There was a comment from Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Apr22, 07) recently that knocked my socks off and I just have to repeat.
On the "tell me something I don't know" segment, Fineman claimed that Obama was talking to Colin Powell about foreign policy. He rightly views this as his Achilles heel, and he is asking a well respected elder statesman for advice. It matters greatly that this stateman is a (possibly former) Republican. If he gets Powell's endorsement, this could shake up the campaign. I have yet to read any confirmation of this buzz. Anyone want to comment?
Monday, April 30, 2007
SC Democratic Debate
Some quick notes on the first Democratic debate at South Carolina State.
Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.
Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.
Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.
Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.
Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.
Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.
Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.
This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...
Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.
Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.
Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.
Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.
Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.
Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.
Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.
Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.
This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...
Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Big Picture in Iraq
There is an undercurrent in the present Iraq debate that is dishonest and bares exposure, and I feel that I must comment on it.
So much has been spouted back and forth regarding 'victory or defeat', and an endless re-definition of why the war was fought in the first place and why we are still fighting it. Can we salvage victory? Can we turn this pile of crap into something that is less horribly disastrous for American prestige that it now seems to be? Hmmm. Really, Mr., and Mrs., politician? This is really what is occupying your brain? I doubt it.
What is clearly at the top of the agenda is so obviously a fight over who can turn this pile of crap into a partisan political victory.
Why else would Bush create this standoff over the current war budget? Not because he himself could never tolerate milestones (he must have them internally), not because he himself believes that US troops will be there forever (not even the most extreme lefty would portray him as that big a buffoon)... but because he sees this as the only way to clutch onto hope of an internal US political victory.
If the congress cuts funding, Republicans will always be able to claim that 'hey, we were winning, and we would have won if you guys hadn't cut off the funds!"
This would forever muddy the waters of historical perspective on this conflict and forever give the Republicans their 'surrender monkey' label for the Democratic party.
How do I know that this is the game? I know because this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and exactly what prevented 20 years of Republican political defeats for continuing such a ridiculous foreign policy blunder.
Is this how bad American politics has become? That the cost of an ideological victory at home can be paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars and the blood of thousands of young Americans?
It is possible that the American people are waking up to this shamelessness. The problem is that congress may be so afraid of this tactic, that thousands more Americans will die before the election cycle can rectify the issue in 2008.
So much has been spouted back and forth regarding 'victory or defeat', and an endless re-definition of why the war was fought in the first place and why we are still fighting it. Can we salvage victory? Can we turn this pile of crap into something that is less horribly disastrous for American prestige that it now seems to be? Hmmm. Really, Mr., and Mrs., politician? This is really what is occupying your brain? I doubt it.
What is clearly at the top of the agenda is so obviously a fight over who can turn this pile of crap into a partisan political victory.
Why else would Bush create this standoff over the current war budget? Not because he himself could never tolerate milestones (he must have them internally), not because he himself believes that US troops will be there forever (not even the most extreme lefty would portray him as that big a buffoon)... but because he sees this as the only way to clutch onto hope of an internal US political victory.
If the congress cuts funding, Republicans will always be able to claim that 'hey, we were winning, and we would have won if you guys hadn't cut off the funds!"
This would forever muddy the waters of historical perspective on this conflict and forever give the Republicans their 'surrender monkey' label for the Democratic party.
How do I know that this is the game? I know because this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and exactly what prevented 20 years of Republican political defeats for continuing such a ridiculous foreign policy blunder.
Is this how bad American politics has become? That the cost of an ideological victory at home can be paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars and the blood of thousands of young Americans?
It is possible that the American people are waking up to this shamelessness. The problem is that congress may be so afraid of this tactic, that thousands more Americans will die before the election cycle can rectify the issue in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)