Can we finally dispense with the nonsense that Barack Obama represents a “new” and “different” type of political candidate? The dust up over the Canadian TV report
that an advisor of Barack Obama’s did the old Monty Python, “wink,
wink, nudge, nudge” with respect to NAFTA (reportedly signaling to the
Canadians that he did not mean what he was saying in public) has raised
legitimate questions about the competence of Obama’s foreign policy and
economic team. If you can’t manage the Canadians how are you going to
handle the North Koreans, Iranians, and Chinese for pete’s sake?
The original report by CTV.CA was substantively correct but had some glaring factual errors. According to the initial report:
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s
campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United
States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA,
according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
The heart of the issue was whether or not someone in a position of
responsibility with the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama was
telling the Government of Canada to not worry about Obama’s political
rhetoric because he did not really mean to suggest he would dispense
with NAFTA. The Obama campaign, after some initial floundering,
counter-attacked with the following arguments:
- No one employed by the campaign called the Canadian Embassy.
- No one employed by the campaign spoke with the Canadian Ambassador.
And Obama’s campaign was correct. They had not “called” the
Canadians and no one on the Obama “payroll” had spoken with the
Canadian Ambassador.
But then the actual memo from the meeting emerged from the bowels of
the Canadian bureaucracy. WHOOPS! There goes the Obama “new” politics
image.
FIRST POINT–Austan Goolsbee has an important role in Obama’s campaign team.
Let’s start with Austan Goolsbee. It is true that he is not a
campaign official. Nope, he’s a top member of Obama’s economic team.
Why parse words and try to pretend that Goolsbee is some strap hanger,
wannabee who has no substantive role with Obama’s quest for the
Presidency? By parsing this fact, Obama and his team are playing the
same kind of game the Bush Administration did in declaring Valerie
Plame was not a “covert” agent or Bill Clinton insisting that oral sex
was not sex. Americans on average recognize parsing for what it
is–inelegant lying.
Who is Goolsbee?
Goolsbee told the New York Times on 8 November 2007 that:
‘He [Obama] and I saw eye-to-eye on economic stuff.’
Among all the senior economic advisers in both parties, only Mr.
Goolsbee, a relative newcomer to politics, spoke on the record and
without advance clearance. Ask him how he got his position with Mr.
Obama’s campaign, and he cites friends in common who steered the
candidate and the economist toward each other at the University of
Chicago, where both taught. Mr. Obama was running for the Senate at the
time. ‘He and I saw eye-to-eye on economic stuff,” said Mr. Goolsbee,
who describes himself as a centrist.” [NYT, 11/8/07]
And Barack’s own website states:
Goolsbee is the Senior Economic Advisor to the Obama
campaign. He is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago
and a Fulbright Scholar. The Financial Times named him one of the six
Gurus of the Future/Best Under 40 in 2005, and the World Economic Forum
in Switzerland chose him one as one of the 2005 Young Global Leaders.
He received his Master’s Degree in Economics from Yale in 1991 and his
Ph.D. in the same subject in 1995 from Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Note, Goolsbee is not just “A” economic advisor to Obama. He is “THE
SENIOR” economic advisor. Remember, Obama says that words matter. So
Goolsbee’s designation as the senior advisor means he has an important
role in helping Senator Obama define his proposed economic positions.
Second point–The Government of Canada, through its Chicago Consulate, contacted Goolsbee.
Although the Canadians called Goolsbee (and not the other way
around) this does not make Obama’s hypocrisy problem go away. Why would
the Canadian Consulate call Goolsbee? Very simple. The Government of
Canada wanted to get some insight into the thinking behind Barack
Obama’s economic policies. What’s the best way to do this? Ask the
SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR. Duh! Even Homer Simpson could figure this one
out.
So, why the Chicago consulate? Because Goolsbee lives in Chicago, it
fell upon the Canadian Consulate in Chicago to reach out to him. That
is what foreign diplomats do. They get out and meet people, especially
people who are likely to have some influence or important position in a
future government. That is what U.S. diplomats do overseas–they meet
with aspiring Presidential candidates and their advisors.
Third point–The Government of Canada, through its consulate,
produces a report of the meeting that is sent back to the Foreign
Ministry and distributed throughout the Canadian Government.
So Austan Goolsbee shows up at the Canadian consulate and meets with the Consul General, Georges Rioux
and a junior Canadian diplomat, Joseph Demora. When a senoir diplomat
meets with someone like Goolsbee, he or she almost always has a note
taker with them to record who says what. That unpleasant task fell to
Joseph Demora. When the meeting is over, Joseph Demora’s work started.
He went back to his desk and wrote up who said what. Once he completed
his memo (folks at the U.S. State Department would call this a “cable”)
he submitted it to Consul General Rioux. Consul General Rioux reviewed
the memo/cable. He would not sign off on it unless it accurately
reflected what was said and what was heard.
According to the memo/cable, Goolsbee told the Canadians in Chicago:
that the debate over free trade in the Democratic
presidential primary campaign was ”political positioning” and that
Obama was not really protectionist.
Goolsbee may be a dandy economist but he is a fool when it comes to
dealing with foreign officials. His stupid denial that the Canadians
are misquoting him ignores the process how such messages are generated.
It was not just the opinion of DeMora. It was the consensus view of
Demora and Rioux that Goolsbee made such claims.
On a scale of one to ten this is probably a three on the issue but
it is an eight in what it tells us about the true nature of the Obama
campaign. Remember, Goolsbee was front and center on the eve of the
so-called Potomac primaries touting Barack Obama’s economic vision. He
was not some kooky academic strap hanger trying to catch some of the
glory streaming from the Democrats’ new Messiah. He was and is a policy
player for Barack.
It does not matter whether Obama told Goolsbee what to say to the
Canadians. The fact of the matter is that Goolsbee had been tabbed as
one of the people who will help craft, explain, and implement the
economic policy of a President Obama.
But did Obama and his folks come clean? Hell no. So you Obama
disciples, go blow your smoke about this new and different candidate up
someone else’s pant leg (I hear Chris Matthew’s could still use a
tingle). Barack and his team are playing an old game. And Barack and
his team of foreign policy amateurs were exposed as inept. They may run
a terrific campaign. But governing and managing foreign policy is not
the same as campaigning. Hopefully they will learn something about
dealing with Canada from this dust up. If not, just imagine the mayhem they can
create with Iran or the Chinese.
Larry -
We Minnesotans like trading with Canada a heck of lot more than invading Iraq or voting to enable war with Iran.
March 3, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the statement by the Canadian government:
“The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.”
“We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect,” the statement says.
March 3, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! You're not working for a campaign, are you? Perhaps Obama secretly broke up with you and you still can't get over it.. or do you usually get this worked up about politics?
So lets see... the issue is the Canadians worried about how the next President will approach NAFTA, so called all the candidates. All the candidates told them, "don't worry, we'll talk first before unilaterally withdrawing" (Obama and Clinton), or "what problem?" (McCain).
The CTV comes out saying that Obama called the Consulate (wrong). Obama says he didn't call the Consulate (right). Big furor over not holding to imaginary policy position of "he promised to pull out!" (wrong). Both Clinton and Obama aren't stupid enough to kick our closest allies and neighbors, so what's up your kiester?
You'll have to forgive me for believing you're working with the McCain camp. BTW, a new kind of politics doesn't mean from another planet or his being the second coming, but those are nice straw men your putting up there.
March 3, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Larry, when the Democratic candidate is assured are you going to work for the McCain's? Hillary is. You'd make a great team. You, Hillary and Karl Rove -- an axis of skeezil.
March 3, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the foreign policy issue we should really be worried about today is Hillary's endorsement of John McCain's experience on foreign policy. They voted the same on Iraq. Who really believes Hillary is going to get us out of Iraq? Who really believes Hillary can stand up to the warmongers on Iran?
March 3, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post Larry. The Obama camp's Bill Clinton-esque language parsing denial was unwise. The actual "crime" here was relatively innate and a preemptory mea culpa would've avoided this second, untimely, news cycle. This was a mistake.
To argue that this speaks volumes to his Foreign Policy capabilities, however, requires some intellectual gymnastics. Assuming all of your facts above, his economic advisor hoped to let Canada know they need not worry should Obama get elected -- he was merely playing politics. This, if anything, is an olive branch extended by Obama to let the Canadian gov't know that an Obama presidency would not hurt the countries' current trade relationship. Nothing wrong with this. Infact, this leak hurts Canada if anything. The relationship between Canada and Obama would not sour over this at all. This is where your argument breaks down.
You argue, rightfully so, that his blunder was in today's denial: "His stupid denial that the Canadians are misquoting him ignores the process how such messages are generated."
This has probably been the Obama camp's biggest gaffe in an otherwise excellently run campaign. This, however, was a case of poor campaigning NOT a foreign policy blunder.
It certainly does not present a platform from which to spring the argument that this type of foreign policy gaffe would create mayhem with "Iran or the Chinese."
March 3, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we be adults here - maybe - for a minute? Anyone actually read the 'smoking memo'?
Goolsbee (here-in-after referred to as Foolsbee) was summoned for reassurance and said what Obama has been saying publicly. We're pro-int'l-trade but some deals like NAFTA need tweaking - re labor standards, manufacturing safeguards and reciprocity. Period - end of faux-let's-respond-to-Hil's-unfair-coverage-allegations-by-appearing-to-hit-Obama-neg-crumbs-hard, Clinton fed fodder.
The Clintonesque language is from the namesakes - hate to invoke a Kerry death by lack of media/electorate/Shrub nuance tone-deafness. But while we're all aboard the latest baby-frenzy - ANYONE re Clinton being pro-NAFTA w/ this as a convenient diversion? She's not even trying to explain - ala 'I was for it before I was against it'. While she's in Ohio - well, I was secretly against it - all the while running on her husband's record when it whips up the faithful. Then to Texas where NAFTA's been beneficial and therefore popular - not a peep - from either side of the potential 2-4-once-again-co-prezs.
Obama's aide was invited for a chat b/c they anticipate him to be the nominee. Anyone - think HilCamp jealous b/c no one cared what their 3-card-monty NAFTA game is?
I keep hoping we're not as gullible as last two elections - for an MSM who has of late (like 7+ years) missed the story. Anyone want to ask her which part of Bill's admin she wants to take credit for and which she wants to disavow - ANYONE?
March 4, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
People like Larry Johnson, Joe Wilson and Paul Krugman have been such a huge disappointment to me recently, after having thought so well of them for so long. I don't have a problem with their being Hillary surrogates. It's that -- to a man -- their idea of being a Hillary surrogate is not to talk up Hillary, it's to trash Obama.
Well, the Republicans must be thrilled. But, one can't help but wonder: Is there really nothing positive they can say about Hillary?
I guess columns like this one are my answer.
March 3, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, one of Obama's close advisors mouthed off and Obama should probably smack him down for it. This has been embarassing, for sure.
But it's the adviser's fault. I like Hillary and I forgive her advisers an awful lot (though I still owe Mark Penn a punch in the proboscus). It doesn't serve any of us to have our candidates judged by rogue adviser actions.
And... the Canadian government, which is conservative, is just having a little fun here. Problem for us is... if Hillary does stage her comeback tomorrow and if she does become the nominee, are we going to have to deal with interference from the north as well?
All I'm saying is that Obama should be a little embarassed and should probably publicly take the switch to his adviser and I certainly got a laugh out of this but... it ain't no big thing.
I'm much more concerned that Obama has big ears and hangs around with Oprah.
March 3, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh good - more foreign policy comparisons. Let's rework the balance sheet:
Barack Obama
:Economic adviser possibly gave mixed messages to Canadian consulate on NAFTA.
Hillary Clinton
:1. Voted for an illegal, unwarranted and dubderheeaded war of imperial aggression that has caused over one million excess Iraqi deaths; has driven millions of Iraqis into refugee status; has killed and maimed tens of thousands of US soldiers; will ultimately cost the US three trillion dollars; and has weakened US influence and damaged US interests all around the world.
2. Enthusiastic supporter of miltaristic approaches to Kosovo, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
3. Eager apologist for Israeli war crimes.
4. One of the Senate's top defense industry pushovers and provisioners of military pork.
5. Married to a man who now exploits former gig as President to sell influence in absolutist states like Kazakhstan.
6. Beneficiary of said husband's pardon of Marc Rich, a highly wanted global scale gangster who was the godfather of the Russian oligarch-looters and ran a world petroleum industry shakedown and oil-laundering racket.
Hmmm ... yes, it appears Hillary Clinton certainly has to "experience" necessary to assume control of the mass murdering, militarized gangster state that used to be the United States.
March 3, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
DanK:
In your latest "constructive criticism" of HRC :), you write that, inter alia, she is an "[e]ager apologist for Israeli war crimes". Assuming your correct, and I'm not asking to argue about Israel (frankly I'm enjoying the respite from such debates), can you answer the following?:
1. How is Obama's policy with respect Israel any different than HRC's?
2. Assuming you can cite differences beyond hunches and stuff (and of course little snippets from speeches :)), do you think that Obama has discussed these differences publicly, or is he just being like any other politician and telling the rabid portion of the American Jewish community one thing, and left of center voters another?
I don't see a difference between the two candidates in this area, and though I might be more "pro-Israel" than you, I definitely have what I consider to be more reasoned views on Israel than either HRC or, to my knowledge, Obama has.
But I would be interested in hearing from you, since your views on Israel are pretty clear to me after one year plus of posting, and I know you're an Obama supporter, so I really would like to understand how, given your intense criticism of HRC's positions on Israel, you can give Obama a pass based upon what's in the public record.
Thanks DanK, and do chill!!!
Regards.
Bruce
March 4, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Bruce. I look forward to Dan K's response as well.
March 4, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I would just like to note that Clinton's positions vis-a-vis Israel were only part of my criticism of her, which is based on a broader pattern of positions and activity. Overall, my criticism has been that Clinton has a dangerous tendency to prefer military solutions to international problems, leans toward a national strategy and understanding of Middle East affairs that is far too close to the neoconservative world view for my taste, and is too friendly with the defense industry.
As for Obama, there is only so far a politician can wander of the Israeli reservation in the US and still be viable. But he once said that no people had suffered more than the Palestinians. He also proposed a sort of US summit with Muslim countries, and of course has shown himself much more open than Clinton to talking with all of Israel's various enemies. His speeches and public statements, while adhering to all of the standard non-negotiable orthodoxies about Israel, have shown a much less hard line edge than Clinton's, which have sometimes been markedly belligerent. Her Aipac speech, her speeches on trips to Israel, and especially her speech in July 2006 at the anti-UN rally in front of the UN really point up how determined Clinton has been to prove that there is no other US politician any closer to Israel.
When this race is over, I'll chill. But I'm afraid I am just not one of those "I'll be perfectly happy with either candidate as the nominee" kinds of Democrats. I believe I stated here over a year ago that I thought it was absolutely essential to defeat Hillary Clinton. Should a Democrat like Clinton, who has been about as closely aligned with the war and the militarism of the past seven years as any Democratic Senator, attain the nomination, I would regard it as a profound defeat for the progressive opponents of this approach. It would make me feel like everything I and other opponents of the war, and the neo-imperial foreign policy it reflects, have been writing around the blogosphere the past several years was a monumental waste of effort. In other words: they win, we lose.
I have only modest hopes for a real improvement in the national foreign policy direction from Obama; no hopes at all where Clinton is concerned. Defeating Clinton is even more important to me than electing Obama. She needs to be defeated to send a decisive message of rejection. There has to be a price to be paid for taking the positions she has taken.
March 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan:
Can you give me more info on this? I've tried Googling it to not avail. Perhaps I'm looking for the wrong thing. Thanks, Peter
"her speech in July 2006 at the anti-UN rally in front of the UN"
March 4, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope that our friends up north would remind Americans and both Hillary and Obama that parity under NAFTA might be a tad easier if we had single payer universal healthcare instead of a hodge podge of insurance plans which add to the cost of doing business.
But healthcare was last week. Hillary the Hawk is back. Duck and cover.
March 3, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not all about you guys.
Look, here's what's going on. The Conservative government of Steven Harper is a parliamentary minority. There's a scandal breaking that back in 2005, the Conservatives bribed a sitting independent MP dying of cancer. This will likely trigger a new election. The conservatives are desperate to change the subject.
As for this whole kerfluffle, look, if you asses can't get along well with Canadians, then you can't get along with nobody nowhere.
NAFTA is not going to go away, because it is the foundation of America's energy access to and control of Canadian and Mexican resources. No matter how much Obama or anyone else pisses and moans about displaced steelworkers or garment factory seamstresses, the truth is no one in American politics gives a genuine rats ass about these people, and they're certainly not going to look out for them as against the big picture.
This is such a non-issue.
March 3, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly true.
March 3, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, I just wanted to make sure that you know that, for once, I agree with you.
March 4, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll stipulate :
oGoolsbee said something fairly near to how he was quoted by the Canadian Consul General.
oIt represented what Goolsbee thinks Obama thinks. Which may or may not actually be the case.
oThe Canadian Government then issued the retraction allwarisbad quotes because Governments disown things which are embarrasing. Means nothing.
And then draw no inference whatsoever as to Obama's ability to handle foreign affairs or his honesty on the campaign trail which I expect is exactly = to that of every other serious candidate.
Nor should Larry. Or any of you.
There are lots of substantial reasona to vote for or against Obama or HRC. This isn't one of them.
March 3, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we finally dispense with the nonsense that Barack Obama represents a “new” and “different” type of political candidate?
Because some advisor made a boo-boo?
How about this, Larry. If every boo-boo by an Obama advisor can be taken to be an accurate indicator of Obama's own beliefs, then every boo-boo by a Hillary advisor can be taken to be an accurate indicator of Hillary's own beliefs. Will you embrace that standard and post your analysis of Hillary's own failings accordingly?
March 3, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will Hillary stop her fruitless campaign after she loses Texas tomorrow? It is time for her to make peace with the new plan.
March 3, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I find the quote from the Canadian memo describing what Goolsbee said reassuring. From the press reports, I thought Goolsbee had actually told the Canadians that Obama's statements on NAFTA shouldn't be taken at face value, thereby implying that Obama was being duplicitous. In fact, Goolsbee said something much different--that Obama isn't a protectionist. It is quite possible to criticise NAFTA and still not be a protectionist, so there's nothing duplicitous here at all.
March 3, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am:
an Illinois constituent who contributed to his campaign in 2004
an Obama constiutent who was disappointed with the canned reply I got for him when I raised trade issues and therefore for this and other reasons ...
a non-supporter of Barack Obama through much of the primary season who
nevertheless, after much soul-searching voted for him in the Illinois primary and
continue to support him even though
I believe his position on trade issues is pretty much that which Goolsbee supposedly told the Canadians, and that that position sucks.
Nonetheless, I reject Larry Johnson's attempt to push this as a point of difference with Hillary Clinton, whose position on trade I find to be in no way more sincere than Obama's. She didn't have to take money from Indian offshoring companies, but she was not the least bit ashamed of doing so. One even called her the "Senator from Punjab".
John Kerry fit the mold in 2004 perfectly with his Benedict Arnold Corporations bullshit, and he ran from it like a scared rat the minute Jim Lehrer raised this issue in his debate with Bush.
Now we have Obama and Clinton, both in hock to the corporate tit, and we are left to wonder when, if ever, the American government, Republican or Democrat, will ever again to anything serious about retaining any jobs for the people whose votes it panders to every four years.
It's a sad state of affairs that reflects well on neither candidate.
March 3, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
I just noticed something perhaps you may have also noticed of late... there seems to be a certain segment of the readership who post here at TPM that just don't like anything you write and dont' like any point you make. Your crime, in their eyes, seems to be that you must be a Hillary supporter on a mission to besmirch their chosen candidate (not Hillary). There seems, from their point of view, you could have no other reason ever to question anything regarding His Exceptionalness, Senator Obama of Illinois.
I can't say whether you're a Hillary guy or not (I certainly am not a Hillary guy), but frankly I don't care if you are or not. In this post as in a number of others you've dared to put up at TPM the question for me is whether or not you raise any legitimate points in your post. I think you do.
If Obama's main economic guy is essentially caught playing at "politricks" as usual it certainly does reflect poorly on Obama and his judgement (not to mention the amateur who created the problem)even though Obama himself may have played no direct role in the mishap. Other campaigns have faced similar situations in the past and it has caused them problems depending upon how they managed the situation. There are a number of ways to deal with it of course, but for Obama it presents a somewhat unique dilemma in that he is supposed to be the guy that doesn't play the political shell game. If true, the story appears to reveal that, in fact, Obama puts his pants on one leg at a time and he is a typical politician who is fully capable of saying one thing for public consumption while assuring some behind the scenes that his public statements are not for real. That is not necessarily the greatest sin a pol can commit in my book. But whether the Obama campaign chooses to deny the reality of the situation could turn into a real problem.
In the long run, I think it would be helpful to the public and frankly, to Obama himself to quit pushing this fantasy that he is somehow different from the rest and above it all and that he has some unique gift to succeed where others have failed and so on and so on, etc... That illusion simply isn't real. It's ridiculous in fact. It is only a matter of time before that spell wears off and people see he's just a regular politician with a real good and timely message that he's using to market his candidacy. If people understand that now, they won't be as let down later when he fails to achieve whatever it is his loyal adherents think he's been saying he's going to do even though they have mostly been filling in the blanks to suit themselves about what he really means to do.
Getting beyond that would allow people to consider what, if anything, this sort of incident says about Obama and his campaign. Personally, I think it does raise legitimate questions about the kind of operation being run by Obama and his people on his behalf. This should be expected given the fact that he was in the minor leagues just a couple of years ago and now finds himself in the majors without a whole lot of experience. Frankly, I'm surprised there haven't been a lot more such bumps in the road for Obama, but this is one of the few. That's not at all to say he can't do a good job, it's just that he's claiming (as they all must) that he's the best man for the job and this is a fairly significant gaffe at minimum.
The questions Larry raises are fair questions to raise about any candidate under the circumstances and people ought to give at least some thought to them before simply reacting in knee jerk manner with reasons why Hillary is worse. I honestly don't think that Larry's point is simply to launch a rocket toward Obama, but even if that's his intention, the fact that the questions are legit oughta elicit a bit more thoughtfulness from people is all I'm saying.
March 3, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb:
"Larry,
I just noticed something perhaps you may have also noticed of late... there seems to be a certain segment of the readership who post here at TPM that just don't like anything you write and dont' like any point you make."
Larry Johnson:
"So you Obama disciples, go blow your smoke about this new and different candidate up someone else’s pant leg (I hear Chris Matthew’s could still use a tingle)."
Your right, oleeb. It must be Larry's principled defense of Clinton that makes people treat him with contempt. It couldn't be anything else.
March 4, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't write anything about a "principled defense" of anything or anyone.
My point, which was quite direct and simple, was and is that Larry has raised some legitimate questions. That's all.
You can get mad about it, but it seems silly and frankly childish to get all pissed off when someone raises a legitimate question about your candidate.
March 4, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
I THINK what's happened here--meaning in this string of threads from Larry--is the following.
Larry started off talking about Hillary's positives; how he was impressed with her foreign policy understanding.
Then Larry gets trashed for having anything positive to say about Hillary ("Your just a shill for Hill) when any reasonable human being knows there is nothing to recommend her candidacy and where does he get the gall to suggest otherwise.
Larry, being something of an excitable boy, hits back at those who have called him a Hillary stool...and starts throwing things at Obama for good measure.
This inflames the trashers who say that anything bad Obama does, Hillary does the same only 100 times worse.
So, instead of a conversation of about what is good and bad about each candidate, we get two sides who can't stomach the idea that there is anything positive to say about the other.
Though Dan K has thrown some logs on this fire, I LIKE his comparison sheets and find them illuminating and persuasive, if not definitively so. (Kosovo does have a dark side.)
Here's why--and here's where the "experience" issue meets the road for me--I'm interested in knowing what a candidate has done when he was in the saddle and the eyes of his constituencies were focused on him. I'm interested in the context. I'm interested in the pressures, political and otherwise, he was facing. I think Hillary coming from the 9/11 state with a bloc of right wing Jews is important to consider.
Obama has the luxury of not having much of a past--in a way. His Senate record, though thin, seems promising. His Illinois record seems promising. His community organizing record and time on the Harvard Law Review seem promising. (It's worth noting, in regard to the former, that Hillary also had the same pull toward community organizing; wrote her thesis in Alinsky and considered working for him.)
But I don't think he's been tested "in the kitchen" the way Clinton has been. So, as you say, he's remained "pure" and is pushing his purity. Just like Clinton's deeply flawed strategy of "inevitability," this one is also a very risky ploy. I happen to think he genuinely believes in it and will try to carry it through. But what happens when he's shown to have clay feet?
I like your notion of "projection." It reminds me a bit of Jerzy Kozinski's character "Chance," brilliantly played by Peter Sellers in the movie. We see what we want to see.
Peeking behind the curtin, I see Obama as a traditional liberal who holds to liberal views on the big issues of the day. I do think he's a conciliator by nature and someone who will try to turn down the heat to get something done. As with Dan K, I do believe he has a more thoughtful and perhaps ethical approach to foreign policy than Hillary who has been pushed to the right for a number of reasons (e.g., she's a woman, she's from the 9/11 state; she's had to prove her toughness).
But again, for Dan K and all those on the left who love to trash Clinton: Name the last presidential candidate of your choosing who won? Jimmy Carter? Was he your favorite choice? Then name the last presidential candidate of your choosing who won two terms? FDR?
Our opposition can point to GWB and RR.
Say what you will about Clinton, he beat them at their own game. He kept the wolves from completely devouring the store. He beat back the RR revolution--or at least kept it from eating the country alive. And she helped him. I'd say that's a pretty big accomplishment, and one that NO ONE else on the left or in the center even comes close to matching. I think a little humility and perspective and context are in order here.
March 4, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you not expect campaign rhetoric when candidates are campaigning? I don't see how giving a heads up to another government that the candidate is out stumping and doesn't reflect his true position is wrong. Of course it doesn't reflect his true position, because the true position is complex and nuanced and is subject to months and years of negotiation. It's the smart thing to do, to let the other government know that your candidate isn't sending signals specifically to that government. Most people are suggestable and most governments are too, most people get caught up in campaign rhetoric and most governments do to.
March 3, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a breath of fresh air!
Why can't we have BevD for president?
March 4, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can take Larry Johnson's comments as boilerplate memos from the desperate tag-team anti-Obama campaigns of You-Know-Her and John McBomb. They boil down in essence to the ancient sophist fallacy called (in Latin) "Tu Quoque," meaning: "You do it, too!" In vernacular English, we call this the "misery loves company" argument. If we can't support our argument with evidence in our favor, we can always claim that our adversary has "just as bad" an argument as we do.
Essentially, this dialectical gambit seeks to surreptitiously shift the burden of proof from an indefensible premise to the arguer of a more compelling one. By adopting this debating tactic, Larry Johnson implicitly admits that, yes, his preferred two imperialist war-agitors don't appeal to an American pubic soured on endless, pointless, bankrupting Vietnam-III quagmire in Iraq; but if somehow You-Know-Her and John McBomb (or their surrogates) can paint Senator Obama as "just as bad as them," then that leaves "everyone equal" and "all just as bad as each other!" Misery all around, indeed.
Larry Johnson clearly wants the American people to think that a phone call from Canada and an Obama advisor's campaign memo about North American trade issues make Senator Obama "just as bad" on foreign policy issues as the duped and disgraced You-Know-Her and John McBomb whose trillion dollar (and still counting) collusion with Deputy Dubya Bush to destroy both Iraq and the American economy make them far more dangerous to America, Canada, and the World at large than the "lightweight" Senator Obama who has, to hear Buffaloed Girl and Mad Dog McBomb tell it, "only made one speech." Really. Given how far ahead Senator Obama has gotten with "just one speech," You-Know-Her and John McBomb had better hope that he doesn't give a SECOND one. What then might this "lightweight" accomplish!
At any rate, this latest rendition of the Tu QuoQue dialectic fails logically because it assumes that gullible consumers of the fallacy will somehow conclude, along with Larry Johnson, that BECAUSE the monkey-on-a-stick militarists You-Know-Her and John McBomb achieved their just-as-badness first (meaning, before Senator Obama) THEN THEREFORE they have much more and longer "experience" with their just-as-badness and should receive our support because of their "seniority" among the senile.
It might seem odd why anyone shilling for two corrupt candidates deeply implicated in failed military imperialism (in a post-imperial world) would want to proceed with this tawdry misery-loves-company tactic. The betrayed and fleeced American people (at long last) do not seem in the least inclined to accept this bogus bullshit any longer. Why does Larry Johnson not just list the many -- or "any" -- executive management offices held or foreign policy triumphs of You-Know-Her and Mad Dog McBomb? If one could find reference to any such "triumphs," surely these would speak for themselves, not to mention the "triumphant" candidates. In short, why does Larry Johnson not argue IN FAVOR OF You-Know-Her and John McBomb and their SUPERIOR wisdom in letting a dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee like Deputy Dubya Bush make monkeys out of them authorizing illegal aggressive war against a non-belligerent sovereign state?
Bottom line: Twenty Senators (not including Barack Obama who held state-wide office in Illinois at the time) and over one hundred Congressmen wisely refused to fall into the obvious trap of Presidential politial war-flogging. So then, what could possibly recommend You-Know-Her and John McBomb for stupidly taking the Cheney/Bush bait-and-switch hook with a smile? Both Iraq and America have suffered -- and continue to suffer -- grievously as a result.
Larry Johnson obviously approves of such credulous ineptitude and wishes to REWARD it with EVEN HIGHER OFFICE, which will only ENCOURAGE more of the same mindless Warfare Welfare and Make-work Militarism in the future! I, on the other hand want to PUNISH any and all pretentious colonial imperialists so as to DISCOURAGE any more of this madness for as long as I and any of my descendants live. Senator Obama's candidacy has many positive features to recommend it, but if for no other reason than that his success will put an end to the rotten political careers of You-Know-Her and John McBomb, then he need advance no other argument for himself than that. "Throw the bastards out," as we used to say back in less politically euphemistic times.
Finally, if I have to choose between the "just as bad" Barack Obama and the "just as bad" You-Know-Her and John McBomb, I'll still choose Barack Obama's "just as bad" simply for the novelty. I already know what the OLDER "just as bad" means, and I want no more part of it. I want a DIFFERENT "just as bad." Perhaps things won't really turn out so bad after all. No one knows what the future may hold with President Obama, but for certain most Americans know what the dreadful past has meant with Senators You-Know-Her and John McBomb. Vietnam-IV in Iran, we certainly do not want or need. We haven't even escaped from Vietnam-II (Afghanistan) and Vietnam-III (Iraq) yet. "First, do no harm," as the doctors say.
March 3, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marc Lynch of Obama's foreign policy.
And "Larry" since you don't hang out with the man, just call him Obama like the rest of us. I don't worship the man but I don't worship politicians. And I trust Lynch a damn sight more than I trust a spook.
March 4, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we finally dispense with the nonsense that Barack Obama represents a “new” and “different” type of political candidate?
Can we dispense the the nonsense that Hillary Clinton is?
And what's with this word MANAGE? Obama is now required to "manage" Canadian officials, as though they are children under his direction? It is precisely that high-handed attitude that has served this country so poorly over the past 8 years and I'm not looking for more of the same.
March 4, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better get this out there fast before it can be properly debunked, eh? What's the shelf-life on this one, Larry? You know full well that on a scale of one to ten, it'll turn out to be a big zero as an issue, but for HRC's purposes today, it rates a ten for urgency, don't it?
March 4, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that tpm.com has been slightly skewed toward Hillary from the beginning. That's okay. There are many blogs that are clearly biased towards Obama. (andrewsullivan.com)
But this is pretty shoddy "journalism." This really is just taking the Clinton side and running with it in hopes of swaying voters away from Obama.
I would ask the writer to read:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118171
And see if he feels the same way. And to paraphrase Hillary Clinton. Imagine this story was about Hillary and it was the republicans pushing it. How would you interpret it then? Especially after reading the Newsweek/Factcheck.org account of what happened?
To say Goolsbee is just parsing his words in terms of how he was incorrectly quoted is just flat out wrong. He did not say that Obama's NAFTA position was just political rhetoric. That was the way the conservative Canadian wrote up the memo.
Also, its interesting to note that this meeting was on Feb. 8th. And the original account made it sound like Obama got off the stage after the Ohio debate and had his campaign call the Canadians to say, "don't believe what I just said...it's just hype."
This is politics as usual. And it's scary that the Clinton's have been such good students of Karl Rove. Not to sound melodramtic--but in many ways, it breaks my heart. I honestly think that both Clintons want what is best for our country. And they (especially Bill, but Hillary also) are able to connect with people like very few politicians in our lifetime.
I have said all along, that if Obama loses, I will support Hillary with everything I've got. And I think I still will. But it won't feel good. At least that's how I feel today.
March 4, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who knows what Obama learned. But I'm sure Goolsbee learned not to chatter away like a chimpanzee even if the person you're babbling to is a diplomat from a friendly country like Canada. I wonder how well obama plays poker. I'm sure Goolsbee sucks at it.
March 4, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
does someone in ohio think that hillary is going to put bases there, wave a magic wand and bring prosperity - if she pulls this one off I'm giving McCain the win in Nov. and we can all sit around and thank hillary just like we did in 04 thanking nader - how stupid to think that negotiation will not mean what negotiation means
March 4, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The original report by CTV.CA was substantively correct but had some glaring factual errors."
Yeah, it was "substantively correct". Except, of course that the Obama advisor didn't contact the Canadians, they invited him. And the Ambassador wasn't involved.
So what part of that lead from Canadian TV was correct?
Really, does anyone think that if this memo was the initial story it would have gotten nearly as much attention. There is one "damaging" line in the memo:
"He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
But there is also a line in the memo that is entirely consistent with Obama's public position on the issue:
"On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."
Wow, what a smoking gun you got there, Larry!
March 4, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
My issue is that you didn't link to the Monty Python skit:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xBt3CKZ0OAA
March 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or does Larry's silence grate?
Is this a café, or is it just one more street corner for Larry to play Walter Winchell and spend his last days distributing mimeographs, begging an anonymous public to take his story and run with it?
Josh, what gives? I'm a father, I know the world I want my kids to grow up in, and it isn't this one. Are we here to hold these fearmongers to account, or to provide them a platform? We're better than this. How does a shill like Larry Johnson even get invited to occupy space at TPM? If we can chuckle about the WaPo being hard up for an audience, can't we also be serious about what constitutes exploiting celebrity cranks versus maintaining a respectable blog?
March 4, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink