In the continuing saga that is the 2008 Presidential campaign, another writer understands:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The future is becoming more and more clear. Barack Obama shows leadership, while John McCain recedes further into a follower.
Obama talks about the future, world leaders look forward to working with him, he deals honestly with the issues by proposing real solutions, and Bush finally follows Obama's advice and agrees to a "time horizon" for getting out of Iraq and sits down for talks with the Iranians. Even John McCain in a moment of clarity now says Obama's 16-month framework for returning sovereign rule to the Iraqis is a reasonable goal.
Meanwhile, McCain has to look at his crib sheet to see that the price of milk is now over $4 a gallon so he can "relate" to the working class he was never a part of, and every other word out of his mouth seems to be "surge." (Anyone remember how even conservatives ridiculed Rudy Guliani's constant reference to "9/11?") [Oh, and the other word in between surge is "Obama."] And what else does McCain have to offer? Well, other than what has become constant whining about Obama's ability to draw a crowd, his big proposal this week was to open up more domestic drilling for oil. While I'm not against putting that option on the table for an honest discussion, it's just like the "gas tax holiday" sham - he offers it as a "solution" to the price of gas, yet we all know that it won't do much to change the price at the pump, nor will it do anything but slow our progress toward finding alternative energy solutions. By pushing this proposal, and no other options, McCain again shows his inability to grasp complex topics and his willingness to follow through on policies he knows will benefit only the big oil companies (who just happened to step up their campaign contributions to him immediately after his proposal).
Perhaps just as revealing are the people who counter Obama's message and popularity with platitudes like "the Obamatons believe Obama can do no wrong," and "he's all talk and no substance." Except they miss the irony of using platitudes to accuse someone of lacking substance. The vast majority of Obama supporters - a cadre that grows every day - understand that he is human, and thus he is fallible. We understand that he sometimes offers proposals we do not think are the best options. And we clearly see the irony of people saying Obama is no substance while we watch McCain become more and more petty and stumble over simple concepts while never seeing deeper than the first layer of skin on any issue.
Meanwhile, Obama keeps moving forward inspiring people to act, inspiring people to engage, inspiring people to work hard to addresss all the big issues that have been ignored by past Administrations. The sign of a good leader is his ability to inspire others to follow.
Barack Obama is leading; John McCain is following.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 76
Another thing barack does is he uses ideas from successful speeches of former presidents and plagiarizes them.
He has not come up with one original idea. He sounds like Jimmy Carter, but this time the consequenses will be deeper.
I would expect more of an Abe Lincoln fan. Remember the Democrats almost won in 1864 by crirticizing Lincoln and his war effort. Lincoln made mistakes just like George Bush has. War is difficult on any president and even Washington, Lincoln and FDR made mistakes. I would not have replaced any of those men with a Barack Obama, but any of them would have welcomed a John McCain as an advisor.
They would have had no use for Barack. He is an empty-headed appeaser. Go back and read speeches by the great presidents. They had no use for appeasement. Appeasement certainly is not leadership; it is defeat.
As for giving the military no credit. This couldn't be more wrong. He consistently and constantly has praised the troops in the field (I believe his common phrasing is that "the troops have performed brilliantly." Any failures are not by the troops, but by the civilian leadership who invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses and mismanaged the affair from the beginning. That total and absolute mismanagement - a function of poor civilian planning and no clear direction, further magnified by the partisan emphasis of the civilian managers sent in to run the aftermath - is what put us in a position where a change of tactics was necessary.
The surge was but one part of a total reworking of the strategy, a counterinsurgency strategy that was necessitated by the mess the Administration created, a mess that needlessly put more of our troops in harms way. The new strategy, designed and managed by General Petraeus, included a troop increase but also and more importantly included a change of emphasis in the Anbar Province. The Anbar Awakening began long before the surge and without it and other changes to tactics the surge would have been meaningless. So while John McCain keeps saying "the surge worked" this shows 1) that he doesn't understand the surges role in the greater change in strategy, and 2) a premature claim of final success. In other words, if the "surge worked" than why can't we get the troops out of there now.
The governing of the many of the few.
If you do with honesty it will be clear who has the original ideas.
While he would never have the audacity to claim it himself, as a "fan" of Abraham Lincoln I can definitively say that Barack Obama is much like Lincoln in many ways. Like Lincoln he sees the bigger picture related to the war, not just the propaganda his own political machine puts out. Like Lincoln, Obama would focus on restoring a Union damaged by division.
As for appeasement, it is clear you haven't been listening to Obama. While McCain is easy to understand because he has only one thought process regarding war, Obama has the whole package. He understands that there are times for diplomacy as well as times for military action. In fact, by using the full set of tools in America's arsenal - the right tool for the right situation - he shows that he is best able to be an adult President, which is in sharp contrast to the current Administration and the Administration that John McCain appears willing to put forward.
You will note that the activities of insurgents in Afghanistan have markedly increased since the surge. I wonder why.
If the surge worked can we leave now? Must we maintain troop levels as they are now? What will happen "after" the surge. See paragraph one above.
Unless we (or others) have done something to change the basic circumstances in Iraq we should not expect different behavior on the part of the residents.
So true, and this is the danger of leaning on the surge the simple-minded way McCain has been doing while Obama has been seeing all of the factors that went into the reductions in violence. The first key, as you say, is whether the improvements are sustainable. The second key is who is responsible for that sustainability. Should the US keep our troops there indefinitely? That in itself appears unsustainable, even if we don't consider the fact that we have been ignoring the real terrorists in Afghanistan. So what should be done.
I have much more confidence that someone using all the tools will figure that out better than someone whose only tool is a big stick.
Exactly what is Obama's solution to the economic chrisis we are facing?
Exactly what is Obama's solution to the invasion of our country by Illegals?
Exactly what is Obama's solution to the devaluing dollar?
Exactly what is Obama's solution to the price of oil?
Obama's solution to Iraq. Move all of our troops to Afghanistan and esculate the war there.
What is Obama's position on Iran? Does he believe the Bush & Co lies about that country?
Obama's answer to all our nations problems is "Change"
The information is out there for you to evaluate and make your decision. I have made mine.
The list keeps growing bigger and bigger of the issues that McCain has no opinion about and in some instances is not even aware of.
If you keep doing the same old thing and getting the same old results how can you ever get a different end result?
Most of the time when asked a simple question that he SHOULD have an answer for.....
he looks like a deer caught in the car headlights.....
Also, should we be electing someone who claims he is a "straight talker" when he is kowtowing to all these interest groups that he "doesn't believe" in?
I think we need a President who thinks for himself. Who have people that will work hard for him, not that will work hard to keep him in their pockets.
I see Obama as someone who thinks from all points of view. Supposedly his voting records is liberal (which after all isn't surprising for a Democrat), yet I see his responses to issues and while certainly more liberal than conservative he shows that he listens to the other side. That he acknowledges that the other side has valid concerns and valid priorities. Acknowledging that your opposing side has valid arguments is the first step in finding a solution that works for everyone, not just the side that voted for you. We need to get away from the Rovian dynamic that says "we're in power, so you're ideas are irrelevant."
This campaign season is nuts!
Excellent article!
McCain is hurting, and for good reason. Joking about killing Iranians with increased cigarette sales to that country somehow doesn't quite do it for me as regards foreign policy.
The guy is old. This is a new millennium and we clearly have the right man for the right times in Obama.
Any politician who claims to have all the answers is immediately suspect in my book. Not that I needed any further reason to vote for Obama, the following story might sway some undecided patriots:
The Obama campaign contacted a well-respected foreign policy expert. She told Obama that she was a Republican and was voting for McCain. Obama said that that was okay, he just wanted to consult with the foremost foreign policy experts and was told that she was the best around. She stated that she had not been called even once during the nearly eight years of the Bush administration, and as a result is now supporting Obama for President.
Anyone who is willing to be informed by learned people in their given area of expertise regardless of political party affiliation is my kind of candidate. Such a candidate does not need to come off as having all the answers. Obama is brilliant and will make an excellent President.
Not that you mention it, I'm curious as to how many of his cross-the-aisle jaunts have been successful. McCain-Feingold, e.g., was supposed to deal with soft money and issue ads, yet soft money abounds and issue ads actually got worse due to the 527 loopholes. McCain-Kennedy immigration "reform" was a disaster (i.e., nothing got passed and it created more animosity and division that there was before).
Don't get me wrong, I think he will continue to be a good Senator. I just think he would be a disaster in the White House.
He also started using Secret Service protection over a year earlier than anyone expected, at the expense of all of us.
As for ideas and solutions, he has offered many. The fact that you don't like them for whatever reasons you choose does not mean he doesn't have solutions. More importantly, it doesn't mean he won't stimulate solutions, since anything the candidates promise are at best frameworks - the real work starts after election day when the President-elect starts the process of putting into place the people and principles that will make things happen.
It's time to move on this, and this is the issue that should be deciding this election. The personalities, ages, charismatic styles, etc. of the present candidates are secondary. Obama is the preferable candidate on this all important issue.
You said "Anyone who is willing to be informed by learned people in their given area of expertise regardless of political party affiliation is my kind of candidate."
This is the crux of the difference between Obama and Bush and even McCain. Obama wants to hear information from all sides. He doesn't want people to tell him just what the party line is, he wants to understand the issues in depth so he can make an informed decision.
Bush and the Rovian wing of the Republican party care nothing for making good decisions, they care only for making decisions that benefit the Republican party. The Democratic party has its self-serving issues as well, but never to the extent that the Republicans have done in the last 8 years. It's disgraceful.
Obama thinks for the bigger picture and I'm confident he will govern for all Americans, not just the ones that voted for him.
America is great when it leads. When it bullies it becomes very very small. We are now small because of Bush. Obama can, with our help, make it great again.
McCain has become a one-trick pony, totally reversing any positive step he may have made in the past.
Obama may not be right on every energy-related issue at this point, but he is someone who - as Mike above says - will call in and listen to the experts even if they disagree with him and in the end we'll have an energy plan that looks forward not backward.
There's where I'll have to disagree with you. When it is increasingly plausible to move totally to renewables, when they are becoming cheaper and more easily deployed than new "clean" coal and nuclear plants, when fossils are becoming more expensive, and when established energy interests have traditionally marginalized renewables (as they are continuing to do), then it is not "forward looking" to "have all options on the table". I think that renewables will fare better with democrats than republicans at this point in time.
Without putting each option out in public we can't definitely show 1) these are pluses, 2) these are the minuses...and 3) this is why we have decided that the minuses outweigh the pluses.
I would expect that this methodology would allow public buy-in to the process and thus greater ownership and adherence to the new plan. And I would expect that certain fossil fuel and other old technologies will be phased out as we develop new renewable technologies. But without getting everyone on board with the new approach we'll just have the "us vs. them" mentality that has kept us from getting anywhere for years.
Don't forget that while you have researched these issues, most Americans have not and don't know what to believe. We need a transparent process to allow us all to come to terms with why we need to change our energy sources.
A question. Are you still in Europe? I know how Europeans feel about Bush. What is your impression of their thoughts on Obama? Including press coverage.
A hyper-religious partisan, who will fire any number of generals to complete his war on Afganistan.
Obama had to do somethings to get attention. He's got my attention. I will even vote for him.
I just do not like some of what he is saying.
I like that he is throwing off the mantle of pacifist, which I never
respected from him, but he needed that to get passed the
gating radical left wingers who keep the Democrats from having
any really big mass appeal.
He is talking sense now, levering the Europeans into putting their
support where their mouths are, giving them a choice to cooperate
in policing the world, or in sitting back and whining when America
does it unilaterally and roughly. That is the most leadership I have
seen anyone try and accomplish recently. It is a respectable
accomplishment.
I do not like his ethanol stand. It think subsidizing corn for fuel
is a road that costs us more money that it pays us back and is
being done for corrupt reasons.
I like his stand on Social Security, but I do not hear anything
about Medicare yet.
I also prefer that the government take over and revamp the
Health Care infrastructure for 10 years before returing it back
to private complanies - with strick regulation.
I also prefer transparency and regultion in all kind of other
areas of the ecomony, such as home mortgages and inverstments.
Giving another election to the Republicans is unthinkable to me,
even though I do not mind John McCain and find him likeable and
competent enough, this party has to be beat up black and blue
and repent before I will ever return to it.
Listen to McCain these days. Two words then Obama. He does not offer solutions. The entire campaign strategy rests on waiting for Obama to say something or do something that is exploitable and run and ad and run to the nearest microphone to criticize him.
That is no strategy.
I say two words then Obama. The two words being Iraq, surge. That's all John McCain has two offer. Iraq, surge, and Obama did this or said this.
Senator McCain, talk about yourself and how you are going to get us the mess the guy who raises money for you put us in.
This country really needs change! I was in Europe in March and it was really interesting to be hearing CNN and the worlds thoughts on our campaign!
Thanks for a thoughtful discussion and allowing others to voice their opinions!
Jan
Good point, but we don't have much time. Pickens has provided a great public service by funding an ad campaign, educating the public that over the next ten years, we will transfer $7Trillion to foreign countries - a fact he describes as unacceptable. Gore, to his credit, has amplified scientists' warnings that we have probably less than ten years to reduce ghg emissions by 80%, if we are to avoid many of the positive feedbacks. Perhaps, the time for public discussion of this issue is now - in this campaign. Unfortunately, much more discussion, as you describe is needed. But would the public pay attention? Maybe...?
David: "...without getting everyone on board with the new approach we'll just have the "us vs. them" mentality that has kept us from getting anywhere for years."
Pickens is a life-long republican, who contribute $$$ to the "swiftboating" of Kerry in 2004. Al Gore makes a point of gratefully acknowledging the presence of Bob Barr, libertarian presidential candidate, before his speech on the issue a little over a week ago. People of all political persuasions are ready. What is needed is a spark. I hope Obama's election can provide that spark, though I'm not sure even he is fully aware of what a central issue energy is.
As for the spark, it is up to us to provide the information needed for Obama to set the priorities. We need to be engaged. An Obama Presidency will encourage that engagement; a McCain Presidency will be more of the same old same old.
Permit me to quote you, "The information is out there for you to evaluate and make your own decision."
Even though you have made your decision, take a walk on the wild side! Take a look at my post entitled "The Audacity of Peddling Hope."
I'm not into pushing my own stuff but it appears that you may be slipping out of your professed "evaluate the information" mode and into the "it must be true because I heard it on CNN" mode especially with that last comment: "a McCain Presidency will be more of the same old same old."
Did you get that off of the "Obama for President" website? At least what I present to readers about the man is based upon investigative reporting.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/candidates-energy-policies-akin-putting/story.aspx?guid=%7B0738B7CE-2A9E-4E75-8F22-522B71298513%7D
There are additional links to specific topics.
From what I've been able to gather, the Europeans think that Obama will be someone who they can work with. Right now they feel that George Bush is - in their words - "dangerous." They feel he doesn't listen to, nor care, what the rest of the world thinks. That America in its isolation from all but Canada and Mexico doesn't understand the idea of "playing well with others." Perhaps the fact that from where I am it is no more than 3 hours by train or plane to 20 or so countries influences their thinking.
Clearly the world is too small for the US to be antagonistic. No one expects us to "think European," but they do expect us to respect them and listen to them.
What they really want is for the US to regain its leadership role in the world. Right now they think we are worse than the terrorists we say we are fighting.
They believe Obama can do that. As for McCain, their feeling is "McCain who?"
I would highly recommend to anyone reading these comments to check out Soozan's article "The Presidential Finish Line is Near" at: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977398219
While I disagree with your final conclusion, it is nice to see someone who understands the importance of this election.
What I present is my own opinion, based on the information that I glean from a variety of sources. I don't profess to have all the facts on any particular issue. The "same old same old" phrasing I admit isn't particularly original, but is a phrase I've been using for at least 100 years. I try to avoid parroting the talking points from either campaign, but I do notice that they occasionally steal my words and ideas after I've said them. It's a little scary, actually.
I would highly recommend to anyone reading these comments to check out Soozan's article "The Presidential Finish Line is Near" at: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977398219
I do feel passionate about this election - the first time I have felt so in my life. Perhaps it's my perception of how the current Administration (and in some ways, the Administration before that) have damaged the role of the US in the world. Perhaps it's my own feeling that Obama can begin to change that - or at least encourage us, the people, a chance to change that.
I don't try to change anyone's mind. Most have already made their decisions, some for legitimate reasons and some not. The information is out there. Some will priortize some facets of what they believe is needed for the next President; others will prioritize other facets. As long as the debate is honest and based on factual information, it is good for American to hear different viewpoints.
This is my concern also Jared. McCain appears to have regressed into an anti-Obama. Which is ironic, given that he is the one with "the most experience" and the Republicans have been the ones who have defined the other side for the last few elections (i.e., Democrats have been on the defensive). This year it is the opposite. Blame George Bush for that.
What I would like to see from McCain is some passion. I want to see him care. Right now he just seems to be whining.
The new kid on the block is defining the election and the experienced guy is trying to keep up. As the premise of my article says, Obama is leading; McCain is following. As is the rest of the country.
Ideally we would elect Presidents based on their ability to juggle all points of view, but how to get such a person through the nomination process.
Sometimes it takes a public "uprising." I believe that is what is happening this year.
Maybe Bush really did intend to be a "compassionate conservative." But then 9/11 happened and he and the Rovian wing took a national tragedy and turned it into a political opportunity. It was shameful. But then perhaps he was just putting on a facade. Think about the illogic of "compassionate conservative" as a slogan - this defines conservatism as not being compassionate...that somehow you have to do something different to actually care about people. It becomes its own oxymoron.
In any case, time will tell whether the promise of Obama will become a reality. I will vote to give us that chance, then work hard to make it happen. I believe Obama will work hard to encourage it to happen. Obviously he can't do it alone. And that is where leadership comes into play.
As for specific issues, there are some of Obama's positions that I feel are not fully fleshed out (of course, this is just the campaign, no policy is fleshed out before actually having the authority and the complete information to do so). There are some in which I disagree with the professed approach. But these are tweaks and I have confidence that he will listen to a wide range of views to formulate good policy. With John McCain, I disagree with whole philosophies, plus have very little confidence that he will veer significantly from the party line that he is becoming so indebted to during this campaign.
The key for me: Get the person in office who listens, and then talk to him.
I agree. I have seen Obama listen to varied viewpoints on a variety of issues. This is quite a contrast to the "one-story-one" philosophy of George Bush. McCain has historically been less single minded than Bush, but his positions on issues have been coming into line with the Bush Administration and the Republican party line to the point where there really isn't any difference that I can see now. If there ever was any veracity to the tagline "maverick" it appears to be disappearing in favor of toeing the party line.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/27/preston.mccain/index.html
One quote I've cherry picked admittedly because it reflects my opinion.
"Mr. McCain is running the absolute most pathetic campaign I have ever seen in my whole life," Stein said in his unmistakable monotone delivery. "His campaign is just heartbreakingly pathetic. He is a very impressive guy. He is a brave guy, but he is running the most lackluster campaign I have ever seen in my entire life. I would have thought Bob Dole's campaign would have set a record for poor campaigns, but this one is even worse. I mean it is shocking."
Hence the reason no one wants to see him on TV or in magazines.
Remember that the job of a President is to lead. It's hard to lead when no one is following.
Oh, the other big suggestion that Stein makes to the McCain campaign - get Karl Rove to play a bigger role.
One thing I like about Obama is that when asked a question he tends to have a thoughtful answer. In constrast, and especially lately, McCain doesn't seem to think things through at all before he answers. The latest on his position of the bill to ban affirmative action in his state; he answered and it was clear (to me at least) that he didn't have a clue about the bill. That in itself doesn't surprise me - it's a state inititative and he is the Senator from the state, not a state representative. But the fact that rather than simply say he wasn't familiar with the bill he decided to give an off the cuff answer that had no meaning was troublesome. If the bill is important enough for him to know about it, then he should know about it. If not, then he should just say he hasn't been briefed on it. Either way, be honest with us and don't try to fake it.
> Maybe Bush really did intend to be a "compassionate
> conservative." But then 9/11 happened and he and
> the Rovian wing took a national tragedy and turned
> it into a political opportunity.
Just to be clear, it is Bush who is President, Rove has
never been elected by anyone.
My apologies!
From what you have written and presented with research to back it up, I should have known that a man of your integrity would not pull anything off of CNN and spew it around as gospel.
I think I got caugt up in the "heat" of the conversation. I will also admit that I have become what jaded by reading some of the comments made by Gatheranians who attack the man and not the issues.
I stand and will comment duly corrected!
Part of why I wrote the "respect" article is because I catch myself not showing due respect in some of my comments. Frankly, I think I'm much better than most, but some people show so much ignorance that I debate with myself whether it is most appropriate to ignore them as inconsequential or call them on the carpet.
I'll keep reminding myself to be civil. And I hope others will also.
You posted this link above. There is this one as well: Obama, McCain offer very different energy plans.
I agree with you that our future energy decisions should take place within a transparent process, unlike the Cheney policy hearings. But it needs to be done in a very timely manner.
Finally, we are experiencing "withdrawals" from our "oil addiction" due to our repeated failures to effectively address our energy problems over the past 40 years. Having treated addictions through a 30 year career in mental health, I recognize that expanded drilling in increasingly "sensitive areas" is exactly parallel to what addicts do when they collapse veins in arms and legs. Republicans' exploitation of the misery people are experiencing with these "withdrawal symptoms" is exactly the kind of addictive thinking that we cannot afford. Perhaps a transparent process will expose these ramifications of the addictive process - but in any case, Obama should be stating in no uncertain terms that it is time for rehab.
[P.S. Sorry for the pun, but I am serious about the article]
Good suggestion:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?grpId=-1&articleId=281474977410033
I wanted to specifically say that I liked Bruce K's comments, focusing on the issues and the comparisons to his own positions.
"What I don't want to do is for the best to be the enemy of the good," he said. "And if we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, in which I have to accept some things that I don't like or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of actual energy independence, then that's something I'm open to."
"We face serious issues in this election and have real differences," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery. "I'm not going to assault Sen. McCain's character, I'm not going to compare him to pop stars. I will, however, compare our two visions for our economic future."
The source for the quotes in the last two comments:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/02/obama-mccain-camp-cynical-not-racist/
Ricky’s Teaser Tees & Things - Inspirations