NY Times Slams Obama in July 4th Editorial

I've supported Obama from the beginning, and I'll continue to support him. But considering the not-so-subtle shifts in his rhetoric, mere weeks after winning a historically close primary, this backlash is much deserved. Cheers to the New York Times for calling him out:

"We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

"There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in."

Click here for the article in full.

New Week, Fresh Start

The past week has been a rough one for Barack Obama. What was supposed to be a well-received unveiling of his comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism turned into a seemingly open-ended invitation to attack the Illinois Senator. His campaign to date has been wildly successful spreading its message and filling its piggy bank. For a group accustomed to adoring crowds and press fanfare, a week like this might come as a shock.

If you've missed the events as they unfolded, these two pieces from the Chicago Sun-Times will be a good place to start. Yes, it was that kind of week. The kind of week when you wake up on Sunday to discover that your hometown newspaper is running two critical editorials:

• Obama's tin ear shows his lack of experience
• Obama shouldn't be reactive to critics

But the candidate is 46, now--a year older and a little wiser. The question now is how will Barack Obama and his staff move forward? The criticism faced this past week is certainly the most wide-ranging and sustained that the campaign has faced thus far.

The road is going to get rougher as the primaries draw near. Obama has already warned supporters of this truth. Last week, smooth sailing gave way to rough seas. In this new week, we'll learn a lot about this campaign, and this candidate, by how they navigate the waters ahead.

UPDATE: Obama, Tancredo Criticized for Foreign Policy Remarks

Senator Barack Obama and Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) were both criticized this week by the U.S. State Department and by the government of Pakistan for their foreign policy comments.

• Response from Pakistan
• Response from the U.S. State Department

Certainly Obama's comments about Pakistan were a dramatic departure from his previous foreign policy rhetoric, but they were not even in the same galaxy as Tancredo's asinine remarks.

The republican run State Department is willing to sacrifice a pawn like Tom Tancredo in an effort to slander Barack Obama. Let's face it--Obama's stance on Pakistan, while bold, is nowhere near Tancredo's notion that we ought to nuke Muslim holy sites. In fact, I shudder to even mention them in the same sentence, even the same paragraph.

Let me try that again.

Obama's foreign policy is bold, if perhaps a bit too conservative for my taste.

Tancredo's foreign policy is less policy and more the ranting of an attention deprived bigot.

Obviously the republicans fear Obama as the candidate most capable of swinging moderate Republican voters and independents. Otherwise, why lump Obama's proposal in the same pile as Tancredo's drivel?

I suppose we just have to get used to the idea of the Bush administration meddling with this election, even if it means castigating one of their third-tier candidates in an effort to get at Obama.

As always, your comments are encouraged.

Obama's Foreign Policy Must Emphasize Diplomacy, not Battlefields

Delivering a prepared statement today in Washington, Barack Obama outlined his five part strategy to combat global terrorism.

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

A component of this first step, getting on "the right battlefield" in Pakistan, is already drawing plenty of heat. "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. "

It is disappointing to see Obama flex his muscles here, stressing military action largely in response to criticism from opponents who see his previous proposals as weak. This is hardly the "Politics of Hope" that we were promised. In fact, it is exactly the "politics as usual" that Obama is so quick to denounce.

But before we scoff at his entire plan, let's be reminded that the first step in his approach to Pakistan does hinge on diplomacy.

"As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan."

We can trust that most coverage of this Obama speech will center on his comments on Pakistan. And rightly so. This explicit threat of military action is a departure from Obama's previous speeches. Make no mistake about it--if Obama continues to drift toward military solutions to the global terrorism threat, he risks alienating many of his most ardent supporters.

In the spirit of getting to the real heart of Obama's proposals, let's examine elements of the plan that better reflect his fresh, much needed, diplomacy based foreign policy.

• "...I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it."
• "...there is still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium...at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries...There are still about 15,000 to 16,00 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium scattered across 11 time zones in the former Soviet Union...as President, I will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years."
  
• "As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say -- as Secretary Rumsfeld did -- "Freedom is untidy." I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy."
• "I will double our annual investments to meet these challenges to $50 billion by 2012. And I will support a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter the radical madrasas -- often funded by money from within Saudi Arabia -- that have filled young minds with messages of hate. We must work for a world where every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy."
  
• "We will open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with -- and listen to -- the people who today hear about us only from our enemies."
• "In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

Obama's tough talk on Pakistan will no doubt draw attention away from the more progressive elements of his plan. In an effort to respond to his critics and appeal to more conservative voters, Obama seems to be infusing some military might into the Politics of Hope.

Not a good idea. Obama set fundraising records and became the leading candidate by emphasizing a politics of peace, unity, and optimism. He must stay true to those promises.

In the meantime, let's focus on the aspects of Obama's plan that are truly hopeful. Let's remind the Obama campaign why we're supporting this candidate in the first place.

The Achilles' Heel

Slate is running a three-part series examining the major weaknesses of the leading presidential candidates. The articles are worthwhile reads, brimming with interesting links.

• Rudy Giuliani--Too liberal?
• Hillary Clinton--Too cold?
  
• Barack Obama--Too inexperienced?

Also for your consideration, today's cover story from the New York Times looks back on Obama's tenure in the Illinois State Senate.

Your comments are welcome.

Obama vs. Clinton, Round 1

Hillary Clinton wasted no time attacking Barack Obama after Monday night's CNN/YouTube debate. Answering a question about foreign policy, Obama said he would try to reverse the damage done by the Bush administrations bellicose diplomacy by meeting with the leaders of nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, without conditions, within the first year of his presidency.

In her ongoing campaign to appear tough, Clinton attacked Obama the next day, declaring his policy propositions "irresponsible and naive." According to Clinton, meeting with these renegade leaders without conditions and without initial diplomatic envoys would diminish the prestige and power of the American presidency.

Oh yes. Of course. The Office of the President is so prestigious and powerful these days.

Anyway, Obama was quick to clarify his intentions. "The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous," he said in an interview outside his office. "But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on, and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevent us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies."

Hillary obviously didn't have many qualms with Bush-Cheney policies when she authorized the president's initial authorization to go to invade Iraq.

"But that was years ago," you might say. Well, when Clinton can demonstrate that her judgement has improved since that vote, maybe she'll earn some more credibility on the Iraq issue.

In the meantime, it's the same story with the former first lady: Act tough on defense and foreign policy. It's what she thinks the voters want, and so she is willing to play that role. It's what she was doing when she authorized the invasion of Iraq. It's what she is doing now when she criticizes Barack Obama for wanting to use diplomacy instead of sanctions and warheads.

Punjab, Schmumjab! Face the Facts: Clinton's Funding Comes at the Expense of U.S. Workers!

Illinois Senator Barack Obama is taking heat lately for a piece of opposition research released by his campaign last week. The memo, which you can read in full here, criticizes New York Senator Hillary Clinton for her lucrative personal and political ties to India.

Here is the introduction to the memo. I've taken the liberty to add some bold print.

HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA

The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.

Loud-mouths on both the left and the right side of the fence have been lapping up this opportunity to point out a rare "mistake" in Obama's campaign. Supposedly, the inference that Clinton could be the democratic senator from Punjab (a state in India) makes his campaign and, by implication, Obama himself, racist.

Obama, sometimes too quick to apologize, took full responsibility for the memo and any harm that it caused, despite the fact that he hadn't even seen it yet.

But let us point out, for anyone who is paying any attention at all, that Hillary Clinton made the same "Punjab" comment herself!

For your consideration, from a report in the March 17, 2006 Des Moines Register: At a fundraiser at the Maryland home of Dr. Rajwant Singh, Clinton began her address by joking "'I can certainly run for the Senate seat in Punjab and win easily." These comments came after Clinton was introduced by Dr. Singh as the senator not only from New York, but also Punjab.

So, hold on to your keyboards while we follow the logic of Obama's critics:

1. The Obama campaign released a thoroughly researched and startling memo detailing the myriad ways in which the Clinton family is in bed financially with businesses and business people who are directly responsible for U.S. jobs moving to India.


2. The Obama campaign gives the memo a title that plays directly off a joke that Clinton herself made when referring to her support from Indian donors.


3. Obama is a racist.

Hmm...something here doesn't quite fit. Maybe it's the fact that, once again, the media has managed to criticize Obama as a means of drawing attention away from a major campaign issue.

We've seen this sort of empty, distracting criticism before. Let's not let it turn our attention from the fact that Hillary Clinton loves the support of businesses that move American jobs, and in some cases entire industries, overseas.

While these mothers and fathers come home to their families without a paycheck, Clinton is thrilled to cash in on donations from the business people who essentially laid them off.

Guest Commentary: Is Obama a Pixy Stik?

My good friend Adam, a frequent Blog Obama reader, prides himself on being the devil's advocate in just about any situation. In an effort to jump start the comment section of Blog Obama, Adam has submitted this scathing critique of his "beef" with Obama and his campaign.

While Adam's comments do not represent the views of Blog Obama or its moderator, I do think that he addresses a valid concern among many liberal voters. Judge for yourself.

--Chris

In order to commemorate my triumphant return to the comment section of Blog Obama '08, I submit to you the following diatribe, which is at least semi-related to the post to which I am replying.

Obama has officially become a walking, talking, campaigning Pixy Stik: he's all sugar, no substance. I don't know about you, but I like for my candidates to bring some protein to the table, or at least some dietary fiber...but all I've heard from Obama so far is a bunch of tooth-rotting palaver about what sort of POLITICIAN he ISN'T, when all I really want to know is what sort of POLICYMAKER he IS.

Of course, I may be the only person who feels this way...after all, the way that you Obama groupies have been double-fisting the Barack-flavored Kool-Aid would seem to indicate that you all can't get enough of his sweet nothings. And that's just as well, since if Mr. Pixy Stik ever gets caught in the rain without his harmonious, bi-partisan umbrella, all you're going to have left is a puddle of Kool-Aid and the soggy remains of his paper-based exoskeleton.

(For what it's worth, I would still vote for Obama over Clinton, Giuliani and McCain, because "all sugar, no substance" still beats "all turd, no substance." Sad but true.)

The National Guard is Strained, Not Obama

When Senator Barack Obama mistakenly overstated the number of deaths from last weekend's awful tornadoes in Kansas, the usual suspects wasted no time pouncing on him for the error.

"Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed," Obama said, late in his speech. "Turns out that the National Guard in Kansas only had 40 per cent of its equipment and they are having to slow down the recovery process."

In reality, Obama was making an important point about how the Iraq War is needlessly draining National Guard resources that are intended to be used in exactly the sort of situation we see in Kansas. Or New Orleans, for that matter.

Yet to hear mainstream media spin this, the real story here is that Barack Obama made a mistake.

"He overstated by a factor of one thousand the number of deaths from the tornado in Greenberg, Kansas," said one pill-popping conservative radio host. "They're saying he's just tired. He's just tired out there, a little fatigued."

Let us not be distracted. It is a fact that the endless stream of National Guard units sent to Iraq deplete the vital human and material assets that are so essential to saving lives and helping communities struck by natural disasters.

The real story here is that the mainstream media prefers to pick apart candidates for innocent verbal missteps instead of focusing on the truth: Resources spent on Iraq War are sorely missed here at home, and will be even more sorely missed should we suffer another devastating hurricane season.

As for the mistake, Obama understands well that it won't be the last time this happens.

"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

In a presidential field of career politicians who relentlessly polish themselves in their quests for more power, we ought to remember that at least one candidate is a real human being with a sincere and heartfelt desire to take this country in a new direction. Obama should be applauded for his humility. Meanwhile, let's make sure that the next time disaster strikes an American community, the victims have access to every resource they need.

Obama Criticized for Questionable 2005 Stock Purchase

From the New York Times, details of Senator Obama's 2005 stock purchases of companies affected by his proposed legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?ei=5065&en=f0e5d8c4bd9329a9&ex=1173934800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

More details from TheStreet.com...

http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/newsanalysis/investing/10342170.html

Obama Criticized for Distancing Himself From Spiritual Mentor

From The New York Times, coverage of Senator Obama's choice to disinvite his spritutal mentor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. from speaking at his presidential announcement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin