Obama Breaks with Democratic Party Orthodoxy

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Obama's Terrorism Speech: Another Break
With Democratic Party Orthodoxy</font size></center>


Huffington Post
Thomas B Edsall
August 1, 2007 11:14 PM

Barack Obama's August 1 speech outlining an aggressive anti-terrorist policy is part of the Illinois Senator's larger campaign strategy, demonstrating his willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy -- defying teachers' unions, proponents of racially based affirmative action, and Democratic constituencies wary of the use of force.

Obama, the first African American with a serious shot at winning the Democratic presidential nomination, warned in his Washington address today at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that as president he would be willing to unilaterally attack al Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.... There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

In his speech Obama sought to affirm his credentials as a prospective Commander in Chief who would not only end the war in Iraq, but who would also aggressively mount an offensive against Islamic terrorists.

His posture provoked immediate criticism from some quarters.

Chris Bowers, a blogger who writes on Open Left, argues that Obama is mistakenly trying to win the approval of the Washington establishment:

"No Democrat running for President tells the country that he will deploy more troops to Afghanistan and conduct military strikes in Pakistan without Pakistan's approval in order to appeal to the primary electorate."

In a Wednesday interview with American Urban Radio News Networks, Hillary Clinton adopted a similar position to Obama's on unilateral attacks within Pakistan's borders, but with more cautious rhetoric.

"We have to have a much smarter relationship with Pakistan and the military of Pakistan to build credibility and support for their taking the actions that only they can take within their own country. But clearly we have to be prepared.... if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

Although little noticed, Obama has been challenging influential Democratic primary constituencies at a rate of about once a month, building what now is a significant record of dissent from key party factions. He has taken on civil rights groups, the National Education Association, and the powerful lobby opposed to any changes in Social Security benefits.

Appearing May 13 on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Obama suggested that he is prepared to consider a major alteration of affirmative action policy to make it less racially based and more economically rooted:

"My daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged," he said. "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

In the same May 13 interview, Obama said he would consider raising both the retirement age and payroll taxes as part of a package to put Social Security on a stable fiscal basis. "Everything should be on the table," Obama said, although he rules out privatization.

A month later, in a June 7 talk at a Spartanburg, South Carolina Baptist Church, Obama pointedly challenged black men who abandon their children:

"There are a lot of men out there who need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; you need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one,"

And in Philadelphia, at a July 5 National Education Association meeting, Obama endorsed merit pay -- anathema to teachers' unions. "If you excel at helping your students achieve success, your success will be valued and rewarded as well," Obama said, careful to add, "I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it to you, I'm going to do it with you."

In some respects, Obama's controversial stands are reminiscent of the 1992 campaign. That year Bill Clinton took on Jesse Jackson, criticizing rapper ("If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?") Sister Souljah, a guest of Jackson's at a Rainbow Coalition meeting. Clinton sought to distance himself from radical currents in the African American community, and the event became known as Clinton's "Sister Souljah moment."

Obama is similarly seeking to establish his political independence from Democratic party interest groups, refuting stereotypes which might encumber his candidacy.

Obama has had unprecedented success in the campaign so far. Despite Hillary Clinton's institutional and organizational advantage, Obama has moved from running 20-plus points behind Clinton at the start of the year to a current deficit of only 12 to 13 points, compared to John Edwards' 18 points lag behind Clinton today.

If nothing else, Obama's speech Wednesday has shaped the entire Democratic presidential debate for at least one news cycle, prompting every major candidate, and some minor ones, to comment on it. Whether Obama succeeded in changing his polling numbers remains to be seen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html

 

[bromack1]

<font size="5"><center>Obama's Terrorism Speech: Another Break
With Democratic Party Orthodoxy</font size></center>


Huffington Post
Thomas B Edsall
August 1, 2007 11:14 PM

Barack Obama's August 1 speech outlining an aggressive anti-terrorist policy is part of the Illinois Senator's larger campaign strategy, demonstrating his willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy -- defying teachers' unions, proponents of racially based affirmative action, and Democratic constituencies wary of the use of force.

Obama, the first African American with a serious shot at winning the Democratic presidential nomination, warned in his Washington address today at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that as president he would be willing to unilaterally attack al Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.... There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

In his speech Obama sought to affirm his credentials as a prospective Commander in Chief who would not only end the war in Iraq, but who would also aggressively mount an offensive against Islamic terrorists.

His posture provoked immediate criticism from some quarters.

Chris Bowers, a blogger who writes on Open Left, argues that Obama is mistakenly trying to win the approval of the Washington establishment:

"No Democrat running for President tells the country that he will deploy more troops to Afghanistan and conduct military strikes in Pakistan without Pakistan's approval in order to appeal to the primary electorate."

In a Wednesday interview with American Urban Radio News Networks, Hillary Clinton adopted a similar position to Obama's on unilateral attacks within Pakistan's borders, but with more cautious rhetoric.

"We have to have a much smarter relationship with Pakistan and the military of Pakistan to build credibility and support for their taking the actions that only they can take within their own country. But clearly we have to be prepared.... if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured."

Although little noticed, Obama has been challenging influential Democratic primary constituencies at a rate of about once a month, building what now is a significant record of dissent from key party factions. He has taken on civil rights groups, the National Education Association, and the powerful lobby opposed to any changes in Social Security benefits.

Appearing May 13 on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Obama suggested that he is prepared to consider a major alteration of affirmative action policy to make it less racially based and more economically rooted:

"My daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged," he said. "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

In the same May 13 interview, Obama said he would consider raising both the retirement age and payroll taxes as part of a package to put Social Security on a stable fiscal basis. "Everything should be on the table," Obama said, although he rules out privatization.

A month later, in a June 7 talk at a Spartanburg, South Carolina Baptist Church, Obama pointedly challenged black men who abandon their children:

"There are a lot of men out there who need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; you need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one,"

And in Philadelphia, at a July 5 National Education Association meeting, Obama endorsed merit pay -- anathema to teachers' unions. "If you excel at helping your students achieve success, your success will be valued and rewarded as well," Obama said, careful to add, "I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it to you, I'm going to do it with you."

In some respects, Obama's controversial stands are reminiscent of the 1992 campaign. That year Bill Clinton took on Jesse Jackson, criticizing rapper ("If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?") Sister Souljah, a guest of Jackson's at a Rainbow Coalition meeting. Clinton sought to distance himself from radical currents in the African American community, and the event became known as Clinton's "Sister Souljah moment."

Obama is similarly seeking to establish his political independence from Democratic party interest groups, refuting stereotypes which might encumber his candidacy.

Obama has had unprecedented success in the campaign so far. Despite Hillary Clinton's institutional and organizational advantage, Obama has moved from running 20-plus points behind Clinton at the start of the year to a current deficit of only 12 to 13 points, compared to John Edwards' 18 points lag behind Clinton today.

If nothing else, Obama's speech Wednesday has shaped the entire Democratic presidential debate for at least one news cycle, prompting every major candidate, and some minor ones, to comment on it. Whether Obama succeeded in changing his polling numbers remains to be seen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html

I'm still undecided... but he's startin to get my ear a little.... the man is showin he's got real balls and not glass ones.....

 

[QueEx]

Bromack,

I agree with you. I think what he's doing is showing he's middle America. A little
something from the left, something from the right, but without the extremes of
either. More and more, my kind of candidate.

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

nothing but politics...

Obama needs to choose his words carefully, because the media will make him look like an idiot.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments</font size></center>

By MUNIR AHMAD
The Associated Press
Friday, August 3, 2007; 6:02 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror.

Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al-Qaida havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al-Qaida has been given space to regroup.

In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.

It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.

Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080300321.html

 

[QueEx]

nothing but politics...

He's a politician, isn't he?

Obama needs to choose his words carefully, because the media will make him look like an idiot.

Let him speak. People need to know what he and any other candidate thinks. The media doesn't make idiots - idiots make idiots. The media only exposes idiots. If Obama is an idiot, I want to know. Let him speak.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Hooray for Hypotheticals</font size><font size="4">
Obama doesn't dodge "what if" questions. Good for him!</font size></center>

Slate
By John Dickerson
Thursday, Aug. 2, 2007

To hide the fact that they're hiding something, candidates elevate their refusal to a virtue. "One of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues," Hillary Clinton said to a hypothetical question about sending ground troops to Darfur. "And I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms." Two days later, Mitt Romney cried hypothetical when asked in a debate whether, in hindsight, going to war in Iraq was a mistake. To give the dodge extra weight, he criticized the question in Latin (calling it a "non sequitur"), on fairness grounds (saying it was "unreasonable"), and, finally, mathematically (labeling it a "null set"), as if to suggest there was some immutable arithmetic law that made entertaining the whole notion absurd.

These were not personal questions, such as the hypothetical posed to Michael Dukakis in 1988 about whether he would support the death penalty for a man who murdered his wife. Nor were they the late-night stoned variety of hypothetical. When someone asks a candidate what super power he'd most like to have, or whether Bruce Lee would win a fight with Muhammad Ali, then we can cry foul. The hypotheticals that candidates have been avoiding are the interesting, substantive ones. Anyone running for president should have thought through those questions, and if they haven't, we should know about it.

Fortunately, one candidate is answering hypotheticals. For the last two weeks, the Democratic political conversation has been consumed with hypothetical questions. Last week, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton engaged in a multiday set-to over whether they would meet with nasty dictators. This week, Barack Obama doubled down on hypotheticals by raising his own hypothetical situation in his sweeping speech on foreign policy. If he found actionable intelligence about al-Qaida leaders hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan, he said he would send in troops whether the Pakistani government liked it or not. When asked the next day about using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said he never would use them.

Perhaps as a former law professor, Obama isn't afraid of these kinds of questions. Law school is nothing but hypotheticals. Or perhaps Obama is comfortable because his answer to the 2002 hypothetical about whether he would vote to authorize force against Iraq has worked to his political advantage. If he'd ducked then, he couldn't gloat now.

It's too early to tell if Obama is benefiting politically from all of this risky public thinking. Joe Biden has now joined Hillary Clinton in calling him naive (audio) for expressing his hypothetical views. Sen. Chris Dodd has called him "confusing and confused." And it must be said that there is a certain pileup quality to his hypothetical scenarios. He said he would attack al-Qaida targets in Pakistan even if President Gen. Pervez Musharraf didn't give his OK. That might very well unleash a backlash that would overthrow the Pakistani leader and put the country's nuclear arsenal in the hands of extremists. In an answer to a hypothetical in 2004, Obama said that eventuality would lead him to very seriously consider launching missiles.

But what might not be great for Obama politically is great for us, so we should thank him for taking the risk. These kinds of questions let us see how candidates' minds work, glimpse at their capacity for imagination, and assess their ability to survey and understand the landscape before them.

We've all been asked to imagine how these candidates will behave in office—the grandest hypothetical of them all. It's only reasonable to ask that they imagine it, too. Hypothetical questions are a fundamental part of being president. You need to know how to pose them to your colleagues and have the set of skills necessary to answer them. They are required in thinking through almost any issue that faces a president. If I make this promise or pledge, what will the reaction be from the public, our allies, and Congress? If I change the program, how will that change the reaction? If my CIA director says it's a slam dunk that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, how many hours will I spend thinking through the hypothetical: What if it isn't a slam dunk?

Perhaps the greatest argument for insisting that candidates answer hypothetical questions is that George Bush hates them. He refused to entertain most plausible scenarios as a candidate. As president, the dodge is like his seal of office: He brings it to every press conference. The irony, of course, is that Bush launched an entire war based on the hypothetical scenario that al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein might form a partnership. In the end, the weapons stockpiles turned out to be hypothetical, too. "That's a hypothetical question," Bush said, answering a typical question from before the Iraq war about what the American people should expect. "They can expect me not to answer hypothetical questions." Of the next president, the American people should expect just the opposite.

http://www.slate.com/id/2171610/nav/tap3/
Posted Thursday, Aug. 2, 2007, at 6:42 PM ET

 

[actinanass]

He's a politician, isn't he?


Let him speak. People need to know what he and any other candidate thinks. The media doesn't make idiots - idiots make idiots. The media only exposes idiots. If Obama is an idiot, I want to know. Let him speak.

QueEx

1. thus why I said that.

2. see I'm in a catch 22. From one end, I really don't care because I don't believe Obama is the best BLACK candidate. However, on the other end, I don't want Obama to mess it up with lame brain political moves. Think about it, when my people actually get good, qualified African American presidential candidate, I don't wanna hear "will he mess up like Obama did in 08" one liner in the media. Make sense?

 

[QueEx]

2. see I'm in a catch 22. From one end, I really don't care because I don't believe Obama is the best BLACK candidate. However, on the other end, I don't want Obama to mess it up with lame brain political moves. Think about it, when my people actually get good, qualified African American presidential candidate, I don't wanna hear "will he mess up like Obama did in 08" one liner in the media. Make sense?

I understand what you're saying -- but you're carrying too heavy of a burden. Most of us (including me) cringe when one of us does something stupid -- because we tend to carry all of us on our shoulders. One problem with that is that we don't (as a people) always agree on what is one of those "Cringable" mistakes, i.e., the current flap over rap.

Some of us see that a lot of hip hop is detrimental to our community; on the other hand, some of us don't. Hence, hip hop, Black presidential candidates, like white candidates, etc., are just going to have to have their day and have their say. When they screw up, many of us will cringe but it won't be the end of the world. Cream tends to rise to the top and we can't be too afraid to let that happen -- worrying about a mistake.

QueEx

P.S. Obama IS the BEST Black candidate running for the presidency.

`

 

[Harvard Blu]

All bullshit aside, let's stop with the "qualified" issue. The double standard of whats applicable to black or whites being qualified or not is greatly perpetuated by us. Obama meets the minimum required by law to run for office. He is more than qualified by LAW.....and after this lamedick i mean lame duck anyone of us on BGOL could do better than he did. I fuks with Obama honestly. He is speaking the shit we have been saying in regards to terrorism...go after the real mothafukkas...none of this bullshit we wasting lives and money on in Iraq.

 

[QueEx]

I agree.

 

[actinanass]

I understand what you're saying -- but you're carrying too heavy of a burden. Most of us (including me) cringe when one of us does something stupid -- because we tend to carry all of us on our shoulders. One problem with that is that we don't (as a people) always agree on what is one of those "Cringable" mistakes, i.e., the current flap over rap.

Some of us see that a lot of hip hop is detrimental to our community; on the other hand, some of us don't. Hence, hip hop, Black presidential candidates, like white candidates, etc., are just going to have to have their day and have their say. When they screw up, many of us will cringe but it won't be the end of the world. Cream tends to rise to the top and we can't be too afraid to let that happen -- worrying about a mistake.

QueEx

P.S. Obama IS the BEST Black candidate running for the presidency.

`

personally, I don't think he is the best BLACK candidate.

Kinda a Colin Powell fan.....

Honestly, Obama is unelectable in my eyes.

 

[QueEx]

I hope you note that I said "running";
I too am a fan of Colin; and
It's a steep up-hill climb but, perhaps, not impossible for Obama.

 

[actinanass]

I hope you note that I said "running";
I too am a fan of Colin; and
It's a steep up-hill climb but, perhaps, not impossible for Obama.

If you are looking at str8 politics, Obama can't compete against Hilary. Obama is only getting a lot of recognition because he is likable, and he is new. I don't think Obama will make it out the primaries.

Another thing, this Pakistan comment will come to bite Obama in the ass in the long run. Just mark my words...

 

[QueEx]

You might be right; he may not survive the primaries -- but only ONE will.

I read an article yesterday that I started to post but the board was moving to slowly at the time: a poll had Obama either dead even with or just ahead of Hillary in Iowa -- (though we are still months away from its primary/caucus). So, who knows.

I strongly disagree with your statement that Obama can't compete with Hillary. If you haven't looked: HE IS!

Hillary knows a lot about underhandedness -- but there's no doubt in my military mind that the bitch knows she's in a hellava fight with this young, intelligent ass Black man. And ya know what? - she has to be getting a bit leerie having to continue countering some of the shit Obama has been saying -- because she has to be concerned that soon she will have to say things that start to turn off the negroes who have clung so tightly to her skirt tails.

In other words, in my opinion, (in boxing terms) Obama is pressing the fight, harder and harder. And, the more Hillary has to respond the more she's playing defense (no candidate wants to play defense in an election); the more likely she'll look a lot like Bush (a contradiction indeed; but she must go to the right because she can't go to the left as thats a losing position for the wannabe centrist); and the more likely she's going to say things that step on the negroes toes (and they won't get risk getting caught, eventually, on the wrong side of the fence).

I won't dare say Obama will win this thing. but in a lot of ways its his to lose (except he has no control over the white male, especially southern, vote).

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

1. the southern vote is more than likely going to the republican candidate. Other than Atlanta, and Louisiana, a lot of southern black folks would roll with who gives them the best chance to succeed. In 2000, for example, many middle to upper class African Americans voted for Bush in the south. *im thinking close to 55% in Texas alone*. What people don't know, there's a silent majority of African Americans that understand what the Democrats are doing. Therefore, they vote independently, or don't vote at all. Obama will have to show that he will *first* keep the tax cuts *which many democrats vow to stop*, *second* help the automobile industry *a lot of middle class Black folks work in this industry*, and finally allow our government to use more of our own natural resources *black people are sick of paying for high gas*.

2. Hilary haven't even touched her infinite media resources yet. Right now, they are letting Obama sound like a person who can actually compete with Hilary. It's all a plot to make Hilary seems like a "political warrior". I'm convince that this is why Obama said such things that started this topic. The only reason it seems that Hilary is being on the defensive is because she is playing the political "rope-a-dope*. Thats why I said, "Obama better use more knowledge in what he says, because them words might come back at him".

All it takes is one made up scandal to kill Obama's run. Hilary's camp is a mastermind of making up scandals. If you don't believe me, ask Bush...

 

[QueEx]

 

[QueEx]

 

[actinanass]

 

[Profit]

At the very least, this guy answers questions honestly. That is a huge plus even if he does some dumb shit. The Bush administration does dumb shit, lies about it, and then does more dumb shit to cover it up.

 

[thoughtone]

As time goes on Obama is demonstrating that there is nothing new or innovative about him. His statement about unilaterally attacking Pakistan sounds vaguely familiar. Isn’t this what the Bush regime did to Iraq? And look what a mess we are in now. The potential threat of attacks against us is greater now than ever. Just another excuse for the radical Muslims to say the US has something against Islam. I guess he has to placate the southern hawkish population in order to have a chance at being taken seriously, unfortunate in today’s political zeitgeist. Obama is actually a Blue Dog Democrat, favoring corporate control (his support of the bankruptcy bill). The problems we face are due to shift to the right in American politics over the last 25 years or so. Reagan’s slow dismemberment of the government (actually his incredible dept burden his administration heaped on the future generations) has driven those born after 1980 to see the world in selfish ways. At one point, being a person of African decent was an asset on the world political scene, due to the fact that most people around the world could identify with the non-European aspect of America’s oppressed (Muhammad Ali’s popularity). Now many African American politicians are becoming indistinguishable from white politicians. The argument Black republican use is don’t support someone just because they are Black, now they say support Obama because he is a Democrat and he his Black. I have not made up my mind as of yet, but if I have a candidates that has similar ideas, I will support someone that is looks more like me.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Debate's "brightest moment"? Few media
note that even while attacking Obama,
Romney and Giuliani agreed on substance</font size></center>

Media Matters
August 6, 2006

In covering the August 5 Republican presidential debate on ABC's This Week, many print media outlets reported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's attack -- in what the Associated Press' Mike Glover referred to as one of the debate's "brightest moments" -- on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) recent foreign policy statements: "n one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies.

I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." Romney was referring to Obama's statement in an August 1 speech that "f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Giuliani also criticized Obama, claiming that Obama "didn't express" his comments "the right way," adding: "I think the senator, if he could just say it over again, might want to say that we would encourage Musharraf to allow us to do it if we thought he couldn't accomplish it."

But in no case did these reports note, as debate moderator George Stephanopoulos did, that when Giuliani was asked about Obama's comments on the day of the speech, he did not criticize Obama, but rather echoed his position: "[W]ould that be an option that's on the table, which is we have a chance to catch in Laden and we have got to do it ourselves because we're not sure if somebody is going to do it correctly -- yeah, I think I would take that option." And, in several cases, the media outlets did not report that even amid their criticism, both Romney and Giuliani affirmed during the debate that they would retain the option of acting against Osama bin Laden over Pakistan's objections, if necessary.

Romney attacked Obama's foreign policy statements early in the debate, at which point Stephanopoulos said they would return to the topic:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, are you and Mayor Giuliani and Senator [John] McCain [R-AZ] all in the same place right now on Iraq?

ROMNEY: I think we're pretty much in the same place. It is critical for us to win this conflict. It is essential, and that's why we are going to continue to pursue this effort, and we're going to get a report from General [David] Petraeus on the success, and I agree that the Brookings Institution report over the weekend was a very encouraging indication that we're making progress. That's great news.

At the same time, you look at that Democratic debate -- I had to laugh at what I saw Barack Obama do. I mean, in one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to get to that.​

Stephanopoulos later challenged Giuliani's criticism of Obama's August 1 statements, noting that Giuliani had also said that he would retain the option of going into Pakistan over Musharraf's objections:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, you said you didn't agree with Obama's plan. You called it ill-timed and ill-considered. Mayor Giuliani, on Charlie Rose the other night, you said, "I would take that option." Why don't you guys take two minutes and debate this issue out.

GIULIANI: Well, I believe -- I believe that that is an option that should remain open. I think the senator didn't express it the right way. I think the senator, if he could say it over again, might want to say that we would encourage Musharraf to allow us to do it if we thought he couldn't accomplish it. But the reality is America should not take --

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if he said no, you'd go in.

GIULIANI: I didn't say we'd go in, I said I wouldn't take that option off the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, well, you actually said, "I would take that option."

GIULIANI: I said I would keep that option open.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you said --

GIULIANI: In any event --

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- "If we had a chance to take bin Laden, we've got to do it ourselves, because we're not sure if someone else is going to do it correctly. Yeah, I think I would take that option."

GIULIANI: Well, I would take that option if I thought there was no other way to crush Al Qaeda, no other way to crush the Taliban, and no other way to be able to capture bin Laden.​

Romney followed Giuliani by stressing that "America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America," but simultaneously criticized Obama for articulating the option he had just said must remain on the table:

ROMNEY: It's wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say "we're going to go into your country unilaterally." Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don't go out and say: "Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn't think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get 'em out." We don't say those things. We keep our options quiet. We do not go out and say to a nation which is working with us, where we've collaborated and they are our friend and we're trying to support Musharraf and strengthen him and his nation, that instead that we intend to go in there and potentially bring out a unilateral attack.​

The New York Times reported on August 6 that "oth Mr. Romney and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Giuliani criticized Mr. Obama for a speech in which he threatened to send American troops into Pakistan without that nation's approval," adding: "But later, under questioning, both said that as president they would keep open that very option, although they said Mr. Obama had been imprudent to raise the prospect of invading an ally."

But other print outlets reporting on the Republicans' attacks left out the key fact that both Giuliani and Romney had acknowledged agreeing that the United States should retain the option to act against bin Laden in Pakistan over Musharraf's objections. An August 6 USA Today article reported that "Romney and Giuliani criticized Democratic contender Barack Obama for publicly threatening to take unilateral military action in Pakistan against al-Qaeda targets if the Musharraf regime refused to act." The article quoted Romney's attack, but omitted his and Giuliani's later comments:

Romney and Giuliani criticized Democratic contender Barack Obama for publicly threatening to take unilateral military action in Pakistan against al-Qaeda targets if the Musharraf regime refused to act. At a Democratic debate nearly two weeks earlier, the Illinois senator also said he was willing to sit down with such U.S. foes as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

"In one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," Romney said. "He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

Also participating in the debate were U.S. representatives Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and former governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin.​

An August 6 Los Angeles Times article noted that Giuliani criticized Obama despite "agree[ing] that taking on Al Qaeda unilaterally in Pakistan was 'an option that should remain open.' " The article also quoted Romney's attack on Obama, but did not note his later comments:

There were other barbed moments. Romney fired a well-rehearsed line about Obama's recent remarks that he would consider meeting with several notorious dictators and that he might take action against Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan without approval from that nation's leader.

"In one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," Romney mocked. "I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

Obama's campaign was quick to return fire to Romney's riff.

"The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

[...]

Referring to last week's devastating bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the GOP rivals found common ground in insisting that increased private investment from cutting taxes would provide more money to repair the nation's failing infrastructure. And they teamed up in turning their aim at the Democratic Party's presidential field.

Though Giuliani agreed that taking on Al Qaeda unilaterally in Pakistan was "an option that should remain open," he said Obama "didn't express it the right way."​

An August 5 Associated Press article reported just Romney's attack:

Romney, too, was eager to criticize Democrats. His chosen target was Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who said recently he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran in his first year in office, and declared in a speech he would order military action to capture terrorists in Pakistan if that nation's president did not.

"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," said Romney. "I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

Obama's campaign spokesman responded promptly. "Before he makes more false accusations, Mitt Romney should tell us why he believes we should keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of someone else's civil war but not take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights," said Bill Burton.

Giuliani provided a rare moment of laughter, dodging a question about the defining mistake of his life with a quip.​

A separate August 5 Associated Press "analysis" of the debate also left out any mention Romney's and Giuliani's positions on Pakistan, instead describing Romney's attack on Obama as one of the "brightest moments of the debate" and "[p]otentially the most memorable line":

The brightest moments of the debate may have taken place when the candidates turned their fire toward their Democratic counterparts. Potentially the most memorable line came when Romney attacked Democrat Barack Obama for first suggesting he would talk to hostile foreign leaders and then raising the potential of going into Pakistan to root out terrorists.

"He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week," said Romney.

That assault cheered some strategists who said it could mark the beginning of a phase where GOP candidates go on the offensive.​

The Washington Post noted just Romney's attacks in its August 6 article:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), in particular, was singled out for saying last week that he would act against terrorists in Pakistan without the support of its president. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney contrasted those comments with Obama's remark during a recent debate that he would be willing to meet with all foreign leaders.

"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," Romney said. "He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, quickly responded that "the fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy."

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani sparked loud applause when he declared that "the knee-jerk liberal Democratic reaction -- raise taxes to get money -- very often is a very big mistake." And Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) declared his disappointment in the Democratic push to end the war in Iraq.​

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708060007?f=h_latest

 

[QueEx]

As time goes on Obama is demonstrating that there is nothing new or innovative about him. His statement about unilaterally attacking Pakistan sounds vaguely familiar. Isn’t this what the Bush regime did to Iraq? And look what a mess we are in now.

Is that because you're a liberal purest? Do you simply toss out everything else that Obama has said that many conclude are 'rather different' because he said something, just one lil ole thing, that G.W. might also agree with? As much as I disagree with Bush's handling of things, he can get something right, though I think he's fucked-up the majority of things.

Does your candidate have to pass the 100% Liberal Test ???
If so, aren't you asking too much? - since its unlikely that
Che Guevara will be resurrected in time for the 08 election.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Obama is outflanking rivals on the left and right</font size></center>

By David Ignatius
Daily Star (Lebanon)
Thursday, August 23, 2007

Senator Barack Obama is getting polite applause at best when he tells the delegates at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City, Missouri, this week that in running for president, "I know I am running for commander in chief." And then he tries to convince this intensely skeptical audience that he's the right man for the job.

Obama reminds them he opposed the war in Iraq, even though most of the delegates doubtless supported it. He lauds the soldiers fighting there even as he criticizes the civilians of the Bush administration who have managed the war. He says we have "no good options in Iraq," and that the US must be careful about how it withdraws. He warns that when a president sends soldiers to war next time, the country must be united enough to sustain the fight.

The vets certainly aren't cheering wildly when Obama is done, but to judge from the dozens who rush up to meet him, he seems to have reassured this conservative audience that he's not a left-wing devil. When a local reporter asks him if he's surprised by the "warm response" he got, Obama displays the almost eerie self-confidence that has marked his rise as a candidate.

Obama has indisputable star power. Travel with him on the campaign trail and you see the high-voltage connection he can establish with people. When he walks through a hotel lobby or jumps out of his motorcade in shirtsleeves to greet an impromptu crowd, the persona is closer to a rock star than a typical politician. And for all the loose talk about whether Obama is "black enough," I saw many dozens of African-Americans here crowd around him with obvious pride and passion.

What Obama is now attempting is to translate this charisma into a serious political movement - one that would allow him not simply to win the Democratic nomination but to govern effectively as president. He is putting special emphasis on defense and foreign policy, where

voters have often mistrusted Democrats to protect the country. And as he did in his Kansas City speech, he's putting more substance into his pitch than candidates often do.

Indeed, you can argue that over the past month, Obama has been shaping the foreign policy debate for the Democrats - and getting the best of the arguments. By last Sunday's televised debate in Iowa, nobody else seemed eager to challenge Obama's postulate that "strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries." And there was little repetition, either, of the tut-tutting that greeted his statement that he would be prepared to go after Al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, with or without President Musharraf's blessing.

Senator Hillary Clinton's stance has been more cautious, seeking to convey a general but vaguely defined sense that her toughness and experience would make her a strong president. Obama is taking the opposite tack.

Obama added some new (and potentially controversial) foreign policy details in an interview Tuesday afternoon, before he hopped a plane for his next stop in New Hampshire. He said he expects there will still be American troops in Iraq when the next president takes office, and he is discussing now with his advisers how this residual force should be used. "For getting out in an orderly way, withdrawing one to two brigades a month is realistic," he said. With 20 combat brigades currently in Iraq, that would imply a withdrawal schedule of at least a year.

So what should the remaining troops do? Obama says he would support keeping US forces in and around Iraq for protection of American personnel there, for counterterrorist operations against Al-Qaeda, for protecting Iraq's borders, and perhaps for continued training of Iraq's military if that country's political situation permits. He also said US troops should be available to help stop any future "bloodbath" in Iraq, but only as part of a wider international effort.

And what of diplomatic contacts with America's adversaries, such as Iran? Obama said he would talk to Iranian leaders about stabilizing Iraq, where he says they have a common interest, about halting Iranian terrorist activities in Iraq, and about the Iranian nuclear program. He said he would make suspension of nuclear enrichment by Iran a topic for discussions, rather than a precondition as it is for the Bush administration.

Obama is deftly managing to outflank his Democratic rivals on both the left and right on key foreign policy issues. That may be a piece of political opportunism on his part, but a top Obama adviser gives it a different spin, which may reveal the essence of the man: "He is totally pragmatic. He asks what would work and what wouldn't."


Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=84708#

 

[thoughtone]

personally, I don't think he is the best BLACK candidate.

Kinda a Colin Powell fan.....

Honestly, Obama is unelectable in my eyes.

What qualifies Powell for President, because he was a general? You see what a fool he made of himself with his presentation to the UN for justification of the Iraqi invasion. Unfortunately, he is forever linked to the Bush regime and his credibly will always be in question, due to his loyalty. Ulysses Grant was a General and he was arguable the worst President of all time. Don't get me wrong, Eisenhower was a general and I feel he did a good job considering the racial and political climate of the country during the 1950s. The right seems to think that bringing up Jesus and abortion qualifies you to be President of the United States. That qualifies you to have a congregation on Sunday, not lead a democratic country.

 

[thoughtone]

Is that because you're a liberal purest? Do you simply toss out everything else that Obama has said that many conclude are 'rather different' because he said something, just one lil ole thing, that G.W. might also agree with? As much as I disagree with Bush's handling of things, he can get something right, though I think he's fucked-up the majority of things.

Does your candidate have to pass the 100% Liberal Test ???
If so, aren't you asking too much? - since its unlikely that
Che Guevara will be resurrected in time for the 08 election.

QueEx

This is incredible, the kettle calling the pot black. I am not a “liberal purest” (that’s a new one from the GOP talking points book). Try getting a republican elected for President that doesn’t tow the abortion or religious line. How many federal judges appointed by republican presidents that are not members of the Federalist Society. There are certain things that a candidate will reveal about themselves that can lead to how they will conduct policy. Obama’s support of the bankruptcy law tells me he would favor corporation’s “rights” over consumer rights, or he was influenced by some money that was thrown his way. I haven’t written him off, but I don’t like that aspect of him.

 

[QueEx]

Don't get testy when someone pricks your liberal sensibilities. LOL.

You remind me of another poster, actinanass, who likes so much to oversimply and cast everything by using useless pigeon holes: conservative and liberal; democrat and republican. He simply bats right-handed (republican), while you bat left-handed (democrat) -- but you both seem to have the same hitting philosophy: strikes (reasonable positions) are only thrown by left or right <s>winged</s> handed pitchers. Hence, with you, anything I say contrary to your thinking makes me, as you pointed out above, a republican. Funny thing, actinanass does the exact same thing, except, to him I'm a democrat.

My point to you above: You're not going to get a democrat elected president that embodies all of your leftist agenda. On the other hand, right-wing nuts will never see Pat Robertson's ass sitting in the big house either, except, perhaps, for dinner or other influence peddling. THE REASON - those who tend to be the "Deciders" . . . those towards the middle, tend not to vote for either of the extremists. In fact, they tend to have values that borrow a little from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Don't get testy when someone pricks your liberal sensibilities. LOL.

You remind me of another poster, actinanass, who likes so much to oversimply and cast everything by using useless pigeon holes: conservative and liberal; democrat and republican. He simply bats right-handed (republican), while you bat left-handed (democrat) -- but you both seem to have the same hitting philosophy: strikes (reasonable positions) are only thrown by left or right <s>winged</s> handed pitchers. Hence, with you, anything I say contrary to your thinking makes me, as you pointed out above, a republican. Funny thing, actinanass does the exact same thing, except, to him I'm a democrat.

My point to you above: You're not going to get a democrat elected president that embodies all of your leftist agenda. On the other hand, right-wing nuts will never see Pat Robertson's ass sitting in the big house either, except, perhaps, for dinner or other influence peddling. THE REASON - those who tend to be the "Deciders" . . . those towards the middle, tend not to vote for either of the extremists. In fact, they tend to have values that borrow a little from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide.

QueEx

OK, you got your wing nut attack gibberish off your chest (Faux News confrontational). Bottom line (your tag line), a candidate has a record. If you don’t want to believe their record, that’s your business. I think it is naive, but that’s your choice. Now I understand why you still give Bush credence.

 

[QueEx]

Reading is Fundamental; and comprehension is Golden.

 

[thoughtone]

Reading is Fundamental; and comprehension is Golden.

Today’s republican political IQ, all personal attack and no substance. Could that be why we are so successful in Iraq?

 

[QueEx]

Today’s republican political IQ, all personal attack and no substance. Could that be why we are so successful in Iraq?

Man, you and those "Labels." You avoided the issue though: You're not going to get a democrat elected president that embodies all of your leftist agenda. On the other hand, right-wing nuts will never see Pat Robertson's ass sitting in the big house either, except, perhaps, for dinner or other influence peddling. THE REASON - those who tend to be the "Deciders" . . . those towards the middle, tend not to vote for either of the extremists. In fact, they tend to have values that borrow a little from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide.

Now, if you don't SEE the point, I understand and I'll be happy to expound. Otherwise, I'll just have to assume you're stuck on stupid.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Man, you and those "Labels." You avoided the issue though: You're not going to get a democrat elected president that embodies all of your leftist agenda. On the other hand, right-wing nuts will never see Pat Robertson's ass sitting in the big house either, except, perhaps, for dinner or other influence peddling. THE REASON - those who tend to be the "Deciders" . . . those towards the middle, tend not to vote for either of the extremists. In fact, they tend to have values that borrow a little from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide.

Now, if you don't SEE the point, I understand and I'll be happy to expound. Otherwise, I'll just have to assume you're stuck on stupid.

QueEx

It's been said if you can't argue a point, insult. You are so caught up in your own rhetoric you can't reason. Quote where I said that I will "get a democrat elected president that embodies all of your leftist agenda.." I said "Obama’s support of the bankruptcy law tells me he would favor corporation’s “rights” over consumer rights, or he was influenced by some money that was thrown his way. `I haven’t written him off, but I don’t like that aspect of him." You try to demonize the term “leftist agenda” It won't work with me. The right has fucked up America. Iraq, the economy, race relations, International relations, you name it. And as far as the so called “middle” is concerned, as I have stated earlier, the political landscape has shifted so far to the right over the last 30 years or so, the perceived political middle is actually rather right. I can’t worry about how the “deciders” will vote (you say I accuse you of supporting GW, yet you constantly use the GOP buzz words). We have compromised our votes for far too long. I trust my own judgment. If you are happy with the status quo, more power to you. The world is not like it was when we could dominate, bully and awe the world in to submission. Corporations have too mush power and influence in today’s society. They are the new race baiters. I will vote support a candidate that shares those values, or at least most of them.

 

[BlackMike313]

"If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?")

 

[QueEx]

"If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?")

Better still, put the killing aside for the moment, and let us hear your ideas on bettering our condition, without the violence.

Consider yourself challenged.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

"If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?")

OK, after you kill all of the white people, what next?