Hillary Clinton demonstrated what makes her a political force in America with her speech at the Democratic Convention last night. She silenced the critics who said she wasn't helping Barack Obama enough, she gave tribute to her supporters and her own history-making campaign, and she showcased the skill, wit and grace that will ensure she has a role to play whether in an Obama administration or a Democratic Congress. She did everythign she can for Barack Obama, the outcome of the election will rest on what he makes of it. But whatever the result, the best of Hillary Clinton was on display last night, and here's hoping there's more where that came from.
"If you here the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they're shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going. And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going. I have seen it." Hillary Clinton, paraphrasing Harriet Tubman of the underground railroad.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Cone of Absurdity
Barack Obama and John McCain participated in a forum at the Saddleback Church with Rick Warren (of "Purpose Driven Life" fame) to answer questions about politics, leadership and God. Obama performed decently, but it was McCain who outperformed all expectations while appearing vigorous, succinct and straight-forward. Thus, since Obama was 'beaten' in this exchange, it was time for his supporters to light the Barack-Signal and call for the most absurd, belittling attack to be launched. And here it is: McCain violated the 'Cone of Silence'. It not only sounds like the name of a low-budget sci-fi movie from the 80's, it is also an unfortunate and pathetic attempt to undermine John McCain's strong performace and attack his credibility and character. NBC's Andrea Mitchell started this all by reporting that some "Obama people" were questioning whether McCain had been able to hear the questions Warren asked Obama, thus explaining how prepared and capable he was in asnwering them when his turn came around. There was a room with no audio or video feed which was suposed to hold whichever candidate went second so that the questions would not be known in advance. McCain was in this "cone of silence" for the final two-thirds of Obama's time on stage. For the first third, McCain was not in the green room, but was instead en route in a secret service motorcade. McCain inists he had no knowledge of the questions, his staff and campaign insist he was not watching the forum while in the car, and there is no evidence from either during the debate or after that suggests McCain knew what questions were coming. The only reason this claim has risen is because McCain did so well. This charge underscores the absolute arrogance of the Obama campaign by charging that the only way McCain could outperform Obama is if he cheated. This is character assassination at work and its wrong. Considering that Barack Obama and his supporters have spent 2 years lecturing voters to ignore all the baseless claims and accusations levelled at him, its discouraging to see them so eager to spread similar charges against McCain.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
How Bush is Winning the White House for McCain
George W. Bush, once the albatross of John McCain's campaign, once the greatest obstacle for John McCain to overcome, is helping McCain win the election. The Bush Administration is undermining Barack Obama's most fundamental and defining political positions in an effort to aid McCain's White House bid. And I suspect it will be successful.
Although Obama's greatest weaknesses are foreign policy and defence, it is in these arenas that Obama has most fundamentally defined his candidacy. Obama's position on Iraq (will end it in 16 months) and on diplomacy (we must talk more to our allies AND our enemies) has been a central characteristic of his campaign thus far and was the central thrust in his attack on and defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama's cosmopolitan world view, his diplomacy-first policies, his bring-the-troops-home position, are the bedrock of his candidacy. And that is where President Bush has been undermining him, chipping away at the foundation of the Democratic candidate's platform.
In the last 4 weeks, Bush has made gigantic course changes on Iraq and foreign relations. Most of the media has called these moves flip-flops or as The Guardian puts it, a "remarkable turnaround". However, these moves are in fact constructed, nuanced changes designed to weaken the Democrats' positions going into the Fall election. Last month, Bush moved to adopt a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, reversing what was once a set-in-stone position against such a move. This will allow both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign to adjust their positions on the increasingly unpopular war. McCain can now (and he has) suggest that troops CAN come home as the situation on the ground improves. With this, Obama's central position disappears. By using the vague language of "time horizon" Bush allows McCain and the Republicans to minimize the difference between Obama and themselves and appeal to independent voters, while not alienating the Republican base. This move seriously undercuts Obama's charge that McCain will not bring troops and wants a never-ending war.
A similar move by the Bush White House on diplomacy is undercutting Obama's central tenant of talking and negotiating with our enemies: Bush has announced a hundred new diplomatic hirings; the Administration has decided to station a diplomatic mission in Iran (the first in 30 years); Condoleeza Rice entered talks with Iran last month regarding their nuclear ambitions; and Rice personally delivered the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement to the Georgian President this week. Suddenly, George Bush has discovered the diplomacy that Obama has been campaigning for. And just as suddenly, Obama's calls for more talking and more negotiating don't seem so new and exciting; they no longer count as a "new form of politics" if the Bush government has already adopted them.
What these two abrupt changes by the Bush Administration represent is an effort to move the Republican Party closer to Barack Obama's core positions on foreign policy so as to eliminate those as viable reasons to vote for Obama. This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and the perceived "riskiness" of electing an untested and inexperienced politician. If the Republicans can eliminate a few of the differences between Obama and McCain that may have driven voters into the Democrat's column, then Bush will have helped McCain win what should have been an unwinnable election. Voters have short attention spans and most Americans will just begin tuning in to the campaign in the next few weeks and THEN start making their decisions. If, come election day, there's increased diplomacy by the Bush government and McCain's talking troop withdrawal, it won't matter that Obama thought of them first, what will matter is that Obama will have lost his central thrust, he will have lost his campaign's foundation as a tenable issue, and he will have lost the election. And of all people, it will be thanks to George W. Bush.
Although Obama's greatest weaknesses are foreign policy and defence, it is in these arenas that Obama has most fundamentally defined his candidacy. Obama's position on Iraq (will end it in 16 months) and on diplomacy (we must talk more to our allies AND our enemies) has been a central characteristic of his campaign thus far and was the central thrust in his attack on and defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama's cosmopolitan world view, his diplomacy-first policies, his bring-the-troops-home position, are the bedrock of his candidacy. And that is where President Bush has been undermining him, chipping away at the foundation of the Democratic candidate's platform.
In the last 4 weeks, Bush has made gigantic course changes on Iraq and foreign relations. Most of the media has called these moves flip-flops or as The Guardian puts it, a "remarkable turnaround". However, these moves are in fact constructed, nuanced changes designed to weaken the Democrats' positions going into the Fall election. Last month, Bush moved to adopt a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq, reversing what was once a set-in-stone position against such a move. This will allow both the Bush Administration and the McCain campaign to adjust their positions on the increasingly unpopular war. McCain can now (and he has) suggest that troops CAN come home as the situation on the ground improves. With this, Obama's central position disappears. By using the vague language of "time horizon" Bush allows McCain and the Republicans to minimize the difference between Obama and themselves and appeal to independent voters, while not alienating the Republican base. This move seriously undercuts Obama's charge that McCain will not bring troops and wants a never-ending war.
A similar move by the Bush White House on diplomacy is undercutting Obama's central tenant of talking and negotiating with our enemies: Bush has announced a hundred new diplomatic hirings; the Administration has decided to station a diplomatic mission in Iran (the first in 30 years); Condoleeza Rice entered talks with Iran last month regarding their nuclear ambitions; and Rice personally delivered the Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement to the Georgian President this week. Suddenly, George Bush has discovered the diplomacy that Obama has been campaigning for. And just as suddenly, Obama's calls for more talking and more negotiating don't seem so new and exciting; they no longer count as a "new form of politics" if the Bush government has already adopted them.
What these two abrupt changes by the Bush Administration represent is an effort to move the Republican Party closer to Barack Obama's core positions on foreign policy so as to eliminate those as viable reasons to vote for Obama. This election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and the perceived "riskiness" of electing an untested and inexperienced politician. If the Republicans can eliminate a few of the differences between Obama and McCain that may have driven voters into the Democrat's column, then Bush will have helped McCain win what should have been an unwinnable election. Voters have short attention spans and most Americans will just begin tuning in to the campaign in the next few weeks and THEN start making their decisions. If, come election day, there's increased diplomacy by the Bush government and McCain's talking troop withdrawal, it won't matter that Obama thought of them first, what will matter is that Obama will have lost his central thrust, he will have lost his campaign's foundation as a tenable issue, and he will have lost the election. And of all people, it will be thanks to George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)