[maxiep]

This article is written by Michael Gerson, who used to be President Bush's speechwriter and is now with the Council of Foreign Relations. I thought is summed up nicely Sen. Obama's appeal and his problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052203015.html

A Phenom With Flaws
By Michael Gerson
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A17

Is Barack Obama a weak presidential candidate or a strong one? The answer is: yes.

In his slow stumble toward victory, Obama has revealed vulnerabilities in his coalition, his ideology and his temperament.

By the latest round of primaries, almost no serious commentator or politician entertained the notion that Obama could lose the nomination. Yet he was still walloped by Hillary Clinton in Kentucky by 35 percentage points. In that state, Obama lost among men and women; people who attend church weekly and people who never attend; people with college degrees and people without; people making more than $50,000 a year and people making less. It is always disquieting for a monarch to hear muttering and jeers along the route of his coronation -- in this case, coming from middle-class and rural voters he will eventually need.

Over the months, Obama's claim to be a post-partisan moderate has also frayed, especially on foreign policy. Even the most vigorous advocates of global diplomacy would not suggest unconditional, head-of-state talks with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea -- exactly what Obama has promised. His foreign policy staff now admits that a series of lower-level meetings would be necessary to prepare for these summits -- hotel accommodations in Pyongyang are doubtless a challenge. But the problem is not with the preparation, it is with the pledge, which is not only wrong but ridiculous.

A simultaneous withdrawal from Iraq and an unconditional summit with Iranian leaders would be a capitulation to Iranian nuclear ambitions and terror sponsorship, a signal to our Sunni Arab allies that they will face the Iranian threat alone, and an unprecedented betrayal of Israel.

And the strains of the nomination process have revealed the vulnerabilities of Obama's personality. Reporters who have covered him for years respect his decency but diagnose an intellectual pride bordering on arrogance. He is skillful at avoiding direct and uncomfortable questions -- his Philadelphia race speech was a sophisticated but ultimately unsuccessful diversion from the main issue of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. At key moments, Obama has shown a preference for cleverness over candor -- highlighting the appeal of John McCain's candor candidacy.

As a result of all these factors, Obama and McCain are running fairly even in respected polls such as Gallup, alternately trading the lead by a few points -- at a time of massive anti-Republican discontent during which Obama should be cleaning McCain's clock.

Yet I cannot get two figures out of my mind -- 75,000 and one. There were 75,000 attendees at Obama's Portland, Ore., rally on Sunday -- a monumental political achievement, found at the confluence of organization and enthusiasm. Obama does not merely talk of a new kind of politics; his charisma, story and tone symbolize a shift in political eras. Obama voters believe they are changing politics forever -- a claim that Al Gore or John Kerry could never credibly make. At its best, this desire to break the dominance of politics-as-usual motivated support for John Kennedy and the New Frontier. At its worst, it motivated support for professional wrestler Jesse Ventura to be governor of Minnesota -- he won nearly half of young voters in a three-way election. In either case, it is hard to bet against excitement and idealism.

The "one" is Mark McKinnon -- a media adviser to McCain, a friend and former colleague of mine, a Texas Democrat who strongly supported George W. Bush, and a man of great decency and integrity. Early last year, he gave me a copy of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" and said he had informed the McCain team that he could not help lead a general election campaign against Obama. This week, McKinnon kept his word by resigning (though remaining a strong "friend and fan" of the McCain campaign).

It is a reminder of something that Republicans -- even in the busy strife of a campaign -- should not forget or underestimate. Obama is a serious, thoughtful, decent adult who will attract the sympathy of other serious, thoughtful, decent adults. He has evident flaws, but the inspiration he evokes is genuine. His policy views are conventionally liberal, but his story is not a scam. And, in some ways, his election would finally make sense of an American story that includes Antietam and Selma.

The enthusiasm of many Republicans and conservatives to defeat Hillary Clinton would have come unbidden. Against Obama, it will come harder.

[SodaPopinski]

I don't know if I'd call this an "evenhanded take," although the last few paragraphs speak highly of Obama. I'm not sure where republicans are getting this "unconditional meetings" garbage. His policy suggestions are clear as day and available to anyone with half a brain and the know-how to navigate a complex mouse/keyboard combination:

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

"Doing the careful preparation necessary" to me does not read as "unconditional." But it makes for a nice sound-bite in the time-tested and idiot-approved scare tactics the Republicans have used for quite some time. I mean, let's be honest, what are they going to run on? Their record? LOL.

-Pop

[e_blazer1]

Unfortunately, the comment about "careful preparation necessary" was added only in response to the hullabaloo over his silly comment that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations unconditionally.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

I don't know if I'd call this an "evenhanded take," although the last few paragraphs speak highly of Obama. I'm not sure where republicans are getting this "unconditional meetings" garbage. His policy suggestions are clear as day and available to anyone with half a brain and the know-how to navigate a complex mouse/keyboard combination:



"Doing the careful preparation necessary" to me does not read as "unconditional." But it makes for a nice sound-bite in the time-tested and idiot-approved scare tactics the Republicans have used for quite some time. I mean, let's be honest, what are they going to run on? Their record? LOL.

-Pop

If you don't remember where those words came, they came from a Democratic debate. I'll see if I can track down the YouTube clip; one must surely exist. IIRC, he was asked if he would meet with any leader and he said he would. He was asked if he would meet without precondition and he said yes. He was given a chance to back away from it, and he didn't. It was only after the debate that he thought through his position, but he's still trying to justify it.

It's pretty funny he bristles about this statement yet is happy to take the "100 years" comment from Sen. McCain out of context.

I'll tell you what I look for in debates. Sometimes, when you have to go off script, you say what you actually think rather than what you think people want to hear. It remains my contention that Sen. Obama doesn't think there's anything wrong with meeting without precondition, and that's dangerous.

[maxiep]

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k

Notice the difference between Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's answers. The question was clear and unambiguous.

[SodaPopinski]

I look forward to a debate between Obama and McCain. I can guarantee the off-the-script format will expose a lot more inconsistencies and scary revelations (i.e. "I need to be educated about the economy. I don't know much about that.") from McCain than it will from Obama.

But like I said - keep up the scare tactics.

-Pop

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Notice the difference between Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's answers. The question was clear and unambiguous.

I like the logic that if we tell Iran we're not going to be a permanent occupier, they'll suddenly act more responsibly.

Hilarious. Hopeful, but hilarious.

Ed O.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

I look forward to a debate between Obama and McCain. I can guarantee the off-the-script format will expose a lot more inconsistencies and scary revelations (i.e. "I need to be educated about the economy. I don't know much about that.") from McCain than it will from Obama.

Personally, I loved it when Sen. McCain said he acknowledged his lack of knowledge concering the economy. It's true; I wish more politicians would realize what they know and don't know. I find it more dangerous when Sen. Obama says he considers his knowledge of foreign policy to be one of his strong points.

I'm not defending Sen. McCain. It's my hope that a debate tells us exactly what each candidate really thinks. If Sen. McCain's goal is to turn Iran from a desert into a glass factory, I want to know it.

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

But like I said - keep up the scare tactics.

-Pop

Can you tell me what scare tactics I'm using? Seriously, I didn't realize I was taking that tack.

[Hector]

I like the way Obama is making it clear before the election what he will do after the inauguration. That way, the voters will have already voted on whether he should develop personal friendships with worldwide leftist leaders, which terrifies American conservatives. If Clinton had met with Saddam, Clinton might have stopped the medical boycotts started by Bush which killed a half million Iraqi children.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by Hector

I like the way Obama is making it clear before the election what he will do after the inauguration. That way, the voters will have already voted on whether he should develop personal friendships with worldwide leftist leaders, which terrifies American conservatives.

You like that he takes one indefensible position, retreats for political expediency, and then still claims the "change candidacy" position?

Nice.

Ed O.

[STOMP]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Unfortunately, the comment about "careful preparation necessary" was added only in response to the hullabaloo over his silly comment that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations unconditionally.

are you aware that both Bush's Secretary of State and Defense favor meeting with Iran's leaders? That from Truman to Reagan that negotiating with "rogue nations" was what our Presidents did?

STOMP

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Personally, I loved it when Sen. McCain said he acknowledged his lack of knowledge concering the economy. It's true.

It was a start.

Now he needs to acknowledge his lack of knowledge concerning every other crucial element for running the most powerful country in the world.

No person has ever milked the war veteran sympathy teat longer or harder than McCain.

[e_blazer1]