Captain Haddock
Replies to this thread:
More by Captain Haddock
What people are reading
Subscribers
[Total Subscribers 12] :: VIEW ALL
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
:: Subscribe
|
Bill Clinton and the race card
[Please view other pages to see the rest of the postings. Total posts: 41]
[VIEWED 30008
TIMES]
|
SAVE! for ease of future access.
|
|
The postings in this thread span 3 pages, go to PAGE 1.
This page is only showing last 20 replies
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-24-08 1:06
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Its very interesting to see Bill Clinton, often touted as the "first black president", so cleverly playing what many consider the race card. ################################### http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004141629_apclintonrace23.html
ON DEADLINE: Clinton Makes Race an Issue
By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press Writer
Bill
Clinton says race shouldn't be an issue in the Democratic presidential
campaign. Well, then perhaps he should stop talking about it.
The caustic politics of race and gender took center stage in the
Democratic race Wednesday as a combative Clinton campaigned on behalf
of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and lashed out at
the rival Barack Obama campaign and the media for focusing on race.
But it was Clinton himself who dished on the topic when he told an
audience in Charleston that he was proud of the Democratic Party for
having a woman and a black candidate. In response to a question from a
crowd member who asked about "race-baiting" by the media, Clinton said
he understands why Obama is drawing support among blacks, who are
expected to comprise at least half the primary turnout.
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost
votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be
sure, because of their race or gender _ that's why people tell me
Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president
said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone
who they identify with emerges for the first time."
One of the best political strategists of his generation, Clinton may
be hoping to lower expectations for Saturday's primary. He may have his
sights on Feb. 5, when voters in 22 states take part in a national
primary. It would likely work to Hillary Clinton's advantage to have
the electorate polarized by race, given that most Feb. 5 voters will be
white and Hispanic; she won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly in last
week's Nevada caucus.
Strategists working for the New York senator deny any intentional
effort by Bill Clinton, his wife or even surrogates like Bob Johnson,
who referred to Obama's admitted drug use, to stir the racial debate.
But they say they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding
Obama as "the black candidate," something he has worked to avoid.
One Clinton supporter openly played the race card.
After fielding several questions from a crowd of about 200 in
Kingstree, Bill Clinton called on a black man standing off to the side
of the small stage. The man identified himself as a pastor and told
Clinton that "black America is voting for Obama because he's black."
The man also said Democrats are in a "dangerous position" because if
Obama wins the nomination, voters will put a Republican in the White
House.
"They're not ready to for a black president," the man said.
Several black audience members nodded their heads. Several said in unison, "That's right!"
Clinton responded, "First of all, as an American, I have to tell you I hope you're not right." He then said that despite the "mean things" said about him "in the
Obama camp this week," he would support the Illinois senator in
November should his wife lose the nomination fight.
"If he wins the nomination, I will do what I can to help him win the election," Clinton said.
"The reason I think Hillary is more electable is not race, it's
this: If there is a security crisis somewhere between now and the
election, the fact that Hillary" has served on the Senate Armed
Services Committee and has visited more than 80 nations "will make it
much harder for them to spook people by saying she can't handle a
national security crisis," Clinton said.
"If they (conduct) one of their standard negative campaigns," he
added, "I think it'll be easier for her to withstand it because she has
so much scar tissue."
Still, he said twice in his remarks that all three Democratic
candidates _ Clinton, Obama and former Sen. John Edwards _ could beat
any Republican nominee in the current political climate.
The pastor who raised the specter of racism later refused to
identify himself to an Associated Press reporter. He was escorted by a
security guard who shooed away strangers.
In Charleston, Clinton scolded reporters for asking about an Obama
supporter's accusation that the Clinton campaign has used race as a
wedge issue like past GOP campaigns.
"This is almost like once you accuse someone of racism and bigotry
the facts become irrelevant," a red-faced Clinton said. "Not one single
solitary citizen asked about any of this, and they never do."
He said the Obama campaign is encouraging reporters to write about race.
"Shame on you!" he told a reporter.
Shame on anybody who plays the race card.
___
Associated Press writer Mike Baker contributed to this column.
|
|
|
The postings in this thread span 3 pages, go to PAGE 1.
This page is only showing last 20 replies
|
|
Texas Redneck
Please log in to subscribe to Texas Redneck's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 9:08
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Does not matter what Bubba says if McCain wins the Republican primary. McCain certainly can appeal to Democrats uncomfortable with Bubba in the Whitehouse again, with lots of time on his hand to wreak havoc with the interns. Also, McCain has strong support from independents. The only way McCain will loose the General Election is if he blows his top during one of the debates or questions from the Press. He is a bit of a hothead and that could cause some issues.
There are people that would definitely not vote for Hillary, not matter what. On top of it, due to her reputation during Bubba's terms, her nomination definitely would bring out the Republican voters to poll during the General Election. With Bubba playing the race card, it is splitting the Black and Hispanic votes and may cause Blacks to not fully support Hillary if she wins the primary.
Hence, it looks the Democrats will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Thanks Bubba.
|
|
|
indian idol fever
Please log in to subscribe to indian idol fever's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 9:17
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Why we worry about damn Obama or Bill or Mccain or Romney ? Its bullshit ! Lets see our country getting deterioted day by day by f0cking Prachanda, Girija and Makunae . America will still be the same or more advanced if anyone wins unlike Nepal where leaders are asssholes
|
|
|
Power_Ranger
Please log in to subscribe to Power_Ranger's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 9:32
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Obama South Carolina win was quite something. The Barack Obama Kennedy hope dream inspiration party is in full swing and it will be hard for the Clinton Machine to bust the party. People young and old are off their couches and heading to the Obama party.
Power_Ranger
|
|
|
ss74k
Please log in to subscribe to ss74k's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 10:14
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
I don't care about Obama, i am for Hillary. I think what ever Bill Clinton is doing ,it doesn't bother me, he is just there so support his wife . People and especially media are taking differently just because he was a former president. You can take every thing in a different way, what about Oprah who endorse Obama? You can take it in race way. I am pretty sure Hillary will win, we will see in super tuesday. Obama is too young, i don't care what speech he gives, just because he is charming and charismatic means he should win the race. You can see in debate, how every presidential candidates give hopes. Let us just dream. I am just telling what i feel.
|
|
|
ImI
Please log in to subscribe to ImI's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 10:39
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Ya SS74k !! Hillary for next president. Fact is Neither Black or woman is going to win in USA.Nov election is not a democratic Primary. No one can beat McCain .It is easy for him to beat Hillary's experience and Obama is kid and is black kid. But would still love to see Hillary run for President and Obama as vice-President.It will be definately interesting race.Making new milestone in American Politics. Race card - Common Obama is playing race card not Clinton.SC win is because of Black and Obama knows it is not good for him to be labeled black candidate.30% white vote is still not enough and Ya if black doesn't vote for democrat then who is gonna give them more welfare Mitt Romney! by cutting Taxes.Clintons have always been good to black and vice-versa.It is no brainer if there is black - black is going to vote for black.Simple and with white votes getting divided between Clinton and Edwards , Obama is enjoying Democratic primary.
|
|
|
Bob Marley
Please log in to subscribe to Bob Marley's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 10:44
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
To me, it doesn't matter who wins since I'm NOT a citizen. The reason I came here for ONE purpose, MONEY. I hope the economy gets better ($1 dollar less than 63 Rupees, my parents have already started making fun of me now). I'm for HILLARY for economy, if nothing else she can get hints from BILL who by the way left with 500+billion surplus. I dont' care about race, Obama DOES NOT say or has done anything of substance esp related with economy. I don't care for that feel good factor. SHOW ME THE MONEY. The recession and declining value of US doller around the world is my concern.
Trust me, HILLARY will eventually win after all the dramas, no matter what.
IMI,McCain??? Does he even have money left to do anything?
Last edited: 27-Jan-08 10:51 PM
|
|
|
indian idol fever
Please log in to subscribe to indian idol fever's postings.
Posted on 01-27-08 11:08
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Bob Marley Bro ! Thats exactly what we here for Money
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 9:47
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Obama cannot win the primaries or the general election on hope alone. Neither can Hillary or McCain on experience alone. While I am excited by Obama's candidacy, I am not deluded about his prospects. By the same token, neither am I deluded of anyone else's. George Bush won the 2000 elections in spite of a good economy that favored the Democrats. He won the 2004 election in spite of a not-so-good economy that again favored the opposition. The myth that Americans vote with their check books alone has long been dispelled (unless the economy is really really really bad) Hope, I believe, is a campaign strategy for Obama just like race was for the Clintons. People might not vote for hope alone, but hey, it sure seems to drive up turnout. It's not that Obama doesn't have specifics, I have heard him talk in detail about social security and medicare reform. Talking about policy makes him like every other candidate, so by talking about hope and transcendental politics, he is doing what both Gore and Kerry failed to do and what Bush did so well : he is saying I may not be a policy wonk, but I can connect with you. If you think that can't win elections, think again. Also, I think it is realitistic to expect the next President could be Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney or Guiliani. Each of them has a realistic shot at it. That's about as much punditry I can do. Only as the numbers come in the real polls can anyone say anything with more certainty. On another note, while I am not a big fan of Romney, here's an argument for his candidacy from a conservative blogger, that challenges the thinking that Romney cannot do well in the general elections. It appears many conservatives dont like McCain and might not turn out to vote for him going by the pronouncements of Rush Limbaugh and many conservative bloggers. If McCain doesn't get conservatives to vote for him and he is competing with Obama for independent votes, I'd say that might give Obama the upper hand since the liberal core of the Democratic party is not alienated from his candidacy the way the conservative core seems to be from McCain's. Now pit Hillary against McCain: she has much less appeal against independents and McCain's hand gets stronger. This is a wide open race and too fluid at this time. I think Hillary and Barrack have an equal shot at the nomination right now. Unless Guiliani or Huckabee do well in Florida this could also shape out to be a two man race pretty soon on the Republican side between McCain and Romney. All eyes on Florida and Super Tuesday for future trends.
Last edited: 28-Jan-08 10:19 AM
|
|
|
Guest4
Please log in to subscribe to Guest4's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 9:54
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Obama-Clinton ticket? Are you kidding me? That's not going to happen, especially after what has taken place in the last few weeks. If Clinton somehow wins the nomination, then she will have a hard time garnering votes even from faithful democrats, let alone independents and some republicans who will be crucial in general elections. On the other hand, in SC which has been one of the most loyal republican states for some time now, Obama recieved more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined, more than double of Clinton's, and got more votes than the total votes casted in the democratic primary in 2004, which was a record turnout then. Obama can win the most republican states in general election; Hillary can't.
Its ludicruous to say that Obama won SC only because he was black. Obama handily deafeated his opponents in Iowa, which is more than 95% white. He finished close second in NH, which has similar racial make-up. In NV( where he won more delagates than Clinton), he won the rural white votes but lost the black votes in Vegas. SC just happened to have different racial make-up. Its not about this or that; as Obama said in his victory speech, its past vs. future.
On economic policy, Obama has put far more detailed and sensible than that of Cliton's. Clinton copied items from Obama's stimulous plan, and for the same stimulous plan, graded by the Washington Post, Obama received A- and Clinton received C+! Obama understands free market; Clinton wants to freeze the interest rate for five years. Is that even sensible??
|
|
|
Jonny
Please log in to subscribe to Jonny's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 1:21
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Despite his big win in SC, I don’t believe Obama can win the nomination or election. Obama without doubt sound nice guy but one important character he lacks in being US president is toughness. I don’t remember when was the last time America elected “Nice guy†president. Right now all these hard core Republicans like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill Kistrol are supporting Obama, I even heard Limbaugh defending Obama last week. Now I don’t think they are supporting him because they love him, I think they know how to play with him in general election. During a debate last year Obama said he will meet Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad etc on his first year as president. Why aren’t these Republicans pointing on that now? These things will start coming to Obama later. They have been fighting the Clintons for more than 16 years and unlike Obama they can punch back those Republicans. American voter change mind all the time and one Swift Boat from Republicans can give the Presidency back to the Republicans again. Remember what happen to John Kerry when he choose not to fight back against those nasty adds. Well the Clintons can play those dirty Republicans game and they can defiantly beat them.
|
|
|
Tisa
Please log in to subscribe to Tisa's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 1:41
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
I love the fact that the Clintons can fight back hard knuckles style.
That is what it is needed to be the holder of the most powerful seat on earth.
Go on, Hillary, go on.
Go on with your "sham,dam ,danda & bhed".
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 3:08
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
That's a good case for Hillary and one that she is trying hard to sell. What is interesting is other tough guy, in fact supposedly the toughest guy in the race, Guiliani, is not doing well even amongst the 'tough and mean' constituency so it will be interesting to see how toughness plays out in this election. My two cents : (0.01) Florida and (0.01) Super Tuesday.
|
|
|
Tisa
Please log in to subscribe to Tisa's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 3:32
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Guiliani knows he may be popular Italian American from NY but he is a hard sell in Midwest with his family problems and TV antics.So he is not even trying there.I think for Republicans ,McCain is the best choice.
|
|
|
Power_Ranger
Please log in to subscribe to Power_Ranger's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 3:47
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
The old folks in the business all think the Clintons will eventually prevail. That's what I thought too but I'm not sure anymore. I believe Obama the American "Political" Idol show is getting people out to vote whom otherwise would not have bothered to come out. The Billy strategies so far have back fired. People are telling Billy to shut up and shove it. And Hillary has no Charisma. It's Man (Obama)Vs Machine (Clinton). Next big fight Super Tuesday.
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 3:49
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Tisa - Source: http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/01282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/giulianis_last_stand_480021.htm GIULIANI'S LAST STAND By RYAN SAGER
anuary 28, 2008 -- TOMORROW in Florida, Rudy Giuliani will make what is expected to be his last stand of the '08 race. What went wrong?
As an early (2006) believer in his capacity to become this race's
frontrunner, I'd have to say that he's run a campaign that deserves to
lose. While he focused strategically on Florida and the Feb. 5 states, he undermined this by pitching his campaign thematically to Iowa and other parts of the GOP least likely to vote for him.
Now, should Giuliani lose tomorrow and overall, the media blame will
fall mainly on his much-maligned late-state strategy. But it's tough to
see any other path he could have taken. As Giuliani
told reporters on Thursday in Boca Raton: "It was the best choice when
you consider all the circumstances that were presented to us about
resources and strengths and weaknesses and the place where you can make
your case most effectively." Indeed, it was. It was always a risky strategy - but a pro-choice New York City ex-mayor has no safe strategy for chasing the GOP nomination.
Yet it was also a plausible strategy. Anyone knocking it should have to
answer how better Giuliani could've invested his resources. Poured
money into Iowa, where even Mitt Romney was washed away by the surprise
rise of Mike Huckabee? Bet the farm on South Carolina, where he
would've been a long shot? This, though, brings us to New Hampshire. He needed to make a stand somewhere
early on, placing high if not winning; his campaign recognized that the
Granite State was the place for a northeastern, moderate Republican to
do that. In fact, as late as early December, he was second in
New Hampshire. He invested significant money and time in the state in
late '07. But when he started losing ground to a resurgent John McCain, instead of fighting for the moderate vote, he fled to Florida, finishing fourth in New Hampshire.
Why was Giuliani so hard pressed to compete in New Hampshire? That's
where his strategic issues intersected with the problems with his
message. Giuliani was running a hard-right campaign, and that
didn't play in New Hampshire, a state with a moderate GOP electorate.
He wasted most of the fall dueling with Romney over who hates
immigrants more. Both candidates are full of it on the issue -
neither had shown any interest in the border until they were told the
GOP base was in revolt over it - and it hasn't ended up determining the
GOP primaries anyway. Who ultimately won New Hampshire and South
Carolina? The "amnesty" candidate, McCain. His back up against
the wall in December and early January, Giuliani's backup strategy was
to start playing the terrorism card. While he had been knocked unfairly
throughout 2007 for being the "9/11 candidate" (back then, he actually
talked about his record in New York City ad nauseam, not 9/11), he started playing into the worst stereotypes of himself.
In January, he launched a sickening ad packed with images of protesting
Muslims, bombings and Osama bin Laden. The message was clear: Terrorists want to kill your children! Vote Rudy!
In recent weeks, like his rivals, Giuliani turned to an economic
message - and even to some local pandering, including support for a
federal hurricane-insurance fund - but it all looks like too little,
too late. For a time, the prospect of a Giuliani candidacy
excited those of us who think the GOP has gone wildly off course under
President Bush - with out-of-control spending and pandering to the
Christian Right. And to those of us who think the Republican Congress'
tear against immigrants is both bigoted and unwise politically.
But faced with deficits to make up on abortion and past support for gay
rights, Giuliani pursued a strategy that systematically dismantled
everything that once made his candidacy appealing to his core
supporters. The man who was once supposed to extend the GOP's reach
outside of the South - in states like New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, California - instead played a southern strategy.
The best thing Giuliani can do now is to bow out gracefully should he
come up with anything less than a win tomorrow. He had his chance and
wasted it: The least he can do now is stop wasting our time. editor@ryansager.com
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-28-08 5:12
PM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny
Please log in to subscribe to Jonny's postings.
Posted on 01-29-08 8:01
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Captain, the reason for Rudy's fall is because of his extra baggage from his affair and his buddy the police chief whom he recommended to be Homeland Sec. Also his social value was never liked by his fellow conservative Republicans.
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-29-08 8:08
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Op-Ed Columnist
The Kennedy Mystique
Published: January 29, 2008
Something fundamental has shifted in the Democratic Party.
Last week there was the
widespread revulsion at the Clintons’ toxic attempts to ghettoize
Barack Obama. In private and occasionally in public, leading Democrats
lost patience with the hyperpartisan style of politics — the distortion
of facts, the demonizing of foes, the secret admiration for
brass-knuckle brawling and the ever-present assumption that it’s
necessary to pollute the public sphere to win. All the suppressed
suspicions of Clintonian narcissism came back to the fore. Are these
people really serving the larger cause of the Democratic Party, or are
they using the party as a vehicle for themselves? And then
Monday, something equally astonishing happened. A throng of Kennedys
came to the Bender Arena at American University in Washington to
endorse Obama. Caroline Kennedy evoked her father. Senator Edward
Kennedy’s slightly hunched form carried with it the recent history of
the Democratic Party. The Kennedy endorsements will help among
working-class Democrats, Catholics and the millions of Americans who
have followed Caroline’s path to maturity. Furthermore, here was
Senator Kennedy, the consummate legislative craftsman, vouching for the
fact that Obama is ready to be president on Day One. But the
event was striking for another reason, having to do with the confluence
of themes and generations. The Kennedys and Obama hit the same
contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the
low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and
most of all, service versus selfishness. “With Barack Obama, we
will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and
distortion,†Senator Kennedy declared. “With Barack Obama, there is a
new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign
— a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us,†he said. The Clintons started this fight, and in his grand and graceful way, Kennedy returned the volley with added speed.
Kennedy went on to talk about the 1960s. But he didn’t talk much about
the late-60s, when Bill and Hillary came to political activism. He
talked about the early-60s, and the idealism of the generation that had
seen World War II, the idealism of the generation that marched in
jacket and ties, the idealism of a generation whose activism was
relatively unmarked by drug use and self-indulgence. Then, in
the speech’s most striking passage, he set Bill Clinton afloat on the
receding tide of memory. “There was another time,†Kennedy said, “when
another young candidate was running for president and challenging
America to cross a New Frontier.†But, he continued, another former
Democratic president, Harry Truman, said he should have patience. He
said he lacked experience. John Kennedy replied: “The world is
changing. The old ways will not do!†The audience at American
University roared. It was mostly young people, and to them, the
Clintons are as old as the Trumans were in 1960. And in the students’
rapture for Kennedy’s message, you began to see the folding over of
generations, the service generation of John and Robert Kennedy united
with the service generation of the One Campaign. The grandparents and
children united against the parents. How could the
septuagenarian Kennedy cast the younger Clintons into the past? He
could do it because he evoked the New Frontier, which again seems
fresh. He could do it because he himself has come to live a life of
service. After his callow youth, Kennedy came to realize that
life would not give him the chance to be president. But life did ask
him to be a senator, and he has embraced that role and served that
institution with more distinction than anyone else now living — as any
of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you. And he could
do it because culture really does have rhythms. The respect for
institutions that was prevalent during the early ’60s is prevalent with
the young again today. The earnest industriousness that was common then
is back today. The awareness that we are not self-made individualists,
free to be you and me, but emerge as parts of networks, webs and
communities; that awareness is back again today. Sept. 11th
really did leave a residue — an unconsummated desire for sacrifice and
service. The old Clintonian style of politics clashes with that desire.
When Sidney Blumenthal expresses the Clinton creed by telling George
Packer of The New Yorker, “It’s not a question of transcending
partisanship. It’s a question of fulfilling it,†that clashes with the
desire as well. It’s not clear how far this altered public mood
will carry Obama in this election. But there was something important
and memorable about the way the 75-year-old Kennedy communed and bonded
with a rapturous crowd half a century his junior. The old guy stole the show.
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-29-08 8:10
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
Johny - True. Goes to prove even the mighty tough can fall because of other weaknesses.
Last edited: 29-Jan-08 08:15 AM
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
Please log in to subscribe to Captain Haddock's postings.
Posted on 01-29-08 8:20
AM
Reply
[Subscribe]
|
Login in to Rate this Post:
0
?
|
|
And here's a rebuttal (of sorts) to the Kennedy endorsement: Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801w.widmer.html
|
ohn F. Kennedy is not running for anything in 2008, but you’d never know it. A front-page photo in the New York Times
recently showed his electability in Serbia, of all places, where local
candidates are vying to establish their credentials as the latest
citizens of the New Frontier. Back in the U.S., no candidate has
captured the reflected glory of JFK more than Barack Obama, thanks to
his youth, eloquence, and message of change. The Kennedy-Obama parallel
has been played up by the press, and Obama’s campaign has not
discouraged those comparisons—indeed, it has brought in Ted Sorensen,
JFK’s talented speechwriter, to make speeches and render the judgment
of history. But the comparison falls short when voters consider
the key question for 2008: foreign policy experience. It’s true that
Obama, like Kennedy, is a youngish senator (at 46, three years older
than Kennedy when he ran for president), but the parallel falters after
that. The more one looks into Kennedy’s lifelong preparation for the
job, the more one realizes how misleading it was, then and now, to
describe him as inexperienced. Everyone who has stressed Kennedy’s
youth, from Dan Quayle in 1988 to Obama today, has bumped up against
the uncomfortable fact that JFK was an extremely well-informed
statesman in 1960. As Lloyd Bentsen reminded us in the zinger that
pole-axed Quayle, the truth was a lot more complicated than the myth.
Kennedy, of course, was a decorated veteran of World War Two, which
he fought in the South Pacific. But before and after the conflict, he
had acquired travel experiences that most people take a lifetime to
accumulate, richly detailed in biographies like Robert Dallek’s An Unfinished Life.
His father was ambassador to the United Kingdom in the pivotal year
1938, and young Kennedy was in the audience of the House of Commons as
the Munich deal was furiously debated (the experience shaped his first
book, Why England Slept). As a young man, he made American
officials uneasy with his relentless desire to see parts of Europe and
the world that few Americans ever encountered. In 1939 alone, he took
in the Soviet Union, Romania, Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria,
Greece, France, Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia. As the war was
ending, he attended the San Francisco conference that created the
United Nations, filing seventeen dispatches for the Chicago Herald American.
He
maintained this lively interest in world affairs as a young
Congressman. In 1951 he went on two extraordinary journeys, the first a
five-week trip to Europe, from England to Yugoslavia, to consider the
military situation on the continent. Then, a few months later, a
seven-week, 25,000-mile trek that included Israel, Iran, Pakistan,
India, Singapore, Thailand, French Indochina, Korea and Japan. It was
this trip, in particular, that awakened a sense in him that the old
colonial empires were doomed, and that the French effort to keep
Vietnam was especially futile. In the aftermath of his trip, he gave
speeches that ridiculed the French (and by extension, the American)
position, and proved that he was no simplistic Cold Warrior. In 1957,
he continued to chart a maverick’s course with a deeply-informed speech
on Algeria that criticized France and the U.S. for trying to sustain an
unsustainable conflict against an insurgent population. It infuriated
both Democrats and Republicans, and France, a NATO ally at the time,
was enraged—but obviously he was correct.
Critics
and admirers alike have generally neglected the full extent of
Kennedy’s early experience. But clearly it shaped him profoundly, and
each journey deepened his portfolio. Further, each trip empowered him,
and gave him the confidence to swim against the tide, a trait that
would prove essential in the presidency. While dedicated to veterans
and certain core principles of American defense, he also showed, well
before his election, a growing skepticism of the extremes of Pentagon
thinking. Perhaps most impressively, he found the courage to reject the
knee-jerk isolationism of his most important backer—his father, Joseph
P. Kennedy.
To be sure, even with all of
that training, Kennedy showed inexperience during his early months in
the White House, including the disastrous decision to invade Cuba’s Bay
of Pigs, and his ineffective performance at his first summit with
Khrushchev in Vienna. But he soon righted himself, and returned to the
independent judgment that he had acquired during his long and literal
journey toward the presidency.
Of course,
travel does not instantly translate into electability—if it did,
Geraldo Rivera might be president. But it’s an important consideration,
especially for a candidate like Obama, who is running against an array
of Democratic contenders (Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Richardson) who have
far more first-hand experience dealing with issues of foreign policy
and national security. And compared to Kennedy, Obama’s record of world
travel is quite thin.
Like Kennedy, Obama did
spend some time in his youth living in a foreign country. And because
that country, Indonesia, is both Asian and majority Muslim, Obama
can—and does—claim to have a unique perspective on a region and a
religion that increasingly command Washington’s attention. But it’s
worth noting the considerable differences between Obama’s and Kennedy’s
overseas experiences. Kennedy lived in Europe, then the geo-strategic
center of the world, as a footloose young man who had front-row seats
at momentous diplomatic dramas, thanks to his ambassador father. Obama
lived as a boy in Indonesia—a big, fascinating country, but not central
to U.S. global strategy. If that childhood experience had a genuine
impact beyond teaching him the obvious truth that the world is diverse,
then he needs to make it clearer how he will translate that knowledge
into sound policy.
As an adult prior to
wining elective office, Kennedy continued to see the world, including
from the helm of a PT boat. Obama’s campaign has implied that the
candidate traveled extensively before assuming office, but so far has
resisted appeals to provide further information. Given the prevalence
of the Kennedy comparison, Obama’s travels have become relevant enough
to be made public.
Like Kennedy, Obama has
taken several long trips as a lawmaker—through the Middle East, Africa
and the former Soviet Union. But there is one noteworthy gap in Obama’s
itinerary: except for a brief stopover in London, returning from Russia
in 2005, he has apparently never been to Western Europe since launching
his political career. What renders this gap especially surprising is
that Obama is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
Europe. Not only has the Senator not visited the region his committee
oversees, but as Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has observed,
Obama’s committee has not held a single policy-oriented hearing since
he’s been chairman. Europe may not be the central playing field it was
in Kennedy’s day, but it remains essential to the global set of
alliances and relationships that the U.S. needs to cultivate in the new
century. In fact, there is no place where it will be more urgent to
rebuild bridges. As Obama knows, the United States cannot do it
alone—and Europe will need to play a supporting role in whatever
strategy the next president articulates.
It
is encouraging that Obama has several times displayed what his campaign
calls independence, expressing his disapproval of the Iraq war in
particular. But disapproving Iraq is not exactly independence—it is
more or less the standard line on the left, and quite different from
developing a nuanced third position, which was Kennedy’s strength in
the 1950s, as he steered between the hand-wringing of Stevenson
liberals and the mindless conservatism of many Democrats and
Republicans on the right. It’s true that Obama threatened to bomb
Pakistan, a position that most people on the left would find scary—but
that is not the kind of measured solution, tough but practical, that
most of us associate with JFK. In fact, it is a rather extraordinary
lurch to the right, like an involuntary tic, that most on the right
would actually disavow. It is difficult to see how a bombing run over
Pakistan would do anything to help anyone except the very people it was
designed to punish.
In an editorial supporting Obama, the Boston Globe
called attention to his “intuitive sense of the wider world.†But
“intuition†would have seemed a silly quality to JFK, a realist even
among the realists of his day. He and the other veterans he had served
with were tired of inflated promises and wanted a world that would live
up to the sacrifice they had already made for it. Like Kennedy, Obama
certainly has a capacity to learn, and learn quickly. But there are
qualities that cannot be gleaned from briefing books, even by the
quickest study—independence of judgment, calm determination, and the
deep knowledge of all possibilities that comes from years of experience
in the trenches. To his credit, Obama has not personally cited
intuition as a reason to vote for him, but the campaign profited
enormously from the Globe endorsement, and has tolerated a certain vagueness about his background and intentions that now needs to be clarified.
In fact, no modern politician has trafficked more in “intuition†than
President Bush, who trumpeted his “instincts†to an incredulous Joe
Biden as his justification for invading Iraq, and famously claimed to
see into the soul of Vladimir Putin. To run entirely on intuition and
the negation of experience can work, and did in 2000. But to do so
while wearing the deeply realist mantle of John F. Kennedy is to spin a
garment of such fine cloth that it is completely invisible.
|
|
|
Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.
YOU CAN ALSO
IN ORDER TO POST!
Within last 200 days
Recommended Popular Threads |
Controvertial Threads |
ChatSansar.com Naya Nepal Chat |
TPS Re-registration case still pending .. |
Toilet paper or water? |
Anybody gotten the TPS EAD extension alert notice (i797) thing? online or via post? |
ढ्याउ गर्दा दसैँको खसी गनाउच |
Sajha Poll: Who is your favorite Nepali actress? |
Problems of Nepalese students in US |
nrn citizenship |
TPS EAD auto extended to June 2025 or just TPS? |
whats wrong living with your parents ? |
Mamta kafle bhatt is still missing |
Ajay Kumar Dev sentenced to 378 yrs |
Why Americans reverse park? |
Now Trump is a convicted criminal . |
TPS advance parole Travel document i-131, Class of Admission ? |
Tourist Visa - Seeking Suggestions and Guidance |
Nepali Passport Renewal |
मन भित्र को पत्रै पत्र! |
Biden said he will issue new Employment visa for someone with college degree and job offers |
To Sajha admin |
|
|
NOTE: The opinions
here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com.
It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address
if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be
handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it.
- Thanks.
|