Obama

[P562045]

So Obama spent two days in Afghanistan and I can't really tell if I am talking about day 1 or day 2 in this particular post.

So Obama wants to give aid to Afghanistan. Whatever that means. And Obama also wants to fight the war on terror in Afghanistan as well. So I must ask the question are there other countries that the war on terror has spread to that do not involve Afghanistan and Pakistan?

But Obama himself did not want to make a public comment about what he and two other senators talked about with the leader of Afghanistan.

And this is what Obama said about Afghanistan and I quote, "The situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan and I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front in our battle against terrorists,"

So I must ask again should Afghanistan be our only focus when it comes to the war on terror or not?

I could be just reading to much into this but it would be my preference that any time the war on terror comes up a presidential candidate no matter who they are remind the people what the war on terror is even about because to me we have lost our way on this for at least a few reasons I can think of. The main reason I have discussed before is that we have to make very difficult decisions when it comes to the war on terror. But in many cases those decisions are the right decisions to make.

Here comes a little darn I even say criticism of Obama from the media.

"Media access to him [Obama] was limited, and his itinerary was closely guarded."

Well I guess the media would like to ask Obama some questions after all. But with regards to the second part can we really blame Obama or the secret service? If I was going to a country like Afghanistan I would not want our enemies in some cases to know exactly where I was either. And as I mentioned before there has been a recent upsurge in violence in the eastern part of the country.

Not let's see if Obama knows math or not.

We know from this article that two combat brigades are about 7,000 troops.

And Obama wants us out of Iraq in 16 months.

So I must multiply 7,000 because that will about the number of troops to leave Iraq in one month under Obama's plan times sixteen months because that is how many months Obama wants us out of Iraq.

So 7,000*16=112,000.

I am trying to remember. We had a recent "surge" in Iraq but I seem to remember that a great deal of them may be coming back home before the November election but it seems to me that 112,000 seems a little low even when the "surge" is taken out of the picture.

Since I am such a nice person I will just give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this particular matter. What we should all be focusing on really is getting the troops out of Iraq right?

And dare I even mention way back when Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and former Senator Edwards talked about Iraq with the New York Times I seem to remember that all three of them said that some troops would remain in Iraq for an indefinite time period long after many of the troops had left Iraq.

Story Here

[-mmm-]

Remember my theory on media access leading to the media covering presidential candidates in certain ways? Looks like I was right.

[P562045]

Why would CNN feel compelled to have a new slogan of "No Bias. No Bull."?

Then immediately after this little slogan from Campbell Brown CNN shows this wonderful image of Obama "basking in the glow in Berlin."

Then CNN proceeded to show the crowd in Berlin that looked something like it was August 28, 1963. [M.L.K. I Have a Dream Speech]. Hate to burst the Obama bubble but I am very sure Dr. King had the bigger crowd. The Street where Obama spoke in Berlin was much more narrow than the "mall" in Washington.

Talk about another George Carlin moment. Carlin is a comedian that wanted people to think about things that they see.

So what was the purpose of these images from CNN in the first place?

[P562045]

I must mentions a few things about Obama's speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008.

Obama said a few things we should never forget such as.

"In this new world [where terrorism does exist], such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them."

Obama continues, "This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it."

This is the conclusion of Obama's speech in Berlin, "People of Berlin – and people of the world – the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again."

But I must mention something else about these three things. In classic Obama style oh wait it really is just classic political rhetoric that Obama says these things. And I could say the exact same thing about McCain as well he or his handlers say many different things that are just rhetoric as well. But I also must go back to one of the reasons that Obama gives for people to actually go out and vote for him and that is he is so above being a politician and he is not really like other politicians at all.

I must go back to the accomplishments of this particular congress. What are some of the things that this congress has done to make sure we meet these threats that even Obama says are very real?

And people wonder why I discuss the accomplishments of this congress so far in the other thread. The main reason is to show that this congress and yes even many congresses before it focus on some things and not other things. And as I have said before there is a very broad range of things that we should be worried about this particular time in history. Why is what I just said important in the first place? Because the president most of the time can only do things that the congress gives him to sign.

I have to mention one other thing that just makes me wonder. I think part of it really is that it is just so poorly constructed I just wonder what Obama really means by this,

"These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people – everywhere – became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation – our generation – must make our mark on the world."

I would just hope that people would not take it literally that all free people became citizens of Berlin during the Berlin airlift in 1948. And for some reason I am sure many people did. As I said it just makes me wonder what Obama meant by this. It could well be that Obama thinks we should all come together like we did during the Berlin airlift and Obama hopes the togetherness like what happened during the Berlin airlift will happen yet again. I know I am not making much sense and that is part of the problem for me. I truly do not know what Obama meant by what he said.

Here is the speech in its entirety from the New York Times. Newspaper Websites do tend to let some things expire after a certain time period so if it does not come up latter on someone just tell me and I will find another source. Or people could just goog it on their own if necessary.

Obama's Berlin Speech

[P562045]

Well it appears that Obama is a little late in making a decision on what best to do get us less dependent on foreign oil.

So what exactly is Obama's brilliant plan?

"limited new offshore drilling"

"Obama, who as recently as last month argued against tapping the petroleum reserve, proposed that the government sell 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile and said past release from the reserve have lowered gas prices within two weeks."

"pass a policy that provides $1,000 energy rebates and invests in renewable energy"

So just to recap to make it easier to read.

1. Limited offshore drilling.
2. Use part of the strategic petroleum reserve.
3. Provide $1,000 energy rebates.
4. Invest in renewable energy.

So what renewable energy should we be investing our time and money doing? I seem to remember our last brilliant plan for renewable energy was ethanol and about the only reason for it was it was a very clean source of energy but we might as well move right along to hydrogen now. So let's see using a source of energy that is also used to make bombs as well that makes perfect sense to me. And I have no idea about this but how easy is it to collect hydrogen in order to make it into an energy source in the first place? Hydrogen is a very good energy source because it is even a cleaner fuel than ethanol. I am trying to remember how ethanol is working out?

And the Obama plan shows me a couple of things though. Obama does not have any more ability than McCain when it comes to solving the country's problems which I might remind people McCain is also very lacking in this area as well.

I wonder where Obama got these ideas from? All four parts of Obama's plan scream Washington as usual to me.

Story Here

I think I need to cut way back on this crap. I have been on an even faster pace than when talking about Mrs. Clinton. I think people could surmise how I feel about Obama. And don't even get me started on McCain.

I am sure even if I only did an Obama story once per week I will have plenty of choices to choose from for the next little over three months from now.

[-mmm-]

Thats what the guys at Comedy Central are for, to lighten the load to the inanity of continuous campaigning.

Colbert absolutely nails it, this country NEEDS Brittany for President

Edit: And apparantly Paris is running for Prez as well. Hmmm Rihanna for veep....she cant sing, but boy can she dance

[P562045]

Thank you -mmm- for that.

And the scary thing is that the people would probably think Paris makes some sense when she talks about combining the two candidates energy plans.

I will try not to even pay attention to this crap that is being put in front of the people.

Well there will be a few things I might want to mentions towards the end of this month; and I will even try to watch a little bit of the first debate which is still about seven weeks away.

Other than that I will try to stay away. But there is a little problem with that. It is kind of hard to stay away from this crap when I have about half a dozen McBama political advertisements each and every day. Well I could just not watch television. In fact that may be a very good idea indeed.

I sure do hope that if I get almost all of my news from the Internet I will be able to figure out who Obama's Vice President candidate is going to be.

And this will not be the first time I must go on a television "diet" which just means I stay as far away as possible during an election year as well. I guess I will just pretend that television is like the evening news. I have not watched even a full segment of the evening news since Ms. Couric blessed us with her presence about eleven months ago.

No wonder I have Google as my homepage. I don't have to even pay attention if I don't want to.

[P562045]

I guess I should probably explain my McBama comment.

Neither one of these presidential candidates will really change Washington at all.

Well actually Obama would but only for the short term and we have many long term problems. Obama will just get us out of Iraq just for the reason we so need to get out of Iraq and really focus on Afghanistan. I keep asking the very basic question though. Is Afghanistan the only place on Earth where the war on terror is? I seem to remember during his Berlin speech Obama even talked about some of the 9/11 people did some of their plotting in Germany. This is from Obma's Berlin speech, "The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil." I am just trying to remember if Hamburg which is in Germany is anywhere near Afghanistan?

Then after Obama gets us out of Iraq he will want to focus on domestic issues at home and talk to the rest of the world and in some cases talk face to face with leaders from around the world and that will be enough to solve all of our problems.

I think the real reason I called them McBama was that I just have an extremely negative reaction to both of them and the main reason is that I don't think either one of them will really be focused on all of the problems that so need solving in the first place; and the reason is that the congress can not seem to get its act together no matter whom is running either body for that matter and as I have said before I think both parties will find short term solutions to long term problems and this is nothing that is even close to being new though. As I have discussed recently there is a long list of those problems which in some cases are even difficult to deal with because of what they involve such as the war on terror but we are going to have to deal with these problems eventually.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by P562045

But there is a little problem with that. It is kind of hard to stay away from this crap when I have about half a dozen McBama political advertisements each and every day. Well I could just not watch television. In fact that may be a very good idea indeed.

I feel sorry for you folks in swing states where both candidates are plastering the airwaves with commercials (ie Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado), or even a state where one candidate is plastering the airwaves (Obama has spent about $5mil in Florida on tv ads thus far). I had McCain ads all over the tv for awhile earlier this summer, but than a bunch of polls showed Obama had a double digit lead here and those ads disappeared, and I hope it more or less stays that way, just for my own sanity for when Im watching non-TIVOed television.

[hork]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

I feel sorry for you folks in swing states where both candidates are plastering the airwaves with commercials (ie Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado), or even a state where one candidate is plastering the airwaves (Obama has spent about $5mil in Florida on tv ads thus far). I had McCain ads all over the tv for awhile earlier this summer, but than a bunch of polls showed Obama had a double digit lead here and those ads disappeared, and I hope it more or less stays that way, just for my own sanity for when Im watching non-TIVOed television.

i actually enjoy the ads. the tone moreso than than the content reveal so much about a candidate. for example, in SC McCain has yet to release one commercial (and i'm not exaggerating) that hasn't slandered Obama. so much for the clean and productive campaign he promised us. which in turn shows how much we can trust his promises.

whereas on the other hand Obama's commercials have all bar none been about his vision and not even a mention of McCain.

given how i despise folks who have nothing to offer more than childish antics, name calling, and finger pointing, it's clear who the better of the two choices are. and thankfully many are feeling the same.

[P562045]

I am just talking in very general terms here.

Obama does tend to talk about his goals for the country in his commercials but some of them just turn me off it sort of reminds me of the opening scene of the movie Born on the Fourth of July. There is such dramatic effect that to me it takes away from the message of what Obama is trying to say. It almost seems like a movie to me rather than a political advertisement. I am not trying to be critical I am just trying to convey my feelings while I am watching the political advertisements by Obama. I wish I could remember which one of the advertisements reminds me of this but I have seen so many it is hard to keep up with.

I must say something else about this though. I am not even really listening to what these candidates are really saying in these ads because I have such a negative reaction to both of them actually. It is almost like there is a switch in my brain and when a political advertisement comes on television my brain turns off for thirty seconds. There is one other things I have noticed to. A few of these have been longer than thirty seconds. I could be totally wrong about my last point though.

I have seen so many attack ads by McCain towards Obama it is just very strange. Not that it really surprises me at all. The simple reason is how many times has McCain changed his position on so many different topics why should I even think when he says he will play nice in the general election and he does not play nice in the general election why does that not surprise me at all. And these ads don't attack Obama about the issues very much at all. I take that back a smidgen they do attack Obama about the issues in a very negative way but it also very indirectly as well. The one about the tire gauges is just such an example. It is not really coming out and saying Obama's energy policy is not the best energy policy for America but of course that is exact message the advertisement wants to convey.

Well way back in late January or early February right before Super Tuesday McCain did have an advertisement about his life. But it really did not talk about why he would make a good president if I am remembering correctly. Why does that feel like way more than six months ago.



And if a person has seen any type of television advertisement from Maine to Hawaii it is very likely that I have seen the advertisement at least once if not more.



I also seem to remember that Obama is going to have a few television advertisements that total around five million dollars during the Olympics if I am remembering correctly. I doubt that will get very much advertisement time during the Olympic coverage though.

[P562045]

I was doing the goog thing about presidents abusing their powers and I found this where Obama is answering various questions about the president and their role when it comes to various types of questions. I will be one watching very closely to watch to see if Obama sticks to his answers here. I doubt these will even be discussed while he is president if he does the exact opposite of what he says here but it will eventually be known if he does.



Barack Obama's Q&A

By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
more stories like this

The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

With respect to the “core” of executive privilege, the Supreme Court has not resolved this question, and reasonable people have debated it. My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House.

7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?

No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

Disagree strongly.

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like “waterboarding” clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

Some further points:

The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?

Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University

Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago

Jeh C. Johnson, former General Counsel of Department of the Air Force (1998-2001)

Gregory Craig, former Assistant to the President and Special Counsel (1998-1999), former Director of Policy Planning for U.S. Department of State (1997-1998)

12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

Yes, these are essential questions that all the candidates should answer. Any President takes an oath to, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility – particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this Administration.

[P562045]

I have such "campaign fatigue" that I am not going to comment until Obama finally decides who his vice president is going to be. I will just let others decide about some things I might find until then.




Obama without his script

Judging by his reaction to the Georgia-Russia crisis, Obama's make-believe presidency isn't ready for prime time.

Jonah Goldberg
August 12, 2008

The Obama campaign has for months pursued the odd strategy of having the junior senator from Illinois act as if he were already kinda-sorta president of the United States. In June, it tried sticking a quasi-presidential seal on his lectern. Then in July, he conducted what seemed like official state visits with foreign leaders and delivered something like a "prenaugural" address in Berlin, inviting comparisons to JFK and Reagan.

It's an understandable ploy. More than most candidates, Barack Obama needs to appear like a plausible commander in chief because he's not only inexperienced (during the last Summer Olympics he was still an Illinois state legislator), he's novel. The name, the skin color, the cosmopolitan upbringing: Fair or not, all of these things give Obama the aura of otherness that is both part of his charm and a potential handicap.

If the would-be president can seem plausibly presidential, voting for him might not seem like such a crapshoot. It all makes sense, even if it fosters an air of presumptuousness.

(David Letterman recently offered a list of the top 10 signs Obama is overconfident. Among them: "Asked guy at Staples, 'Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?' "; "Having head measured for Mt. Rushmore;" and "Offered McCain a job in gift shop at the Obama Presidential Library.")

Now fate has given Obama a chance to be presidential rather than pretend. Taking advantage of the Olympic distraction in Beijing, the Russians invaded South Ossetia, a territory on the north side of Georgia, a democratic U.S. ally. Out of the blocks, the Russians bombed civilians, rolled tanks across an internationally recognized border and threatened to launch an all-out, destabilizing war. Now it looks as if their army has cut Georgia in two.

Moreover, Russian bombs reportedly targeted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Georgia on its way to the Mediterranean -- the only oil pipeline in Central Asia not under Russian control. Russia is tightening its chokehold on oil and gas at precisely the moment energy costs have become the paramount domestic issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

Obama's response?

First, late Thursday evening, he gave a conventional written statement calling for calm, U.N. action and "restraint" from both sides -- followed an hour later by a slightly stronger condemnation of Russian aggression and a call for a cease-fire.

The invasion of Georgia elicited a wan written communique instead of the sort of exciting rhetoric we've come to expect from his make-believe presidency. But he did make it in front of the cameras the next day for a rally celebrating his vacation in Hawaii. He promised "to go body surfing at some undisclosed location."

During Obama's make-believe presidency, we've heard about bold action, about the courage to talk to dictators. When faced with a real "3 a.m. moment," Obama -- who boasts about 200 foreign policy advisors, broken into 10 subgroups -- proclaims, "I'm going to get some shave ice."

Now, of course, this is a bit unfair in that Obama had planned his no doubt well-deserved vacation for a very long time. But presidential vacations are always well planned -- and often interrupted.

Indeed, President Bush's jaunt to the Olympics as a "sports fan" should also have been cut short the moment tanks started rolling over a country he'd proclaimed a "beacon of liberty" during his visit there in 2005. By Monday, both Bush and Obama were playing catch-up to Sen. John McCain, who seemed to have grasped the gravity from the get-go and whose support for Georgia is long-standing. He took the lead from the outset, demanding on Friday morning an emergency meeting of NATO and Western aid to the fledgling democracy.

The geopolitical significance of Russia's invasion of Georgia at this stage is hard to gauge. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin may not wish to revive the Soviet Union or the Cold War, but he clearly seeks to restore Russia's imperial stature. And Item One on that agenda is to crush Georgia's independence and smother hopes for NATO's expansion to Russia's "near abroad."

The campaign significance for Obama is easier to calculate. He has been playacting at being presidential in order to convince voters that we live in a "new moment" with "new challenges" -- and that he is the president we need for this new era.

This moment calls for more than playacting, yet Obama looks lost without a presidential script. Events in the Caucasus -- and, for that matter, in Beijing -- suggest that the times aren't so new after all. Two powerful antidemocratic foes are once again flexing their muscles at a moment when America seems weak and distracted.

That is not a new challenge but a very old one. Perhaps this is not a time for a novice spouting grand rhetoric about a new page in history, but for someone who's actually read the pages of some old, but still relevant, books. Perhaps this is not the time for playacting.

Perhaps it is not the time for body surfing?

[hork]

Originally Posted by P562045

I have such "campaign fatigue" that I am not going to comment until Obama finally decides who his vice president is going to be. I will just let others decide about some things I might find until then.




Obama without his script

Judging by his reaction to the Georgia-Russia crisis, Obama's make-believe presidency isn't ready for prime time.

Jonah Goldberg
August 12, 2008

The Obama campaign has for months pursued the odd strategy of having the junior senator from Illinois act as if he were already kinda-sorta president of the United States. In June, it tried sticking a quasi-presidential seal on his lectern. Then in July, he conducted what seemed like official state visits with foreign leaders and delivered something like a "prenaugural" address in Berlin, inviting comparisons to JFK and Reagan.

It's an understandable ploy. More than most candidates, Barack Obama needs to appear like a plausible commander in chief because he's not only inexperienced (during the last Summer Olympics he was still an Illinois state legislator), he's novel. The name, the skin color, the cosmopolitan upbringing: Fair or not, all of these things give Obama the aura of otherness that is both part of his charm and a potential handicap.

If the would-be president can seem plausibly presidential, voting for him might not seem like such a crapshoot. It all makes sense, even if it fosters an air of presumptuousness.

(David Letterman recently offered a list of the top 10 signs Obama is overconfident. Among them: "Asked guy at Staples, 'Which chair will work best in an oval-shaped office?' "; "Having head measured for Mt. Rushmore;" and "Offered McCain a job in gift shop at the Obama Presidential Library.")

Now fate has given Obama a chance to be presidential rather than pretend. Taking advantage of the Olympic distraction in Beijing, the Russians invaded South Ossetia, a territory on the north side of Georgia, a democratic U.S. ally. Out of the blocks, the Russians bombed civilians, rolled tanks across an internationally recognized border and threatened to launch an all-out, destabilizing war. Now it looks as if their army has cut Georgia in two.

Moreover, Russian bombs reportedly targeted the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Georgia on its way to the Mediterranean -- the only oil pipeline in Central Asia not under Russian control. Russia is tightening its chokehold on oil and gas at precisely the moment energy costs have become the paramount domestic issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.

Obama's response?

First, late Thursday evening, he gave a conventional written statement calling for calm, U.N. action and "restraint" from both sides -- followed an hour later by a slightly stronger condemnation of Russian aggression and a call for a cease-fire.

The invasion of Georgia elicited a wan written communique instead of the sort of exciting rhetoric we've come to expect from his make-believe presidency. But he did make it in front of the cameras the next day for a rally celebrating his vacation in Hawaii. He promised "to go body surfing at some undisclosed location."

During Obama's make-believe presidency, we've heard about bold action, about the courage to talk to dictators. When faced with a real "3 a.m. moment," Obama -- who boasts about 200 foreign policy advisors, broken into 10 subgroups -- proclaims, "I'm going to get some shave ice."

Now, of course, this is a bit unfair in that Obama had planned his no doubt well-deserved vacation for a very long time. But presidential vacations are always well planned -- and often interrupted.

Indeed, President Bush's jaunt to the Olympics as a "sports fan" should also have been cut short the moment tanks started rolling over a country he'd proclaimed a "beacon of liberty" during his visit there in 2005. By Monday, both Bush and Obama were playing catch-up to Sen. John McCain, who seemed to have grasped the gravity from the get-go and whose support for Georgia is long-standing. He took the lead from the outset, demanding on Friday morning an emergency meeting of NATO and Western aid to the fledgling democracy.

The geopolitical significance of Russia's invasion of Georgia at this stage is hard to gauge. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin may not wish to revive the Soviet Union or the Cold War, but he clearly seeks to restore Russia's imperial stature. And Item One on that agenda is to crush Georgia's independence and smother hopes for NATO's expansion to Russia's "near abroad."

The campaign significance for Obama is easier to calculate. He has been playacting at being presidential in order to convince voters that we live in a "new moment" with "new challenges" -- and that he is the president we need for this new era.

This moment calls for more than playacting, yet Obama looks lost without a presidential script. Events in the Caucasus -- and, for that matter, in Beijing -- suggest that the times aren't so new after all. Two powerful antidemocratic foes are once again flexing their muscles at a moment when America seems weak and distracted.

That is not a new challenge but a very old one. Perhaps this is not a time for a novice spouting grand rhetoric about a new page in history, but for someone who's actually read the pages of some old, but still relevant, books. Perhaps this is not the time for playacting.

Perhaps it is not the time for body surfing?

i'm not even gonna comment. i'll wait to see just how unbiased other folks are around here before i point out the obvious rebuttal.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by hork

i'm not even gonna comment. i'll wait to see just how unbiased other folks are around here before i point out the obvious rebuttal.

That's not me. I actually tried to read his book about liberal fascism (gotta love concepts that are contridictory ). Of course I wont say whether or not I finished it, or what I would have done with it if I hadnt gotten it through the library......

Of course I think you meant the content as oppossed to who wrote it (which is the opposite way some people around here approach politics )