during the numerous debates) really impressed me and won me over. If Obama is going to be the nominee (which seems almost certain) I sincerely hope he wins. Despite the fact that I think his campaign is overly self-referential and I lack confidence in him being able to deliver on his promises, amongst other concerns, he will still be much better than McCain. Especially at this early stage in the process I think it's more than legitimate to be able to bring up concerns about his candidacy in hopes things will improve. I really resent the implication that only comments that are uncritical and unabashed in their support of Barack Obama's candidacy are legitimate and fair. That attitude is stifling and small, and does nothing to further the political debate here or elsewhere.
"In fact Hillary did play a major role in the Clinton administration."
"She has always been Bill's chief political adviser and closest confidant."
"It's well known that they are a political partnership and always have been."
"I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about."
Ah, more classy civility. But actually, no, Barack was much nicer than me, he didn't go into details. I would have but I suppose he's knows better than me what works well on TV. But you did not deny the truth of my assertion that her arrogance killed health care in '93. Go ahead, deny it. And I'll link to numerous on-line magazine articles that list all the details. "The funny thing is even if you take away her experience working in the Clinton White House she still has more experience between her career in the private sector, non-profit sector, activism and advocating, and 7 years in the Senate, than Barack Obama." Jeez, how much of her total life experience do you want to count? Of course she'll have more, she's about 15 years older! Do you want to count all of the extra years she's spent walking, talking, putting on her own clothes, chewing her food thoroughly, etc? Frankly, I primarily care about her experience in public office and her judgment on the issues, just like I don't care too much about Obama's years spent as a community organizer. Lest we go into examinations of how much of her time working at the Rose Law Firm was spent devoted to serving the public interest. But it has been said, with much truth, that the "elect me, I have experience" argument is an argument for losers. In modern American history, the person with the lesser amount of experience usually wins the Presidential election. For better or for worse.
Not everyone can be a former community organizer from Chicago. At least when Hillary talks about her 35 years of experience it's a lot more broad than one thing: community organizing in Chicago. As far as I'm concerned her supportive role during those White House years is at least as impressive as 8 years in a state legislature... which has never exactly been considered ideal experience for the Oval Office. Except if you are Jimmy Carter (and even he was a governor)... although he was a failed, one-term president. As for evidence why not read Carl Berstein's book on Hillary or any of the other numerous books on the Clinton administration either by Bill, or Joe Klein or former aids or other journalists. It's not as if any of this is a secret or simply based on my assertions alone. You're right that the person with less experience usually wins the White House, and it is usually for the worse. I will say one more time I do hope Obama wins and I hope his term is successful. I'm just not very confident and I fear many of you are going to be disappointed and very quickly.
I don't consider myself a die-hard Obama supporter. I have not contributed to his campaign, nor do I have one of those "Hope" bumper-stickers on my car. Actually Sen. Joe Biden was my first choice, Sen. Obama was only my second choice. I picked Obama second, above all the others, for several reasons. The biggest reason was he appear to have the greatest chance of winning over independents and moderate Republicans. Thus I thought he stood the best chance of wining in November. I didn't oppose Hillary because I disliked her, I simply thought she had the worst chance out of all of the major candidates, electoraly speaking, because of her high negatives.
Danger for the primaries is that Dems will see this and think he can't win the general and break for Clinton. Dems? What Dems? Dems vote for Hillary--at least, they have thus far. Obama barely won Wisconsin Dems on the basis of a 5% black population and a larger than usual 18-24 year old turnout, thanks to same day registration. Hillary has won the white, Hispanic, and overall Democrat vote in the primaries and caucuses. Cite, although you have to compare it back to the exit polls on your own. No, the danger for Obama is that Republicans and independents voting in the Texas primary will see it and be disgusted. Unless things have changed dramatically since Wisonsin, Obama doesn't win without the crutch of independents and Republicans. There aren't enough African Americans to carry him through.
"Not everyone can be a former community organizer from Chicago. At least when Hillary talks about her 35 years of experience it's a lot more broad than one thing: community organizing in Chicago. As far as I'm concerned her supportive role during those White House years is at least as impressive as 8 years in a state legislature... which has never exactly been considered ideal experience for the Oval Office." Fine, so they are equal. I can live with that. "As for evidence why not read Carl Berstein's book on Hillary or any of the other numerous books on the Clinton administration either by Bill, or Joe Klein or former aids or other journalists. It's not as if any of this is a secret or simply based on my assertions alone. " Actually, I have read Bill's book. Well, most of it anyway, that guy just goes on and on. That's how I know Hillary's claim of real input during the Good Friday negations in '98 is bull. I never said that her time in the WH should objectively count for nothing. But she, and you, make her(self) out to be a co-President, which is an exaggeration of near delusional proportions. Again, I read Bill's book, I was not overly impressed by her role. And again, her biggest role during the 1990's, policy-wise, was health care. It was a disaster, largely due to her. "You're right that the person with less experience usually wins the White House, and it is usually for the worse." That would include John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton you know. "I'm just not very confident and I fear many of you are going to be disappointed and very quickly." I have no doubt that I will and I agree that it will happen very quickly. All pols disappoint once they get into office, every last one. But I think it's foolish and insulting to argue that those who now support Obama are any more unrealistic than those who now support Clinton, at least in terms of what is to be expected during their respect White House terms. Obama talks about "hope", Clinton talks about "fighting". Neither are enough, you still have to work with the other side of the aisle. In this, I think Obama has an advantage. The big difference, in my opinion anyway, is that with Obama the disappointment is likely to come sometime in 2009, once he takes office. With Clinton it would come in November of this year, when she loses to John McCain.
Raindog: Well I think the issue of the "high negatives" is interesting and relevant. I think this depends on how different observers interpret these so-called "favorability ratings" and where one thinks the sources of negative perceptions are. The first thing about any of these favorability ratings is they are based on voters perceptions rather than on anything concrete and are therefore not static... they fluctuate depending on the polling organization and the week. Having said that there are some observations we can make about these ratings that hold relatively constant depending on the case. The higher a politicians name recognition goes up the higher their negatives go up. In most cases a public figures negatives rise faster than their positives after a certain point. Also, the more controversial or partisan the role the politician is in the higher the negatives will go. For example, as a general rule, no president leaves office with lower than 40% negative rating, and no nominee gets through a general election without at least a 40% negative rating. This was certainly true of Gore, Bush and Kerry, Clinton, Dole and the list goes on. Sorry if that was a bit long, but here is the point: Hillary Clintons negatives are high because she's universally known (and has been for 16 years) and has been in partisan role tackling controversial issues for at least that long. Barack Obama has lower negatives (although not dramatically lower) because he's only been on the national scene for 3 years, hasn't been subjected to much scrutiny yet, and hasn't been through a competitive election with the Republicans. The bottom line: just watch, his negatives will rise significantly. Of that I have no doubt. And, by the way, Robert F. Kennedy was also a carpet-bagging New York Senator who benefited from nepotism in his family members administration. Did that make him unworthy of a leadership role? Or does that only count when it's a women?
Raindog: Sorry didn't see your last post before I sent the last one. I think Obama supporters as a rule are more unrealistic and naive because they seem to expect fundamental change in Washington that frankly is unrealistic and naive. I don't support Clinton because I think her presidency will be some kind of historical game-changer. I just think she'll bring a centrist and pragmatic competence back to the management of the US government, and will move forward a mildly progressive program that will leave most people better off. I know it's not sexy, but I think it's what's achievable.
"Sorry if that was a bit long, but here is the point: Hillary Clintons negatives are high because she's universally known (and has been for 16 years) and has been in partisan role tackling controversial issues for at least that long. Barack Obama has lower negatives (although not dramatically lower) because he's only been on the national scene for 3 years, hasn't been subjected to much scrutiny yet, and hasn't been through a competitive election with the Republicans. Well, I'd argue against Hillary ever having an competitive election campaign but let's let that pass. Your overall point it basically right. But I would say in reply, "why make the GOP's job any easier"? You know who they most want to run against, always better the devil you know. "And, by the way, Robert F. Kennedy was also a carpet-bagging New York Senator who benefited from nepotism in his family members administration. Did that make him unworthy of a leadership role? Or does that only count when it's a women?" I hope that's not an allusion to me being biased against women in elected office. It's almost "Clintonian" in it's rude and less-than-straightforward implication and more importantly, my dear departed mother, (a woman of accomplishment from her own merits, not any man's), would disagree. And I knew poor RFK would come up as soon as I typed the word "carpet-bagger". Hillary is far worse and it has nothing to do with her gender. #1. He actually lived in New York before he ran for the US Senate from NY state, old Joe Kennedy moved the family there when he tired of anti-Catholic bias from Boston's Brahmin community. #2. He had actual governmental experience before he ran for the Senate, yes he got the AG's job out of nepotism but at least he got provable results there. #3. He didn't actually have his family to rely on, the former President he was related to was dead after all, and his rich father was an invalid following a massive stroke. #4. And at least he had to deal with the charges, who has ever brought nepotism up to Hillary, no one, everyone's so PC. And to compare Hillary Clinton to Robert Kennedy, it almost strikes me as blasphemous. From courage to calculation in the blink of an eye. I could give the speech he gave in Indianapolis right after MLKs death as an example and tell the amazing story behind it.....but after all, words don't matter.
"Sorry if that was a bit long, but here is the point: Hillary Clintons negatives are high because she's universally known (and has been for 16 years) and has been in partisan role tackling controversial issues for at least that long. Barack Obama has lower negatives (although not dramatically lower) because he's only been on the national scene for 3 years, hasn't been subjected to much scrutiny yet, and hasn't been through a competitive election with the Republicans. Well, I'd argue against Hillary ever having an competitive election campaign but let's let that pass. Your overall point it basically right. But I would say in reply, "why make the GOP's job any easier"? You know who they most want to run against, always better the devil you know. "And, by the way, Robert F. Kennedy was also a carpet-bagging New York Senator who benefited from nepotism in his family members administration. Did that make him unworthy of a leadership role? Or does that only count when it's a women?" I hope that's not an allusion to me being biased against women in elected office. It's almost "Clintonian" in it's rude and less-than-straightforward implication and more importantly, my dear departed mother, (a w |
Free media?
Looks good...
Posted by Colin Hicks | February 27, 2008 7:16 PM