For the moment, let's leave aside the issue of whether a President should squander the "Coin of the Realm" meeting with Enemies of the State individually and without pre-condition (I disagree with Obama here, FYI). Still, this issue speaks to a larger concern I have with candidate Obama: his tendency to be inattentive to the details.
In every debate, Obama has proven himself to be unable to grasp the parameters and specifics of a question. As a consequence, his answers are often ill-suited and open to exploitation.
With an eye to the general election, why should the Democrats elect someone whose rookie carelessness makes him vulnerable to ruinous accusations and characterizations?
For example, the day after the YouTube debate, the Miami Herald had a headline that read:
Obama, Edwards say they would meet with Castro, Chavez.
(http://www.miamiherald.com/579/story/179 947.html)
It doesn't take much imagination to envision these same headlines featured ad nauseam within the deluge of GOP campaign ads hitting the Florida airwaves morphing Democratic Presidential nominee Obama with Castro and Ahmadinejad. Tell me again the upside for the Democrats in needlessly angering the Cubans and the Jews?
Why should the Democrats elect a candidate who would so recklessly hand Florida's electoral votes to the GOP, and on a silver-platter, nonetheless?
The GOP will eat Obama alive on this one.
Eat. Obama. Alive.
Posted by JoeCHI at July 26, 2007 10:09 AMPlease get the debating points correct. The YouTube questioner did not mention Cuba and Obama did not mention Cuba. Hillary was the one who added Castro into the mix (on purpose?). At the time, I turned to my wife and said, "Castro? He probably won't be around in 2009!"
Posted by YouTu at July 26, 2007 10:27 AMWell, I suspect that Hillary is the only possible who can actually lose in Nov 2008. I don't think this election is going to be about money uber alles. The progressives are going to be apathetic, and when push comes to shove the centrists just aren't going to vote for her.
Posted by Tim at July 26, 2007 10:47 AMAnd one further thing: a strategy that proposes Hillary get the support of the Beltway media first (or ever, for that matter) is insane on the face of it.
Posted by Tim at July 26, 2007 10:57 AMHillary Clinton has always had a strong Republican streak running down her back. Especially, when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Her stupid remarks about not meeting with Castro was really nothing more than some red meat tossed in the direction of Miami's large and politically influential Cuban-American community. It looks like Hillary is just another chip off the status quo's block. Nothing new about her.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2007 11:30 AM"..he is going a step further to marry Clinton's attack on him to her Iraq war vote, which is a stretch.."
A stretch? Hardly. Her Iraq vote goes to the essence of why she's not qualified to lead. It's evidence of her poor judgement. I'm glad to see Obama using his head and rubbing her nose in it at every opportunity.
Meanwhile, Edwards continues to lead, again, on issues important to Americans.
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070726-economic-plan/
Which one of these candidate is not like the others?
It becomes clearer with each passing day that one Democratic candidate is actually prepared to be President and campaigning as such as opposed to ego-tripping, pandering, and trying to disguise business as usual.
I'd seriously reconsider that endorsement. No need to be chained to a loser 6 months out.
Posted by God Of War at July 26, 2007 11:54 AMGod Of War,
John Edwards is terrific. Elizabeth Edwards is better still.
A vote for Hillary is really a vote for the status quo. She has no intention of bringing home the troops from Iraq. And her stupid remarks about not meeting with Castro and Chavez -- well, she needs to be wearing an earpiece so Bill can feed her measured and informed answers to complicated foreign policy questions.
The only good thing about Hillary is the influence of Bill Clinton on her administration, especially, regarding international relations.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2007 12:01 PMWhy don't you just hand the blog keys over to Mary and paradox and rejoin Markos, Steve? If this is what you and he will be pedaling for the next 6-10 months, what's the point of your separate voice? Mark my words - Kos may not endorse anyone in the primaries (and he'll go to great pains keep dKos neutral), but his thinking is remarkably close to the rationalizations I've been reading for the last couple days coming from your blog entries.
It boils down to: Sen. Clinton is the only candidate that can win with the political & media establishment as it is now. We go into battle with the media we have, not the media we wish we had. We find the candidate close enough to the establishment as we can and get her elected placing within her our faith that she'll emerge from her candidate shell and blossom into an administration better suited for our needs.
Well, where have I heard that one before?
You've essentially abandoned any position that calls for transformative change in the political establishment. You acknowledge the crisis in government and the executive, but then prescribe the remedy of "regular Democrats". Bush has been badly transformative so the solution becomes not a forceful opposite reaction, but a gradual pressure to return to moderation. "We'll kick AEI out of the White House", while assuming the Center for American Progress will seamlessly walk into the advisor's shoes and gradually drag policy back into the realms of sanity. Under this, we'll surely see a Democratic refurb of No Child Left Behind, removing some of the worst parts of the law (but not all), and some limited financing of it's mandates - finally.
Meanwhile, we'll all be wondering why the country, "continues to move rightward" while using the new (old, marked 1995) litmus tests checking for electability.
And the beat will go on.
Until the drumhead finally implodes.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 26, 2007 12:40 PMI think Obama goes way too far in claiming Hillary is "Bush Cheney lite". I know bloggers love that stuff but I detest it. It's the worst kind of smear. I leaned toward Obama initially, but I've come to not like him. I find him to be a pompous jerk.
Your analysis per Hillary is right on target. However, I don't think you give her enough credit. She's got the 3rd most liberal voting record in Congress. She's got some very progressive plans for expanding health care coverage, universal pre-k and other educational oportunities for adults including a return to vocational trianing for those who don't go to college, more funds for stem cell research, a new rural agenda, expansion of FMLA, etc. She took on the theocratizing of the FDA and won. Is being "progressive" today just not being a boomer? I didn't find Obama's vote for Dick Cheney's energy plan especially progressive. I'm happy that you endorsed Hillary. However, I think you do her a disservice by not acknowledging any of her progressive policies.
Posted by Melanie at July 26, 2007 01:09 PMMelanie - You forgot to mention AIPAC is just crazy for Hillary! She's their Dem of choice. Only Lieberman (who isn't a Dem) gets a high rating from AIPAC.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2007 01:22 PMI don't make my decisions based on who AIPAC donates money to. Frankly, all the candidates were have spoken to and were well recieved by AIPAC. I happen to like Hillary Clinton and making her out to be a conservative monster only makes you look like you do not know anything about her.
Posted by Melanie at July 26, 2007 01:37 PMHillary will be the next president. You don't look to Iowa or New Hampshire -- you look to Wall Street and Wall Street has annointed her. But things could be worse: she's not Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson and that's a good thing.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2007 02:00 PMAnd I'm curious as to whether or not Melanie's IP is in Washington DC or somehow related to hillaryclinton.com. That was a fascinating mixture of talking points, unwarranted attack on Obama, and a "young" writing voice.
Does Obama call Sen. Clinton "Bush Cheney lite"? (Seriously, I don't know.)
Has anyone else here in these threads?
Our argument is that she's a weak moderate - her official voting record may reflect Democratic and liberal lines, but when it's really important, when it's time to make a stand, Clinton crumbles or waits to see which way the wind is blowing.
She's not a public leader - in other words. and when she is, she's public leader on a moderate or even conservative position.
From an honest point-of-view, I despise the lip service all of these candidates have paid to AIPAC. However, considering Sen. Clinton's high standing by AIPAC and her quite hawkish foreign policy, she gets much more distasteful.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 26, 2007 02:01 PMI think AIPAC adores Hillary for a number of reasons.
For one thing, Hillary was an outspoken supporter of Israel’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip last summer. Which by the way, took the lives of over 1,000 civilians. She justified it by screeching it would "send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians and to the Iranians" because they opposed the United States and Israel’s commitment to "life and freedom."
Huh? Hillary's integrity (or lack thereof) must be questioned when AIPAC winds her up and she reguritates their talkingpoints versus policy positions that support the best interests of the USA.
Posted by Christopher at July 26, 2007 02:17 PMAnd I'm curious as to whether or not Melanie's IP is in Washington DC or somehow related to hillaryclinton.com.
So you're in favor of the surveillance state then?
Has anyone else here in these threads?
Maybe not in those exact words.
Posted by snark at July 26, 2007 02:21 PMidiosynchronic, ah, I'm in milford, ma. I don't work for Hillary's campaign. I have made a $10 contribution, though. I'm sorry, I thought anyone could comment here, is that wrong?
Posted by at July 26, 2007 02:35 PMMelanie (I assume that's you), please do feel free to post here. We welcome all discussion, even if it does get heated. There have been very few voices here in support of Hillary to counter the vehement anti-Hillary din. Though I'm an Edwards fan, I don't hate her like some do here, so I'm happy you've put in your two cents!
Posted by iamcoyote at July 26, 2007 02:44 PMiamcoyote, ok thanks. I like Edwards. He's definately offering the boldest vision. If Hillary slips, he's my second choice. I loved Hillary in the 90's like most of the women I know. Was upset by the Iraq vote, though I did chalk it up to what Steve does here. But, during this campaign I did alot of research about all the candidates, and I like what I read and learned about Hillary. I find her extremely competent and pragmatic and I think we could use a good dose of that. I also kind of like that people are a bit skeptical of her. Reagan was very persuasive and the public just sort of followed him blindly. I think a little skeptisism can result in the best policy. I really liked Edwards tax reform plan he put out today? Did you see it? I actually think this spat between Hil and Obama could give him an opening.
Posted by Melanie at July 26, 2007 03:06 PMMelanie, I just started reading the tax plan, and on first look, I liked it. My first thought, though, was the H&R Block people might get pissed! Still, on first glance, I liked it. And you're right, Edwards might pull ahead while people get tired of Hil and Barak duking it out. :D
Posted by iamcoyote at July 26, 2007 03:21 PMHillary pulled a fox propaganda network move on Obama. Obama did not say that we would meet with world leaders viewed as hostile for the sake of talking. Hillary is wrong on this point. We have to talk to other nations. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and Africa control most of the remaing global oil reserves. bush proved we can't take oil from other nations. We can't afford the obscene military complex expenditures. So what do we do? Hell we need to talk to people. We need to make friends not more enemies.
Nobody wants to be friends with the selfish, greedy, xenophobic republicans. A good leader needs to mend fences ASAP.
The old thinking does not work. Colonialism is dead. We need to learn to get along with people.
Posted by smooth at July 26, 2007 05:05 PMI believe indiosynchronic has advanced points well to counter Steve's rationalizations.
Our country is so deeply tied to the cycle of Military Keynesianism, that we have forgotten how to do anything but shore up the economy with war. Only by going forward on this front do we stand up the currency and the portfollios on Wall Street. Edwards has had the courage to say that the War on Terror is BS. I'll give him credit for that. Also for pointing out that our poor are the victims in this project.
I believe that another Clinton presidency will damage the progressives and the movement, mostly through a profound demoralization. We can't recoop the losses of another war president. We can't help the poor or the middle class if the globalist agenda goes forward in its present form. We can't go on with hundreds of military bases in foreign countries and a dozen carrier groups prowling the world's oceans in perpetuity.
Another Clinton presidency would be all the proof required that we won't change, that we don't intend to change.
Posted by Copeland at July 26, 2007 07:13 PMBait and switch? Is that what we are to expect from a Hilllary presidency? While winning the White House with a Democrat may be all that matters to some, I don't find much inspiration in the thought of electing Hillary for that reason alone. Edwards seems to be the only one, that when he speaks actually makes me feel like I WANT to vote for him.
And if Hillary's gender is causing her to have a chip on her shoulder now, what's to take that chip away once she's elected? In that sense, I see her gender as a huge detriment to winning the general election. People will find her posturing, and "act tough" attitude, too annoying to vote for if nothing else. In that sense, I'm there right now. I find it difficult to listen to anything she says as her tone of voice tends to come across as scolding.
Early on, I thought people would vote for her out of a certain nostalgia for the perceived good times her husband's presidency represented. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. I think if anyone could lose this for the Democrats, she's it. As others have pointed out, she is a gift to the Republicans. While the Republican candidates may be lackluster, and cause many a Republican to want to stay home in November, the thought of Hillary becoming President may be enough to get the Ditto Heads off their butts and down to the polls.
We need more than just a Democrat in the White House. We need someone that can lead this country in a new direction. I don't see that in Hillary. We don't need a Beltway Insider, a panderer to Corporate America, a person who puts globalization before the good of the country, and a person who puts politics before principles. We need someone with vision.
Posted by Cosrai at July 26, 2007 09:38 PMBest reason to have nothing to do with Hillary:
Posted by Tim at July 27, 2007 05:59 AM"A vote for Hillary is really a vote for the status quo. She has no intention of bringing home the troops from Iraq."
You got that right! I received a cd from Hillary this week, and it's title is something like, "My plan to end the war in Iraq". I noted with interest the careful parsing of words--she's not going to get us out of Iraq, she's going to end the war in Iraq, according to the title. Can't tell you what's on the cd, as my sound system is srewwed. But, AIPAC wants us to stay in Iraq, and that's what she is going to give them, take my word for it. I have to hand it to her, she certainly has the ego for the job.
Posted by at July 28, 2007 04:14 PM