Obama in the GHW Bush tradition? Joe Wilson disagrees.
After seeing several Blue Oregon posts take a blatantly negative tone against Hillary Clinton during her visit to Oregon, and since politics is nothing without debate, today I post my first article addressing some of the concerns I have about Senator Barack Obama. I welcome discussion from all in the Blue Oregon community. - CC
Barack Obama lives and campaigns in two Americas. These aren't the two Americas that John Edwards described. Nor is it the "red state" and "blue state" America that he pretends to be capable of uniting. Rather, he lives in two potential promised Americas, forked by the duality of his own campaign and his often self-contradictory projections of his own values.
One of Obama's Americas is the one invented by his campaign for the Democratic base, his fans in the media and the liberal blogosphere: an America where he is the outsider alternative, the populist, the peace candidate, the change candidate (all of which patently debatable, but only if one's willing to retain some disbelief). The other is the post-partisan centrist Obama: the Obama who claims to be able to get things done with Republicans, who speaks glowingly of former Republican Presidents, makes sure not to offend Wall Street, amuses the private health insurance industry with his own hommage to their Harry and Louise campaign, and talks like a Powell Doctrine centrist on military matters.
I am not sure what would happen if the two Obama realities ever met. Perhaps one reality would win out: Obama's election might be like opening Schrodinger's box to find that the cat is alive (hopefully, if you like live cats, and I do). Or we could make the cynical assumption: he will go where the money and power lead him, but at the worst he won't appoint any more conservative Supreme Court justices. Or what I think is the case: it's moot, he is being backed by so many big players because they want a lot of leash, and they will set the policy; he will merely sell it, which all feel he has the skill to do. But whatever comes, I have a hard time swallowing the extreme contradictions in Obama's pitch and accepting that this is the best option Democrats have this year.
Take Obama's speech in Pennsylvania of a March 27, when in continuation of his veneration of past Republican Presidents he claimed that his foreign policy "is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father..." as well as JFK and Ronald Reagan.
Today, longtime diplomat and staunchly anti-Bush/Cheney Democrat Joe Wilson responded to Obama's dubious foreign policy claims at length.
Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting.
His entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.
Wilson reminds us first that papa Bush has supported W. throughout this whole mess, but then to the real question:
What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? ....
Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.
Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.
Obama is faking it. While driving the convenience of his own brief service and a single pandering speech as a wedge against Clinton, he is simulteneously claiming to be more akin to a (pre-Bush/Cheney, of course) Republican than any Democrat I've ever followed in an election.
In fact, the non-partisan values and parallels he conjures up by referring to the first Bush are precisely the values that would have led any centrist to vote for the autorization in 2002. I understand both strong anti-war stances and a centrist stance; I marched in anti-war protests from the start, but I also voted for Kerry without hesitation even though he's further right than Clinton on overall war and peace record. I would not at all object to seeing a real "peace" candidate running with Obama's popularity - someone who did stake their career on such a stance and who did have a coherent foreign policy offering that was different than that of Bush 41 and Reagan and JFK. But it is the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy of Obama's duplicitous approach which offends me and makes me realize that I really don't know -what- he believes. His paradoxical name-dropping of old Republicans and winking to all sides of the electorate so shamelessly, baffles and repulses me; I want to know, damn it, where my candidate stands, even if it's in the center. I do not trust the Obama splits.
Perhaps most unfortunate about this whole cycle is that because of Obama's insistence on making the authorization vote his foreign policy hammer we have been denied the chance to really delve into each candidate's detailed vision and approach to really solving the mess in Iraq for the relief of the living. With this hammer Obama has attempted to nail the lid on the pandora's box of his own inexperience, but that lid pops open a little further each time he makes a speech like this and people actually pay attention; meanwhile we hear his own advisors reveal that the firm commitment to withdraw troops in 16 months - a facile promise which he also used for one-upmanship against his rival - may very well never happen. Which would be worse: that we wrench the lid off that box now, or that the Republicans do it for us in the general election, or that the ills it contains actually get loosed on the nation and the world with a remarkably unprepared but equally egotistical, opportunist and self-righteous Obama White House? The latter option is better than losing to a Republican, but still not one I can embrace with any conviction.
Joe Wilson's credibility on these issues is as strong as anyone's, and his questions on Obama are tough, as they should be.
As to Obama's self-promoted "judgment," which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?
The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.
As for me, what concerns me most now on foreign policy are those living in all nations, including in the region of Iraq, and how they will be delivered from the hell of war, chaos and poverty. And here what matters is not buzzwords or name-dropping; what matters is that we know details about what is possible in policy and strategy and, with eyes wide open, commit to the candidate who has the best chance of building peace through what will surely be difficult and complex negotiations and responses. I have searched for a voice with breadth and depth of experience and realism on the issues, and Obama's waffling is not it; I find such a voice in Joe Wilson, in Wes Clark, and in the candidate they support, whose policies are not based either on false promises or on facile comparisons to aged Republicans, but in real long-range terms of carefully withdrawing troops and achieving the best outcome we can with diplomatic vision and strength.
Read the full article. Discuss.
|
April 9, 2008 |
Chris Corbell | Comments (103 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: TroyB | Apr 9, 2008 7:51:27 PM
How does this horrible writing get on the front of BlueOregon? Sounds like the typical Clinton garbage machine to me.
Posted by: JoeySky | Apr 9, 2008 7:52:49 PM
Wilson analysis is worth paying attention to. It's right on the nail.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 9, 2008 8:04:22 PM
Joe Wilson has no neutral observer of this race and it is sloppy of you to simply label him as a "longtime diplomat" and vouch for his credibility without mentioning that he has endorsed Clinton and has acted as a Clinton campaign surrogate.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Apr 9, 2008 8:19:23 PM
This post is a pretty good example of how bereft of ideas the Clinton campaign really is. They've lost the war of ideas and all they have left is attack politics.
It's not going to work. Obama will win by double-digits in Oregon, and win the nomination by a larger-than-expected margin.
The only real question in my mind is how much damage the Clintonistas are willing to do to the Democratic Party in order to continue backing a quixotic campaign by an increasingly desperate candidate.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 9, 2008 8:24:36 PM
How does this horrible writing get on the front of BlueOregon?
Actually, the writing is pretty good. I completely reject the argument - but that's why there's a comment thread here: so people can argue it.
Posted by: maxx | Apr 9, 2008 8:49:50 PM
Obviously the writer has a close-mind already when it comes to Obama.
To my surprise, Obama, being the youngest of the three, displayed the strongest in the Iraq hearing. McCain was playing safe, Clinton was subdued-trying to be "sober" not to destroy her reputation again by bursting into a warfreak. But Obama was the most respectful, composed, strongest,direct to the point candidate. Obama wants to tackle the war differently, wanting to urge the neigboring countries to help in - which I find very helpful than using all our funds for the rehabilitation of Iraq and sacrificing our economy. Iran is posing a threat to our troops, and Obama wants to lure Iran to our advantage, solving one less problem as well. I will be surprised if Clinton would be copying these strategies and incorporate Obama's visions into her speeches. Another one of Hilary's Oscar Award moments.
Posted by: Karl | Apr 9, 2008 8:52:26 PM
Shame on you Barack Obama for misleading the good people of Oregon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 9, 2008 8:55:29 PM
i've been reading Wilson's diatribes at HuffPost for several months. he's become a flak for Hillary and nothing more.
i know nothing about Wilson other than the uranium thing; that was excellent work he did and of great value to our nation. does that mean he is an objective commentator on this race? hardly. his writings make clear that he wants her to win and he's saying whatever he can to make that happen. to paraphrase Hillary's bs, his rep is based on one editorial in 2004.
keep going, Chris. i guess now that you feel obligated to attack Obama, something you have never, ever done, you might as well start with someone as overwrought as Wilson.
Posted by: Gerum | Apr 9, 2008 8:55:45 PM
Really? Is this really supposed to be a well thought out article?
Unfortunately, most young readers may not remeber the first Bush's war in Iraq BUT I clearly remember that the elder Bush and Powell contemplated the concept of going into the Iraq capital but made a calculated decision that such a move would be counterproductive. By the way, this decision was not reached because we didn't have the capability of defeating Sadam but because it was not worth it.
Senator Obama, without urging and against what would have been politically smart at the time for a man aspiring to be a United States Senator, took the initiative to stand up and voice his opposition.
As a moderate republican, I have been frustrated at the argument being made by both Republicans and Democrats that it was easy for Senator Obama to do what he did because he was not in a position of decision making. That has to be one of the most elitist comment I have heard in recent times. EVERY American has the right and the RESPONSIBILITY to voice his or her voice when such a historical blunder is about to be committed with the blood of our kids and our hard earned treasures.
In my view, Citizen Obama's public and vocal opposition means a whole lot more than a politician's poll tested, politically calculated articulation of a position.
I hope more Citizens will take their right and responsibility as seriously as Citizen Obama took his.
Posted by: LT | Apr 9, 2008 9:10:45 PM
I have been listening to Obama's Audacity of Hope on audio book. I heard a discussion he had with Charlie Rose right after he was elected to the US Senate.
I have heard some of his speeches.
One measure of judgement is how the candidates react under pressure. I think Obama has passed that test.
I understand that supporters of Hillary Clinton are suspicious of generational change, but as someone who graduated from college in the late 1960s, I am disgusted at how many in my age group seem just as resistant to the ideas of the younger generation as our parents' generation was.
The reality is that we have no way of knowing what will greet the new president.
FDR in April of 1932, JFK in April of 1960, Jimmy Carter in April of 1976, Bill Clinton in April of 1992 could not know exactly what would greet them after they finished their last inaugural event and got down to work.
Nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton, but it seems to me she passes up opportunities to give really clear answers to tough questions sometimes. It seems that when faced with a tough decision, Obama reacts well.
I know the Hillary folks don't want to hear that, but that is the way I see it. Just because I have seen Joe Wilson speak and admire him, that doesn't mean I let him do my thinking for me.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 9, 2008 9:18:19 PM
Or we could make the cynical assumption: he (Obama) will go where the money and power lead him,
Obama probably will do as almost all politicians do when elected to Congress and the White House and "go where the money and power lead him," but the last people in a position to criticize him are the Clintons and their supporters.
But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.
Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.
On the other hand, Obama might have agreed with the 23 senators who didn't buy into that BS. If Obama really wishes to emulate Colin Powell, the most over-rated man in Washington, then my limited confidence in him will be considerably reduced.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 9, 2008 9:35:48 PM
Wilson knew Colin Powell was misleading the world on Feb 05 2003. This wasn't worth going public till early July 2003?
Anybody watching then knew that the rising insurgency in Iraq was about to make our President the dumbest looking man in the history of these United States.
Washington needs a major shaking. The Democrats need a major shaking.
I guess Joe was trying to be a good American and a good republican in the wake of 9/11, keeping quiet, going along, just like Senator Clinton.
Why would I have confidence is her going forward?
Posted by: Katy | Apr 9, 2008 9:47:31 PM
Thanks Chris, I wouldn't have welcomed this post until the "Clinton Misleads Oregon" posts started appearing. It's interesting that the Obama campaign claims to be the postive campaign but all I've heard lately (only on BO, supporters out in the world seem to be much more positive and excited about the campaign) from his supporters are negative attacks on Senator Clinton. Well, I guess her supporters have had about enough?
Posted by: Lisa | Apr 9, 2008 9:49:27 PM
He read the Intelligence Report in 2002- Hillary didn't. Enough said? No? OK, how's this? He KNEW in 2002 that this war was "made-up" along with 23 other US Senators who voted against it. Don't believe me- read his famous speech if you dare:
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
Chicago, Illinois – October 2, 2002
"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
Posted by: Lori | Apr 9, 2008 10:17:33 PM
Chris, thanks for the article.
I have strong reservations about supporting Barack Obama if he becomes the democratic nominee for president. He has come from obscurity to compete for the most powerful leadership role in the world. He has an elusive stance on many issues, a thin record of accomplishments, and a dose of arrogance. This is a risky mix.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 9, 2008 10:18:29 PM
Lisa,
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.
‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’
In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq:
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 9, 2008 10:20:15 PM
Chris, too bad you drank that Kool-Aid.
Last weekend, you asserted that Obama was obstructing a second vote in Michigan and Florida. I asked for some sort of proof, a link to any news story. You have previously ignored this request three times over three days. I conclude, as did several others, that either you made this claim up out of whole cloth, or that you believe others that made up this claim out of whole cloth.
Now you use destructive language asserting that Obama is "faking it". Really? You construct two artificial divisions in your thought process that are only loosely based upon reality, then you take your artificial way of looking at Obama, and in this fake world he fails to be consistent, and therefore you conclude he is the one "faking it"!!
Really Chris, put down the Kool-Aid cup, you've had too much.
Did it ever once happen in your thought process that you considered that Obama might just be for real. Yes, he might be idealistic. Yes, he might not have the life experience of 40 people. Yes, he was never under fire from snipers in Bosnia. But maybe, just maybe, consider that his judgement is good, he is very smart, he learns quickly, and that as all Presidents generally are (current one is the exception that makes the rule) he would be surrounded by good advisors that know all the details of every situation we the United States might encounter that he would have to deal with. One of those advisors just might be Joe Wilson.
And maybe above all else, he has a good heart, and he will work for a better American, a better future, and a better world. It just could be real.
Please Chris, get a grip on reality.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 9, 2008 10:32:40 PM
Chris, there are so many flaws in your argument, I'll just briefly focus on your most telling mistakes, starting with your assumptions about Hillary.
I also voted for [John] Kerry without hesitation even though he's further right than Clinton on overall war and peace record.
This is where it first became difficult to take you seriously. John Kerry, who voted against the first Iraq War, spoke eloquently against the second war (even as he voted for it to further his run for the presidency), and who refused to saber-rattle Iran. John Kerry, vs. Clinton, the war's most prominent Democratic proponent besides Bill, who waited to criticize the war's prosecution until 2005?! Clinton, who's closest aide Maggie Williams said openly that Hillary was even more willing to use military force than her husband?!
I know we've been living with an Orwellian presidency for the past seven years. Just because the Republicans have said up is down since 2001 doesn't mean they are America's only problem. When it comes to Obama's so-called effusive praise of Republican presidents, you need to look for context. Look to Republican Lincoln Chafee, who's endorsed Obama and unlike the insecure Clinton (who is ready to allow bloodshed to prove her armed forces bona fides) voted and worked to stop the war in 2003. He wrote in President Bush I as a protest vote in 2004. Republicans can do good things as presidents! I know it has rarely happened since 1992 (AIDS in Africa and the exposure of cultural conservatism as a bankrupt ideology come to mind), but when Nixon talked to China, and Reagan talked to Gorbachev, and when Bush I refused to invade Iraq, these were good things. The Oregon GOP wouldn't recognize the great Mark Hatfield if he ran in the GOP today. The sooner we recognize the good things that Republicans do, the sooner we can start winning them over to vote for Obama in November.
And Joe Wilson. (!!!) Others have pointed out that he's a public Clinton surrogate somewhere in the Clinton surrogate reasonability range between Roseanne Barr and Elton John, but may I humbly say that Joe Wilson is an opportunistic hack who may back a Democrat but is not by any means a respectable foreign policy voice. Wilson's greatest hour was his martyrdom at State, and he does himself a disservice while trying to link Obama's anti-war position in 2002 with Tony Rezko.
Ultimately, though I think it's funny though that you mention Joe Wilson, because Joe Wilson kinda sums up exactly what's wrong with Clinton's presidential ambitions. No, she's not George Bush. She was different from him the past seven years. But not enough. Not on Iraq, Iran. Not enough to carry out the foreign policy needs of the post-Clinton-Bush dynastic stretch in American politics. Sam Power, who you link to, however is a brilliant woman who would be perfect for a national security advisor.
I'm impressed that you say you went to anti-war rallies, Chris- I guess I'm frankly bewildered anyone who attended those rallies in Portland would ever vocally support the Clintons in a Democratic primary where the other choices weren't, say, Zell Miller and Ed Koch.
Lastly, Kari I think you're half correct in saying this writing is any good: the semi-colons and commas seem to be in the right places, and as far as I can tell the links all work. However, Chris's writing suffers from a poverty of ideas and an excess of partisanship that makes me wonder if Blue Oregon's not thinking of adding a sympathetic, explicitly DLC-Mark Penn column. (Try that next time Chris!)
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 9, 2008 10:42:14 PM
Lisa, in 2003, Sen Clinton voted to authorize the war.
she has never said that vote was a mistake.
what else do you want to know?
Posted by: Susanne Freeborn | Apr 9, 2008 10:42:15 PM
Joe Wilson is a Clinton supporter and has a real ax to grind. It's pitiful. See his recent writings at the Huffington Post.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 9, 2008 10:42:28 PM
Posted by: Lori | Apr 9, 2008 10:17:33 PM
Chris, thanks for the article.
I have strong reservations about supporting Barack Obama if he becomes the democratic nominee for president. He has come from obscurity to compete for the most powerful leadership role in the world. He has an elusive stance on many issues, a thin record of accomplishments, and a dose of arrogance. This is a risky mix.
"That uppity Barack Obama! Who does he think he really is, so arrogant to be our President!"
Way to drag them out of the woodwork, Chris. And by the way, this reminds me of my babysitter's husband in 1992 trying to convince me that my hero, the upstart Governor of Arkansas, was unqualified to be president because it was such a poor, backwater place. Untested. Inexperienced. Too young. And according to Lori, too uppity!
Posted by: Daniel Scott Buck | Apr 9, 2008 10:45:56 PM
My goodness. This is so weak I don't even know where to begin. Why don't you post a direct quote from Obama's speech against the war and we'll help you figure out what it means? There are several YouTube videos that you can check out as well. Very clear statements against the war before the war began. And guess what? He is still against the war. And this is breaking news to you? Oh, dear.
Tell me again, who has been pushing for talks with Iran to pursue peace in Iraq? Hillary Clinton? No. John McCain? No.
Take some time to reflect on how many times a day for the past few years you have heard talk of "bombing" Iran, "attacking" Iran, going to "war" with Iran. It's the third war that we will be paying for too.
But yet, you come up with this puff piece about diplomacy? Are you counting on people knowing so little? Do you think we are that stupid? No doubt journalism is long overdue for an overhaul itself. It's another thing to look forward to.
Let's let the people read something thoughtful:
Iran's benign influence
Stephen Kinzer
April 8, 2008 7:30 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_kinzer/2008/04/irans_benign_influence.html
[Copied and pasted entire copyrighted article removed. Next time, excerpt and link. -editor.]
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 9, 2008 11:01:49 PM
Yep, Chris I re-read it- this is still weak. Voting for Kerry was centrist? Maybe if you're Ward Churchill. And Joe Wilson a "staunchly anti-Bush/Cheney Democrat?" Do we inhabit the same universe? Joe Wilson is a staunch centrist who happily Bush and Cheney until the latter went nutzo on him. Mark Penn and Michael O'Hanlon are staunch Democrats too, but that doesn't mean they don't walk, talk, start wars and bust unions like Republicans.
Posted by: paul g | Apr 9, 2008 11:06:54 PM
Chris,
I think you are right to look at the foreign policy credentials of the two candidates, but you fail to compare their advisors. It becomes clear the Clinton is the candidate of the tired Washington establishment, and Obama is the candidate of the new establishment.
Hillary Clinton has a tired staff of 60 somethings: Wes Clark, Joe Wilson, Madeline Albright.
Barack Obama has the next generation of smart hotshots: Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Samantha Power (until her unfortunate blowup). The only "old hand" on Obama's team is Zbig. Brzenski (sp).
You may consider them arrogant, but they are whip smart, and I feel a lot more confident in their ability to clean up the mess of the past 8 years than another Albright / Wilson / Clark troika.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 9, 2008 11:11:03 PM
I swear, Robert Kennedy could've risen from his grave and continued his crusade to end the war in Vietnam and heal poverty, and some people would still write letters to the editor saying Hubert Humphrey is the real peace candidate with the smarts to get us out of Vietnam, Kennedy once worked for a Republican 20 years ago and so we don't really know where he stands, etc.
Posted by: A. Rab. | Apr 9, 2008 11:54:12 PM
Paul, I think you touch on an important point when comparing experience. There are only a handful of offices that offer real power in making foreign policy and national security, and no candidate has held any of these offices (not even McCain). In fact, almost no President has ever had relevant foreign policy experience (the first Bush, Nixon, Eisenhower, the Roosevelts, and the founding generation are the exceptions). As such, the important characteristics are a candidate’s temperament, stated policy goals, and advisors. In latter category, there is a real generational gap. One of the things that excited me about Obama was that he was willing to reach beyond the Beltway, with Samantha Powers being exhibit A. Clinton has more life experience, but that is a result of her being a generation older than Obama. However, in terms of relevant experience in foreign affairs, she has exactly the same amount as Obama and McCain: none.
P.S. A small correction, Lake is not part of the new generation, he is among the oldest members of the team.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 9, 2008 11:54:58 PM
So much Clinton bashing on here, and again not one of you can say how or what Senator Obama will be changing in Washington nor how he plans to unify the country if he is elected.
When people resort to namecalling and bashing it's because they have nothing else.
Posted by: Nicolette Valdespino | Apr 10, 2008 12:01:45 AM
How I wish that I could have the boundless faith in earnestly pitched promises that Obama supporters do. That I could open my eyes wide and (blink,blink) believe that the "change" was coming. Ohhhh, the "hope!" This sort of blind-sided optimism would actually make me feel a lot better about my fellow Americans if I wasn't so terrified about the future of not only our country, but of the world at large. How do we have time to waste? How can we gamble everything we have earned, and everything we are on the precipice of losing, or even allow the current trends of destruction to trickle through our civilization for another day, much less another presidency. The economy, freedom of choice, healthcare, education, immigration, much less human rights issues here and abroad, these all require PLANS, not "hope", CONCRETE STEPS, not "change".
Are we all so comfortable, so satisfied, that we just want to roll the dice and put all our chips on the guy with "the good heart"? Well, I am impressed, at the goodness and trust that you all have, in America, and in our government.
Thank you Chris, for addressing the difference in these two candidates directly, without malice or negativity. I wish there was more of that within this democratic party.
"Unity"...I heard that somewhere.
Posted by: Garrett | Apr 10, 2008 12:42:37 AM
I have strong reservations about supporting Barack Obama if he becomes the democratic nominee for president. He has come from obscurity to compete for the most powerful leadership role in the world. He has an elusive stance on many issues, a thin record of accomplishments, and a dose of arrogance. This is a risky mix.
Yeah I totally had those same reservations about Abraham Lincoln. He had been beat a bunch in elections and only did some local politics and a little national stuff and just served in the US House. I had those same reservations about James K. Polk, JFK and Harry Truman. I mean those guys totally came out of nowhere. I mean who would have thought they would have been leaders. Let's be fair here...Nixon was a jerk but I could totally tell that he was going to be great with foreign policy (yeah ahem China and that's the only thing I'm not being sarcastic about with this).
Corbell you are really being such a whiny person and you are the exact reason I am so sick of Hillary. It's over. She isn't going to win. She's done...would you like me to mail you black flowers so you know for sure? The gap is closing in Penn. Where else is she going to win? Where? I don't want HER experience. I want something that isn't George Bush's policies (John McCain) and I don't want to go back to the divisiveness of Clinton's tenure. Hillary would do nothing more than serve as a lightening rod for right wingers to circle around. Plus her experience mostly consists of her going to state dinners and not dodging sniper fire from what I can tell.
Corbell what you need to realize is that I like Hillary. I think she's an incredible woman who has put up with so much crap and couldn't put up with that if she didn't really think she could make a difference. I realize this. I'm just sick and tired of the politics she practices and I want to wash my hands of it and remember the Clinton years as good ones. I'm going to look forward to the Obama years and do my best to forget the Bush years. Hillary doesn't ring a notion of hope because there isn't any with her. She's John Kerry all over again. Yeah I'll vote for him but I sure as hell aren't going to be jumping out of my seat to campaign for the guy even though I know he's better than Bush. I know Hillary is better than McCain but I really don't care. Her crocodile tears don't phase me. I want a young energetic guy I can relate to who shares my beliefs. I want to talk to Hugo Chavez and Iran. I want to tell them we aren't going to bomb them and I want to improve relations. Hillary just wants to shut her cackling ass and not talk to them. That is old politics. That's why Barack is winning and will win.
Posted by: Dan | Apr 10, 2008 12:55:45 AM
And you call yourself a writer? What rumbis!!! lol....So closeminded you are....lol....
Posted by: darrelplant | Apr 10, 2008 1:13:51 AM
Funny, I seem to have missed any discussion in Chris's piece of what Hillary Clinton's foreign policy consists of.
And I'm still waiting for her to come up with whatever evidence she saw before she voted for the Iraq AUMF. I mean, if you were a senator and you were voting to go authorize military force (and to give someone like George W. Bush the keys to the tank) wouldn't you want to see something pretty solid? Nobody's ever put that piece of evidence forward.
Why did Hillary Clinton vote against the majority of the Democrats in Congress -- including majorities of Democrats in the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees -- on the Iraq AUMF?
Posted by: James X. | Apr 10, 2008 2:04:43 AM
What shallow outrage. "He doesn't call all Republicans evil!" "He criticizes it when Hillary tries mandate health insurance rather than health care!" (which, by the way, is what actually "amuses the private health insurance industry"). And you say Obama is too centrist on foreign policy, but, ahem, Hillary's the one who authorized military force against Iraq, called Iran's Revolutionary Guard "global terrorists" (during a so-called global war on terror, no less), and attacked Obama for taking the war crime of first-strike nuclear weapons off the table.
Posted by: DROP OUT OBAMA | Apr 10, 2008 4:41:22 AM
THE MEDIA LIKE AP-CNN AND MSNBC ARE SELLING OUT AMERICANS
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/04/05/ap-covers-obama-avoiding-churchs-pastors-essence
Associated Press: Playing defense for Obama: Karen Hawkins and Christopher Wills of the Associated Press quilty of Wright-wash! In their articles Hawkins and Wills avoid any mention of the main tenets of "Black Liberation Theology that form the foundation and belief system of the Trinity United Church of Christ. AP pair purposely avoided any mention of inflammatory items in weekly bulletin articles published by the Church.
Nowhere in the story's 1,200-plus words was there any mention of the Church's belief system, which was outlined by McClatchy's Margaret Tavel on March 20: Obama’s church pushes controversial doctrines. Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation. Those are some of the doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Obama’s church.
Wright said basis for Trinity’s philosophies is the work of James Cone, founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone’s seminal 1969 book, “Black Theology & Black Power. Cone wrote that the U.S. was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation.
In the July 22 bulletin, in the "Pastor's Page" section, the Rev. Wright gave two pages of space to a colunmn by “Hamas TERRORIST Mousa Abu Marzook. The column originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which came under heavy criticism for running it. Among Marzook's many whoppers: A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. CAMERA.org wrote at the time that "that no Israeli parties in government advocate the 'expulsion' of Arabs; one calls for voluntary transfer."
A June 10 bulletin article, also in the "Pastor's Page" section, was written by terrorist sympathizer Ali Baghdadi. Among other things, Baghdadi wrote I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs. The KKK, on its worst day, never accused the ethnic groups it hated of attempting to concoct a "white bomb. Rev. Wright not only allowed these hate-filled diatribes to appear in TUCC's bulletins but supports as does Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA
Oprah TCC member and Obama supporter Exposed on New Age and denies that Jesus is the way to heaven.Please Listen Now Quickly – This is being pulled off the website
quickly so you must hear it quickly.Oprah is misleading many. Please view this video and pass along to other believers so that they may be aware.This is frightening to Christian everywhere! It's 6 minutes but well worth the entire viewing.
**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed
March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html
Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would be praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq. Article by Citizen Wells 3/08,
Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. Obama is an anti-Israel, pro-pan-Arabian Islamic-socialist who has ties to Marxist Libyan President Muamar al Gadaffi, and a Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Rezko's "close friend" Nadhami Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money (and helped to buy his mansion): Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer (from funds stolen from Oil for Food Program0 for Saddam's - Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam Hussein in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim.
Also marxist Nicaragian President Daniel Ortega is on the front line supporting Obama for the revolution of changes and then there is hard core anti-Israel, pro-Palestine PLO Enforcer Rashid Khalid, (Obama was on Kalidi's Woods Fund. Obama was a memb er of the Woods Fund with communist domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol among other things and their organization raised money for anti-Israel programs, and also AAAN, for Arabs and then there is especially Kenya - where in August 2007, Obama went to Kenya to support his E. Germany communist educated cousin Raila Odinga for Kenyan Presidential election, who claims coincidentally to also be a Christian who signed NAMLEF and other pacts wutg radical muslims who set churches filled with Christians on fire, and macheted them in the streets, causing a political and religious mini-civil war over the MUO.
all of Obama's mentors, buddies, political affiliations, organizational memberships and all of his hard core militant muslim family members, like his brother Abongo (Roy" Odinga who hates America, and their communist grandfather who ran with Russia and hated America, not to mention his socialist connection to his profound childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, CPUSA, and Obama's endorsement by the Black Panthers. Obama titled his book "Audacity of Hope," after Pastor Wright's sermon about the need to destroy capitalism and the middle-class at the hands of the rich white people and the west.
Posted by: DF | Apr 10, 2008 4:53:36 AM
Chris,
I love your enthusiasm and ultimately respect your discipline (I swear I am not trying to sound condescending)... but Good God! These just keep coming! I hope you are open to what is almost inevitable at this point... Either way it's been a great contest and I pledge to support the Democratic candidate.
We are all on the same team here folks, let's not forget that no matter who wins the primary, we all have a lot of the same goals and we need to keep working together. We are stronger together as a tribe than as nomads crossing the wilderness separately. We might lose a couple friends on the way but our strength is and always has been in each other.
"Live together or hang alone."
Posted by: DF | Apr 10, 2008 5:31:28 AM
As a veteran of the Ops/Intel community in the military I was very concerned about the buildup to the war (I was active duty overseas until the end of 2002).
I had access to some significant intelligence due to my position but my beliefs and logical position on the war were cemented almost universally by public information. The Intel community has a saying to the effect of '90% of a decision is based on unclassified info'. That essentially means, do your research and make sure it makes sense, even after you factor in "intelligence" (which takes into account more ratings of information reliability, or confidence factors, as you do of everyone that you know).
Virtually all information analysis suggested that there was no AQ connection with the Iraqi Gov't, nor was there any reason there would be (Saddam and Osama are on the complete opposite ends of the Arabic Power Spectrum) and the stuff that didn't had terrible reliability ratings.
I remember a conversation I had with another NCO that I worked with 7-8 months before we were scheduled to get out. We talked about how weird it was that all of this seemingly unconnected Iraq stuff was coming out (this about the time the Afghanistan plan failed in Torah Borah). We were both kind of creeped out and unnerved. It didn't make any sense. We both decided if it came to that we would both be leaving ASAP (...end story here is that I did and he didn't).
Eventually I got out and told everyone who would listen how truly bad and basically evil I though that the Bush/Cheney/Cronies really are. I called the outcome of the war almost exactly (I think it's safe to say we all see where this is going) along with about a 100,000,000 other people and I've been fighting like hell ever since.
The thing is, what I've been waiting for is an authentic, progressive "National Security Candidate". Someone who can find a smarter, more systematic way to deal with our many problems abroad, as well as handling any more potentially devastating acts at home. A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between safety and security.
That candidate is here. His name is Barack Obama.
I could give many reasons for my support but this aspect alone is one of the most appealing to me. We can begin to reframe the national security debate with Senator Obama, due to simply the revision of the process.
Obama is a much better candidate than I ever anticipated and I have been a supporter from the beginning.
Posted by: DF | Apr 10, 2008 5:44:13 AM
Correction:
"A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between safety and security."
Should read:
"A leader who could do all of this without destroying our civil liberties, a leader who knows that we don't have to make a choice between liberty and security."
Posted by: Emily | Apr 10, 2008 5:45:46 AM
Chris:
Whats cares me is in this post is the reaction that make pro-Obama supporters have to any doubts or reservations raised about their candidate. It is as if they are so emotionally invested that they can't step back and discuss some very real concerns real people have about Obama. "Drinking Kool-Aid"? That is the response an Obama supporters have to this piece? This was not a hit piece. It was a well-writted, articulate and thoughtful piece that raises some legtimiate questions about the man who might just be the next president of the United States. Obama supporters don't think you should raise them? And if you do, you get insulted? The fact is Obama is all over the place when it comes to his foreign policy. Concerns raised about his foreign policy is just part of the bigger debate about who he is and what he believes in. More than anything else, I think the Wright episode raised this concern for many people. Is he really a post-racial politician when he hangs out with raving racists? Will he pull out of Iraq or leave a "strike force" there and what does a "strike force" mean anyway? If attacking anyone who raises legimitate concerns about Obama is "drinking kool-aid" I have to say that Obama fans are drinking it, not Chris.
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 10, 2008 6:21:18 AM
Good lord, Chris. Yes we know- you love Hillary! How many more of these propaganda pieces are we going to have to endure? Jesus. I'm going to stop reading BlueOregon if we keep seeing the same thing day after day, with no acknowledgment from you of Hillary's many serious flaws and malicious, damaging campaign. There must be some link to reality instead of this virtually daily delusional rant. Kari, take the wheel.
Posted by: Missy | Apr 10, 2008 6:44:50 AM
Kari, I'm with "anonymous." Take the wheel, sweet Kari.
I, too, cannot read BlueOregon another day if the Obama worship:Hillary bashing ratio on BlueOregon drops below 5:1.
Posted by: Mia | Apr 10, 2008 7:24:06 AM
I do not care about Obama's Church, I care about what he has said and done publicly through is votes in the IL Senate and the US Senate, I care about what he has said.
I am so sick of the self-righteousness from people about Rev. Wright. I am bi-racial I have had family members say inapproriate things (over the top things) and in my church sometimes there is sterotyping that is inapproriate, but I feel zero need to separate myself from my family or my church. What I have found is most of this stupid stuff is generational and I accept that people from different generations see the world differently. We all see the world and life based on our personal life experiences.
It doesn't take a college degree to understand that.
People want to imply Barack is a racist or not patriotic. Give me a break. Are you saying he hates 1/2 of himself, that he hates his mother and grandparents that raised him? Can we use a little common sense?
What un-American person dedicates his life to public service? How many of you have done that?
Now to the article:
As many have said Joe Wilson is a HRC supporter, who appears to be unable to deal with just facts.
The bottom line is HRC and Barack only have plans at this point, and either would be an idiot to say no matter what they are sticking with that plan. Neither can predict what will be going on in Iraq next January and that will have to be taken into consideration.
Posted by: anon reader | Apr 10, 2008 7:49:49 AM
I think Camllle Paglia says all that needs to be said about Clinton and the Chris Corbell's who support this embarrassing and wretched excuse for a Democrat. She also takes on the Obama experience question:
Hillary's slick willies
Does Hillary surround herself with girly men? Obama and the experience question. Plus: Lincoln, Madonna's new face and a Bush with real authority
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/04/09/girly_men/
BTW: Before the rightwing took over this country with the help of Cinton Democrats and Wyden/Merkley style wusses, Joe Wilson like Paul Krugman spent his time denying he was even a moderate Democrat, much less a liberal/progressive. It's fitting then, slithering bottom-dwelling Clinton supporters, after not repudiating her for her campaign's evil and disgusting race-baiting, have decided that the best chance to win is spend their time repeating Republican talking points.
Posted by: Jonathan | Apr 10, 2008 8:25:59 AM
Joe Wilson is not neutral. He is Clinton partisan. No matter how he tries to twist the facts, facts are still facts. Hilary voted to authorize war, and supported the war throughout its early years and still not not apologize for the vote. Obama did not support authorizing war. He was planning on running for Senate, so no matter how advantageous it was in his district to vote against the war, one can't say the same as a Senate Candidate.
Lastly, we all knew that the vote in the Senate was to authorize war and Bush had no intention of using diplomacy. If Hilary did not recognize this fact, when rational people all across this country recognized what was going on without the benefit of Washington insider information, then I have to question her judgment.
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Apr 10, 2008 8:34:56 AM
Mrs. Clinton indeed may have more experience, but that does you no good when your judgement is suspect. Mrs. Clinton bends whichever way the political wind blows. That is not what I want in a President.
Posted by: Garrett | Apr 10, 2008 8:37:02 AM
Is he really a post-racial politician when he hangs out with raving racists?
This is just getting a little ridiculous.
Clinton supporters are just grasping to anything they can now. She's done and cooked. Obama is closing the gap in Penn. and this race is all but over. Clinton supporters are bordering on delusional at this point and doing nothing more than taking wild stabs at Obama.
I know she's a fighter. I believe that about her. It still doesn't change the fact that I want to step away from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and move our country past their brand of partisan politics. Comparing Obama to Bush is exactly the type of delusional things that are coming out of the Clinton camp right now. They can't poke holes in his campaign anymore so they might as well make something up.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 10, 2008 9:05:29 AM
This thread is not only like so many others in its partisanship, but it is also similar to speeches in Congress and rants on talk radio, Faux News and other media. People stake out a position then tailor their arguments to fit their agenda not only without regard to the facts but also injecting "facts" that have nothing to do with reality. That practice is fine if you're writing fiction, but it is squalidly hypocritical for anyone posing as a serious commentator. This last remark should be taken in a general sense and not seen as directed at anyone in particular. Commentators should consider this to be one of several possible rules to determine whether they are being phony or hypocritical: If you are challenged on a point and you can't defend it and won't admit to being wrong, then you should consider the probability that you are a hypocrite or other form of wretch. If you dodge the challenge and try another tack by changing the subject, then you are probably incorrigible.
Posted by: anon reader | Apr 10, 2008 9:12:24 AM
Is he really a post-racial politician when he hangs out with raving racists?
Welcome to the Clinton neo-Democractic racism. When Republicans previously, and Clinton-style Democrats of late, and Republicans in general realized society was rejecting them for their essential racism, they set out in a propagandistic way to strip the word of it's real meaning so they could start using it to actually advance their essential racism.
Emily, you're obviously a dull person in a very white state, so you, like most of the dull and selfish Clinton supporters who speak up here can't be solely blamed for your ignorance. However, you and Clinton supporters cannot be allowed to dishonestly block any debate about Clinton's evilness through word games.
"Racism" in the correct and historical use of the word can only be applied to describe the attitudes of a privileged group --- whites and white women in this case --- towards a (much) less privileged minority group to justify that position of privilege. What outraged slimy Republicans, and what makes Clinton and her supporters so beyond the pale in what should be acceptable in our party, is that in the last 40 years those they acted in a racist fashion towards increasingly stood up against them.
Those who espoused racist views had no morally acceptable or emotionally powerful language to defend what was not morally acceptable, so they instead set out to deflect justifiable repudiation by abusing the meaning of words, and then propagandizing poor whites to blame not the very racists who also abused them, but instead blame those who had also been abused. That was the start of Nixon's Southern strategy and it is what Clinton has knowingly and intentionally tapped into in an affront to decency and our society to advance her own selfish power goals.
Clinton has gone beyond the pale of what should be acceptable as a Democrat. Any of you who support her for any reason, much less because of you misrepresent her positions on the war, health care, etc, are also beyond the pale of what should be acceptable as a Democrat. The DPO's failure to take a stand here leaves the DPO without moral authority, or deserving any respect as a voice for Democrats in our state.
Posted by: Jeremy | Apr 10, 2008 10:05:45 AM
Keep at it Clinton supporters.
When all is said and done we will remember who decided to trash the presumptive Democratic nominee and who remembered they were democrats and saw the bigger picture.
I have a question for Chris -what do you really hope to gain from a hit piece like this? Is this your way of coming to terms with the fact your candidate is not going to win?
Why is this necessary? What does it accomplish other than to weaken or nominee for the fall?
If the shoe was reversed and Obama was just trashing Clinton even though he had no hope to win I would be saying the same thing.
This is why I have been getting so pissed off at the Clintons and their supporters. They simply cannot help but "go there". It's like it is in their DNA and it is very very sad.
Remember - we will not forget. This primary will soon be over but our memories will last. I will now never take anything Chris Corbell says without a massive grain of salt - your progressive and Dem. credentials just took a massive hit.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 10, 2008 10:17:27 AM
Former Oregon Governors Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber both endorse Obama! Let's see a story with some pictures, if for no better reason than to confirm that Kitz did his press conference in jeans.
Posted by: Peggy Sue | Apr 10, 2008 10:42:37 AM
I find it amazing that Obama supporters go into a frenzy when someone poses questions of judgment and demands detail about their candidate's positions. Throwing out terms like hope and change may make us feel good. But if words truly matter then we need Senator Obama to make it abundantly clear what this new political world is that he so grandly envisions. What will the "post-Obama" world look like? Or are we to fill in the blanks with our own needs and yearnings and simply hope for the best.
God is in the detail [or the devil, depending on your favorite version]. Until Senator Obama climbs off the pulpit, talks about real-world policy/programs and stops trying to pretend that inexperience, a thin legislative record and troublesome friends are at best no big deal or at worst, a conspiracy, he will remain an unknown quantity.
I cannot and will not vote for that. There's too much at stake.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 9, 2008 7:44:49 PM
Thank you! I have been listening to Senator Obama for quite awhile and have yet to get out of him what exactly he stands for, how he's going to change Washington or how he will unify the country.
I've really tried to like him and jump on that Obama Train everyone seems to be a part of but I need facts and figures not hope and dreams.