Fake Disagreements

There are a whole list of fake Clinton-Obama policy disagreements that tend to distract both campaigns and the media from other, more fruitful pursuits. Renegotiating NAFTA and withdrawal timetables from Iraq are two of them.

Both President Clinton and President Obama would almost certainly renegotiate NAFTA with much more care than their campaign rhetoric suggests; with many experts and divergent opinions brought in to the debate; with counsel and suggestions from Canada and Mexico; with input from labor and business.

Both President Clinton and President Obama would almost certainly sit down with their generals and learn that withdrawing rapidly from Iraq would be untenable and dangerous and would -- will -- revise their campaign pledges of a brigade per month, as Sam Powers notes in the YouTube below.

Heck, it's probably what most every flag officer claimed by Hillary Clinton as an endorsee would advise. The onus on both candidates is for their rhetoric to reflect the reality.

Comments

When Powers says "what we can take seriously...," she's actually saying "Barack's stump speech is rhetoric; don't count on him to deliver on it."

Posted by Huh? | March 7, 2008 2:24 PM

Then ask the flag officers if they agree with Clinton's rhetoric!!!

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 7, 2008 2:25 PM

Shorter Marc Ambinder: the press allows itself to be distracted by disagreements that don't really exist.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 7, 2008 2:27 PM

so... then, what are the *real* disagreements?

Posted by sv | March 7, 2008 2:36 PM

Some mention of Jack Keane in this post would be nice, and make it seem less like you're trying to spread the Power Youtube for the Clinton campaign under the guise of being fair-minded.

Not that that's what I'm saying you're doing, but it definitely could be taken as such.

Posted by Kevi | March 7, 2008 2:36 PM

I'm starting to take it as such.

I try not to hop on bandwagons about media bias. But we get non-stop about Powers. Not so much about Clinton's smears of Obama's "Ken Starr" tactics. And I'm getting the impression from reading around the net that it was Clinton's team that sought to soothe Canada not Obama. Yet it doesn't seem to be given much attention.

Am starting to give up about the whole thing. The old-style politics and the media are in bed together. It's guaranteed to deliver apathy and cynicism.

Sighs... (am depressed this morning).

Posted by Maggie | March 7, 2008 2:45 PM

"Then ask the flag officers if they agree with Clinton's rhetoric!!!

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot"

Here is a partial list that already said they agree with Hillary:

"They are among the nearly 30 general and flag officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Nation’s next President. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.

The list of those taking part in today’s call is below.

General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton"

I look forward to your list of flag officers that agree with obama.

Posted by hadenough | March 7, 2008 2:51 PM

Don't sweat it, Maggie. The primary race is already over, as anyone who spends 10 minutes looking at the math can attest. Jonathan Alter, for one, gets it:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

So, the Clinton campaign and their surrogates might as well be railing against gravity at this point. Barack Obama is our nominee.

It is rather annoying that the press, even ostensibly non-affiliated press like Marc here, keeps chattering on about the race as if it's still a race. But, they'll figure it out sooner or later.

Posted by Kevin | March 7, 2008 3:03 PM

What is the point of this post?

The title says "Fake Disagreements" and there is some vacuous repetition of truisms about how political reality affects candidates' stated positions.

But there is no mention of the fact that, on the decision to invade Iraq, there was (and is, since Clinton has yet to acknowledge her war vote for what it was) a non-trivial disagreement.

There is no mention of the fact that Obama has *always* been critical of NAFTA, whereas Clinton's stance toward the treaty, like so many of her other stances, sways with the political wind. Another disagreement.

So what moral or bit of insight are we supposed to draw from this post?

Posted by wj | March 7, 2008 3:54 PM

Ms. Powers typifies the Obama campaign. Ultra cool, uber liberal, egghead on the surface, vicious gutter rat with trucker's mouth once you scratch that surface in the slightest.

I think the pressure of all the phoniness gets to these Not Ready For Prime Time Players, and as soon as they leave The Compound, they feel compelled to run off their potty mouths in foreign locales.

Perhaps they think that by revealing their true selves in places where the locals speak strange languages like Scottish or Canadian, no one will bother to translate for the suckers back home.

Posted by robert ethan | March 7, 2008 4:06 PM

Who is this "Sam Powers" everyone is talking about? She sure looks a lot like Samantha Power.

Posted by John Althouse Cohen | March 7, 2008 4:09 PM

Only when she medicates to reduce her off the chart testosterone level, Althouse.

Posted by robert ethan | March 7, 2008 4:17 PM

"She's a monster"

Of course she's not a monster. No more so than say "Sybil" was a monster. One day she's Peaches, the next "Lady Macbeth". What else is new. Well, what is new, is that I for one used to admire the Clinton"s. Not even a little any more. It is becoming clear that if they (Clinton's) can't get back the White House, no other dem will. The desperate tactic of using GOP smears on your dem opponent is just ugly and self serving and won't get my vote, even if she manages to weasel the nomination.

Posted by nightjar | March 7, 2008 4:52 PM

In other words: what Obama promises now really doesn't matter.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 7, 2008 4:58 PM

So, here we have another Obama advisor, this time on national defense, last time it was on economic policy, clearly saying that whatever Obama says in his campaign is just rhetoric and not to be taken seriously by foreigners.

Hasn't that been the problem with Obama all along? That he really is all talk and no action?

Posted by ken | March 7, 2008 5:26 PM

"Ms. Powers typifies the Obama campaign. Ultra cool, uber liberal, egghead on the surface, vicious gutter rat with trucker's mouth once you scratch that surface in the slightest."

No need to insult truckers. Truckers have far more class than do Obama supporters. We should leave them out of it.

Posted by ken | March 7, 2008 5:29 PM

If S Power hadn't made the last remark on the clip, you might have an argument. He has said, I believe, that any withdrawal plan would have to be done in 2009 and would need to be done safely first, for the troops, and in consultation with commanders on the ground to be done as quickly and safely as possible.

I guess for some people this needs to be spelled out
for them to grasp. What she said was perfectly appropriate. And the whole Canadian what was said thing on Nafta is disputed by none other than the Canadian government.

If you want to find flip flops, both Mccain and Clinton are way ahead of any Obama allegedly has.

Posted by nightjar | March 7, 2008 5:41 PM

Kevin,

I'm not just sweating it because I think what's going on hurts Obama's chances. I'm sweating it because I think a very real possibility is that by the time Obama does get the nomination, it won't be worth having. I'm also sweating it because --- because it's just depressing to have our politics veer back into the mud. It's depressing to live in a world where every comment is available to be twisted and spun for political advantage. It's depressing to watch campaign coverage that reports a lot of those twists and spins at face value.

It's politics as usual. It's the reason so many of us are cynical. It's the reason so many of us are alienated.

And. she's. not. going. to. stop.

Posted by Maggie | March 7, 2008 6:04 PM

Mark, where the hell do you get off?

learn that withdrawing rapidly from Iraq would be untenable and dangerous and would -- will -- revise their campaign pledges of a brigade per month

I can't believe your chutzpah. I mean, I absolutely can't believe it. You rightly acknowledge that you're not willing to make predictions about such trivial things as delegate seatings in Florida - something which is *dead center in your field of expertise! as a political junkie, because you're so likely to be wrong. But, with zero evidence, you breathtakingly declare that Obama is obviously lying about the most focused point of his whole campaign.

Only you can't accuse him honestly of lying about a promise about what he'll do when he's elected when he hasn't been elected yet. You're predicting that he's going to be a liar, and presenting it as acknowledged fact. That's your opinion. Your shallow, offensive, and slanderous. Also, you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about.

If you want to go be a conservative mouthpiece, that please do, but stop advertising yourself as non-partisan horserace analyst. You sound like Michelle Malkin. Either that, or stick to peddling Clinton's smears, rather than inventing your own.

Posted by glasnost | March 7, 2008 8:26 PM

But, with zero evidence, you breathtakingly declare that Obama is obviously lying about the most focused point of his whole campaign.

Actually, it wasn't Marc, it was Samantha Power.

If you listen closely to the candidate himself, you'll hear the sound of him carving out some wiggle room. Oddly enough, even he's not 100% immune to reality, and, if he does become president, he's not going to follow a campaign promise blindly if it's main result would be to take sole ownership of a true catastrophe - not the exaggerated and alarmist criticisms of a somewhat difficult occupation, but a massive human and political tragedy that would be the predicate for 25 years of "who lost the Middle East?" recriminations, and quite possibly a real war that would make the last few years look like what they have in fact been from the US perspective - in historical terms a relatively minor engagement on the military side.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 7, 2008 10:34 PM

Powers at the end of the interview: "What we can take seriously is that he will get forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible."

The Obama campaign should point to that comment, remind reporters it's precisely what Obama says on his stump, and tell reporters that because the Clinton campaign is losing and getting desperate they have resorted to dishonesty and are presenting Ms. Power's remarks out of context.

Posted by Joseph | March 7, 2008 10:43 PM

What we can take seriously is that he will get forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible.

Neither George Bush, John McCain, nor David Petraeus could or would make exactly the same commitment. It's relatively content-free.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 7, 2008 11:57 PM

Oops! Hit the post tab too soon!

Ahem...

Neither George Bush, John McCain, nor David Petraeus could or would make any different commitment. It's relatively content-free.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 7, 2008 11:59 PM

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
- John Maynard Keynes

Clinton is being as foolish and delusional in this attack as when she claims the U.S. should take a 'time-out' on trade. (To which Obama pointed out the obvious: the rest of the world won't.)

Posted by Tom J | March 8, 2008 8:53 AM

**We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.** Barack Obama stump speech from day one.

Apparently when adults speak the media goes into a frenzy.

Sad.

Perhaps the first thing President Obama can do is put some integrity into the national media. That would go a long way further than any other initiative to getting us good and accountable government.

Posted by G Davis | March 8, 2008 3:59 PM

not the exaggerated and alarmist criticisms of a somewhat difficult occupation,

I wonder what the half-million dead Iraqis - roughly equivalent to the "much exaggerated" Darfur genocide think of your evaluation.

but a massive human and political tragedy that would be the predicate for 25 years of "who lost the Middle East?" recriminations, and quite possibly a real war that would make the last few years look like what they have in fact been from the US perspective - in historical terms a relatively minor engagement on the military side.

Oh, wait. So 3000 US KIA's, $2 trillion dollars, and 500,000 dead Iraqis is "somewhat difficult", but when we leave, there will be a "massive human and political tragedy".

So, by massive human tragedy, are you predicting *more* than 500K more dead Iraqis? As for the 'political tragedy', that means, the humiliation Bush Republicans feel when their idiotic policies are repudiated to an even greater extent than they already have been. "Political tragedy" = "excuse me, if you improve upon my mess, it makes me look bad."

Posted by glasnost | March 8, 2008 6:23 PM

"who lost the Middle East?"

Memo from reality to you: We "lost" the middle east decades ago. And if we hadn't already, your pet invasion buried the coffin a few miles deeper into the mineshaft. Someday, I'll see one poll, just one, where a popular majority of any Middle Eastern country approves of the US invasion or the US presence, and then I'll give your bullsh*t two seconds of thought, but if you want to lose the middle east, the love Child of Leonardo DaVinci and Vince Lombardi couldn't have drawn you a better game plan than the past eight years.

Posted by glasnost | March 8, 2008 6:29 PM