Reactions to story from The New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist: Lurching With Abandon
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 07/ 08/ opinion/ 08herbert.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rssReactions / posts that link to this article
View all reactions »-
Video of Obama Self-Destructing on Iraq [Reader Post]
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/07/09/video-of-obama-self-d...Obama may have outdone himself with his king-sized flip-flop on Iraq. Even the one of the libs at the New York Times is wondering what Obama is doing: Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential
-
NYT's Herbert: Obama Flip-flops a 'Very Dangerous Game'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/nyts-h...You can now add New York Times columnist Bob Herbert to the growing list of liberal media members so concerned with the recent flip-flops by presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama that they're willing to publicly express their angst for
-
Barack Obama Even Cuts and Runs From His Own Positions
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/barack-ob...In a HIGHLY favorable piece from a far-left liberal newspaper (just consider the title: “Obama stance on Iraq Shows Evolving View“!!!), Barack Obama is nevertheless revealed to have simply been all over the place regarding Iraq. A much tougher - and much more substantial - piece shows just how way, way, WAAAAY all over the place Obama has been regarding Iraq: But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side.4 Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal. Is that what a president does? Does he waffle this way, then that, depending on the frequent shifts of the political breezes? Or is a president - and anyone who wants to become president - forced to carefully decide what needs to be done, and then commit himself (just as he commits his troops)? “Oh, things are going well, so I’m committed. Oh, we’re having a few setbacks, so I demand a withdrawal. Oh, things are better now, so I’ll “refine” my policy. Oh, my left-wing base is turning on me, so I’ll recommit myself to my previous withdrawal policy.” Could a president send troops, change his mind and withdraw them, change his mind again and increase their number form when he withdrew them before, and then decide that he shouldn’t have sent them after all and withdrawn them again - all within the span of about 2 1/2 years? Conservative critics have pounced all over Obama: “There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.” Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.” Well, if that’s true (and you’re not a rank, hypocritical liar without shame who plays politics even when men’s lives hang in the balance), then why did you announce your rigid commitment to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal BEFORE you went to Iraq and actually listened to those commanders? The reality is, you’re not going to listen to them at all - just as you’ve NEVER listened to them. The Clinton campaign pointed out that Obama would renege on his Iraq policy - which is exactly what he tried to do until his liberal base erupted in outrage over the reversal. The man is a veritable bastion of courage and integrity. Barack Obama has been in favor of a timetable for withdraw since late 2005. What would have happened to Iraq had Barack Obama been our president? If we had pulled out of the country when Obama said we should (depending, of course, on how Obama felt about the war that day), a too-weak and too-unstable Iraq would have almost certainly descended into chaos, become a terrorist stronghold, and forced us to invade for yet a third time. In January of 2007, John McCain proposed a troop surge in Iraq, and Barack Obama opposed it: (CBS) Sen. John McCain supports President George Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, while his fellow Senator, and likely opponent in the 2008 race for the White House, Barack Obama would rather see a “surge in diplomacy.” A showdown between Congress and the president looms after President Bush said he would send 21,000 more American troops to Iraq. Meanwhile, a new poll indicates that the public is overwhelmingly against the plan. Obama pursued a plan of action that would have done NOTHING as Iraq began to stumble into chaos. John McCain - as the article acknowledges - took an “overwhelmingly” unpopular stance and supported a policy that WORKED. [And note the pessimistic stance liberal CBS took on the idea of the troop surge]. American military commanders are close to declaring complete victory in Iraq. Even Al Qaeda has openly admitted that they have lost in Iraq. The result of this success is that Obama scrubbed his earlier positions regarding the surge from his website. That’s “change” for you: no major political candidate in American history has ever been so completely disingenuous regarding his positions. As an Associate Press article by Nedra Pickler put it: WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions. Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase. A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions. After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move. By the time Obama staffers got through editing Obama’s previous positions: Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one — “Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace. That’s right: “judgment you can trust.” You can trust a man who takes every position under the sun depending on his political expediency, plays politics when soldiers’ lives are on the line, scrubs his own website of his previous erroneous positions, and then blithely pretends he’s had the same position all along. As Barack Obama launches his foreign visit accompanied by the in-the-tank anchors from the in-the-tank networks and all the media fanfare they can produce, the narrative will be that Obama is right about the timetable for withdrawal. But the only reason we can reasonably talk about a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq is because better and more courageous men were in charge - and Barack Obama was not. As you listen to the in-the-tank media hype for Obama, don’t forget that. Obama has repeatedly cut and run from his own positions: from dismissing the wearing of flag pins to wearing them constantly; from publicly vowing that he could never denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright any more than he could denounce his own grandmother to publicly denouncing Jeremiah Wright; from filling out questionnaires to denying that he filled out the answers on the questionnaires; from being an opponent of free trade to being a supporter of free trade; from telling a Jewish audience that he supported Jerusalem as the eternal capital of a Jewish state to telling a group of Palestinians that he was open to negotiating the status of Jerusalem; from claiming that Iran was not a serious threat to claiming that Iran represents a serious threat; from vowing to accept public financing to refusing to accept public financing; from supporting the Washington D.C. ban on handguns to supporting the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns; from swearing he would filibuster any FISA bill that did not allow lawsuits against telecoms to voting for a FISA bill that didn’t include any provisions to punish telecoms; from vowing to end the Iraq war in 2009 to saying he would refine his position to listen to military commanders to saying he would end the war in Iraq irregardless of the commanders. The liberal editorial board of the New York Times has recognized that Barack Obama seemed to lack a functioning moral compass. Last week New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that Barack Obama has no moral compass whatsoever. He ended his piece by saying: There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war. Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them. He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard. Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual. Don’t forget that Barack Obama is a pandering, waffling, flip flopping liberal who doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions. Increasingly even liberals are recognizing that Barack Obama is simply not fit to lead.
-
This Week in God
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16254.htmlFirst up from the God machine this week is a poll that didn’t get a lot of attention, but was actually pretty important. A Quinnipiac University national poll released on Thursday covered quite a bit of ground when it came to “culture war” issues, and perhaps most importantly given the recent campaign discussion, produced some interesting data on faith-based federal funding. American voters support 53 - 41 percent giving money to faith-based organizations to help them run social programs. But voters say 77 - 16 percent groups which receive federal funds cannot discriminate by hiring only members of their own faith. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, that 41% of Americans don’t want faith-based groups to get social-service grants is a surprisingly high number. There’s a perception, which I’ll admit to buying into on occasion, that these kinds of partnerships and contracts — which have been around for years — are overwhelmingly popular. A poll like this suggests there remains some discomfort about mixing church and state, which I find encouraging. But that second part of the question is even more striking. The NYT’s Bob Herbert, in a misguided attack on Barack Obama recently, argued that Obama is “promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it.” That’s simply not true — Obama’s policy is premised on key safeguards that Bush’s program intentionally sought to remove. And at the top of this list was religious discrimination. Obama believes groups that receive public funds can’t discriminate when hiring employees to do the social service work. John McCain, just a week ago, said the exact opposite, insisting that faith-based organizations should get funding and discriminate in hiring with tax-dollars. So, on this issue, 77% of Americans prefer Obama’s approach, while 16% prefer McCain’s. Also from The God Machine this week: * More religious trouble for McCain: “A Catholic group has written to John McCain to ask him to remove Deal Hudson from the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee because of allegations that, in 1994, Hudson solicited sex from an 18-year-old woman who was a student in one of his classes at Fordham University. ” * Guns & God: “An Oklahoma church canceled a controversial gun giveaway for teenagers at a weekend youth conference. Windsor Hills Baptist had planned to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle until one of the event’s organizers was unable to attend. The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, said it’s a way of trying to encourage young people to attend the event.” * As if the dispute in South Carolina weren’t enough, now license-plate controversies are spreading to Kentucky: “The official Kentucky state motto is ‘United We Stand, Divided We Fall.’ But that’s not the slogan that Gov. Steve Beshear is proposing for a new alternative license plate. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Beshear will push for legislation next year authorizing a special ‘In God We Trust’ plate for vehicles in the Commonwealth.” Share This
-
When media narratives are quietly disposed of
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16231.htmlOn Tuesday, the conservative Washington Times ran a front-page item under the headline: “Shift on war hits Obama’s liberal base.” Sen. John McCain on Monday accused his Democratic presidential rival of flip-flopping on the war in Iraq, as a pair of new polls showed the Republican’s strategy of painting Sen. Barack Obama as politically expedient is beginning to take hold with voters. As Mr. Obama repositions himself for the general election after exclusively targeting the Democratic base of committed liberals, it leaves some voters on the left feeling he is abandoning them on their top issue — Iraq — and has independents questioning his veracity. This awful reporting was, of course, consistent with two straight weeks of non-stop talk in media/Republican circles about non-existent “changes” to Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. Charles Krauthammer insisted that Obama is already “done” “flipping” on Iraq. On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Bob Herbert said there’s “concern” that the senator is “doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq.” This item from Mark Halperin over the weekend went under the headline: “McCain Team Takes Offensive on Iraq.” On afternoon conference call, aides to the Republican pound the “total confusion” of Obama’s stance on Iraq. Michael Goldfarb: “We have seen him all over the map in the last couple of weeks.” Says plan on Obama’s Web site does not match his rhetoric. “He is sending so many different signals to so many different people.” […] Randy Scheunemann: “There’s nothing less than total confusion about where Sen. Obama is on Iraq… the exact opposite of what we’ve seen” from McCain. Now, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize this taking the “offensive”; I’d characterize this as “lying.” But I can’t help but notice something: this entire bogus, manufactured narrative disappeared about as quickly as it emerged. For two weeks, the media establishment hyperventilated about a “change” that hadn’t happened. Obama’s position on the war hadn’t shifted at all, but that apparently didn’t matter. So, on Tuesday, Barack Obama gave a high-profile speech in DC on foreign policy and national security, during which he re-emphasized exactly the same policy on Iraq he’s held all along. The long-awaited flip didn’t happen. The reversal did not exist. Everything the McCain campaign and his barbecue-eating, donut-delivering friends had said about Obama abandoning his Iraq policy turned out to be completely wrong. And in the aftermath of this realization, the political establishment seemed to say, “Hmm, I guess it’s time to talk about something else now.” I’m wondering where the accountability is. The New Republic noted the other day: So Obama will listen to his generals and consider the facts on the ground before fully withdrawing from Iraq. OMG! WTF? Rick Klein of ABC News exclaimed, “There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.” Time’s Mark Halperin told Anderson Cooper, “This is one of the biggest things that’s happened so far in the general election.” Except, nothing had happened. The apoplexy was based on an imaginary change. Here’s a radical idea: how about some of the same media personalities who misled the public every day for two straight weeks for no reason now mention to voters, “By the way, Obama’s been completely consistent about Iraq all along, and we were wrong to argue otherwise.” How about every news outlet who blared talk about an Obama “flip-flop” on Iraq devote a little time to talk about Obama not “flip-flopping” on Iraq. That, of course, isn’t going to happen; it’s just not how the drive-by system works. News outlets jump on a meme, screw up the story, realize they’d chased a dead-end, and move on to the next meme. If voters are left with misinformation in the process, so be it — there’s no time to look back. It’s worth taking a moment to appreciate this as a case study in how reporters fall for clumsy cons. Share This
-
Commentary on Commentators
http://www.stuwhat.com/2008/07/commentary-on-commentators.ht...July 8, 2008 Dwight Eisenhower once stoutly proclaimed that "things are more like they are now than they ever were before." This is either an abstract existential profundity, or pure gobbledygook—but then again, the former president may have been on to something after all. There is something to be said for the singular uniqueness of any given era and perhaps Mark Twain said it better that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Ignoring the second clause and fetishizing the first, political commentators are overly fond of appealing to generalized historical comparisons to form their predictions and analyses for the present. This is nothing new—in fact it's textbook political commentary—but what does it really accomplish in the end? How much time should be spent debating Obama-neoReaganism versus Obama-neoClintonism? Or the obviously predictable fact that Obama is moving more and more towards the political center now that he is in the general election. If the Obama-Reagan comparison is valid, perhaps his economic policy should acquire the portmanteau: Obamanomics. Reagonomics is credited by many for ameliorating the stagflation and oil crisis of the late 1970s—but this is 2008; the economy suffers from high unemployment—but the inflation is in commodities (food and gas), which are not even a typical factor in measuring inflation rates; the world is certainly in an oil crisis—but so far nobody has any idea why. It's exceptionally convenient, with a downtrodden economy further ailed by an oil crisis, to appeal to Reagan for comparison. But the fact that Obama promises "Change" and that Reagan effectuated "Change" during his administration is the extent of their vague likeness. The nature of economic maladies in 1980 and 2008, respectively, as well as the policies of Reagan and Obama, are absolutely incongruent; history is not repeating itself and only time will tell if it will even rhyme. Evidence for the argument that Obama could be the next Reagan—a messianic deus ex machina of sorts—is insufficient and relies far too heavily on a weak historical analogy. That Obama is a transformative figure is hardly a useful observation. If this is the only basis for comparison then what stops anyone from equating him to Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR as well? Roosevelt is a significantly more appropriate parallel, requiring much less comparative prestidigitation to pull off. Indeed, Roosevelt may as well be the father of the Democratic Party that Obama represents today. Reagan and Roosevelt become comparatively relevant because the economy has taken center-stage in politics. Issues such as war and civil liberties will eternally be a source for ideological woes but nothing creates more trenchant public outcry than a languishing economy characterized by rapid commodities price inflation. Referencing Reagan is appealing because it recalls the most recent significant recession and America's ascension from it; however, it is only effective as an ipse dixit to instill hope and comfort, not as a logical comparison or prediction. On the other hand, while Reagonomics decreased the growth rate of government spending, marginal tax rates, government regulation of the economy, and social programs, while increasing military deficit spending, Obamanomics takes the categorically opposite approach—the approach reminiscent of Roosevelt's but translated into 21st Century environmentalism and infrastructure decay. On the domestic front, Obama's policies mirror Roosevelt and the New Deal in principle; internationally, however, while Roosevelt led the United States to war, Obama must end one, which he promises to accomplish within 16 months of taking office. Categorically comparing Obama to Roosevelt is comparing apples to oranges—as is comparing Obama to Reagan. In fact, one should be cautious in comparing Obama to any candidate or incumbent who precedes him; it is hardly a flawless method of analysis or prediction. The extent to which Reagonomics played a role in salvaging the economy during the early 1980s is still debated; thus, it falls far short of definitively proving what palliates economic vagaries. History has countless lessons to teach: it teaches what not to do; what doesn't work. When it comes to successes, however, it may not be as reliable—an unfortunate reality, but a reality all the same. This is the basis for scientific experimentation as well: ruling out variables which do not confirm a hypothesis as opposed to simply demonstrating one example that does and applying it universally. America's necessary participation in WWII was a victory; eventually thereafter, America's extended debacle in Vietnam may now be considered a relative success; America's interventionist role in Bosnia, which is now flourishing in urbanization, literacy, GDP, and civil liberties, among other advancements, may be viewed as a success—but none of these complex singular events should be transposed elsewhere (such as the Middle East) with the presumptive expectation that they will be equally propitious. Likewise, what worked for Roosevelt and Reagan in the 1930s and 1980s, respectively, should not be presumed effective in the economy of 2008. Commentators may draw historical parallels to elicit an "Oh, now that you mention it, that is an interesting comparison!" response, but anything beyond this is, not only indulgent, but fruitless jibber-jabber. Since Reagan's administration, China has risen as the salient Asian power and is being fully accommodated by the rest of the region (with the slight exception of Japan.) It has invested in Africa when nobody else would and, in August, it will reinforce its legitimacy to its own people with the Summer Olympics. Russia, as well, is on the rise in the world scene under the puppet Putin/Medvedev regime. Together with China, it has vetoed the United State's recent call for sanctions on Zimbabwe, under the illegitimate rule of Mugabe, demonstrating America's loss of clout on the international scene and undermining it even more. At home, the Federal Reserve, just in the past six months, has made drastic unprecedented dirigiste decisions to bail out investment banks, and now, Fannie May and Freddie Mac. The American economy languishes under a simultaneous mortgage and energy crisis, alleviation from which feels far off. The United States and the international community of 2008 are nothing like that of the 1940s and 1980s. If Obama wins the presidency, he will have all of this to deal with. Roosevelt and Reagan each came to office in the wake of insipid and inconsequential incumbants. Obama would take office in the wake of one of the most overly exerted executive authorities in American history--at least with regards to foreign policy. Beyond recognizing more abstract strengths and weaknesses in the leadership qualities of Obama's predecessors, commentators should look to the future with critical analysis and advice, rather than put too much trust in the ostensive sagacity of history.
-
Barack Obama en militant islamiste, et son épouse Michelle avec une Kalachnikov en bandoulière.
http://pierrechantelois.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/barack-obam...Début juin. Sentant de si près la victoire sur sa rivale, Hillary Clinton, le candidat démocrate et sénateur de l’Illinois, Barack Obama, se veut l’agent du changement aux États-Unis. « Amérique, ceci est notre moment, ceci est notre heure, le temps de tourner la page sur les politiques du passé ». Quelques jours à peine avant cette victoire, le Boston Globe avait publié une liste des erreurs de parcours et des déceptions que chaque champ dressait l’un à l’encontre de l’autre. Une telle liste ne faisait pas le poids et n’était pas sérieuse tant les remarques nettement partisanes se démarquaient des faits réels. La campagne présidentielle passionne les américains. Selon une étude du Pew Research Center, 72% des 2.004 Américains interrogés assurent qu’ils suivent de près l’élection présidentielle. Et selon ce même sondage, Obama serait en tête avec 48% d’intentions de vote contre 40% pour son rival John McCain. La répartition des intentions de vote est significative : 81% des Noirs, et près d’une majorité de Blancs (49%) estiment qu’une présidence McCain favoriserait les riches. Cela explique peut-être la raison qui fait que Barack Obama bénéficie d’une opinion favorable chez 83% des Noirs mais seulement 31% des Blancs. Un blanc sur cinq (22%) met en doute le patriotisme d’Obama, alors que 62% de Noirs le trouvent « très patriote ». Malgré l’intérêt de ces sondages, Barack Obama éprouve beaucoup de difficultés à se défaire d’une image que ses adversaires souhaiteraient bien lui accoler de manière permanente, celle d’un islamiste « qui nie en être un ». Ce n’est pas faute d’essayer de corriger cette fâcheuse image. Accusé d’élitisme par ses détracteurs et boudé par l’électorat ouvrier pendant les primaires, le sénateur sorti de Harvard met en avant son enfance modeste dans la classe moyenne. Autant Obama souhaite « tourner la page » avec les rumeurs sur son appartenance à l’Islam reviennent le hanter. En janvier 2008, Daniel Pipes traitait cette question sur son blogue éponyme. Et la conclusion, qu’il tirait, était la suivante : « Obama is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed ». Faut-il se surprendre que, pour pour 10 % des Américains, Barack Obama serait un « musulman caché », chiffre qui atteint 16 % chez les évangéliques et 19 % chez les électeurs ruraux Pew Research Center)? Selon Newsweek, 26 % des Américains sont convaincus que le sénateur de l’Illinois a été élevé comme un musulman, 39 % croient qu’il a étudié dans une école islamique et 12 % qu’il a prêté serment au Sénat sur le Coran. Faut-il croire que cette rumeur est tenace ? Il faut voir la page couverture de l’hebdo The New Yorker pour s’en convaincre. Qualifiée du « plus mauvais goût et nettement offendante » par le clan Obama, cette page couverture véhicule pour la énième fois les stéréotypes sur un sénateur illinois qui cache son appartenance à l’Islam. Barack Obama en militant islamiste, et son épouse Michelle avec une Kalachnikov en bandoulière, échangent un « fist bump ». Sur le mur, une photo d’Oussama ben Laden. Pour comprendre ce qu’est un « fist bump » échangé entre le couple, ce que le très sérieux New York Times a préféré qualifier de « closed-fisted high-five », il faut voir la vidéo qui est à l’origine d’une polémique toute américaine. Ce geste, si simple, est un signe d’encouragement et de partage dans le monde sportif ou dans le monde musical. De voir ainsi un couple en démarche de candidature présidentielle s’échanger un signe aussi familier a fait sortir les rumeurs et analyses de toutes sortes des chaumières. Certaines âmes bien pensantes n’y ont vu qu’un « Terrorist fist jab », rien de moins. Notamment Fox News qui s’est interrogé sur la signification de ce « body language ». Le réseau a, par la suite, dû présenter ses excuses pour avoir associé ce geste à un « acte terroriste ». Et c’est toujours le même Fox News qui interprète ainsi la page couverture de l’hebdo The New Yorker : « Mrs. Obama is portrayed as a militant radical, while Obama appears foreign. The image reflects, some might say mocks, the rumors that have plagued the couple over the last 18 months ». Pour le caricaturiste Barry Blitt, l’intention était toute autre. Il s’agissait en fait de dénoncer, sous forme caricaturale, la campagne de désinformation qui sévit contre le sénateur de l’Illinois. Et l’excellent reportage de Ryan Lizza risque d’être relégué au second rang en raison même de l’attention démesurée accordée à cette caricature. Cette nouvelle a généré plus de 340 commentaires sur le site de Fox News. Deux commentaires, parmi ces derniers, traduisent les réactions des Américains face à ces communications à répétition d’une image que d’aucuns jugent fausse et que d’autres jugent fondée. Premier commentaire, bref et concis : « Best cover page we have seen to date. It is what we will get if we put this man in the White House (8h36) ». Deuxième commentaire, plus dénonciateur de cette operation : « The New Yorker Magazine’s July cover of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama must be causing the McCain camp to not only fist bump but to roll on the floor with glee. In a shocking effort at cleverness you have reinforced the caustic rumors of those who would never vote for anyone of a different hue than they are, pink and white. Shame on you New Yorker! » Parallèlement à ces campagnes médiatiques sur le candidat Obama, une certaine presse d’analyse s’interroge de plus en plus sérieusement sur les nombreux revirements du sénateur de l’illinois. Bob Herbert, du New York Times, reconnaît à Barack Obama des qualités inhabituelles chez un politicien : « plus honnête, moins cynique et moins calculateur que la plupart d’entre eux ». Mais le journaliste constate également que les partisans du sénateur s’expliquent mal l’appui de ce dernier au « Electronic Surveillance Bill ». George W. Bush a promulgué la semaine dernière une nouvelle loi codifiant les écoutes antiterroristes, après son adoption définitive par le Congrès. Le texte accorde une immunité aux compagnies de télécommunications qui ont, dans le passé, participé aux écoutes. Sans cette immunité, Bush menaçait la loi de veto présidentiel. Si Obama a voté contre cette immunité, il s’est rangé en faveur du texte. Aussi incroyable que cela puisse paraître, John McCain n’a pas pris part au vote. Grande déception des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme qui voit dans cette volte-face d’Obama un virage dangereux et risqué à droite. Le sénateur de l’Illinois, l’homme qui annonce le changement, s’aligne, à la première occasion, avec beaucoup de témérité derrière une politique maintes fois dénoncée de Georges W. Bush : un Américain peut toujours être écouté si la communication est entre l’étranger et les États-Unis. L’attitude de Barack Obama a été vertement critiquée par le Wall Street Journal. Au début du mois, Linda Feldman, du Christian Science Monitor, qualifiait Barack Obama de risque « pour tous ces jeunes électeurs, qui se sont rangés derrière Obama et qui pourraient être désillusionnés par sa politique de style traditionnelle ». Plusieurs observateurs inclinent de plus en plus à croire que le « troisième mandat de Georges W. Bush » que Barack Obama attribue à John McCain, s’il était élu, pourrait également au sénateur démocrate. Le Wall Street Journal donne pour exemple le fait que Barack Obama a appuyé le financement par l’État de programmes sociaux « basés sur la foi ». Un jour, Obama, au cours des primaires, dénonce le libre échange entre le Canada, les États-Unis et le Mexique. Récemment, dans une entrevue qu’il accordait au magazine Fortune, le sénateur démocrate revient sur sa parole. « J’ai toujours été un défenseur du libre échange », déclare-t-il tout en reconnaissant le fait que le débat sur cette question était allé trop loin. Barack Obama avait annoncé, voire même claironné, qu’il préférait un financement public à celui, plus occulte, du secteur privé. Cette option est maintenant chose du passé. Il préfère maintenant revenir et recourir à la générosité de ses nombreux donateurs. La raison ? Le dysfonctionnement du financement public. Bien voyons. « Ce n’est pas une décision facile, parce que j’ai toujours défendu un système robuste de financement public des élections. Mais le système […] ne fonctionne pas et nous faisons face à des concurrents qui sont passés maîtres dans l’art de le déjouer ». Fin avril, il avait levé plus de 265 millions de dollars, dont près de 10 pour l’élection générale, destinés aux dépenses d’après la convention d’août. L’incomparable Karl Rove, ancien conseiller du président Bush, s’interroge, dans le Wall Street Journal, à savoir si le sénateur de l’Illinois peut acheter la démocratie, relativement à ce dernier revirement. Plus tôt, dans un discours fort controversé devant le lobby pro-israélien de l’AIPAC, Barack Obama avait déclaré que Jérusalem était indivisible et que la ville sainte « resterait la capitale de l’Etat d’Israël ». Par la suite, le sénateur de l’Illinois a multiplié les démarches pour minimiser les impacts de ses déclarations et se montrer, soudainement, ouvert au dialogue (mot à la mode) sur la création d’un État palestinien. L’embarras est que si l’Etat juif présente Jérusalem comme sa capitale éternelle et indivisible, ce statut n’a jamais été reconnu sur le plan international. D’où le faux pas de Barack Obama. Tentant de corriger le tir, le candidat démocrate a déclaré : « Nous voulions simplement indiquer que nous ne souhaitons pas voir des barbelés à travers Jérusalem, un peu comme avant la guerre de 1967, qu’il est possible à notre sens de créer une Jérusalem qui ait de la cohésion et de la cohérence ». Selon le politologue Costas Panagopoulos, de la Fordham University (New York, nord-est), interrogé par l’agence France-Presse : « C’est typique dans les campagnes présidentielles, de mener la bataille des primaires avec des positions extrêmes et puis de dériver doucement vers le centre afin d’attirer le plus grand nombre d’électeurs à l’élection générale ». Ce à quoi répond le Wall Street Journal : « La plupart des candidats à la présidentielle adaptent leur message une fois obtenue l’investiture de leur parti, mais M. Obama n’est pas simplement en train d’orienter son discours vers le centre (…) il veut un troisième mandat Bush ». La question est également posée sur le Huffington Post : « Is Barack Obama an extension of George W. Bush’s foreign policy? ». ____________________________
-
Obama in the middle.
http://hwickline.com/?p=37Evidently, I’m supposed to be frustrated, angry, disappointed and mad-as-hell. The sainted New York Times has taken the measure of Obama over the past month or so and pronounce him New and Not Improved. Bob Herbert surveys the same scene and declares that Obama “is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.” Much of the media, and more than a little of the lefty blogosphere, has been excoriating Obama for flip-flopping on public financing, caving on the FISA wiretapping bill, coming out in favor of federal support for faith-based social services, being open to the idea of “refining” his plans for Iraq and a handful of other positions, from gun control to the death penalty, that have merely added to the background buzz. For our friends on the right, such as RNC flak Alex Conant, this all shows that “there appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience.” For those on the “far left,” according to the Times, the love affair is over: “I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.” Tell us what you really think, Ms. Shade. So evidently all right-thinking folks are supposed to be up in arms about these changes, refinements, and betrayals of all that is right and holy in his world. But I’m just not feeling it, to be honest. There’s obviously a lot going on here. Some of this is genuine shifting on Obama’s part, with varying ratios of political expediency to policy-making rooted in reality. Some of it is a Republican party desperately trotting out the flip-flopper label, which worked wonders for them in 2000 and 2004– in fairness, it’s not like they have a lot else to hang their hat on, what with running Grandpa Simpson’s older brother at the top of their ticket. Some of it is a news media that is simultaneously a) so steeped in Republican talking points that they have stopped recognizing them as such, b) in the tank for McCain, who has, in a remarkable bit of straight talk, described them as “his base,” and c) constitutionally incapable of any kind of critical analysis of actual, you know, policy positions and insists on covering this election like it’s a fight for the presidency of the seventh grade (”OMG pander much?”). And of course we have a left in this country still determined to hold its candidates to a standard of ideological purity guaranteed to ensure that they will never wield effective power in this country– because let’s face it, for some of the left, the very act of wielding power means you’re already hopelessly compromised (are you listening, Ms. Shade?). Let’s look at a few of these contretemps individually, shall we? On public financing, there’s no question that Obama said he was in, and now he’s out. So what happened? He found out he could raise more money (actually, a lot more money) than his opponents, and decided it was an advantage he couldn’t forgo in the general for the sake of consistency with his support for public financing of campaigns. After getting outspent by large margins for cycle after cycle, the Democratic candidate has a chance to outspend his rival this time– or at least be at parity when you add in the big advantage it looks like the RNC will still have this time around. I could go on about Obama’s contention that he can opt out because he’s found a new way of doing public financing, through small online donations, but I won’t. He looked at the politics of it, he looked at the realities of running a national campaign for president, and he decided he couldn’t leave all that money on the table. I, and I suspect, a lot of people, would have been incredibly angry if he had stayed in the system. If you’re going to have to upset some of your supporters no matter what you do, maybe its not so bad an idea to do so whilst keeping a huge money advantage over McCain. On Iraq, Obama has admitted to the radical notion that, as President, he will let his policy be guided by what is happening in Iraq. Shocking, I know, especially given the past six years of a President basing Iraq policy on playing dress-up and wishing for magical ponies. But here’s the thing: this is not a new position for Obama– he’s been extremely careful all along to say that “we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in.” McCain’s people, of course, are trying to this as Obama having “now adopted John McCain’s position.” This is, in a word, bullshit. The two men’s policies are the same as they have always been: McCain wants us to stay in Iraq, with our soldiers getting killed and maimed and our national debt metastasizing, until our soldiers are no longer getting killed and maimed, and then we can stay some more, but then we’ll be able to say we’ve achieved “victory.” We must do this because… well, honestly I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with Vietnam. Obama wants us out, as quickly as is logistically possible, and taking extreme care to leave behind as stable a situation as we can, because just pulling up stakes is no more in the Iraqis’ interest than it is in ours. This isn’t flip-flopping, and it isn’t naïveté. It’s called strategy, and John McCain (nor George Bush for that matter) wouldn’t know it if it bit him in the ass. On FISA and warrantless wiretapping, I admit to being troubled. I’m predisposed to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and the idea of retro-active immunity from lawbreaking for phone companies (phone companies! I mean, have you seen what those bastards charge for text messaging?) seems just plain wrong. So count me as not happy with that particular decision, because it seems like its bad for the country, and because I don’t see the political benefit in it. Then again, I don’t have access to the polling that the Obama campaign does– maybe they saw a landmine there and decided it wasn’t worth stepping on. Or maybe he looked at the merits, and decided that it’s a good compromise, or that the NSA needs to be able to do this. I don’t know, and I probably wouldn’t agree with this decision even if I did, but then again, I’m not running for leader of the free world, which probably makes it easier to stick to my principles on this one. Which brings me, at long last, to my point. Obama’s principles aren’t my principles. They aren’t yours either, they aren’t Moveon.org’s or the Green Party’s, and the sure as hell aren’t John McCain’s. I think the real problem here is that too many people have listened to Obama’s speeches over the course of the campaign and decided that he thinks just like them. That doesn’t mean he’s hiding who he is– it means he’s a politician, and a damn good one. I’ve been a fan since his speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, where the highlight was his reminder of what we share as Americans: “We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.” He’s starting from a progressive worldview, of course, but he’s always been about consensus, and moving beyond us vs. them. And that’s going to mean compromising, and not getting everything you want, and even us Democrats disagreeing with him sometime. I think too many people have convinced themselves that an Obama presidency would mean the mirror image of the conservative ascendency of the past thirty years. But that’s not what he’s been promising, if you actually listen to the man. There was a durable, liberal consensus in this country for decades before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan blew it up. A new consensus wouldn’t look the same, of course, but it would mean finding solutions to our problems that aren’t just liberal orthodoxy. It will mean not getting everything a good progressive could hope for, and finding ways to invite moderates, and maybe even conservatives sometimes, to help shape policy. And I, for one, am all for it.
-
Mr. Obama Goes to Berlin
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/obama_goes...Senator Barack Obama will travel to Berlin later this month to demonstrate his popularity abroad and present himself to the world as the post-partisan, post-Washington paralysis candidate. The fact that Germans are receptive to Obama's candidacy is interesting given the difficulties that German leaders face in speaking honestly about their own country's challenges. Bob Herbert reminds us that Barack Obama's popularity, particularly among young people, can be attributed in part to Obama's apparent ability to bridge this gap. He quotes Obama: "The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face, who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know." Much of the excitement about Obama, and the recent outcry over his alleged shift to the center, stems from the belief among his supporters that the Illinois Senator offers a level of candor and pragmatism that has been missing from American politics. I recently returned from Germany, where I participated in a delegation of young political professionals sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, an affiliate of Germany's classical liberal Free Democratic Party. A series of meetings with local, state, and federal political and business leaders revealed a striking similarity between the current political climates in the United States and Germany: both countries' political leaders are struggling to persuade their populations to enact reforms necessary to compete in the 21st century. The clearest manifestation of this gap in Berlin is the government's inability to address its looming pension crisis. As in many wealthy countries, Germany's population is aging and will have to rely on a shrinking population of workers to support expanding group of retirees. Surprisingly, even young people are averse to cutting pensions. A recent Economist report on this issue found that fully 90% of voters supported a recent pension increase and declared ...the problem for Germany may not be pensioner's democracy but plain old democracy. Given the extraordinary opposition to reducing benefits, even the present conservative government, which includes the two largest political parties, refuses to touch the issue. The related issue of immigration also exposes Germany's struggles to tackle its most pressing challenges. Despite a falling population, Germany has enacted a series of measures in recent years -- including language tests -- that make it more difficult for foreigners to migrate to Germany and for immigrants already living in the country to become citizens. While the government bas restricted immigration, large German corporations including Siemens and the SMS group, struggle to find qualified workers. A third issue is Germany's role in the world and the degree to which it will shoulder the responsibility for maintaining world order and protecting Western interests. While Chancellor Merkel has tried to take steps to move her country in a more activist direction -- including increasing the defense budget and reforming the army to emphasize overseas deployments -- the public remains skeptical for historical reasons as well as a belief that the government's money is better spent trying to achieve "social justice." It remains to be seen whether Germany, the United States, and other prosperous democracies can produce leaders who can effectively articulate solutions to their nations' respective challenges. Barack Obama's op-ed "My Plan for Iraq" in today's New York Times, offers hope that he could be that kind of leader. -- Ben Katcher
-
Left Out
http://divisionstreet.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/left-out/The New York Times on Sunday reported on dismay among Obama supporters upset over what Times columnist Bob Herbert calls “lurching with abandon.” But the Times did so in a way that marginalizes those supporters. Start with the headline: “Obama Supporters on the Far Left Cry Foul.” Those upset with Obama are hardly restricted to the “far left.” The Times continues with references to “left-wing bloggers” and “purists,” as if those stunned by Obama’s reversals are starry-eyed idealists (never mind that that’s how Obama the hopemonger has portrayed himself) who aren’t pragmatic (cynical?) enough to know how to win elections. Memo to the Times: All those folks giving those $5 donations that impress you so much? That’s them! But there’s no question that the most conservative of Obama’s supporters are upset too. (Interesting aside: Those voting against the FISA bill include not just Hillary Clinton, but John Kerry, Dick Durbin and Harry Reid, among others. And in the veep watch, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd - neither of whom has a chance to be put on the ticket in my view - voted Nay. Evan Bayh, who I think has a very good chance, voted Yea.) The Times story is instructive in other ways, though. For example, one Obama supporter tells the paper: “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.” Like not changing your views to get elected. After all, what does he believe in? His campaign has hardly been based on his fairly standard centrist platform, but instead on (somehow) changing the culture of politics and behavior of politicians. Another supporter says, “It’s self-evident that he’s a different kind of candidate.” Watch what he says, not what he does? Yet another poor Obamaphile says, “We want to win. Moving to the center is not a crime in this country.” It’s just the height of hypocrisy for a candidate who accused his main primary opponent of acting expediently to win while he would stand fast . . . a candidate whose very slogan is “Change We Can Believe In,” as opposed to change you can’t believe in. Obama is the Dems nominee - well, presumably there won’t be a floor fight in Denver - and they’re stuck with him. But his supporters might as well start seeing him for who he is, not who they believed he was or who he pretended to be. That doesn’t do anybody any good.