Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 11, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

BHO vs. HRC....Barack Obama will be in Clinton, Iowa, tomorrow to do some Hillary Clinton bashing. Michael Crowley suggests that the public is tired of battles over HRC's vote in favor of the Senate Iraq resolution, which would make this a tired line of attack for Obama. However:

It's possible that Obama will spin the Iraq question into a broader proxy for about Hillary's policy judgment and her vaunted "experience." He's done some of that already. The...question then is whether he can make that point more forcefully — more negatively, I suppose — without seeming to violate his talk of a "politics of hope." Clinton advisors believe Obama's rhetoric has boxed him in and limited his ability to go on the offensive. But maybe it's still possible to thread the needle, to twist the knife with a measure of intellectual honesty, and basic class, that doesn't backfire on him.

This strikes me as, by far, the most important issue for Obama. In the particular area of foreign policy, he needs to persuade people that despite her eight years in the White House and six years in the Senate, Hillary's foreign policy judgment just isn't that good. Exhibit A would be the Iraq vote. Judgment and temperament are the most important attributes in foreign affairs, not experience, and that has to be where he aims his attack.

More generally, though, I think he has to convince people like me that he's actually serious about taking a new approach to foreign affairs. My single biggest problem with Obama is that behind all the Kumbaya talk about coming together and erasing red and blue, he has yet to convince me that his actual governing style would be much different from anyone else's. As far as I can tell, for example, he has yet to give a speech that either of the other two major candidates couldn't have delivered without changing a word. Hillary can get away with that for now, but Obama can't. He needs to shake things up.

Kevin Drum 5:52 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Issues, Kev, issues. Not the frickin' horse race. Let's all do this one different for once, shall we?

Posted by: Randy Kirchhof on September 11, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, don't buy into the rhetoric that Hillary has any more experience than Obama does. Arranging seating charts for parties in the East Wing is not govenrning experience. (The few things that Hillary WAS involved in-- health care, suppressing the Whitewater billing records, firing the travel office staff-- were disasters.)

She ONLY gets credit for the service in the Senate (in which she has accomplished nothing beyond murdering 3,500 brave American servicemembers in Iraq). It is horribly antifeminist and plain wrong to embrace "power behind the throne" narratives.

Posted by: Dilan Esper on September 11, 2007 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary can get away with that for now, but Obama can't. He needs to shake things up.

That's CW for the second placer. But that is simply not in Obama's nature. He'll just keep with the straight talk about his policy objectives until the rest of you get it. I just hope it's in time.

Posted by: Disputo on September 11, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

As far as I can tell, for example, he has yet to give a speech that either of the other two major candidates couldn't have delivered without changing a word.

—Kevin Drum

I really had high hopes for Obama. But he missed his opportunity. Oprah or not, it's over for him.

He suffers from dems' original sin: not attacking when it's time to attack.

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 11, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Judgment and temperament are the most important attributes in foreign affairs

Well, those and basic knowledge and attentiveness so as not to make boneheaded errors.

Posted by: Shelby on September 11, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

Saw Obama give a speech this weekend, and Hillary could not possibly have said, as he did, that he opposed the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, and so on. I take your point about needing to sharpen the differences,, but Obama is cool and appealing and inspirational in a way that Hillary is not. Maybe that's not enough of a distinction, but I predict it will become increasingly apparent as we get to know them better. He can change his rhetoric; Hillary cannot change her nature.

Posted by: Kit Stolz on September 11, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Obama ... opposed the war in 2002, 2003, 2004, and so on."

Get real. It's time for him to step up to the fucking plate and label the whole Bush-Petraeus dog-and-pony show a sham.

If he doesn't, he's history.

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 11, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, don't buy into the rhetoric that Hillary has any more experience than Obama does.

And she plainly doesn't. To repeat -- Obama has more experience as an elected official than either HRC or Edwards.

And his foreign policy instincts are better than either of them:

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

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. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. 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, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, 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 US 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 today. 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.

-Barack Obama Anti-War Rally, Chicago October 2, 2002.
Posted by: Disputo on September 11, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Get real. It's time for him to step up to the fucking plate and label the whole Bush-Petraeus dog-and-pony show a sham.

Did you not hear him today? That's precisely what he did.

Posted by: Disputo on September 11, 2007 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has more experience as an elected official than either HRC or Edwards.

Posted by: Disputo

I agree. But he has to understand the unique opportunity he has -- and go for the jugular. He doesn't have to attack HRC.

He has to devastate Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, et al. in a way that HRC is afraid to do!!!

Why is this so difficult?

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 11, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has to shake up the party by going off the reservation.

Here's my suggestion: Go populist. Talk about real stoppage in new free trade. Talk about real restrictions on the H-1b and other scab wetback programs which bring in cheap IT labor to displace American workers.

Obama criticized Clinton for being D-Punjab. I'd talk about that more. Clinton has taken huge money from Indian IT sweatshop firms, and Bill has taken HUGE money too. They are REAL vulnerable there.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has to shake up the party by going off the reservation. Here's my suggestion: Go populist.

Posted by: POed Lib

We're on the same team here, but fuck "go populist."

Attack Bush unmercifully on Iraq. Hold up pictures of the men and women who have died. This guy -- and repugs -- are vulnerable on the war -- not populism.

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 11, 2007 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's anti-war rhetoric is just that thus far, rhetoric. From McClatchy today:The presidential campaign of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., for example, hit rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., on Tuesday for not committing to vote for a fixed, enforceable timetable for withdrawal.

BHO may say he's opposed to the war, but unless he can help lead the Dems in the Senate to actually get there, it's just a rhetorical gambit.

Sorry, but Richardson has the whole package of credentials that neither BHO nor HRC has.

Posted by: TJM on September 11, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Sorry, but Richardson has the whole package of credentials that neither BHO nor HRC has."

I used to like him, but I have decided that he is a boob. He cannot be trusted to say anything sensible. He says all kinds of stupid stuff all the time.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 11, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Attack Bush unmercifully on Iraq. Hold up pictures of the men and women who have died. This guy -- and repugs -- are vulnerable on the war -- not populism."

Well, economic issues are very important. Populist themes, handled carefully, can be very powerful. JE gets huge traction with his "Two Americas" speech, and I think there is plenty there. There are a lot of people who have lost jobs.

Here's another one: college costs. Millions are hearing "college is essential" and yet it is SO expensive. States have let the support for state schools go way down, and I think that repukeliscum states would be very vulnerable to a well-designed campaign comparing tax relief for out of state businesses to instate student tuition. In MO (where I work), out-of-state businesses get tax cuts, and the support for the state schools is really awful.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

AS much as I want a woman in the white house, first lady experience shouuld not be used to pad the resume. Obama has also had statehouse experience that you are not countin.

What seems to be happening is that foreign policy belligerence functions as a proxy for experience and that's the same crap tht got us into this mess.

Posted by: Kiaj on September 11, 2007 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

This comment is in response to both your Obama/Clinton thread and your leaving Iraq thread. I read your blog because your views, for good or ill, are almost always the same as mine. I like your skepticism. But, I think you're off on leaving Iraq and where the Dems need to be on this issue to prosper.

Pat Lang has an insightful blog which I'll wager you know about. His most recent entry offers a realistic view of Iraq and advice to "you" Democrats and it's sincere. It's not of the "you need to be more like us Republicans" variety. (I don't actually know his politics, by the way.)

Try: "Advice for the Democratic Party"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

If he's right, Clinton will be by far the better candidate for the long haul. The positioning now doesn't matter as much. There is an opportunity here for Dems to help themselves and the country at the same time.

Posted by: dws on September 11, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib: Obama criticized Clinton for being D-Punjab. I'd talk about that more. Clinton has taken huge money from Indian IT sweatshop firms

Good article on that: Unions Press Clinton on Outsourcing Of U.S. Jobs

Hillary "Outsourcers 'R' Us" Clinton is as dirty as they come on this issue. President? No thanks, I'd rather have a Democrat.

Posted by: alex on September 11, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

One of the reasons Clinton continues to double Obama's support is something that people here overlook. Comparing Hillary's involvement as first lady to "the first lady experience" is absurd and most people not supporting Obama or Edwards find laughable. That line of argument against Clinton has not worked.

It's time to try a new approach if you support Obama or Edwards (they are really the only ones I hear saying that). More people share Kevin's view than not, at least according to the current polls. And my bet is that the wind is clearly behind Clinton's back. If Obama or Edwards don't do something dramatic soon, I wouldn't be surprised to see Clinton get over 50%.

Posted by: johnson on September 11, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

"her eight years in the White House"

Huh ???? Her only "official" White House policy job she totally screwed up.

Posted by: brucds on September 11, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Well, economic issues are very important.

Posted by: POed Lib

I think you and I probably agree on 99% of issues, but not on this one. In 2008, economic issues are not important.

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 11, 2007 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

HRC, like Kerry, took a political gamble and voted for the war. She hasn't been honest and I don't trust her; I don't trust her judgement and I don't trust her honesty. And being "first lady" doesn't count as experience as president.

Posted by: JerseyMissouri on September 11, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Are Washmonthers ready to stand behind Obama and these words? Follow link for full speech.

...American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy...lifted the world -- that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.

...They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Today, we are again called to provide visionary leadership...These threats demand a new vision of leadership in the twenty-first century...In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.

After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. ...We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

... the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 11, 2007 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has more experience as an elected official?

If you think being a state legislator from Illinois and 2 years in the Senate stacks up against 8 years as an active/involved first lady on the national scene plus 6 years in the Senate I have a bridge you might like.

Make that claim all you want - it's laughable.

Posted by: Pragmatic Liberal on September 11, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon,

Those are very pretty words. Nobody has ever doubted Obama's ability to speak pretty. BTW, remember GWB's campaign promise to avoid nation building?

P.S. I never thought that you swaggered.

Posted by: alex on September 11, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

--taking a new approach to foreign affairs.

Gee, I don't know - all Hillary has to do is talk about "our vital national interest" which she does alot, certainly, I'm sure Marc Rich likes that kind of talk, and it sounds JUST EXACTLY LIKE BUSH's FOREIGN POLICY. So I'm merely waiting for her to say that we can't let oil fall into the hands of "terrorist" just exaclty the Bush talks (you know, terrorist like Russia and China and the Iraqi people and their national oil ideas.)

All Obama has to do is sound like he doesn't kiss big oil ass - and he's got my vote.

If Obama really wanted to win - talk about Hillary's two faced statements - she's staying in Iraq for "our vital national interest" which means the troops will NEVER come home (it's stay the course) so she is lying about ending the war in Iraq.

Sorry, there is no two ways about it BECAUSE protecting "our vital national interest" requires a strong miltiary presents in the region. Hillary is lying as much as Bush lies. She is NOT going to leave Iraq.

If Obama really wants to be president - I would make an issue of that and the Marc Rich pardon - it's what tells most Americans that the Clintons, have sold out, and who big oil can buy - indeed who has already bin bought big oil - Hillary did vote for the bankruptcy law BEFORE - with voters looking on - she voted against it.

She's a flip-flop.

Posted by: Me_again on September 11, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Pragmatic Liberal: If you think being a state legislator from Illinois and 2 years in the Senate stacks up against 8 years as an active/involved first lady on the national scene plus 6 years in the Senate I have a bridge you might like.

Yup, Hillary has that. Blew the health care initiative, voted for the Iraq war, and is a charter member of Outsourcers-R-Us.

Lots of experience - all of it bad.

I think the important things that she's got going for her are:

1. Self-fulfilling prophecy. People support her because they think she'll win. They figure that a Republican Lite is better than a Full Flavor Republican.

2. Last name is vaguely familiar.

3. Access to Bill's Rolodex.

Posted by: alex on September 11, 2007 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

“he has yet to convince me that his actual governing style would be much different from anyone else's. As far as I can tell, for example, he has yet to give a speech that either of the other two major candidates couldn't have delivered without changing a word.”

After being able to watch and hear these candidates several times now I think Drum has emphasized a key quality. It is true that BHO has the evangelical cadence and the emphasis on the the right messages but what is it that he brings to the table that's gonna lead the country in a new direction? HRC doesn't bring much to the party except more of the same and she doesn't take questions... like a '55 Chevy with only 100 miles on the odometer... just being there doesn't mean you've gone the distance.

A genuine desire to change the course of government and use the reins to lead has become a critical quality in a candidate for me. To identify a candidate who espouses change and has the fortitude to buck the status quo and drive opinion we'll have to look beyond the media drumbeat that anointed these two the frontrunner's and pay more attention to the other choices.

Posted by: Bigsky in Iowa on September 11, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

alex,
blew health care? try sandbagged by the health care industry - don't remember Harry and Louise?

voted for the Iraq War" try voted to authorize Bush to threaten Iraq - was she wrong? Yes. Will she get the troops out of harms way? Yes.

Outsourcer in charge? I don't buy that.

You can find negatives about all the candidates. Last time I looked not one of them walked on water.

Posted by: Pragmatic Liberal on September 11, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Neither Obama nor Clinton have cosponsored the uniting american families act that would allow me to sponsor my foreign born same-sex partner for immigration -- they have repeatedly hemmed and hawed on anything that would respect the rights of same-sex couples. They continue to throw LGBT people under the bus because they know that we can't stomach the republicans. This pisses me the hell off. I'm putting my vote behind Edwards or Kucinich or Gravel if I don't start hearing something better than -- "wait your turn" and "separate but equal is sometimes okay." Or perhaps I can hope that Canada will open its doors to persecuted gay americans as a refuge country.

Posted by: DC1974 on September 11, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Pragmatic Liberal: blew health care? try sandbagged by the health care industry

Her closed door approach to devising a plan did anything but inspire confidence, which was a widely cited factor by people (real people, not pundits) who were suspicious of her insanely complex plan.

Nowadays she stuffs herself at the Big Pharma trough more than anyone else.

voted for the Iraq War" try voted to authorize Bush to threaten Iraq

A distinction without a difference, unless she's so naive that she didn't think Bush would take it as a blank check (and I seriously doubt she's naive). There were 23 Senators who voted against it - 21 of them Democrats. So why not go with a known winner?

Will she get the troops out of harms way? Yes.

And you believe this why? Only believable to the extent that the next president will have to, regardless of who's elected. You know, "Peace With Honor" and all that.

Outsourcer in charge? I don't buy that.

Try reading this article for a good primer. Those of us who follow the issue closely have long known about this side of her, but it's nice to see it being covered in the MSM.

You can find negatives about all the candidates.

Of course, but it's nice if they have a few positives too. If that's the best thing you can say about Hillary, then it brings new meaning to the term "low expectations".

Hillary's greatest success is her ability to raise money, which leads to the "I support her because she's supported mentality". Yes, every politician has to do it (which is why I think that campaign finance reform is the most important political reform we could have). But Hillary leads the Dem pack - she's sold her soul so many times it would make Bialystock & Bloom blush.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

-- Harry S Truman

Posted by: alex on September 11, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Obama should shake things up by running against his own party's Congress. He should try everything he can to stop the war and start universal health insurance. If anybody from either party gets in his way, he should call them out. It would get my vote, at least.

Posted by: reino on September 11, 2007 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary can get away with that for now, but Obama can't. He needs to shake things up.

Bullshit. It's September '07. Right now the race is all about money and insider politics. Democratic voters aren't paying much attention.

Posted by: Boronx on September 11, 2007 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Crowley suggests that the public is tired of battles over HRC's vote in favor of the Senate Iraq resolution, which would make this a tired line of attack for Obama.

So I guess that's it then huh? MSM pundits are oh-so-bored with the boring Iraq War vote and now Hillary just gets a free pass. The most important vote since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gets tossed aside because folks like Crowley are tired of hearing about it.

I guess we deserve the government we get.

Posted by: Moonlight on September 11, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

I think the important things that she's got going for her are:

I'd add #4: The support of a lot of deep pocket Republicans who can see the writing on the wall.

Posted by: Disputo on September 11, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but Richardson has the whole package of credentials that neither BHO nor HRC has.

I'll grant that Richardson has the best resume, and I'll prefer to support him, but if you can't effectively campaign, you can't be POTUS.

Posted by: Disputo on September 11, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK
blew health care?

Yes, blew health care.

try sandbagged by the health care industry - don't remember Harry and Louise?

Yes, and any competent campaign for major reform would have expected a FUD campaign from entrenched interest, and led with its own strong campaign to build support and hit back hard.

For someone whose entire campaign hinges on avoiding any mention of specific plans and claims to have "experience" that demonstrates that she is the person most able to marshal support for major change in health care and several other policy areas, the complete, stunning, and near-epic failure of her only actual effort in that direction isn't much of a record to run on.

Her plans for everything seem modelled on Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

Posted by: cmdicely on September 11, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has more experience as an elected official than either HRC or Edwards.

Agreed. But not more than Kucinich.

Richardson only has foreign policy, read exercising American power on little guys, experience. For some reason people think that is going to help him deal with all of the coming domestic problems that W. Bush's policies are going to create.

America is really going to need an extraordinary person as president for the next eight years. Obama is appealing because he at least seems to have the potential to be that person. Otherwise, its going to have to be the president's husband who guides us through the terrible times ahead.

Posted by: Weeper (aka Brojo) on September 11, 2007 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Obama has more experience as an elected official than either HRC or Edwards."

Much of that experience was spent working in a cesspool worse than Washington. Obama got a few things done in Springfield, but it's still a cesspool, and nobody should admire him for having been a part of it. There are a lot of things to like about Obama, but that's not one of them.

Posted by: reino on September 12, 2007 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

I completely agree that Obama needs to underscore the difference between him and Hillary in terms of judgment. The problem is, no one really understands what about their judgment is different, other than the fact that Obama happened to be right on a huge issue, and Hillary happened to be wrong. He hasn't said why his brand of judgment, in general way, is better.


If I were Obama, I would have the question revolve around the capacity to see what is not seen. Paint Hillary as a good manager, someone who can handle problems as they arise. Paint Obama as a good leader, someone who can anticipate problems that no one else sees.

I think this is what he means by judgment, but if he doesn't paint a broader picture of his judgment AND tie that to the reason why he got Iraq right, he won't be able to move into Clinton's territory.

Posted by: JDS on September 12, 2007 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum is a political idiot. Attacks don't get tired. You don't attack someone with a new pile of allegations every week. You keep hammering on the weakness you know they have.

I mean, I know that doddering old fools like Drum want to vote for Hillary because she's the most conservative Democrat and god forbid anyone to the left of Kevin Drum ever becomes president, but most Americans haven't heard this 10 million times before and don't see Hillary as the only savior from the leftist hordes. As a result, most Americans won't be as willing to sweep the war and it's issues under the rug.

Don't think for a moment the Republicans won't point out that Hillary has a very pro-war history and that she intends to keep troops in Iraq for 2 terms in office (good luck winning that second one). It won't matter how hypocritical it is, it's the perfect attack to blur all lines between the party and nullify the Democrats biggest advantage.

Posted by: soullite on September 12, 2007 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

So I am surprised that no one commented on Obama's speech. It seems like a discriminator between him and Hillary. Based on other threads here, I expected people to take issue with his forward leaning approach to foreign policy. I get the impression people here think we meddle overseas too much.

The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.

The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world. If elected president, I will start renewing that promise and purpose the day I take office.

Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic RSM Goon on September 12, 2007 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

Obama's belief in the use of American power for good is what prevents me from supporting his candidacy. I do not think Obama thinks American power is a force of good in the world. I think Obama thinks American power is useful to keep large corporations wealthy. In this regard, I consider Obama a Republican. I would like to be shown I am wrong, especially if he becomes president, but his continued speechifying on the subject distresses me.

Posted by: Brojo on September 12, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

So now Brojo is falling for RSM's propaganda?

Posted by: Disputo on September 12, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

So now Brojo is falling for RSM's propaganda?
Posted by: Disputo

What propaganda would that be? It's Obama's speech, not mine. I found his speech bold and provocative, and continue to be surprised it hasn't been discussed. It seems to discriminate between them, which I thought was a topic of this thread. I liked the speech myself.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 12, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

That was a low blow Disputo.

There is plenty of evidence from Obama's own mouth that he is a hawk.

I think my previous comments illustrate I have conflicts about Obama. I think he might be a special, reasonable person, able to communicate a decent path for American politics, but I also think he swallows whole the American military idolatry I loathe.

Posted by: Brojo on September 12, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly