Sun, 07/20/2008 - 10:05am — lambert
Maybe my memory is failing, but I can't call to mind an example that's similar to Obama's foreign tour -- especially to a war zone. Politics stops at the water's edge, and all that. Did Kerry do this? Gore? Clinton? Bush? Dole? Bush?
If it's a new thing, and yet its newness is not even remarked upon... Well, that would be remarkable. Or not.
NOTE Don't get me wrong, I think it's great the Obama's finally visiting some other countries. Maybe he could hold some hearings when he gets back!
Front page
Comments
off topic
suppose they will be giving these away at the convention?
It's a Republican type event to make him look
presidential. I swear the Republicans are secretly running his campaign. It feels like the flight suit photo op. When you're John Kerry or Al Gore, you don't have to stand in front of the Brandenburg Gate to look like you've prepared to be president.
I just don't understand how progressives are falling for this. This is all the tricks learned from the Bush II and Ronald Reagan campaigns about how to elect someone completely inappropriate for the job being used in a Democratic campaign.
Unbelievable.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
yup--and it highlights his weaknesses too--
most of the tv coverage and print too has been ensuring that they mention that he has absolutely no foreign policy experience, even tho he was supposed to have been working in that Committee in Congress.
And they're also all talking about him "appearing" Presidential, and "looking like a world leader".
foreign tours...
are in fact traditional for nominees during the summer, and are even moreso for nominees with no foreign policy credentials. Usually, conventions are held much earlier, and there is time to do the tour before the traditional "labor day" opening of the general election campaign -- so its generally the actual, rather than the presumptive, nominee who tours.
What is unprecendented is having all three major network news anchors tagging along with the nominee.
Ah, so it's the coverage
That makes sense.
Boy, these guys really are desperate to get him in, aren't they?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Bill Clinton had already met with a considerable number of
foreign leaders--and was simply such a wonk that he attended all those international meetings, right?:
But did he go overseas on a "Let's look like a president" trip?
I couldn't find anything by googling, but I might have missed the right search terms....
Reactive
It looks like the tour is going to work for him, but I note that once again the Democratic nominee is still being reactive. The only reason he's taking this trip is McCain whined about how he hadn't been to Iraq. This time it might backfire on McCain what with the Iraqi request for us to withdraw, but I still hate that every election cycle the Democrat spends the entire thing reacting to Republicans instead of running as a Democrat. This is about Obama, btw, it's about recent Democratic campaigns.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
yup--they said "go", and he said "ok"--
it's pathetic, and totally reactive--and the economy is the number one concern too, not foreign policy.
I'm So Sick Of Posts and Comment Threads Like This
The total inability to look at anything that Obama does or says from any point of view other than a narrowly hostile, and a highly repetitive, ideological one, at that, is wearying.
Clinton had not met with a lot of foreign leaders; his background, other than his famous trip to the Soviet Union as a student, which George Bush pere found to be deeply "troubling," was relatively parochial. He'd mastered a great deal about foreign policy as he had mastered a great deal about all policy issues.
The reason that his campaign didn't try to send him on any foreign trips is that his campaign strategy was to avoid competing with Bush on his perceived strengths, (It's the economy, stupid), which were overwhelming superior to Clinton's when it came to foreign policy experience. Clinton did make substantive criticisms of Bush's foreign policy, for instance, about his refusal to take seriously what was going on in what had been Yugoslavia, which was made difficult by the fact that the press was still, and continues to be, sure that Bush's foreign policy success was manifest, and beyond question.
The great irony that goes undiscussed to this day, Clinton found out quickly how ineffective had been Bush's foreign policy - i.e., the first WTC bombing, the discovery that N. Korea was using fuel rods to make plutonium, the mess that was left in Somalia, and eventually, after solving who'd done the WTC bombing, realizing that no attention had been paid to Afghanistan since the Russians left. I take it that I don't have to point out that this particular Bush-pere failure is a horror we are still having to deal with today. My own personal opinion, Clinton's foreign policy is greatly underestimated, but he was definitely learning as he went along. Frankly, so will Obama. Hillary Clinton did have the advantage of having learned many of the lessons that Bill had, and I think it eminently fair to say that she had more foreign policy experience than Obama. But don't kid yourself what the McCain/rightwing message would have been about Hillary Clinton - she was just some first lady. And yes, that was also part of Obama's message, but this is now a new campaign, and Obama is having to deal with the same perceptions about him, which are fair ones, since he doesn't have a lot of foreign policy experience. This trip is one response. I'm glad that Obama isn't ducking out on a discussion of foreign policy, the way the Democrats did in 2002, when they thought they could win the congressional bi-elections by running on the bad economy. I welcome the fact that he's been willing to take on McCain on Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't mean I'm happy with all his answers.
Kerry didn't go to Iraq because it was too bloody dangerous - I thought he should have gone, but I can understand why the campaign was worried that it would seem like a stunt, and be portrayed as meaningless. There was also that inconvenient fact that he voted for the AUMF.
Why would Bob Dole take a foreign trip? He'd taken enough during his eons of time as a Senator. And by that time, Clinton had put in four years as President.
John Kennedy had gone out of his way, as a Senator, to make a lot of foreign trips; what was notable about them was the freshness of vision that they brought to him. I can remember a stunning speech he gave in the Senate, having returned from North Africa, (see Algeria) warning America that if it wasn't careful it would find itself on the wrong side of the emerging nationalism that was sure to doom colonialism around the world. That didn't make him any less of a cold warrior, when he became President.
Finally, so what if no other candidate has taken a trip quite like this?
How anyone in their right mind can compare this trip with Bush's stunt on that aircraft carrier is beyond me. HE WAS THE FUCKING PRESIDENT WHEN HE DID THAT. What was so disgusting about it was the way that it gave primacy to what is a function of being President, being Commander-in-Chief, over all else.
Obama's choice of accompanying Senators was also encouraging. Jack Reid, if I remember correctly, voted against the AUMF; and Hegel is actually closer to questioning the entire notion of a war on terror than are some Democrats.
I think this trip was a gutsy thing to do. We'll see how he does. Sitting down with Karzai is a real thing. Talking to our military personnel over there is a real thing to do. It may also be a political thing to do, but I have no problem with that, especially in light of the problems created for Clinton during those first two years of his presidency, when one of the main press narratives was that Clinton had a problem with the military because they didn't like him or respect him. Actually, that continued to be a primary press narrative through-out his eight years in office. This trip may turn out to be a prophylactic for such narratives, and why not.
The campaign offered interviews with Obama; it was the networks who decided to send their anchors.
Foreign policy discussions during a campaign are important, but Clinton found out quickly how being in office changes your point of view. To this day, C. Hitchens loves to talk about Clinton's lies that he was going to do something about Bosnia, as if Clinton had had nothing to deal with in foreign policy that might have got in the way of taking on that problem (see the above discussion, oh and add in Haiti).
I have my worries about Obama's policy for Afghanistan, which has the potential of becoming another Iraq; as in so many other areas, foreign and domestic, Bush will be leaving a situation for which there may be no good answers. That's real problem. Not whether or not Obama did something innovative in terms of how he is running his campaign.
Here's a discussion of the lack of historical precedents for the trip.
And here's a reminder of how Bush-pere used dirty tricks to besmirch Clinton's overseas experience. And how they got away with it.
Several points
First, I'm glad to see that my memory is not failing; this link answered my question:
But everybody's treating it as completely normal. That's not a story?
2. I don't think it's a bad idea; in fact, precedent or no, it reaped some political benefits, as I pointed out.
3. The comparison with Clinton and Obama on foreign policy experience is apt, with the exception that Clinton, as a Governor, had little power to rectify it, where Obama, as a Senator, had every power, and yet held no hearings (though Iraq was arguably within his jurisdiction).
4. As far as the networks "who decided," pas si bete. The whole Village
is a single system, and as the waters rise up the mountaintop, the Villagers are forced closer together. We need to start thinking of the parties, the press, and the consultants as a single entity that, even when in conflict on matters of detail, is still taking the country more or less in the same direction.
5. To me, it seems obvious that as we leave Iraq, as circumstances will force us to do, we will increase our presence in Afghanistan. Isn't that what we're being prepared for?
Finally, I don't see anything "ideological" about the comments; cynical, perhaps, or given our experiences in the primaries and, oh, all the way back to Reagan giving his lines where-ever the advance team put the tape X, entirely realistic. Both sides do it -- Bush on the Abraham Lincoln is Dukakis in the tank, with the addition that Dukakis had a terrible media team who should never have let those pictures be taken.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
To this partisan
There is no site other than Corrente that I've found where Obama is being regularly held to account from the "mainstream left," that does not hold as its primary goal getting Obama elected. That goal may be a wonderful one, but where it trumps all else the critique is compromised.
Most of the Obama criticism here is emerging from the primary postmortem and lessons learned. This seems an appropriate time and place for conducting that analysis; it's a discussion found almost nowhere else. This venue requires that the analysis emerges organically, bit by bit with each day. It's been only a few weeks and there's much to digest. It's not possible to conduct a definitive critique and be done with it, certainly not this soon.
IMO Corrente, even with its contributors' various biases, is currently filling a crucial gap in that analysis and critique.
"questioning the entire notion of a war on terror"-Obama's not-
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged steadfast aid to Afghanistan in talks Sunday with its Western-backed leader and vowed to pursue the war on terror "with vigor" if elected, an Afghan official said. ..." -- http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080720...
& re: Hagel--he owned the voting machine co. used in NE --
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131...
"...
Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.
Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."
What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company. ..."
Assuming Obama pulls this off without gaffe or disaster
it will be a major political triumph for him. Doing it now rather than wait until after the Convention is smart, takes away the McCain attack line on Obama's inexperience especially since it is McCain and Bush who will be seen as out of step with realities on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But that is just the electoral politics aspect, and a small part of what is truly happening. This trip is also a major step back from disaster and towards greater peace and security both at home and for the world, and additionally a macro-political event of historic national and international proportion.
Malaki's comments - including a wishy-washy "clarification" issued not by the Iraqi government but by the US Central Command - are yet another blow to the Bush regime and McCain. Bush's failure, or if you will Maliki's successful resistance to, a new Status of Forces Agreement and the most recent "time horizon" agreement both point to an early exit of American forces from Iraq. McCain, who earlier committed to a withdrawal if the Iraqi government demands it, has been completely undercut.
Additionally, in Afghanistan Obama has called for increased military presence to clean up that BushCo mess. IIRC there was considerable agreement on the Left that the Iraq invasion was a mistake in part becasue it removed focus from the real threat, al Qaieda and the Taliban. Neither of them have gone away, and the BushCo failure to secure Afghanistan has turned what would have been a difficult struggle into a fiasco. Afghanistan is not Iraq; we can walk away tomorrow from Iraq and, speaking coldly, we would suffer no long term consequence beyond that which is already ordained. If we abandon Afghanistan, however, we run a very real risk that theocratic extremists will overrun not just the Afghan people but also Pakistan; they will have nuclear weapons and missiles with which to deliver them.
On both fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, this trip has moved Obama from a "presumptive nominee" to the foremost advocate of a rational approach to America's problems there, moved him ahead of not just John McCain but also George Bush in his standing as a world leader, emboldened both the Iraqi and Afghani governments allowing them to step out from under the warmongering destructive Bush criminal cabal and make sound moves towards real progress, and reassured the entire world that America has at least one political party that has not entirely taken leave of its senses. Not bad, not bad at all for a neophyte.
This trip is an absolute triumph already, and it is only half over. To be sure, as Lambert is fond of saying, these BushCo malignant misadventures together have created dual sacks of pus waiting to burst. That Obama is able to lance them and begin the healing before he takes office, merely on the strength that he might be elected, strikes me as entirely laudable and not at all something to be condemned. Is there a political aspect? Of course; there is a political aspect to everything Obama does, he is a politician running for political office. My test is whether or not the actions are to the good, to the benefit of the general welfare; I say they are, and so deserve praise and encouragement.
Bringing the Iraq Occupation to an end; stabilizing Afghanistan to prevent a resurgence of the horrifically oppressive Taliban; preventing the takeover of nuclear weapons by fanatical suicidal extremist theocrats bent on attacking America: all, one would have assumed, positive trends that would be celebrated by progressives rather than derided as political stunts. If this is where Obama chooses to spend time rather than holding meaningless and ineffectual congressional hearings leading to meaningless and ineffectual sending of letters and toothless threats of contempt citations, I say more power to him.
That the major news networks sent their top talking heads could be interpreted as evidence that this is all a PR stunt, if it were not for the very real changes that have occurred. I see it rather as a decision made in order to be there as history unfolds, a dramatic change of direction that is being driven by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in partnership with the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and not any longer by BushCo.
The political power, indeed the voice of government as expressed by the people, has already shifted in America; we are witness to a slow-motion coup d'etat, a transfer of power well in advance of the formal election and one that is being done peacefully. This is extraordinary, unprecedented as Lambert observes, and well worth reportage. Lift up your eyes from the piefight long enough to take a long look at the greater sweep of events; this larger occurence, however it eventually turns out, will be a story to tell for your lifetime.
If this is what we can expect more of from a President Obama, I may actually start to like this guy. I see nothing wrong here at all, and much about which I am joyful. It is a great pity that some of you cannot see that as well; I hope you will take a moment to reflect, so that you can.
A change in the Constitutional order
I don't see it as a PR stunt although, since it a Presidential campaign, there are doubtless PR stunts involved. (I'm glad Merkle put her foot down on the Brandenburg gate; that would be carrying the triumphalism a donut too far, IMNSHO).
But that it is a very big change that is also unremarked is the key point, to me, and that puts it in the same category as other big changes in the order of things; one thinks immediately of a Federal bailout of investment banks, which (IIRC according to Krugman) might not have been legal. Or the change in the Constititutional order that FISA implied.
I think things are being re-arranged very rapidly in the Beltway, and that the election is not exactly kabuki, but not the main event, either. I wouldn't be at all surprised, for example, to see Obama emerge as the head of a government of national unity, under the pretext of whatever shock.
It's a mistake to think that any of the old rules apply, except to little people, of course. We are in uncharted territory, have been since FL 2000 (of which the RBC events were an echo, pale, but an echo).
UPDATE Missed your last paragraph, there, bringiton, where I see I was reaching toward what you said, but wrote in mushy, intuitive form what you wrote precisely:
Yeppers. I do think that you need to add a qualifier, there. "... peacefully. This time."
So, doesn't a complete change in the constitutional order make the question of McCain vs. Obama just a little tangential? I changed the subject line of this comment accordingly.
UPDATE Your comment on hearings brings to mind Alea iacta est. A republic, if you can keep it. If you can keep it...
UPDATE Leah, you know, if I don't ask questions like I do, I don't get answers like this.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I thought we were supposed to *oppose* backdoor royal changes
in the political order, with people moving smoothly in and out of office as if they were born to the crown. Remember no more "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton"? *Now* tell me that the reason the DNC opposed Clinton was that they were afraid of corrupt, dynastic politics taking hold of both sides of the aisle. Then tell me another....
If the entire GOP is letting go of the rope, and assisting a Democratic candidate into power, what in the hell are they hiding for him to find, in his first 100 days? What questions won't he ask, because he's all comfy in the Oval Office, under the pretense of achieved national unity?
Of course the motherfuckers who've looted this nation and world will be glad to hold open the door for someone who allows their lawbreaking to go unchecked, unpunished, even uncategorized (will it take the fall of the Stasi, to know just how much privacy we lost?), and provide access to the useful footservants who keep the Permanent Government in power.
I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO OPPOSE THE PERMANENT GOVERNMENT. DID I MISS THE MEMO?
One man's piefight
May be another's personal battle to nudge that sweep of events towards an even greater direction.
If our priorities seem this trivial, there are many others with whom to stand in awe of images of Obama overseas.
Steady on, Bo
OK, that was a bit of a poke with a stick there, but I allowed myself the small indulgence because I wanted to make a point. I'm all for the sorts of issue discussions that have dominated the Obama-pro-and-con debate, where ever he needs upbraiding it should - it must - be done. Meanwhile, however, there are other large sweeping events happening and it would be somewhere between a shame and a mistake to let them go by either unremarked upon or mistaken for just another political stunt.
I didn't say "trivial" about anything - this time - but to characterize what is happening from the standpoint of governance and transfer of power and the conduct of executive branch foreign policy by a mere candidate - apparent beneficial effect notwithstanding - as nothing more than "a Republican-style event" comparable to the Commander Codpiece PR debacle, or a news media conjured non-event, or a reactive bit of political jujitsu, is IMHO to trivialize what is actually happening.
Whether it will all be to the good over time is something we'll all have to wait and see about, and I do not in the least dismiss as entirely unfounded anyone's doubts or fears about motivation or purpose, but thusfar this particular move is to me a positive sign. But then I do strive to have a half-full glass kind of mindset.
Step 1: Drive the Republicans from office.
I am today encouraged.
A Republic....
... if you can keep it.
Would regaining it be step 2?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I should hope so, in part
but what is needed is not so much a restoration as a restructuring. A while ago, I wrote this little essay about the need for constitutional change. The reality is that the Constitution is now being rewritten anyway, in a piecemeal haphazard awkward undemocratic clumsy absurdist fashion, because the rapid pace of both technological change and global economic realignment will create pressures, are creating pressures, that cannot be dealt with under the current legal structure.
In result of it being done in bits and pieces we are getting a series of these inept patchwork non-solutions, like the bailout for banks without reforming the root causes of their failure and the Spawn of FISA web of deceit that doesn’t do what it purports to do because no one has any idea how to deal with the conflict between personal privacy rights and national security, or for that matter not even a clue about how to redefine those terms in a way that makes sense under modern circumstances. The old Constitution will no longer serve, and it will be - is being - changed; our only choice as citizens is in how we go about doing it.
It is tempting to point to Florida and the SCOTUS in 2000 as a starting point for our current troubles, but I believe it goes back further to the 1968 election realignment of racism, libertarianism and corporatism under Nixon in response to the Democrat’s civil rights legislation. That alliance, to which Reagan added religious zealotry, has kept the Plutocrats in power either directly with the Republicans or indirectly through subversion of a large segment of the Democratic Party itself and crushed any attempts at progressivism for 40 years. [That, and progressives have been utterly inept at making their case.] Florida may, however, have been the tipping point as it has enabled the Plutocrats free rein enough to show their true selves; for the moment an apparent majority of people are so repulsed they are desirous of change even if they don't know what they might be getting.
Obama may not be the great leader of progressive resurgence that is needed, but he is certainly not as bad as the Republicans. I believe that once this change has happened, once the Republican Criminal Cabal is replaced by the Democratic Dithering Machine, the force of public outrage will continue to mount and express itself in ways that will be irresistible. The Democratic Party will be forced to reform, forced to embrace and advance progressive goals, or they will be fractured and destroyed.
That process will take some time, but I believe it will be inevitable and I believe that the Democrats will decide to accept and accommodate the change – that is, after all, what they do best. As progressives, we have the responsibility of finding ways to educate and illuminate and inspire the populace so that the changes made are both effective and permanent; we will have to do a much better job of that than we have for the last 40 years.
As you say, peacefully “this time.” With another Republican regime I will lose any optimism about that continuing to be the case; I see very dark days indeed. With a Democratic government, I believe that sufficient malleability exists to allow the inevitable change to occur within whatever new constitutional structure will emerge, and do so in a largely peaceful and orderly manner.
That is what is happening with the power of the Executive right now, absolutely extraordinary and yes, if things continue in this fashion then John McCain will be relegated to the role of a foil and nothing more. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving creature, nor a more deserving political party / criminal enterprise. The monster of an Imperial Presidency conceived by Nixon and embodied by the Unitary Executive of Cheney and Bush is about to turn on its creators; there will be revenge, and it will not be pretty.
It remains to be seen what all will be done with it under the hand of its new master Obama, who is a clever lad and quickly realized that he did not need to wait for an election to take hold of the remote control, but compared to McCain it simply cannot be as bad. This particular maneuver, outflanking and turning back the imperialist adventurism of Iraq and vowing to start cleaning up the absolute debacle that is Afghanistan, appears to me to be a useful employment of power and one about which I am going to remain optimistic until I am shown otherwise.
waitaminitwaitaminitwaitaminit
All this conflict about how to blog is fine and dandy and most interesting in terms of what corrente is and will be, but
he did not need to wait for an election to take hold of the remote control
Right. I've been thinking this every time I read the newspaper, though it hasn't found expression as anything as lofty as a "new constitutional order."
But what exactly is that new constitutional order????
If we're not waiting for the election, who or what has determined the new president? It's not acclamation by the military as in Rome. Is it acclamation by the press?
Where are we going? Any place good?
Policy not party!
Simple answers to simple questions
Where are we going? Any place good?
Lambert: No.
Bringiton: At least better.
Fair enough?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I had my suspicions, but now, bringiton, I know to never, ever,
trust your opinions again. I won't attack you, and I'll back away from even reading your posts; you've whistled your last dog, in my view.
The old Constitution will no longer serve, and it will be - is being - changed; our only choice as citizens is in how we go about doing it.
My status as a human being in this country was won the hard way -- after centuries of bloodshed, being bred like animals, the people I am descended from became fully human beings through a civil war, and the hard work of amending the Constitution, and keeping those Amendments enforced. The 'changes' the people in states who still hated Negroes wanted in those Amendments, they undertook, with every underhanded law and practice they could support, even when it crippled them economically and spiritually.
That's the process you approve of now? When men so cowardly and craven as to not ask the people for their permission through an organized Constitutional Convention to change the way we live subverted the practice of the Constitution through emergency laws, secret tribunals, and torture, torture, torture, you just consider it a speedbump in the road to American perfectability? And you have the gall to preach to us that the upcoming evolution away from Constitutional rule is a good thing?
Hell. No.
When we discussed the present administration wiping their ass with the Constitution, I really didn't believe your dream was to make that paper softer and more absorbent for their use, but there it is.
And yes, for one of the very few times on this blog, I *am* playing the race card, but you brought up the subject of covert Constitutional distortion with a cavalier disregard for how that will affect Americans' lives, so go know.
Hold on there, cg.eye
If only for me to remark that bringiton was clear-eyed enough to see and state the real problem; I certainly wasn't; so credit where credit is due, regardless of the opinions. Now, I missed "this little essay" the first time around. And here's the part I vehemently disagree with:
Bollocks. The framers had a great understand of the uses and abuses of power. Checks and balances are key, and it's exactly that which the Conservative
Ascendancy which Obama -- as I conceive Bringiton to argue -- is about to consolidate wishes to avoid at all costs.
To which the counter-argument would be, that's what Article 5 is for.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I am seeing red, lambert. Which is what bringiton intended.
And a lovely job he did of making a preemptive troll denouncement below, after staking his claim that our FISA/Patriot Act-compromised Constitution is an AIDS patient waiting to be put out of its misery, the leftover meds stolen by its nurses.
How's this for an analogy? Instead of lying back and enjoying it, the Constitution should be forced to bring to term the mutant lifeform Dick Cheney and PNAC have spawned.
It Is A Good Show
I'll give Obama that. But I've seen a lot of good shows the last eight years and they leave me cold, even when they're being put on by Democrats. Historically, a Village
swoon is not a sign that a politician or party has my best interests at heart.
I'm sure Obama's visit is good politics. It may even be good policy, but the good policy part - the sweeping world changes that you're so sure this is a sign of, BIO - I'll wait and see. Just as I'll wait and see if this new world order that the Democratic Party and Obama are supposed to be bringing us is good or even new. So I'll wait until we see some action and not more media shows. Because, so far, when it comes to action - funding Iraq with no strings, FISA - the Democratic Leadership has been sorely lacking, showing no signs of being interested in bringing about any kind of sweeping change.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
I agree with Leah's statement
With the exception of "ideological", which I would replace with "personal".
There is nothing ideological going on. What it looks like is a personal obsession, an anti-personality cult.
I understand the impulse of countering the uncritical, even cultish fandom of pro-Obama bloggers, but it's just the flip side of the same coin:
You're talking about Obama as a larger than life personality. In a way that makes it seem crucially important that this personality be portrayed in a positive or negative light.
They say "Obama Good!" you say "Obama Bad!".
The point of this post is that Obama was being presumptuous by taking a foreign tour because he is not yet the President or even the official nominee, n'est ce pas?
Who gives a fuck if Obama is presumptuous?
This makes me angry because I feel like smart people are getting caught up in the Village
-driven personality narrative. As bloggers bash each other over the head, the Village
is laughing all the way to the bank.
Personality is irrelevant.
On the other hand, a progressive movement that is fractured based on allegiance to one political personality figure or the other is a very serious issue.
Dead wrong
I ask a real question, where my memory was not, in fact, faulty, and elicited at least one very interesting and original analytical response. (And if I wanted to run the riff on presumptuous or presumptive, I certainly am more than capable of doing so.)
Read the whole thread before reacting, please! It's unclear to me what a change in the Constitutional order would have to do with personality driven politics, except as the latter is a means to the former, of course.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
a US tour would have been better--
He doesn't know us, or the country's needs--and voters don't know Obama, and many are only learning from the GOP.
You mean a US tour like Gore and Kerry both took?
Didn't they both lose?
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Gore didn't lose--and from the OH news, Kerry didn't either--
something else the DNC and DC Dems have done nothing about at all.
"... Ohio attorney files to lift stay on '04 election case, cites allegations, evidence of massive fraud by a number of GOP operatives. Leading data security expert joins press conference, case, notes fraudulent patterns that should have triggered investigation. Motion to proceed with targeted discovery in case explained as effort to help protect integrity of '08 election... ..." -- http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07...
Obama in Afghanistan-- "vowed to pursue the war on terror "with vigor"" -- this is GOPspeak and wholly status quo. -- http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080720...
Considered solely from the horse-race angle
The timing is good, and the press has been fine. The time to take the national tour is traditionally after the convention, yes? (The bus or train thing.)
It makes perfect sense for Obama to focus on this now, since he's perceived as weak on empire issues -- and, IIRC, especially among older women.
The economy will take care of itself, as an issue. No need for Obama to focus on it now, especially since it's likely to get worse, making any proposals look inadequate.
No, from a horse-race standpoint, the whole trip is exemplary. Of course, that's not the post I wrote (since if I got into serious horse-race posting again it would just be for the hits) and that's not what the interesting comments on this thread have been about. But that's life.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
What was the point of the post, then?
A random test of Lambert's memory banks?
Ok, then. Whatever.
Personality-driven politics is indeed a means to a change in constitutional order: by, among other things, successfully dividing and conquering an online activist movement (the blogosphere).
My point is that even anti-Obama bloggers are engaging in personality-driven politics by focusing on Obama's personality.
It seemed odd to me that a big fact was going unremarked
and so I checked to see if it was, indeed a big fact. As it turned out to be, with interesting implications. Never occurred to me that a transfer of power was taking place before, er, an election.
Makes the horse-race stuff look pretty trivial, personality driven or not. Heck, the whole racetrack has been moved, without anybody noticing, if bringiton is right, and his comment makes sense to me.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Exactly so, shystee
and typing this agreement did require me to press one key at a time but here we are, strange bedfellows indeed.
Fortunately for your point, and Leah's and mine in that regard, we are blessed in this thread with ample reinforcement of the ObamaHateAthon, an example of the tactics being used in attempts to limit any analysis and replace it with one or another of an endless series of quick-hit talking-point diversions and deceptions.
A person might from the appearance conclude that it was deliberate and so designed, as though someone were working their way down a checklist of disruptive tactics, A-check-post, B-check-post, C-check-post, etc., if a person were inclined towards conspiracy theories. Which of course I am not.
Good to read you here again.
Fortunately, bringiton, you don't need to put the foil on
this is where the molasses-like approval process works in our favor: It filters out the pros.
I'm afraid the most likely hypothesis is that you're dealing with real feelings, not feelings ginned up for the purpose.
Incidentally, I've been told I hate Obama as many times as I've been told I'm a racist, so I'm "impervious" to it. I can't speak for others on this point, but I'd guess the same hardening process has taken place.
And if we've arrived at a place where pointing out the both D and R presidential campaigns work from a similar bag of tricks qualifies as "hate".... Well, MLK, whoever started the Stonewall riots and the early (and today's) feminists must be rolling in their graves. Let's try to rise above, shall we?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
That shoe doesn't fit you, Lambert
and besides, you should be in stocking feet to get those mosquitoes.
Put your comments view on Flat List and the pattern leaps out, once again. A human thing, seeing patterns; sometimes they actually exist and are meaningful and sometimes not, which is why I added the qualifiers, but the same quack-quack-quack over and over again and I just can't help but think of ducks.
Surely my flaw.
yet us seeing "the same quack-quack-quack" is not allowed?
get over yourself--immediately.
this trip --just part of our "fantasy elections"--
"... These fantasy elections we've been having -- overblown sports contests with great production values, decided by haircuts and sound bytes and high-tech mudslinging campaigns -- those were sort of fun while they lasted, and were certainly useful in providing jerk-off pundit-dickheads like me with high-paying jobs. But we just can't afford them anymore. We have officially spent and mismanaged our way out of la-la land and back to the ugly place where politics really lives -- a depressingly serious and desperate argument about how to keep large numbers of us from starving and freezing to death. Or losing our homes, or having our cars repossessed. ..." -- http://www.alternet.org/workplace/91927/...
Awesomeness
The historic nature of this is what, exactly? A US pol goes oversees? I have a hard time seeing this as anything exceptional or having to do with constitutional order. Is it historic and awe inspiring because of Obama's awesome awesomeness?
The question will be what tangible results come from this and with the media making a big deal out of this will they report on anything of substance or make it a dog and pony show? That is worthy of discussing. The media is driving their story lines and going along with it is an acceptance of this process. Why are the media pushing so hard for Obama? This is a question that is party invariant. I would like to believe that we would be asking this question no matter who the nominees were.
"Obama's Grand Tour: The American Idoling of Empire?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-lo...
"... Simply voting for and electing Obama will not solve the crisis of the rapidly declining empire hidden behind mainstream media euphemisms like "superpower" or "leader of the free world"; He could simply become the darker-skinned, smarter, friendlier front man for the most massive military empire in history -and we its willing imperial citizens ..."
"Possibly better"
which is still IMHO better than where we've been headed.
RL, back later.
I have to comment more often
because I'm not exactly sure what Lb and BIO are talking about.
It could be because I'm testing Corrente's iPhone compatibility at a bar in North Beach, just next door to City Lights bookstore.
Digital Beatnik Vibes to all.
Too cool!
Nice part of town, too!
(And are we compatible? iCorrente?)
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yeah I'm a little confused too
but I'm also working on a last book review so...
Also, if you guys think this idea is so clear, etc., can we have a more in-depth description of what "it" is and some links and quotey goodness?
That would be great, thanks.
iCompatible, check
Had to log in twice, but it worked.
I always have to log in twice
In Opera on the N810 tablet, which is what I use when I'm on the train.
Why this is a dangerous precedent
This sets a dangerous precedent because in the future, all "presumptive nominees" may feel obligated to take a foreign tour as part of their campaign. This will in turn put pressure on the parties to determine their candidate even sooner than they do now in order to have time for foreign trips.
I think everybody here agrees that the root problem is that our primary system is broken. Anything that causes the parties to determine their nominees ASAP with a minumum of deliberation only makes the problem worse.
...for the rest of us
...for the rest of us
Well then why the hell aren't we all suing to get a referendum
on the ballot to impeach cheney/bush?
Let's face it. Congress won't do the work we've hired them for. They spend millions trying to get jobs that pay hundreds of thousands in salary; so what's the attraction?
Power and the perqs that come with incumbency?
Sure-fire hire at some high-dollar think-tank at the end of the term(s)?
Something is rotten in DC.
Maybe we need more than one gunslinger.
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Please continue the non-personality, non-horserace...
... portion of this thread here.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi