Neoconservative Robert Kagan also gives Obama a big thumbs up.

[readmoreoften]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

Nothing says change like "neoconservative". Are these the folks we're reaching across the aisle to?

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1241


edited to add rightweb link

[Bicoastal]

1. Some Neo-cons are glad-handing Obama for one and only one reason--

--they're scared of looking racist.

[readmoreoften]

7. If Obama said this, then he would be a naturally sympathetic candidate for them.

I'm just as put off by Obama's rhetoric on these pages as Kagan's endorsement. I don't want more war and militarism. Why would neoconservatives be afraid of looking racist? Why? Because they're not endorsing the not-conservative black man? That makes no sense. Furthermore, these are people with not a damn thing in the world to fear.

[Recursion]

20. Founding neocon Irving Kristol...

...actively supported the Civil Rights movement. That's what made them neocons.

[rodeodance]

2. SOME discussion here also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4028050&mesg_id=4028050

[Armstead]

3. Not a good sign

Excerpt:

America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.

[Fresh_Start]

5. Obama is not anti war

he's merely anti the Iraq war vote though he votes to fund it

[TheDebbieDee]

4. I'm sorry, but the idea that repukes and neocons are coming out

in support of Sen. Obama still scares the hell out of me......

I won't be comfortable with Sen. Obama until he's been fully vetted by the press.

[debatepro]

10. well don't forget they are coming out against him to... like rove today

and this was in April of last year... its not like kagan is making this argument anytime in the last 6 months... read the article and thing about things before you make these kinds of statements.

[readmoreoften]

17. Yeah, uh, I did read the article. It's pretty damning.

What on earth was the fact that it was written 8 months ago have to do with anything? Is Obama a radically different candidate than he was 8 months ago? Where is the renunciation of these ideas then?

[LittleBlue]

6. They just like seeing Hillary struggle

I think Edwards would get the same types of endorsements if he were in Obama's place. FWIW

[readmoreoften]

9. Yeah, I doubt that. Edwards has no rhetoric that would appeal to them.

Whether or not Edwards would cave in to them or whether he "really believes what he says" there is NOTHING appealing to them in his current positions. Which is possibly why you don't hear much about him.

[LittleBlue]

12. I don't think neoconservatives will typically flock to a black man with a Muslim name

who has sympathies for 3rd world people.

[readmoreoften]

16. They have "sympathies for 3rd world people too." They don't think of themselves as racist.

They think they're doing brown folks a favor by importing our free market ideology. Neoconservatives are not racists: please! know thy enemy.

[LittleBlue]

19. I believe neoconservative ideology is inherently imperialist.

I certainly think elements of racism can be found in imperialism.

[billbuckhead]

26. "Neoconservatives are not racists"

:eyes:
The hangover from the :tinfoilhat:bama koolade will be the worst since Jonestown.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

8. THEN I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA

ANYTHING OF THE NEOCONS STINKS

[debatepro]

11. Answers to Kagan

This is a classic example of DON'T BE LAZY... read the DAMN article.

Read the article it is almost IRONIC that every example he uses shows Obama is a student of Softpower not hardpower.

Kagan's quotes contradict his thesis which is Obama is an Interventionist all over the place.
All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in America's image.

This is classic softpower rhetoric not neocon interventionism.
There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force."

That is totally a neocon argument...LOL
Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power.

Kagan says:
Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

1. If you think Obama doesn't think that military force is indeed a last resort then you probably can't be convinced.
2. Neocons and Students of Softpower (Obama) see Imminent Threats differently. For neocons/hardcore realist imminent threat is anything you can manufacture (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq, boats in Iran, etc)
3. Also here is a link to the speech Obama gave at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that Kagan is pulling his quotes from. Find "imminently threatened" in that speech.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/index.php

YOU WONT!!! - Kagan Cherry picks then... uses his own warped view of the world and puts it on Obama.

[Colobo]

13. What about Ned Lamont, John Kerry, George Miller, the SEIU, the CWU...

Neo-cons too?

[Tweety]

14. Message to all neo-cons.

FUCK OFF!

I want Obama.

[readmoreoften]

15. They want him too. They agree with you. You're not getting it.

They like Obama's policy. Here's a clip from Kagan's column:

<>

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

<>

You do know what a 'vital interest' is, right? Generally, big corporations or things they can profit off of.

[ihelpu2see]

22. Hilary wont be better and I'm afraid neither Edwards. The Military Industrial

complex is to big. We should have listened to IKE. He said to beware of the Military Industrial Complex.... If you read I think the only person touting to decrease military funding is Dennis Kucinich and the Ice Cream guy from Ben and Jerry's.... I'm still pulling for a Edwards/Obama ticket though....

If John suffers a loss in South Carolina Obama should offer him the AG job and get him to campaign with him!

[debatepro]

24. Try answering my argument

People are posting this like over 3 three time over and over... why? It's from last April for crying out loud... this isn't some new piece of information... they are implicately saying be wary of Obama... neocon's like his foreign policy.

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened."

If you go by this logic Obama never said he believed in Pre-emptive war either. There were lots of things missing from Obama's speech like IMMINENTLY THREATENED!!! and PRE-EMPTIVE war!!! Where does Kagan get this crap from. In any event I make 3 arguments against this line of thinking which you have NO answer to...

1. If you think Obama doesn't think that military force is indeed a last resort then you probably can't be convinced.
2. Neocons and Students of Softpower (Obama) see Imminent Threats differently. For neocons/hardcore realist imminent threat is anything you can manufacture (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq, speed boats in Iran, etc). FYI: Clinton and Edwards think the same thing... we all just have a different view of what is an imminent threat... at least in Obama's case he HAD THE JUDGMENT AND UNDERSTANDING TO KNOW THAT IRAQ WASN'T an IMMINENT THREAT. Can we say that about the other candidates?
3. Also here is a link to the speech Obama gave at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that Kagan is pulling his quotes from. Find "imminently threatened" in that speech.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/index.php

Like i already said... Kagan cherry picks, then appropriates neocon definitions of threats and views of the world and then applies them to Obama. The only difference is that everyone on the planet knows that Cheney and Obama have a different definition of Imminent threat... heck look at Iraq ... Obama has a more credibility evaluating Iraq's as an imminent threat than Clinton or Edwards. (Thats Mate)

[billbuckhead]

18. They want Obama as the Democratic candidate

The Clinton's have beat them before and since BBV and other shenanigans will be watched for, the easiest way to fix the election is to figure out a way to draw the weakest opponent possible, even unelectable. On one hand you have Team Clinton with 8 state and national election victories behind them, vast intimate knowledge of the nation and the only Democrats to win on the national level in 30 years vs a first term Senator who beat Alan Keyes for his seat and who has an Islamic name that sounds like two of our most vilified recent terrorist enemies.

[jasmine621]

21. Wow! Some perspective.

Never looked at this way.

[ihelpu2see]

23. BS Hillary has the highest negatives and could lose to Rudy or McCain.

Edwards beats both with ease...

[billbuckhead]

25. According to the polls?