The objective, no doubt, is to have Senator Obama pander to the base, without seeming to pander to the base. The actual strategy in such efforts can be complex and is usually undertaken in a series of trial balloons followed by corrections. I’m guessing that the immediate comparisons with President Bush are not where his handlers wished to go on this one.
One of the lessons of the Kerry loss is that voters want someone in the White House who will be strong on defense. Senator Obama does not have military experience; hence he is going to have to somehow project a stronger image on defense.
Hard to keep track of real issues in all of this electioneering. For example:
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) stood up to Rep. Pelosi:
“In a time of war, we should not be positioning ourselves for political advantage.” This is the kind of thing that I would like to see more Democrats saying - and practicing instead of pandering to the polls.
|
| |
Written By:
&
URL:
http://
|
Of course lost in all this is that both Edwards an Hillary agree with Obama
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/2/worldupdates/2007-08-02T023102Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-287732-2&sec=worldupdates
Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."
But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.
"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/01/300839.aspx
"My belief is that we have a responsibility to find bin Laden and al Qaeda wherever they operate," Edwards said on camera. "I think we need to maximize pressure on Musharraf and the Pakistani government. If they can’t do the job, then we have to do it."
Maybe he wasn’t trying to impress anyone, but was just articulating the stardard Democratic line of thinking |
| |
Written By:
Jeff
URL:
http://
|
|
Yeah, the Democrats are always tough so long as there are no boots on the ground. It is easy for them to say they will react when they are referring to lobbing a few Tomahawks in the vicinity of a threat. Then they can walk away satisfied they "took care of the threat". (Insert visual of Obama, jacket off and short sleeves rolled up, wiping his hands off on each other smiling to the camera and saying "Any questions? That’s the kind of leadership we have been lacking all these years!") |
| |
Written By:
SShiell
URL:
http://
|
|
McQ, do you disagree that, authoritarianism-wise, Guiliani is George Bush on steroids? |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
McQ, do you disagree that, authoritarianism-wise, Guiliani is George Bush on steroids? I don’t know, has he said anything lately about invading Pakistan?
I think it is a dumb line offered by a clueless candidate who sees what little chance he ever had for the nomination slipping away and felt compelled to offer a little red meat to the masses during a stump speech. And its timing was convenient to pointing out that the only person at the moment acting like "George Bush on steroids" was Barack Obama. But I guess, for the irony impaired, that’s just not evident enough in the post. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
