Obama's Foreign Policy Follies
The American people are getting a chance to see how unprepared Barack Obama’s team of advisors are to help lead this country through the minefield of foreign policy problems that await the next President. Thank God Barack’s advisors are not allowed to carry firearms. They have spent the past week metaphorically shooting themselves in the feet and other delicate areas. Just imagine the damage they would do with real bullets.
We started with the Austan Goolsbee flap. You know, Barack’s senior economics advisor who told the Canadians essentially that Senator Obama’s public comments about NAFTA did not reflect his true feelings. Poor Austan did not understand that foreign governments take notes and file reports with their counterparts back home.
Not to be outdone, Susan Rice, a senior foreign policy advisor, jumps into the fray and essentially shoots Barack in the back when she admits that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are qualified to answer a crisis phone call at 3am.
But wait, there is more. Samantha Power, another high powered foreign policy advisor personally selected by Obama, calls Hillary Clinton a monster and then pulls a Goolsbee–she tells the BBC that Barack’s stated plan to withdraw two battalions a month from Iraq is not firm and will depend on what the situation on the ground is in January of 2009. While that may be a sensible position it does not jive with Obama’s public position. And in a Presidential campaign a major task for any candidate is to persuade voters that he or she can be trusted. Well, this string of advisors saying their candidate does not mean what he says does not build the warm and fuzzy feeling among prospective voters.
But that’s not all. John Brennan joined the party. Think Progress has the story:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues.
One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity.
Brennan is not some “Johnny come lately” adviser. He’s an experienced hand. Brennan headed the National Counter Terrorism Center in his last job in the Bush Administration. It was under John Brennan’s watch that the Bush Administration issued false statistics on the number of terrorist attacks in 2004. He tried to cook the books and keep the public in the dark that terrorist attacks had soared to unprecedented levels. So if he is taking a position directly opposite of his candidate it has to mean he’s gotten the same wink and nod that Austan Goolsbee and Samantha Powers got from Senator Obama.
Now, everyone can make a mistake. But this is ridiculous. These people cannot be trusted to accurately represent their candidate’s public positions on key issues and Senator Obama wants the American people to trust his judgment in selecting folks to run the bureaucracies that he already admitted he can’t run? God save us.
Comments (151)
Larry, you show no effort to understand the facts and your comments are monumentally intemperate.
March 7, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed,
Pardon me if I’m stealing the bait you intended for LJ, but how is his post flawed? And compare the tone to any post of your own or MJ’s and it doesn’t appear “monumentally intemperate.” Please elaborate on how these facts are being misconstrued.
March 7, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so ironic, Don, because anyone who's been reading Larry Johnson here for a while can see that he has been tempering his old inflammatory style a great deal and is trying his hand at more grown-up spin. I suspect that that could even be the hidden hand of the Clinton campaign, as in: ok, you can do talking points for us, but please cut the cuss words, insults and slurs. Now if the Obama people can only get M.J. Rosenberg under control. :-) I somewhat disagree with you on Reed Hundt, I think he has always behaved himself rather well as an admitted Obama supporter.
March 7, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree, AA. And I didn’t mean to imply that Reed’s posts were hysterical or anything. He has had some posts lately that were very accusatory of the Clinton campaign just as LJ’s are on the other side. I just think if Reed compared the tone here and on other posts he’d rethink that charge. And any Obama criticism seems to be written off as a shrill attack. Anyway, I gave up a while back on calling for less partisan, more substantive discussions. Just ain’t gonna happen.
March 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, poor Don, you must not have gotten the talking points memo that said the "Talking Points Memo" was no longer an ironic website title? At the front door of the Cafe, you will pronounce your allegiance as friend or foe of Obama, and thenceforth proceed to exchange volley fire of talking points across the battle lines. Any regular voters refusing to admit to wholehearted "support" for their favorite, or just plain citizens who wanted a cup of coffee, especially those who don't enjoy spinning themselves silly, are notified that Geneva Conventions are not in play and they should just lurk as they will be fair game for collateral damage. :-)
March 7, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, aa.
"Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New York and Boston and Concord, through church and state, through poetry and philosophy and religion, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality, and say, This is, and no mistake."--Henry David Thoreau, Walden
March 8, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
sounds like an early indication of the post modern rant
March 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't tell if you are being very kind to post-modernism or very uncharitable towards Thoreau.
March 9, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
art,
heh, heh, heh, good post. :-)
March 9, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Art
In a campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America, "inflamatory" is not bad, especially if the "inflamatory" material is actually true.
The Problem with Gore was he was NOT inflamatory enough, among other things.
March 7, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed
Making such a provocative assertion without any substantiation as to its merit in the face of Larry's detailed presentation with links and all merely shows how empty of truth the assertion is in the first place.
Remember we commenters at the TPM Cafe (at least some of us. Dare I say the best of us) are not overly starry eyed about you guys on the payroll. You are not exempt from scrutiny, so please keep that in mind and don't take us for fools.
March 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your repeated confusion of policy competency and political competency puts your career in an interesting light. So does the ever-more-twisted logic you employ in your near-maniacal obsession with assaulting Obama. Let's see: thus far you've told us that Hillary has excellent foreign policy credentials because you briefed her once and she did not fall asleep in her coffee, that Rice was responsible for Rwanda, and now that an unfortunate slip by a foreign policy advisor - on a strictly political issue - in some way discredits her understanding of foreign policy. I'm sure you must be capable of better judgment than this - surely someone so nakedly desperate to impose an agenda on the facts would not long be tolerated in the intelligence community. Unfortunately, like many once respected and sharp-minded folks, you are allowing your obsessions to turn you into a crackpot. Still, I look forward to your next post and the fresh absurdities it will offer. Your dissolution as a credible commentator, while tragic, has an undeniable voyeuristic appeal.
P.S.: Obama is known for seeking out opinions contrary to his own in his advisors, and in fact spent a lot of time on the phone with a former colleague at the University of Chicago debating this very issue before he cemented his decision. It is apparently your conviction that the President should surround himself with an army of yes-men.
March 7, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, when are you going to stop embarassing yourself! Your credibility is in the gutter right now. There is much to say about your judgement on foreign policy issues. Maybe your readers are going to start asking the right questions very soon.
March 7, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
troll alert!!!!
March 8, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, how completely awful of Obama's advisors to speak candidly about complex issues like how best to get out of a stupid intractable war you didn't start or how to improve a lousy trade agreement your opponent's husband wrote with corporate lobbyists and Republicans.
You won't catch Hillary's team acknowledging complexity. They are "too experienced" to tell the truth. I mean, just because they were the ones who first reached out to Canadian officials about their NAFTA rhetoric shouldn't stop them from slamming Obama for it. If he was experienced he would have been able to keep it secret like they did.
The only way Obama would be as unready to lead as you suggest would be if he was dumb enough to stick to a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that was two years old.
March 7, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with them speaking candidly. The problem is that Obama is not speaking candidly. I would respect him if he admitted these issues were complex and not easily solved. But he doesn't. He simply promises "HOPE".
March 7, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Larry.
Running Scare Ads about people's children sleeping in the middle of the night, is very complex. Hillary is the one who went there. Senator Obama has two young children that he cares far more about protecting than Hillary does.
Hillary has been running around endorsing John McCain. He has said that he is going to have the same foreign and domestic policies as George W. Bush. Yet Hillary has endorsed him, over Senator Obama. That makes Hillary just another traitor to the party. She is just the same as Joe Lieberman, and should be given the same treatment. She should be driven out of the party. She is not a loyal Democrat, any more than Joe Lieberman was.
March 8, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same treatment?
You mean Obama should endorse HER?
March 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
How completely disingenuous - there is nothing that Obama could say that would make you respect him.
You have been slinging any and every smear imaginable at Obama in order to bouy HRC. You've called him the black Jesus, the Messiah, have exaggerated his connection to Ayers (the big bad terrorist!) and to Kenya and to Syria (via Rezko). You have played the fear card, the Muslim card, the black card... and then you want us to believe that you might rspect him if he did x or y?
March 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen brother. You got one thing wrong...it wasn't that Clinton did it first and Obama did it, too. It was Clinton did it and Obama did NOT. As for Susan Rice's comments...the funny thing is that she's totally right. Bill Clinton wasn't "prepared" to take that call. The point is this: the presidency, like it or not, is OJT. There are many items a person can not be prepared for because they are unique. However, the issue of judgment is a good measure. The way I see it, Hillary screwed the pooch on Iraq and Iran. She has run a filthy dirty, innuendo-laden, Karl Rove style campaign. Comparing Obama to Ken Starr for him asking why she hasn't released her tax returns? Now THAT'S great stuff.
March 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LJ is sounding more and more desperate in his attempts to trash Obama. He has nothing today.
Let us summarize:
He repeats last weeks charges, nothing new here, the Obama campaign handled those well.
Samantha Powers: She made an insulting comment about Hillary to a journalist which violated an effort to keep his campaign out of the gutter. She did the honorable thing and resigned. (Meanwhile Hiilary is running at the mouth implying that Obama is a Moslim and praising McCains virtues to lead this country)
And now for the biggest scandal of the campaign. Obama's adviser John Brennan had a position on an issue that was different from Obamas. Oh heaven forbid, some of Obama cult followers think differently. The nation is in peril, Democratic Centralism is not alive and well in the Obama campaign.
Egad Larry this is pathetic.
March 7, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of Obama's advisors mildly insults his political opponent, therefore Obama is unprepared to handle foreign policy.
Here's some better logic: How scared should we be that blind, thoughtless partisans can get high-level jobs in our national security apparatus?
March 7, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hence Hillary keeping her extremely loyal, but extremely incompetent campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle until the screams of rest of her staff could no longer be unheeded. So if she has this kind of "judgement" in her campaign, what kind of incompetent loyal members of Hillaryland will she appoint in her administration? Hmmmm....
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
Excerpt:
The first public sign of this came just after Clinton’s reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. The donor base was incensed.
Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton’s Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration—and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary’s inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.
Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit.
March 8, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
We started with the Austan Goolsbee flap. You know, Barack’s senior economics advisor who told the Canadians essentially that Senator Obama’s public comments about NAFTA did not reflect his true feelings.
Stunning.
You're actually repeating this, after it's been dispelled?
Here's the Guardian, from today:
That's exactly the *opposite* of what you're saying.
Truly stunning.
March 7, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
CSCS,
The memo proved the CTV story correct. Nothing has dispelled it. The rumor that Brodie said Clinton had called the Embassy was being floated last week, was cited to one unidentified source, was categorically denied by the Clinton camp and has gained no corroboration.
From your link: ``Ian Brodie is alleged to have made an offhand comment about a rumor to a reporter. He does not recall saying it,'' Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for Harper, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
The memo is accurate and unequivocally shows that Goolsbee assured the Canadians that Obama’s public rhetoric on NAFTA in Ohio and the Midwest was just campaign talk.
March 7, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, "The Memo" says that Obama wanted to strengthen the labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA. Which is what Obama said in public. Which is pretty much what Clinton says about it. Which means that neither would change things much vis-à-vis Canada.
Clinton knew this, but she also knows that if she had stayed honest, positive and talked about her own candidacy instead of lying, smearing and triangulating, she would have lost Texas and Ohio. So she lied, smeared and triangulated. She thinks she can dumb down the debate, about foreign policy, about trade, about national security enough to win the nomination. I'm guessing she doesn't have a plan for what to do against McCain. Besides lose to him.
March 7, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing she doesn't have a plan for what to do against McCain. Besides lose to him.
Now, that's really unfair. Clearly, Hillary does have a plan for how to deal with McCain: she's going to praise his lifetime of experience and his readiness to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
March 7, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
that comment by Hillary was disgraceful.
March 8, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry, you know, the guy who really did want McCain for veep, is backing Obama. But you already knew that ....
March 9, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The security-mom fear-mongering tough CiC campaign by HRC is nothing new (and is the main reason I don’t support her) but it’s not unusual in a campaign for POTUS (was there anything more contrived than Kerry’s, “Reporting for duty” line?). But the Goolsbee/NAFTA and Powers gaffes have little to do with Clinton. And it really stretches credulity and maligns Obama’s leadership qualities even further by blaming these things on others.
Excerpts from the memo are clear:
He was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy. 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. Should Obama win the White House, Goolsbee figures to remain a close advisor.
Noting anxiety among many US domestic audiences about the US economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. Consistent with CHCGO/WSHDC's analysis, 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. He also suggested that of the Democratic candidates, Obama has been the least protectionist (unintelligible). HOM asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist.
March 7, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dispelled was the wrong word.
Questioned.
It's clear from all the articles that no one knows exactly what the fuck happened, everyone's denying anything.
I still maintain to continue using this muddled story as "proof" of anything is disingenuous.
March 7, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. But I think it’s clear from the memo (the only documented evidence) exactly what happened. I maintain that the story, if examined impartially, is clear as a sunny day. It only seems muddled because those who have an interest have muddled it.
It’s strange, I can’t get excited about Obama but I don’t want to see him defeated, either. I defend against the hysterical witch-hunts on HRC and wish Obama's more zealous supporters would wake up to the fact that he is an ambitious politician with a history of conciliation to corporate interests and compromises, like his opponents. I think exposing his weaknesses and centrism allows the base to pressure him even more towards progressive causes. It seems like the thing that must be avoided at all costs by all “viable” candidates in these campaigns is simple straightforward honesty.
March 7, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
It would be nice. Both candidates lean too far to the right for my comfort level.
March 8, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Read Josh's frontpage:
After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.
"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.
That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.
March 7, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again Larry, you've gotten them all riled up at ya.
You seem to have established a reputation as someone who doubts Obama's righful place in the Pantheon by questioning him, his campaign, and his team of advisors.
Last time I checked, it was okay to question the competence of those who make mistakes in politics so I have no problem with you raising these issues and I wouldn't if someone raised them about Hillary (who I wouldn't vote for if you paid me). Seems to me also that if you aren't good at politics you are almost by defnition, not going to be good at policy. Policy never exists outside of politics.
Methinks some in the Obama camp needs to start learning how to effectively defend against legitimate questions by responding to the substance instead of just claiming those who do so are Obama haters or Hillary shills. It was not effective when team Hillary went around doing that and it won't work for team Obama IMO.
It's hard not to recognize that Obama has simply had a bad week in the media and the gaffes on the part of his campaign and advisors is hurting him, at least for now. Frankly, I think it's valuable for the voters to see how he does under these circumstances and how he withstands such criticisms before annointing him. The Survey USA 50 state poll reveals how weak both our candidates are against McCain. This sort of rough and tumble may well help voters decide who is most capable of actually winning in the fall.
My advice to all the Obama fans is to quit whining about those who criticize and start doing something to counter the blows you so object to. The whining is just wasting time while the clock ticks.
March 7, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is sort of like those people you sometimes see in bus stations sitting in the corner talking to themselves. They are off in their own world trying to not let reality intrude.
Apparently it was the Clinton campaign that told Canada not to worry about Clinton's campaign rhetoric and in a Rovian twist blamed the Obama Campaign for it. Too bad it happened right before voting but at least the CBC got it right in the end.
I think Powers did the right thing resigning as it eliminates a distraction and in my opinion she did screw up. Not like Obama won't be able to find her number if he wants to talk
Finally I'm always conformted when I find out people have advisors who don't agree with them. It shows a lot of strength of character.
March 7, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican alumni from the U.S. intelligence community who seek business as government contractors are not often taken as credible sources of guidance by liberal voters.
Just sayin'.
March 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Miracle Max, and there's also the question of whether we should be listening to a Bush voter when he lectures us about Obama's judgment.
March 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have established a reputation as someone who doubts Obama's righful place in the Pantheon by questioning him, his campaign, and his team of advisors.
Don't forget, Larry is also questioning Obama's scary "Muslim relatives" among other insanities.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/16148/3931
It's when he goes off on his spittle-flecked rants that I lose any respect that I may have had for him. And, unfortunately, it's part and parcel of the Larry Johnson of today.
March 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key asks:
Pardon me if I’m stealing the bait you intended for LJ, but how is his post flawed? and claims that if one compare[s] the tone to any post of your own or MJ’s and it doesn’t appear “monumentally intemperate.” Please elaborate on how these facts are being misconstrued.
My patience with Johnsons rampant hyperbole is less than Don Key's, alas. I can't read a phrase like Thank God Barack’s advisors are not allowed to carry firearms. They have spent the past week metaphorically shooting themselves in the feet and other delicate areas. Just imagine the damage they would do with real bullets.
as anything but intemperate.
MJ may Johnson'sgo "over the top" from time to time, but hardly Reed Hundt. And neither of them is the snarkmaster that Johnson is. Where he isn't hyperbolic he's patronizing, and in my probably not humble enough opinion, not up to the quality of the rest of the TPM stable, either intellectually or rhetorically.
aMike
March 7, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you, amike. As I replied to AA, I didn’t mean to imply that Reed’s posts were of the hyperventilating kind (football aside). The key word in there was comparatively. These posts are criticisms intended to prompt heated discussions and probably do reflect the personality of the writer somewhat. I think LJ has been trying to post more reasoned, fact filled blogs lately and that should be encouraged. He does write sarcastically but so do others here (I enjoy Mr. Bérubé’s sleek snarkiness).
I may tend to ignore some of the sneers but I still don’t think LJ is monumentally intemperate here; maybe kinda sorta intemperate. My main point was that Reed only criticized LJ, instead of addressing the points he was making. And if you start completely denying our pundits their snarks and hyperbole, it may get pretty dry around here :)
March 7, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
You need to calm down.
March 7, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please keep doing this, Larry. You are doing yeoman's duty in pulling voters away from Sen. Clinton and embarrassing both yourself and your candidate.
A few more weeks of this, and Obama may actually win the PA primary.
March 7, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just try to imagine how bad a McCain administration would be.
March 7, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
par4,
McCain would give us at least 2 more Conservative Supreme Court Justices
March 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Max&Michael
Don't you guys have anything else to throw at Larry than cheap innuendo and faux outrage?
For once, refute any point that Larry has made against Obama and his comical entourage. You don't. All you do is question his motives, his past, blah blah bla(Max) or keep whining about Hillary's (unfair?) hits against Obama (Michael). Don't you guys have anything more SUBSTANTIVE against what Larry is presenting to this audience at TPM Cafe than snide innuendos and sour grapes?
Larry's point if you are too dense to get it is that Obama has absolutely NO experience other than a speech he made in 2002 to a constituency that would probably have voted for Alan Keys if he had not spoken out against the war at the time. He backs it up with details of the Obama Follies and you come up with zilch against THAT.
That's pretty lame
March 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen
The coin of THIS realm is demonstrable FACTS backing up a position. Larry has presented what he says are a series of damning FACTS against Obama and his "team" and made his position clear: OBAMA IS NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. You guys can't refute a single point Larry has made yet you make smug and snide remarks about Larry. That's classic ad hominem . It does not look like a good case for why anybody should prefer Obama over Hillary. Is this the best you can do? And we are supposed to--what--bow down to your superior "intellects" and fall in line? Get real.
March 7, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you guys have anything else to throw at Larry than cheap innuendo and faux outrage?
Listen. The coin of THIS realm is demonstrable FACTS backing up a position.
Seems to me Mr. Johnson is doing his best to be civil.
I guess you didn't read the existing comments before posting one of your own. Workerbee apparently didn't even read Larry's post. Typical Clintonistas -- attacking the opponent by accusing him of one's own defects. Hmmmm. I wonder who perfected that idea?
March 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's obvious you didn't read Larry's post and, as usual, are just echoing the usual posters in the usual way, and spreading your bad-tempered snark, as per usual.
How not interesting. As usual.
March 7, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How Rovian of you. Congrats!
March 8, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
just my opinion based on your posts:
You strike me a a guy with more wit than virtue
March 8, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
Seems to me Mr. Johnson is doing his best to be civil. That, however isn't good enough. I doubt anything other than jackbooted compliance will satisfy some of these clowns..
March 7, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You set an impossible standard if you expect everyone on the Obama team to agree with him on every issue. I'm glad that with respect to the telecom issue, you included the key fact voters need to know about: Obama has voted against retroactive telecom immunity for any illegal spying.
As for Obama's ability to lead us through the "minefield" of foreign policy problems created by the very experienced Rumsfeld, Cheney group? Your focus on slip-ups made by the otherwise stellar Obama campaign seems far less important than the larger question: how might Obama's values translate to foreign policy.
Experience is not the equivalent of wisdom, good will, or a level head. I find it interesting that Obama's larger perspective sounds a bit like that of President George Washington, who had unrivaled experience, but also some wisdom as to how best to employ that experience. Unfortunately, he's not running.
Washington must have understood something about human nature and foreign policy after he successfully led the the Revolutionary war, was in charge of the convention that produced our Constitution, expanded trade with the Jay treaty, and more. The following wisdom derived from Washington's experience, successes and love of country make it seem we've lost our way from the path lit for us by the founders:
Quotes from George Washington's Farewell Address:
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all."
"In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
"Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests."
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it."
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."
Barack Obama:
"What I do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign policy that says, for example, I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies...in order to rebuild our alliances, repair our relationships around the world, and actually make us more safe in the long term."
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008
March 7, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
day after day, this Johnson guy rails against Obama with only the slimmest of facts and the greatest of self-righteous bilge. Josh, why are you allowing this guy to take up valuable space?
March 7, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's what Larry's doing any different then what you're doing? You can't even do it half as well as Larry, frankly.
Have a problem with the first amendment, do ya?
March 7, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can easily understand where Larry gets the chutzpah to criticize Obabma. The Clinton Administration -- Hillary's claim to "ready for prime time" experience -- showed exemplary performance in foreign policy. It started with the triumphant Blackhawk Down episode and came to full fruition in the Wag the Dog bombings.
In her own right, she enabled the paragon of all foreign-policy coups. (I am speaking, of course of the Liberation of the Iraqi People and the Foundation of Democracy in the Mid East.) And of course, the maraschino cherry that tops the sundae that is her resume is her vote for Kyle/Lieberman, whose effect was stymied by Larry's dastardly intelligence colleagues but which might have given our glorious President the opportunity to Liberate Still Another Muslim Nation from the Tyranny of Infidels and Prepare the World for Armageddon.
Sen. Clinton and her court jester should certainly stress her experience and question Obama's judgement. It only makes sense.
March 7, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
The MIAPS contribution to the Irish mess? Another kisskiss a la Suha Arafat:
"Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace. 'She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already,' he said. Mrs Clinton was 'a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument' he added.
'She really lost all credibility when on Bill Clinton’s last visit to Northern Ireland [in December 2000] when she hugged and kissed [Sinn Fein leaders] Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
March 7, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry are you working for the Hillary and Republican alliance now?
March 7, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, that's a lot of loose change.
First: all of these candidates are senators. None has been a president. Your logic would disqualify folks from military service because they've never served in the military. It's tautological.
I see Obama's staffers' slip ups many times less than Lincoln's generals' slip ups. Was Lincoln a bad president because he had generals that didn't obey his orders or who fouled up in the field? What he did with the people he had serving him has been recognized as fine leadership by most historians. Lincoln knew how to relate to people.
With you I see its a lot about consistency in messaging. You think discipline and consistent messaging in bullshitting the nation is important ... like the Clinton team did with talking points and testimony.
Besides, a political campaign is a pretty phony trial run for governance. It's too lightweight. You make it more than that and I disagree.
You're straining gnats and letting camels from the Clinton national baggage get by. The members of the armed forces tend to have a problem with the Clintons. So much so the Pentagon had to issue orders in 1998 against personnel making jokes or writing critical things about Clinton. McCain represents everything that would right what many service members think was the wrongs that the Clintons visited on them; the disdain and snobbery. That the brass may be impressed doesn't matter as much as those who do the work.
People who give theoretical answers to foreign policy questions before getting into office are just pissing in the wind anyhow. You know that. The facts in the moment are what must be dealt with.
Let's jump to a relevant topic: do you or do you not support the Clinton Doctrine of interventionalism?
March 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey maybe you can convince Obama to sign up to a McCain/Obama ticket. You think?
March 7, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You select members of your press office for their ability to stay "on message." You select foreign policy people and economists for their expertise and for their analytic ability and not because they agree with your every position.
A lot of the reason for the incompetance of the Bush administration is that he has hired people more for their loyalty to his message rather than their expertise.
I'm not a big fan of what he did on the NAFTA thing, but the truth is that he's never claimed or said that NAFTA was 100 percent bad or that he didn't support free trade. In fact, he openly said -- in Ohio before the election -- that he supported free trade.
People PRESUMED that the NAFTA mailer meant that Obama completely opposed NAFTA because we all tend to assume that when someone attacks someone for having a position, it must mean they have the opposite position. In fact, as Obama explained over and over to audiences, his position was more nuanced than that. He opposed the lack of labor and environmental agreements, which is of course also Hillary's position, although one wonders why she hasn't tried to change NAFTA in her two terms in the Senate if she felt that way.
The main purpose of the mailer in my view was to undermine the populist message Hillary was trying to push rather than to say that Obama was more populist than her.
March 7, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What people assumed about the Obama mailer is precisely what his team intended them to assume. The conversation that Goolsby held was intended to make sure that the Canandian government didn't fall for it also. Goolsby may or may not have been providing back channel information to the Canadians at the behest of the Obama campaign. What is disturbing is that for about a week the Obama campaign claimed there had been no such conversation. Some of the denials were parsing -- he didn’t speak to the Embassy just to a subordinate of the Embassy -- but the intended impression was that of complete denial. And that is certainly how the press wrote about it.
So is the Obama campaign maintaining they never heard of the telephone? How long does it take to call up a major campaign advisor and ask to whom he may have been talking and what was said?
And if a precise denial is taken by the press as a complete denial, if you are actually open and honest instead of just pretending to be open and honest how about setting the press straight?
One of the problems with judging the competence of someone with out experience -- which also means without a past history of behavior you can judge -- is that you are reduced to judging them by tea leaves -- their promises, who they choose to surround themselves with, is what they are saying in public consistent with what they are doing in private and etc.
Larry's point above is not only that loose lips can sink campaigns but also that loose lips can sink administration policies. So choosing people who cannot help leaking in ways that are damaging to the campaign suggests a poor judgment in people.
The counter that having advisors who have supported various Bush positions is valuable because this gives you varied viewpoints is valid but it could instead be the case that you chose those advisors because you agree with their positions or that you fail to see that giving people with those views positions of power will undercut the positions you claim to hold. And with that I come back to the glowing endorsement that Obama went out of his way to give Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. If Lieberman had been defeated it would have done far more to end the Iraq War than the speech that Obama made.
March 9, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching Chris (tingle up his leg) Mathews at MSNBC's anti Hillary network. He was interviewing Terry McAuliffe. Chris starts with some trivial pro forma praise of Hillary (she won Texas Ohio and Rhode Island the day before) and then he gets into the latest manufactured "scandal" of Hillary. Chris asks "Why won't Hillary release her tax forms?" Terry turns the thing around and says something like "I have not released my forms, and you have not released your forms have you? Why the rush? She will release the form when they are due to be released. She is not going to start dancing to your fiddle. Then he says "Chris you are a rich guy and you have a lot of forms to fill out, right?" Chris gets pale. Then after a pause Tweetie Bird says in that "hurt" tone that he has "Terry why do you always do that to me? Every time I have you on the show you attack me"
He could not even be honest enough to admit to his audience that he is rich and not the "regular Irsih catholic guy on the block that he plays on TeeVee.
pathetic!!!
March 7, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pathetic? What's pathetic is that you're actually buying Clinton's line that the problem is that she just hasn't managed to get off the campaign trail long enough to pop into H&R Block.
This isn't about *2007* returns. It's about returns from previous years, and the whole "April 15" thing is, per usual, a smokescreen intended to confuse and deceive voters:
"The Obama campaign has been agitating for the press to push for the release of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s 2006 tax returns, arguing that they would be expected to do the same. 'We’re going to ask you guys to do your job,' said Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, referring to reporters. 'If we kicked the can down the field on tax returns, you would be asking us for them. I presume you will do the same to them.'
Axelrod said Clinton’s argument that it will take time to release the tax forms is senseless. 'They’ve talked about change you can Xerox, you can Xerox your tax returns there’s not a whole lot of preparation for that.'
But the Clintons will apparently need at least a month and a half of preparation. Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson responded by saying, 'Their tax returns since they left the White House will be made available on or around April 15.'"
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry3912141.shtml
March 8, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I started reading these comments I thought I had gotten on Dailykos. Too bad the candidate wars have taken over TPM also.
I don't like Obama much or Clinton either.
If the candidates are being dishonest the public should know that. Too bad that we were not informed about Reagan playing patty cake with Iran before he was elected President. He was one of th worst Presidents in history. Oh, wait, Cheney was running the Country then too.
March 7, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you're right, Larry. Obama's not fully prepared to be President of the United States on day 1. I mean, he's never been President before, has he? Well then! There you go. Unprepared.
And his advisors don't even agree with him! How on earth could anyone
Here's a slogan for you... I offer this to you gratis....
Obama. His advisors have their own opinions, AND he's never even been President!
Unlike, for instance, George Bush. He must have been ready to be President... because you voted for him. And certainly his advisors never disagree with him. And since you seem to be the arbiter of who's ready and who's not.... well he must have been fully vetted, tested, rested, and ready for the job. On day 1.
Now me, I'm clearly not as smart as you are... because I had the opportunity to vote for George Bush four times.... twice as Governor, and twice as President.... and I voted for Democratic candidate in each case. How dumb was I? Pretty dang dumb.
And I just had a chance to vote for Hillary in the Texas primary, and I didn't! Even though I have always admired Hillary, and think she'd probably be a pretty decent POTUS, I voted for the other guy -- because I think he'd be a little better. Holy crap!
God help us all.
March 7, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
Have a pie.
:-)
People do get heated, for sure. this is actually tame for Larry. You should have seen the way he went after Bush over Valerie Plame.
Of course, everyone just LOVED him then.
I kind of still do, actually. He's an "in-your-face" kinda guy, but he does do the research work, which is more then I can say for most of his detractors.
I picked the apples myself.
March 7, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did see Larry's posts then, and I was right there with him, and I said so! And I still respect him for that.
I can be bribed with pie. Oh yes. If we had a candidate who was 100% for pie, I might be swayed!
March 7, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lard makes the best piecrust. But I usually use crisco, because lard freaks people out.
Manteca for the masses.
March 8, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ma'am (may I call you ma'am?) I must say that anyone who appreciates a good lard based pie crust must have a good heart. Now, it may be a slightly clogged heart, but it's a good one. And I salute you.
March 8, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you may. Thank you, I think anyone that likes pie to the degree you seem to must be a very pleasant person.
I don't get to bake as often as I like, but making pies (and tarts,) is a very nice way to spend a morning.
March 8, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coincidentally,
Today I'm making a Double Crust, Sugar Glazed Apple Pie. By the way, I use Crisco for the crust.
March 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It makes a nice one. It's a fun thing to do with small children, although cleaning up afterwards can be a drag.
:)
March 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The piety and righteousness of some in the Obama legion is truly impressive.
Now I wouldn't vote for Hillary for President so if given the choice between the two I'll pick Obama, but not because I think he's anything other than a slightly better choice than she is. He most certainly has his faults and weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Both of them are just more of the same corporate centrist DC Democrat crap IMO. That strain of politics is at least as responsible for all the rotten things the Republicans have done these past 7 years because their unending desire for compromise (among other things)muted Democratic positions at the very times our party had a responsiblity to strongly oppose things like the war and the outrageous tax cuts for the rich that became law.
Both candidates have some good things to bring to the table, but substantive change on any major issue ain't one of em folks. Wake up and smell the centrism! I can pretty much guarantee you that whichever of them wins the nomination, (if they actually do get elected) you're going to be sorely disappointed in the results and it won't take four years for it to come to that either. The disappointment will set in a whole lot sooner than that.
Sure, it will be better to have one of them than McCain, but only on the margins. The basic course of any major policy, foreign or domestic will not change. How can it if they pursue the policies they promise to pursue? They say change but they support the status quo. You can't have it both ways. Of course, that's just my opinion, but time will tell.
So, it is from that perspective that I look at certain of the Obama minion in wonder. This crowd of true believers accuse Hillary of every bad motive possible in a human being. These same folks heap criticism upon her every word, every move and openly disdain everyone working for or supporting her including The Big Dog who all these same folks have no doubt liked at one time or another. Many have even spent a good deal of time calling her and Bill racists the past month or so. But because they have found the light of Obama and he clearly is destined to be the nominee (though he can't get enough elected delegates outright to win the nomination)they are therefore allowed to heap scorn, derision, smarmy self-righteousness, and cast aspersions on anyone at any time who engages in the slightest criticism of their chosen one and God formid anyone launch into an outright attack on their favored politician. Hell (currently) hath no fury like the true Obamaite who detects criticism of their guy. Anyone hinting at criticism of Obama is fair game with no holds barred. It's just silly folks.
For those who have gotten caught up in it that bad, you have to take a step back. Everyone falls into that trap from time to time, but the first step to recovery is admitting the problem right? He's just another politician. I know he's your guy this time around, but there's no guarantee in this game that he'll win even though it looks real favorable for him. He, nor anyone else, has no right to the nomination either this year or any other. Hillary, much as I hate to admit it, has a right to fight for the nomination and that's what she's doing. Hillary's supporters also have a right to fight on her behalf as you all do for Obama. But the virtual heckling and namecalling at anyone who isn't in your corner is just as unbecoming of you all as it is when Hillary's true believers start whining and making personal attacks, etc...
Please note, I'm definitely not trying to say that all Obama people are this way anymore than all Hillary people are. Just those that have gotten to the point of seeing enemies under every rock and pernicious motives behind every criticism.
March 7, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see enemies under every rock, but Larry most definitely is one.
Just follow that Susan Rice link in his post to his blog and take a look around, and then tell me who's foaming at the mouth mad.
March 7, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with a lot of that.
Obama's something of a neophyte. Clinton's got some baggage. Neither of them is perfect. Neither of them is the devil. They are both very, very smart people. Either of them is almost certain to be a better President for this country at this time than McCain.
I mean, we can't completely discount the (infinitesimal though it is) possibility that McCain could wind up being somewhat Teddy Rooseveltian, and might jus