Strike Two for Barack Obama

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.bloggernews.net/18990

This post was written by Chase.Hamil on 29 July, 2007

First, let me acknowledge that the title of this blog was inspired by an insightful piece July 27 in The Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer. Titled “Strike Two,” Krauthammer’s column examines Barack Obama’s response in the South Carolina “You Tube” debate in which Obama said he would meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba in his first year as president.

Hillary Clinton paused perhaps a nanosecond before pouncing on Obama, saying she would never meet with those tyrants during her first year, because it would furnish them with valuable propaganda. “You need to know their intentions,” Hillary said, because it would open the door to discussions with such despots as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in the past has denied that the Holocaust ever took place. The next day, in Davenport, Iowa, Hillary piled on even more, saying Obama’s statement was “irresponsible and naive.”

Krauthammer notes this is the second time that Obama has displayed more than a bit of impetuosity, the first instance occurring in April, when Obama was asked what response he would order if al-Qaeda made another attack on an America city. Obama answered the first thing he would do is make certain the U.S. had an effective emergency response and not repeat the Hurricane Katrina debacle. “Asked to be commander in chief, Obama could only play first-responder in chief,” wrote Krauthammer. Obama and his handlers spent much of the following day explaining what he really meant.

In the past, notes John Mercurio of The National Journal, Hillary has repeatedly been criticized as wooden and impersonal. Obama has been portrayed as “puppy like” in his enthusiasm. Former senator John Edwards even managed to wade into the conflict. “If you’re looking for what’s wrong with Washington, why the system is broken, one perfect example is two good people, democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems facing our country,” Edwards said.

FULL article at link.

[rgbecker]

1. Nice Backhand by John Edwards.....N/T

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Edwards said what Obama used to say about Washington and the need for a "new kind of politics"

:)

[populistdriven]

47. Edwards back handed Dean regarding the South - he should take his own advice

[populistdriven]

48. Edwards slams Dean again for Confederate remark

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/dean.edwards/index.html

[Colobo]

2. Strike Two My Ass.

[Ethelk2044]

7. Strike Two Clinton

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday July 28, 2007 09:51 EST
What Beltway media stars mean by "centrism" and "extremism"
(updated below)

As always, when wielded by Beltway media stars, the terms "centrist" and "moderate" and "mainstream" mean "whatever views I personally happen to hold on a topic, regardless of how many Americans actually share it." Hence, the unanimous, wise Beltway wisdom was that Barack Obama "blew it" in the last Democratic debate by proclaiming his willingness to meet with leaders of hostile countries, while Hillary Clinton scored a big victory.

As but one example, from Thursday's Chris Matthews Show, discussing the Clinton-Obama debate:

MATTHEWS: I share your sentiments. But as a journalist, I have to look at the politics of this thing. Your last words?

HAYES: I think if continues down this course I think he's in serious trouble because it‘s unsustainable.

MATTHEWS: Too far left?

HAYES: Absolutely.

Matthews went on to pronounce, with regard to the exchange with Obama, that it shows why Hillary "will win this thing."

And what of polling data that shows exactly the opposite? Who cares? Beltway wisdom is more representative of what Americans believe than what Americans actually believe. From the latest Rasmussen Reports poll:

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday's Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama.

This is precisely the same process that causes one to hear endlessly from Beltway pundits about how Democrats will be in big, big trouble if they keep up with these investigations because "Americans" sure don't like that, even though polls continuously show that Americans overwhelmingly want Congress to investigate the Bush administration even further. The claim that Congress is "going too far" or "neglecting the people's business" or "engaged in witch-hunts" are actually embraced only by minorities. But that is what the government-defending Beltway media believes; hence, they repeatedly assert as a mantra-like chant, based on nothing, that opposition to more investigations is the "centrist position," that Americans do not like Congressional probes and see them as unjustifiably obstructionist.

It is not difficult to understand why Americans are supportive of Obama's pro-diplomacy instincts. It is because they have seen the alternative for the last six years and know that it is a petulant refusal to speak to the Bad People that is the real fringe, dangerous, extremist position. Indeed, the actual fringe extremism on this issue was vividly illustrated on the same Chris Matthews Show, by the very same Stephen Hayes, the Serious right-wing national security scholar and all-around tough guy:

MATTHEWS: Cheney is the kind of guy who represents to me the hard case. He's not going to go negotiate with anybody. Is it fair to say that Cheney would take the position, you don't deal with Ahmadinejad, for whatever reason, you don't deal with Castro, you don't deal with Kim Jong il or any of these guys. You stiff them. Is that the Cheney view?

HAYES: To play off of what Sally said, it actually is for the opposite point. You don't play with them precisely because it gives them respect. It gives them stature on the world stage that they don't deserve. Ahmadinejad, as Howard said several times—he's a holocaust denier.

That's crazy talk -- ridiculous, insane position.

MATTHEWS: Does that mean never talk to them?

HAYES: Yes, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Then what do we do? How do we negotiate?

HAYES: We don't negotiate somebody who's denying the holocaust, with somebody who's killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: What do you do with them?

HAYES: I think you confront them. I think you confront them in a stronger way.

MATTHEWS: How do you do that? What should we do with Iran?

HAYES: Certainly we should be having units, at the very least, taking out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who are killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: So we should cross the border?

HAYES: I think if we need to cross the border, we should cross the border? Yes.

MATTHEWS: You think we should be acting aggressively towards Iran?

HAYES: Yes.

That is the only extremist national security mentality that has any degree of influence or significance in our political landscape. There simply is no idea that could ever be uttered by a national, viable Democratic candidate that can even compete with the extremism, radicalism and fringe nature of this view. The Weekly-Standard/Giuliani/Lieberman position is a view that is overwhelmingly rejected by the American mainstream; it is a true fringe position:
A majority of adults in the United States believe their federal administration should not wage war against Iran, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 63 per cent of respondents would oppose the U.S. government if it decides to take military action in Iran.
Yet while Obama-like calls for diplomacy are almost immediately labelled "too left" or "extreme" despite polling data that shows the opposite, people who advocate insane military attacks on Iran are virtually never labelled as such even though polling data shows how fringe they are. That is because "centrism" and "extremism" and "fringes" designate nothing other than what Beltway media stars personally believe, and anyone who favors war -- old ones or news ones -- is inherently mainstream, responsible and . . . serious. That, more than anything else, is why we are still in Iraq, and why withdrawal is universally depicted as the "extreme" leftist position even though most Americans favor it.

While on the subject of Chris Matthews' Thursday show, one would be remiss by failing to note this bit of wisdom from him:

MATTHEWS: Who's right? Doesn't it look like Hillary will win this thing simply because she's better at playing to the concerns and sensitivities of people who vote Democrat? This holocaust denial thing is brilliant. They're putting this guy, whose middle name is Hussein, out there, saying he wants to go play in the sandbox with a holocaust denier. That's brilliant politics if you're a Democrat. And now he's got to deny it.
To the extent that this can be understood, Matthews seems to be saying that there are many Jews in the Democratic Party ("playing to the concerns and sensitivities of people who vote Democrat") and so it is "brilliant" of the Clinton campaign to associate her rival who is saddled with the middle name of "Hussein" with the Israel-hating "Holocaust denier." Hence, in Matthews' mind, this episode shows why Hillary "will win this thing" even though "Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama." Media pundits are so suffuse with narcissism and self-importance that they automatically think that their own views on any topic are, by definition, held by "most Americans," on whose behalf they speak, even when they don't.

* * * * *

On an unrelated note, I had expressed the view several times this week that I believed the perjury case against Alberto Gonzales was weak to the extent it was grounded in his answers about whether the Comey/Ashcroft dispute applied to the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," as opposed to "other intelligence activities." My view arose, in part, from e-mail discussions I had on this topic throughout the week with Anonymous Liberal, a very smart and insightful lawyer who has developed a real expertise in the NSA scandal. Throughout the week, he and I shared the same view on Gonazles' defense to this particular perjury charge.

But over the last couple of days, A.L. went back and reviewed all of the testimony given by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee back in February, 2006. He now conclusively believes the perjury charge against Gonzales would be very strong, and he has put together a compelling evidentiary case proving Gonzales' perjurious intent. His post has certainly changed my view, and I hope someone on the Senate Judiciary Committee takes notice of the virtually irrefutable proof he has compiled.

UPDATE: As Andrew Sullivan has been recently realizing and pointing out, spending your life and career rooted in Beltway media and political circles inevitably warps one's perspective, no matter one's ideological leanings -- especially (though by no means only) with regard to "how Americans think." From long-time Beltway political correspondent David Corn of The Nation and now also Pajamas Media:

I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly "Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?"

If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot.

And the junior senator from Illinois will not have much of a defense. . . .

his moment illustrated perhaps the top peril for the Obama campaign: with this post-9/11 presidential contest, to a large degree, a question of who should be the next commander in chief, any misstep related to foreign policy is a big deal for a candidate who has little experience in national security matters.

He goes on to compare Obama to Dean in 2004, whom he said made a series of "dumb gaffes" which supposedly exposed that Dean "had not spent years talking and doing foreign policy" and that he was "not ready for prime time regarding national security matters" -- even though he "had the foreign policy positions that resonated most with Democratic voters." But the "flubs" and "gaffes" were important only to Beltway media types, who then used it to depict Dean as "weak" and "inexperienced" on national security, which then became conventional wisdom.

That is how this works perpetually -- media elites repeatedly masquerade their own conventional wisdom and biases as "American centrism" and any deviation as "extremism" or "unseriousness" or even "craziness." That is how their Beltway orthodoxies are enforced. As Prairie Weather says: "this kind of media falsehood becomes a self-confirming prophecy. Establishment wins; you lose."

To be clear, none of this is about whether I personally believe it is a good idea to commit to face-to-face meetings in the first 12 months of a presidency with every hostile world leader regardless of the circumstances. I doubt that Obama actually intends to embrace such a specific commitment even though (as Bob Somerby fairly notes) he did say "I would" when asked (though sysprog makes what I think is the more convincing argument about what Obama actually said). The point here, though, is that it is being almost universally depicted as some sort of politically damaging reply -- a terrible "gaffe" -- all because media stars disagree with it, not because American voters do.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/28/centrism/index.html

[rpannier]

3. Oh for the love of...

1. Chavez is an elected official (I'm not a big fan of Chavez, but I recognize him as such)

2. Her husband spoke to Syria's leadership several times and had Syria reign in Hezbollah

3. She would use what instead of diplomacy??? The bushco tactic of attacking (or threatening to attack) every country that sneezed wrong??? Her response is idiotic.

[Skip Intro]

14. her response was that she would use diplomacy. The spin of what was said that night blows me away.

Its on tape.

Hillary gave the better answer - cautious diplomacy and no promise of meeting with them all in her first year, and Obama said flat out he would. That is until the next day, when in clarifying what he had said, pretty much adopted Hillary' position. It did look naive.

And if you think that's harsh, can you imagine what the repukes would have done with an opening like this had that been the final general election debate?


I will say this, tho. Through some dishonesty and smears, he seems to have possibly turned a big loss into a draw, politically, that is. After not really having an opinion of Obama, I'm starting to form one now.

[MGKrebs]

23. Not only that, she didn't say she wouldn't meet with them, she said

she wouldn't PROMISE that she would meet with them.
Politicians, for good reason, want to make very simple, clear statements. But as we all know, many answers are a little more complicated than that allows. Howard Dean was pretty good at distilling his comments to be clear and simple and yet conveying a realistic nuance. I think Obama is still a little on the overly-simplistic side of things. Clinton is doing a pretty good job of articulating positions, but the press even tries to over-simplify that. Then the candidate can fight with the press trying to get things corrected, or they can just shift the subject a little. Kind of a Zen way of dealing with the press. I don't think the press likes being fought with. And I also think the press likes to have a new story every day. If people think she gets a break with the press, this may be part of the reason.

[killbotfactory]

41. Obama didn't promise to meet anybody, either

Being "willing" to meet with someone is not the same as "promising" to meet someone.

[MGKrebs]

53. Oh, I think they have exactly the same position.

This is just about campaign posturing now. They have to try to save face, or gain an advantage, or get positioned for the next round.

[Cosmocat]

58. Darn right ... The MSM just carrying out it's marching orders ...

Hill played politics, republican style ... Taking Obama's answer to a question out of context and hammering him, and the media did its job ... Hill is to any D right now than an R is to a D ... They are to carry her water and get her into the general ...

[Clintonista2]

64. His exact words were 'I would"

Meaning, there is complete certainty in his answer.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

43. She didn't say she was willing to meet with them,

nor the opposite. And that's what the question was asking. So the pundits are praising her for avoiding the question and talking about her VVD, "very vigorous diplomacy," one of those odd phrases like her "i got the scars to prove it" that her campaign tell her to repeat over and over.

The reason why Obama didn't say "I won't promise" is because the question asked no such thing.

[MGKrebs]

52. Of course it did. If you say "I will meet (someone) in the first year"

that would be taken as a promise, a commitment.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

55. He didn't say that

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

So he said that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, etc., not that he would. There's an obvious difference.

Here's Hillary's response:

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

So she didn't answer the question. It's unclear whether she's willing to meet with such leaders or not. All we know is that she won't promise.

[MGKrebs]

56. My mistake. He said "I would", not "I will".

[AnotherGreenWorld]

59. You're reading it out of context

"I would" = "I would be willing to..." in the context of the debate.

Willingess does not entail commitment. If I were asked, "Would you be willing to vote for Sen. Clinton?," I would reply, "I would," meaning, "I would be willing to vote for Sen. Clinton." But that piece of language does not entail any action on my part; it merely says something about my mental state with respect to choosing a candidate--namely that I'm open to the idea of voting for someone other than Sen. Obama.

If, on the other hand, I were to respond, "I won't promise to vote for Sen. Clinton," I would not be answering the question.

[MGKrebs]

60. Yes, he would be willing to meet them without preconditions.

But whatever. Whether anyone views that as a promise or not is beside the point. They both have the same position, and they are just hassling each other like competitors do.

It's just political posturing, but a real test of willpower, patience, press relations, campaign organization, self-discipline, nuance, and stamina at this point!

[Captain Hilts]

29. She said that's what diplomats are for.

Chavez is not a global player on the scale of Putin, for example. And he made a fool of himself at the United Nations.

[Skip Intro]

31. Here's a quote from her answer at the debate - your post is just wrong.

from your post:
------
3. She would use what instead of diplomacy??? The bushco tactic of attacking (or threatening to attack) every country that sneezed wrong??? Her response is idiotic.


from Hillary's debate answer:
------
But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.



for the record.

[Crazy Dave]

4. Diplomacy instead of war and bullying?

What the hell was he thinking?

[emilyg]

5. Thank you. K&R

[snowbear]

49. OMG, =YOU= Emily?

You - who swore off dissing other candidates are kicking a Krauthammer thread??????

So much for that pact you made yourself.

BTW. Why the locked profile?

[emilyg]

50. Not dissing Obama

The thank you was for the post. I like Obama. Locked profile - will have to check. Still a novice here.

[The_Casual_Observer]

Since when is gargoyle sauerkraut a credible voice in anything?

They haven't got their own candidate, so why not talk shit about ours, right?

[salinen]

9. gargoyle sauerkraut

he he.

[jenmito]

16. That's a perfect description of him. And I would NOT want him and his on my side.

He and other RW crazies are saying she said the right thing. I think OBAMA said the right thing. And then she personally insulted him with the "naive" remark allowing HIM to hit HER twice for voting for the war resolution. We ALL knew Bush wouldn't follow through with diplomacy-talk about naive! Go Obama!

[subsuelo]

6. ignorance

It is the height of ignorance to lump Venezuela's leader in with the likes of NK and Iran. That this underlying assumption goes without challenge is extremely disappointing to me.

[Ethelk2044]

11. Rasmussan States Public Disagree with Him

Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure.

That question came up during last Monday’s Presidential Debate with Illinois Senator Barack Obama saying he would commit to such meetings and New York Senator Hillary Clinton offering a more cautious response. Democrats, by a 55% to 22% margin, agree with Obama. Clinton and Obama continue to dominate the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

However, just 34% of all Americans (and 34% of Democrats) know that Obama made such a commitment. Eleven percent (11%) of all Americans and 14% of Democrats believe the commitment was made by Clinton. Even that level of recognition is probably due more to news coverage of the topic rather than the debate itself. Only 2.6 million Americans watched the debate. Overall, 15% of adults nationally believe the debates are exciting while 58% say they’re boring.

Twenty-four percent (24%) know that Clinton refused to commit to such meetings while 7% believe that Obama was the candidate to do so.

Also, The media Pundits on MTP this morning said Hillary made a mistake on how she handled this issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_divided_as_to_whether_new_president_should_meet_with_heads_of_iran_syria_north_korea

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. I don't like Obama - but I hate Hillary

And quite frankly I would rather have a few years of kumbya at the White House than Hillary starting World War Three just so she can prove to the angry white assholes just how tough she is.

[Bullet1987]

10. Strike 2 my ass...

I hope Dems are not taking talking points from hardliner Rethugs now...

[Zensea]

12. Krauthammer? Right on a par with Bob Novak

Why anyone would give him any credence is beyond me.

Does he like any Democrat? Tomorrow he'll be attacking a different one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Isn't it just a little scary, however, that so many RW pundits

are congratulating Hillary on this point?

It's almost like (puzzlement) the RW WANTS Hillary to be nominated.

[sellitman]

26. This is like quoting News Max.

Both Krauthammer and News Max are Republican tools.

They both deserve neither the bandwidth or the time.

[MessiahRp]

30. Krauthammer is a RW shill

If you're trying to attack Obama, choosing a FOX pundit is probably a poor choice. Of course that seems to be the tact many Hillary supporters are taking this week by citing Tucker, Krauthammer, etc in their attacks on Obama.

Funny how they recognize how evil those fuckers are until they conveniently support their views.

Rp

[maximusveritas]

13. "insightful" and "Krauthammer" do not belong in the same sentence

This guy sounds like a right-wing nut.

[Zensea]

15. Not sounds like, IS.

:evilgrin:

[earthlover]

21. I was wondering how long it would take to notice the fawning over Kraut-Mayer as Hillary's apolgist

[Diane R]

17. Gag. Has Clinton hired people to post on DU? This seems orchestrated.

[Ethelk2044]

20. I agree

[Skip Intro]

22. R U kidding me? Are there too few swooning Obama threads? n/t

[Telly Savalas]

34. Huh? Pointing out that Krauthammer disagrees with Obama's foreign policy

reinforces the notion that Obama is correct in his stance.

[MGKrebs]

61. Ya' know, that's a big part of how the Repubs have gotten themselves into

the mess they are in. They chucked ideology and just opposed everything that Dems have stood for. It's been all politics to them recently, not ideology. We could learn from their errors.

Secondly, there is nothing in that blog post that would indicate that Krautheimer disagrees with Obama's foreign policy, or anyone else's for that matter. It is a comment on the maneuvering by the campaigns, not the policy positions.

[Grandrose]

18. Brain bleach....please!

Krauthammer and all Republics can keep their unsolicited opinions and shove!:puke:

[ginnyinWI]

39. Beltway Pundits=Out of touch with the American people. n/t

[Tom Joad]

24. fascist neocon pornographic garbage...

yeah, if you get the idea i don't like chuck, you got it right.

[Spiffarino]

27. Krauthammer is a chickenf--er

...and is known to be a sniffer of women's undergarments at laundromats.

Everything I said about him is just as true as anything he writes.

[Catchawave]

28. Edwards is right....it's silly n/t

[Tellurian]

32. The rest of the OP... agrees Hillary won the debate and Obama made another mistake!

"cont. from the OP.."

"Obama disaffirmed Hillary’s barb, declaring this it was she who was “irresponsible and naive” when she voted for Bush’s war in Iraq, now felt by many to be one of the worst mistakes in U.S. history. But Obama’s retort came too little and too late, since it was two days removed from the original gaffe. By comparison, Hillary’s performance during and after the South Carolina debate was considered by many, even her critics, as smooth and unflappable.

Frank James, writing for The Chicago Tribune, called Obama’s South Carolina performance “a turning point in the presidential race.” And as for Hillary’s presentation: “Any time the leader in the polls comes out of a debate unscathed, she or he is the winner by definition.” By contrast, Obama’s answer to the question seemed to bolster the criticisms that he is inexperienced and unpracticed when it comes to foreign policy. Referring one final time to Charles Krauthammer’s analysis, he concludes: “These mistakes lead to one of two conclusions: (1) Obama is inexplicably unable to think on his feet while standing on South Carolina soil, or (2) Obama is not ready to be a wartime president.”

Roland Martin, a contributor to CNN News, wonders whether all of this is fascinating to political hacks, but irrelevant to the voting public. The two front runners, Clinton and Obama, will eventually lock their sights on each other and hopefully provide a glimpse of which one has the necessary qualities and temperament for the job. But Election Day 2008 is still many months away - far too early for the candidates to start throwing real punches and thus begin the true slugfest. Even if the South Carolina encounter accurately portrayed Obama as a tenderfoot in international affairs, will the public remember in November?"

- Chase.Hamil

[dionysus]

36. an anonymous blooger who agrees with Krauthammer...

boy you guys reach really hard.

[InsultComicDog]

33. hmmm

There are reasonable arguments to be made all around.

In the long run, you don't get to choose who your enemies are. So it is preferred to negotiate if there is reason to believe that the negotiations can be productive.

[dionysus]

35. you post a blogger who agrees with Krauthammer...

at long last have you guys any decency?

[zulchzulu]

37. Citing a PNAC stooge like Charles Krauthammer gets the BIG BUZZER from me

Charles Krauthammer is an ass...a dying neocon ass at that. Pity on his dark soul...

As for Edwards attacking Clinton and Obama for them attacking each other...well, that's not exactly the smartest thing to do.

[Alcibiades]

38. Krauthammer pisses me off

He's totally irrelevant. Why do any newspapers carry him, with his track record as a blatant shill? Ever since Bush was selected, Krauthammer's been wrong about everything.

I do so love it when repug hacks like Krauthammer put on their "political analyst" hats and try to write about the politics inside the Democratic party as if they were some sort of neutral arbiter of truth, when, in reality, every bit of disunity and infighting amongst our ranks would give Krauthammer a stiffy, if he were still capable of getting one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. so an extremist right-wing neocon nut doesn't like Sen.Obama's foreign policy views?

I'm neither a supporter or an opponent of Sen. Obama's presidential bid.

However, if one of the leading cheerleaders behind the the current foreign policy disaster of Bush, Cheney and the necons doesn't like Sen Obama's views, Sen Obama has just gone up at least slightly in my estimation of him.

Thank for your for posting this.

[MGKrebs]

62. To be honest, there is nothing in there about Krautheimers views

on foreign policy. It's all just about campaign maneuvering.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. that may indeed be the ostensible subject of Dr. Krautheimer's piece

but it is written against the backdrop of Dr. Krautheimer's extremist neoconservative worldview.

But I do agree that Sen. Clinton is the more practiced politician with the more manicured answers. Still the majority of Democrats and a plurality of the public agrees more with Sen. Obama. Either way I don't think the vast majority of the public are swayed one way or another at this point in time over that brief snippet during the debate. There are still several months before the primaries begin.

[killbotfactory]

42. Republicans have absolutely no gound to stand on

Especially when it comes criticizing people on their foreign policy and diplomacy.

[On the Road]

44. Right.

Charles Krauthammer has his finger on the pulse of America and is the voice of the electorate.

[TankLV]

45. Actually, those are probably two of the few things Obama has said that I agree with totally...

Fucking media whores...

Let me see - a REPUKE MEDIA WHORE who drools over the REPUKE WAR CRIMINALS in OUR White House and absolutely HATES anything to do with the DemocraTIC Party disapproves of something a Democrat says - BIG FUCKING SURPRISE!

[snowbear]

46. The OP posts a WINGNUT site, never returns, and his POS lives on...

I'd say you should know better Steve, but when you get a load of all the nasty replies here from DU'ers who do not appreciate you feeding us CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER garbage, you'll see for yourself!

(If this thread lives that long)

Shame on you!

[Blue-Jay]

51. Get that fucking Krauthammer shit outta here.

[sendero]

54. I think.....

..... Obama got caught answering the SPIRIT of a question rather than the PRECISE wording.

I totally agree with the SENTIMENT of his answer, but the question was way too broad and specific. It did not allow for the possibility of being willing to meet with 80% of those named, it did not allow for the possibility of it taking some time.

I think he's come out of this about even, but I think his answer wasn't well considered to begin with.

[beastieboy]

57. I think Obama looks ridiculous arguing with her about this.

She obviously made a great point in the debate, and he is somehow trying to frame her as being on par with Bush in terms of diplomacy. I think it's foolish to say you will meet with anyone at anytime with no strings attached. Foreign leaders know how the game is played, they expect exactly what Hillary is talking about. She knows a hell of alot more about it than Obama does.