In photos: 'USA Cherry Blossom Festival'

Top ten reasons the GOP will beclown ObamaApr 1st, 2008 - 02:23:59

a post written by Patrick Ishmael

Posted Monday, March 31, 2008 @ 4:34 PM
10. Reliable red states: There's nothing like having friends that like you through thick and thin, and for Republicans in 21 states, that's exactly what they have. Unfortunately for Obama, he's strong in all the wrong places; of the primaries that Obama has won over Clinton, almost half are very reliably Republican and off the general election board -- states like Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska, etc.; in contrast, the states that Clinton is carrying in the primaries are states that Clinton could, in fact, carry in a general election, with less than a third solidly red.

Add to that John McCain's very real ability to make blue states purple or even red (New Jersey the latest example,) and Obama has a very real problem. Like her husband, Clinton can make a legitimate play for wayward Blue Dog Democrats in these battlegrounds; Obama is less able. Why?

9. The 'L' word (liberal): Ideology, plain and simple. Obama's no moderate, and when it gets down to brass tacks, what he believes will matter more than the audacious audacity of his audacilicious hope. National Journal's classification of Obama as the Senate's most liberal senator is not a label Obama will be able to avoid. It's easy ad material and underscores his weakness in states like Pennsylvania and Florida, although it should be noted that NJ's assesment is merely a reiteration of how Obama has described his politics in the past.

8. Michelle Obama: Mrs. Obama is one of the most visible spouses left in this campaign, which brings with it its own positives and negatives. The more vocal she is, the higher the perception her husband's administration will be a tag-team presidency, and the greater the scrutiny paid to her as a result. Mrs. Obama's 'pride in her country' kerfuffle wasn't just a misstatement, as she recited the line twice that day; critiques of it are appropriate -- after all, she meant to say what she said. Meanwhile back in the real world, the American people expect their first spouse to celebrate his or her country in public, not complain about how 'mean' it is and previously undeserving it was of her appreciation... that is, until Barack inspired all those people.

7. Tony Rezko: Money, money, money. It's the lifeblood of politics but also the seed of its corruption, and Rezko is one of its seediest denizens. More will come out as his trial progresses, and Obama's close association with him ties calls into question one of his prinicipal arguments to be President: his judgment.

6. A changed political environment come November: A message of 'hope' is effective in hopeless times. And if the times aren't hopeless? Not so much. If Iraq continues on its path to normalcy and US economic woes stabilize, Obama's potent 'politics of change' talking points evaporate, leaving only Obama's sparse voting record and argument of superior judgment, itself a shallow proposition. There's no guarantee there will be significant progress on either front, but if there is, positive news there is far more detrimental to Obama's candidacy than anything that will (likely?) come out of the Rezko trial.

5. Obama's specious public record: One bill made law and an important chairmanship with no meetings aren't good indicators of what to expect from an Obama presidency. Fact is, there's not a whole lot to find, and of what there is, it's all liberal. (See point 9.) Moreover, the notion that Obama is qualified to be President because he was against going into Iraq implies that about 26% of the American people are also qualified to be Commander in Chief. The 'me and 60 million other people' argument is not a very good one, particularly if it's the only one to be made. So what other indicators of Obama's judgment (not including Rezko, of course) can voters reference when deciding for whom to vote?

4. Reverend Wright: The 527 ads are too easy (although this is a bit over the top,) and the jabs at judgment are obvious. No Republican would have survived this sort of long-term association, and the equivocations of Obama's supporters will do little blunt the damage such ads will have. Is Obama never wrong, or are we always wrong for questioning him? Should Obama have to answer for his association with Wright, or should the US of KKKA instead take this opportunity to do some soul searching with Barack as our predestined moderator? Someone should ask Don Imus.

3. Obama's frequently posited obliviousness and never-posited arrogance: It strains credulity to believe that Obama had little reason to believe that Rezko was a crook. Or that he didn't realize his self-narrated links to Selma and the Kennedy family were fabricated. Or that his pastor was an angry bigot and conspiracy theorist. Or that he didn't fill out that questionaire that had his handwriting on it. Throw in his Hillary 'you're likeable enough' and stories like this from the John Edwards camp, and the non-partisan avatar of Hope and Healing seems a bit less likeable himself.

2. Hillary Clinton: ...and who she's now representing -- women, Florida, Michigan, and Blue Dog Democrats. If women don't show up in the general for the Democrats, this race is over, and any perceived chauvinism that women voters take from how the Democratic process shakes down will be an extreme stumbling block for an Obama nomination. Specifically, not counting Florida and Michigan is a knee-capping of their candidate as well as a disenfranchisement of millions of voters... and it appears the Obama camp has no problem with that. Toss in a little bit of Wright anti-Americanism, Michelle Obama antipathy, and Barack Obama politics (guns anyone?), and Hillary isn't just a barrier to Obama's nomination: she's the last refuge for conservative Democrats.

1. John McCain's biography: It's why he's weathering the storm that comes with being from the party of an unpopular president. And it's why Obama could get bounced around pretty good by the end of this process. McCain supports torture? Intriguing suggestion, given his five years at the hands of torturers. Beholden to special interests? Obama only got, what, something like $70 million last year. If I recall properly, McCain got $0. Ever. A third Bush term? Republican primary voters would disagree, as apparently does the public at large. And you gotta wonder: WWHDD? What would Howard Dean do? Hmm.

Clinton may not fare better in a match-up, but Democrats should be wary about sending the unvetted newbie into fight the (literally) battle-hardened veteran, given the circumstances.

Report this comment

By BRET STEPHENS Apr 1st, 2008 - 23:31:36

GLOBAL VIEW

Does Obama Understand Defeat?
April 1, 2008; Page A16

On Oct. 14, 1993, John McCain took to the floor of the United States Senate to offer what, in light of his past history and his later positions, was an unusual amendment.

Earlier that month, 19 American soldiers had been ambushed and killed in Mogadishu, Somalia, by militiamen connected to warlord Mohamed Farah Aidid. The corpse of one U.S. serviceman had been humiliatingly dragged through the streets. The Arizona Republican wanted U.S. forces out of Somalia -- and was prepared to cut off funds for the mission if the administration refused to expedite a withdrawal. President Clinton attacked the amendment as a 'headlong rush into isolationism.'
WSJ editorial page writer Bret Stephens compares Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama's recent speeches on foreign policy and questions whether Obama understands the possible consequences of a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

At the time, Mr. McCain saw it differently. 'The United States has no viable military options in Somalia that I know of besides a massive military involvement which would involve the consequent slaughter of innocent civilians,' he said in an interview, sounding not a little like today's Democrats on Iraq. 'The United States has to be very careful when it gets involved militarily. Otherwise, we will not only not help the situation, but perhaps, over time, worsen the situation, with the consequent expenditure of American lives and treasure.'

The Somalia episode comes to mind following two recent addresses from Mr. McCain and Barack Obama. On March 19, Mr. Obama gave a big speech on foreign policy at Fort Bragg, in Fayetteville, N.C. That was followed a week later by another big speech on the same subject, this one from Mr. McCain in Los Angeles at the World Affairs Council.

As with most such speeches, many things are said, and few of them are interesting. We learn from the speeches that both men are -- surprise! -- politicians. Both are moving toward the political center as they approach the nomination. Mr. Obama has tough talk on hunting al Qaeda in Pakistan. Mr. McCain has soothing talk on the need for 'international good citizenship.' The hawk and the dove are prepared to fly some distance together, particularly on Guantanamo, global warming and the promotion of Islamic moderation.

And, to a degree that neither is fully prepared to acknowledge, each candidate shares policies with the Bush administration. Mr. Obama's call to increase the size of U.S. ground forces by 92,000 troops -- 65,000 for the Army and 27,000 for the Marines -- is precisely the figure offered by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in 2007.

Where the candidates have real differences is over Iraq. Mr. Obama, as everyone knows, wants to remove American troops at a steady rate of one to two combat brigades a month, until they are all but gone, and 'help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconcilation.' Mr. McCain, as everyone also knows, will do just about everything it takes to win in Iraq and is prepared, on the Korean, West German or Japanese model, to deploy soldiers to the country for a century to preserve the peace.

Yet what distinguishes Mr. McCain's foreign policy from Mr. Obama's is not about the nature of America's commitments in the Middle East. It is about their understanding of the consequences of defeat. Mr. McCain seems to have some. It's not clear whether Mr. Obama does.

In his speech, Mr. Obama rightly observes the paradox of Mr. McCain's position on Iraq. The Arizonan, he notes, argued in 2006 that the U.S. could not withdraw because 'violence was up,' whereas now he argues the U.S. cannot withdraw 'because violence is down.' 'Success,' says the Illinois senator, 'comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely.'

A fair point. But here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It's not as if this hasn't happened before.

Nowhere in Mr. Obama's speech is that scenario entertained, and one wonders why. Perhaps it is a function of biography. With the exception of a failed congressional bid in 2000, defeat has not formed a significant part of Mr. Obama's upwardly mobile life experience. Or perhaps it is a function of philosophy. Not everyone share's Mr. McCain's view that the defeat in Vietnam was a 'disgrace,' or that the result of a war carried out 'Not In My Name' nonetheless has bearing on the worth of one's country.

In a recent interview, Randy Scheunemann, who runs the McCain campaign's foreign policy shop, noted that 'Vietnam had a huge impact on John.' Obviously. Less obvious: 'It's not about his personal experiences in the war as a POW,' he said. 'It's about leading a group of naval aviators [after the Vietnam war] when they had to cannibalize parts.'

Mr. Scheunemann is referring to a chapter in Mr. McCain's life when in 1974 he took command of the Navy's largest naval air squadron in Jacksonville, Fla. Nearly 20 of the squadron's 50 jets had been grounded for lack of maintenance, and some hadn't flown in years. Mr. McCain eventually managed to get all his planes flying again, a professional triumph. But the condition of the post-Vietnam Navy turned out to be an abiding lesson to Mr. McCain about what happens to a defeated military.

As for Somalia, Mr. McCain noted in one of his memoirs that 'The decision to leave Aidid unpunished and to withdraw from Somalia had a disheartening effect on our military. . . . They wondered if we would ever be as committed to victory as they were in the causes we ordered them to serve. Somewhere in Sudan, Osama bin Laden observed our withdrawal from Somalia and concluded that America no longer had the stomach for war.'

In his speech, Mr. Obama noted that there was no point trying to best Mr. McCain in matters of experience, that what counted was good judgment. Very true. How one can have the latter without the former is a question for the rest of us to consider.

Report this comment

SP4: ClarityApr 2nd, 2008 - 20:28:49

'In his speech, Mr. Obama noted that there was no point trying to best Mr. McCain in matters of experience, that what counted was good judgment. Very true. How one can have the latter without the former is a question for the rest of us to consider.'

Clarity....that's why I read it...the WSJ.

Report this comment