Candidates' strengths and weaknesses

Obama smart, not pompous

Barack Obama is best qualified to lead America back to a strong and prosperous middle class and the respect of our allies.

Obama had a humble start but has managed to acquire a superior education and has demonstrated the ability to “bring people together.” He passed up a high-paying Wall Street job to help people in poor neighborhoods in Chicago. He has since earned a significant amount from his books.

He graduated with honors from Columbia University and went on to graduate summa cum laude from Harvard Law School. He was the first African-American to be elected president of the Harvard Law Review. He taught U.S. constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. He qualifies as smart.

As to Dorothy Parker’s charge that Obama is “pompous” (7/20, Voices): Dictionary.com’s definition, “characterized by an ostentatious display of dignity or importance,” doesn’t fit Obama. He is running for the important job as president of the United States and must convey his positions on issues to the voting public.

Obama’s messages to the American people are insightful, well reasoned and articulate, not pompous.

Jerry Nowak
Lee’s Summit

We need help here, Obama

Barack Obama is very busy jaunting around the world to see what he can do if elected. I think that it would be far more important if he did his jaunting around the United States to see what can be done about the raise in the cost of living or murder, robbery, sexual abuse and poverty.

I realize that other countries have problems, but shouldn’t the United States come first?

Does he really want to lead this country, or does he just want to be popular?

Linda Gurin
Leawood

McCain’s stance on war

As someone who served in Vietnam (1969-1970), I have been looking forward to the day when a veteran of that conflict would take the oath of office as president of the United States. I’ve hoped such a person would be keenly aware of the ignorance, dishonesty, greed and personal insecurities that led to our involvement in that quagmire, and would do everything within his power to avoid similar missteps.

I respect John McCain’s military service and admire some of his political stances over the years. But his statements indicate he is determined to repeat many of the same mistakes in the Middle East today.

To gain a better understanding of events yesterday, today and likely tomorrow, I recommend reading Stanley Karnow’s Vietnam: A History. Many passages could be directly applied to the policies and actions leading up to our present-day conflicts in the world.

It’s a very old and trite adage that we must learn from history, but it’s true.

Jerry L. Hall
Holt, Mo.

Comments

[Kate]

From MSNBC’s First Read (Jim, if this is not an Official Collective-Approved Source, please avert your eyes):

“According to Pentagon officials, the problem was that Obama's request to visit Landstuhl included two members of his campaign staff -- retired Major General Jonathan S. Gration and Jeff Kiernan. US military officials in Germany informed the campaign the two political operatives would not be permitted on base.

"Pentagon officials say Gration was the campaign's point of contact at Landstuhl in arranging Obama's visit and "got torqued" when he was told he would not be permitted to join Obama. It was Gration who later suggested to reporters that the Pentagon short-circuited Obama's visit. . . . It's also been my experience that even retired generals do not want to hear the word "no."

“Whatever the reason, Obama and the troops he would have visited have both missed a unique and historic opportunity. According to one Army lieutenant colonel, "Everyone was excited about Obama's visit. It's a shame."

So the General got his shorts in a bunch, and Obama chose to blow off a trip to visit the wounded troops rather than offend the General’s ego.

[Kate]

“Very cute. Is cute all you have? How about some facts from time to time?”

According to my husband, it’s impossible for me to be anything other than cute. :) You didn’t like the source for the information I provided, so you dismissed the facts presented in the column. Hardly seems worth the effort of posting anything else since you pick and choose what you will even consider rather than countering the assertions.

“Do you have any real reporting from a reputable source to back up your claims?”

Again, have you read Kilcullen? Have you read Yon’s book? What milblogs are allowed? It might be helpful if to have the list of resources the Collective has determined to be reputable, and allows you to read . . . although this type of thinking has resulted in Wikipedia being pretty much the only source allowable on this blog.

[whispering_to_kc]

Obama also dumped his first wife to take a rich trophy wife in her place. What a brute and cad he is.

No. That was McCain, wasn't it. I'm sorry.

Obama is a bad tempered, pompous elitist, jetting all around the world that way. Nothing changes since his nickname in high school was Obama McNasty.

No. That was John McNasty in high school. I'm sorry.

The media is firmly in Obama's corner. As when he gives a bad interview and he gets confused, the mainstream media edits the tape so Obama doesn't look foolish.

No. I'm sorry, that was John McCain.

And don't get me started on all the religious loons who are in the Obama camp, like Hagee and Dobson.

Uh, I'm sorry again. That's also McCain.

I'll have to get back to you.

[Jim]

That's right, he couldn't visit as a candidate and he didn't. McCain made the same determination in April based on the same pentagon policy. The problem comes from him attacking Obamafor making the same choice he himself made. If Obama and his campaig staff had heard the warning and still gone, then that would be a legitimate thing to attack him for.

Kate never answered my point that the surge did not lead to the Anbar Awakening because the surge wasn't even started until January 2007, and wasn't at full strength until around June of that year. MacFarland's deal with that Sunni sheik was in August of 2006. Mccain's claim is simply untrue. I don't know who told him to dig in on this, but they should be fired. Even Karl Rove said he was wrong about the timeline, and he's a supposed "genius".

[Marctnts]

"Turns out that the Pentagon told them not to do it, as it was a violation of their policy."

Let's get this one right. The pentegon didn't tell him not to come, they told him to visit as a senator, not as a candidate. This included such things as brief meetings with wounded from Illinois, but not stump speeches or exagerated talks with all of the wounded. According to Obama, the conflict of interest bothered him and he chose to skip the visit rather than run afoul of rules about campaigning from military bases. It was then that the McCain camp decided to release their bogus "it's never inappropriate..." line. See, your candidate looks fine when the whole story is told, there's no need to shy away from it.

I noticed that you didn't answer Kate's point that her referenced article was written over a year ago and long before it would benefit McCain. Any comments?

[Jim]

And yet another GOP attack line crashes down under the weight of hypocrisy.

They've been feeding us the line that Obama's cancelled trip to visit an Army base in Germany was somehow indicative of a lack of support for the troops. Turns out that the Pentagon told them not to do it, as it was a violation of their policy.. They cancelled, and McCain's campaign said, "It's never inappropriate" to make campaign visits on military installations.

But McCain did exactly the same thing in sensitivity to the same rules back in April:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/mccain.pentagon/index.html

When McCain observes the rules, it's honorable. When Obama does the same, it just shows his contempt for the troops. How very classy your nominee is.

[Jim]

Very cute. Is cute all you have? It seems to be the only thing you can give us here. How about some facts from time to time?

[Kate]

Jim, so you’re saying that the author made up the information in the article a year ago in order to help McCain now? Brilliant!

Try reading the Kilcullen article from SWJ. Or is Kilcullen biased for McCain as well?

[Jim]

Kate,

That's a valiant try, but posting something from an incredibly biased rightwing rag doesn't mean you've been right all along. I don't post reports from The Nation to back up my points, because your head would explode. After all, you guys scream bloody murder at unedited audio and transcripts with full context, conveniently skipping the fact that those transcripts disprove your points. Do you have any real reporting from a reputable source to back up your claims?

McCain is not only wrong about the timeline of things or what led to what, but he's trying to take credit for the Anbar Awakening as well. He's been talking over and over again about his meeting with then-Col. MacFarland, subtly implying that he was involved in forming the strategy. But that strategy seems to run counter to everything McCain has stood for in this war.

MacFarland's strategy (talking to enemies, making concessions to bad guys and getting them out of the terrorism business, etc.) flies in the face of everything McCain has said we need to do in Iraq, at least from what I've seen.

Here's a June 2006 speech by McCain on what needed to be done in Iraq at the time, and there's nothing like that anywhere in it:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=2070e9af-18e2-4e27-addb-987c53f09438&Region_id=&Issue_id=

[Kate]

Jim, here’s part of an interesting article from Sept. 2007:

“The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar’s capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the “awakening” began to accelerate very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. Before the surge, Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq; now it is possible for Americans to walk through its market with limited security details and without body armor. David Kilcullen describes the relationship between the surge and the movement very well in his Small Wars Journal posting. . . The fact is that neither the surge nor the turn of the tribal leaders would in itself have been enough to turn Anbar around — both were necessary, and will remain so for some time. . . . Progress in Anbar and throughout the Sunni community has depended heavily on a skillful balance between military force and political efforts at the local level. Neither alone would have been successful, as commanders on the ground readily attest.” http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MGM2YWI4ODI0MDA1ZjczOTFjNDNkMGQzMzM0MGQ4Mjg=

“Furthermore, the surge focused on Baghdad, no Ramadi.” In the interest of harmony, we’ll cut you a little slack and assume you did not mean to diminish the efforts of the 4,000 Marines who had the tough job of clearing Anbar while the Army focused on Baghdad.

[Jim]

Eng,

McCain supported the Iraq War from the start. He calls for a decades-long neo-imperial occupation of Iraq, against the will of both the people and the political leadership of that country. In this he was and is totally wrong and demonstrates his incompetence.

"How else can these statements be understood but as a call for completely open borders?"

This is another example of desperately grasping for straws. And this particular straw is wayyyyyy out there.

[Engineer]

Jim
Obama opposed the surge. In this he was totally wrong and demonstrated his incompetence. One of the letters says "Barrack Obama is best qualified to lead America back to a strong and prosperous middle class". But on what is this based? In his Berlin speech he said "we must tear down the walls between rich and poor countries". He also made a remark about "being afraid of people who don’t look like you". How else can these statements be understood but as a call for completely open borders? If we have a great new influx of unskilled people under this policy it will put even more pressure on the semi-skilled middle class. It will tend to depress the earnings of that class and make its life more difficult rather than make it "strong and prosperous".

[Jim]

This constant shifting on behalf of McCain and his apologists is lame.

McCain said the surge cleared the way for McFarland's Anbar Awakening, which is completely backward. The Awakening happened months before the surge was even proposed, and almost a year before the surge was in full effect. Furthermore, the surge focused on Baghdad, no Ramadi. And the Sunni Sheik that McCain said the surge protected was assassinated right around the time the surge came to full strength.

Clearly caught getting it wrong, now we get from McCain this muddled "the surge is everything" response. It's the Anbar Awakening, it's the troop increase, it's a floor wax and a dessert topping. But that's not what McCain has been saying consistently since the surge began. Now suddenly the given definition of the surge that even its biggest supporters have used this whole time is wrong and McCain's new definition is right.

McCain doesn't even want to acknowledge the hard work and sacrifice of our troops in Afghanistan. He says the first military conflict since 9/11 is Iraq. Why is it so hard for McCain to give our troops the credit for their sacrifice and success?

[Kate]

The Chosen One appeared at a press conference today in Paris with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and didn’t attempt their language, not even a to say “Merci beaucoup!” It’s so embarrassing when Americans travel to Europe and expect them to speak our language.

---

Marctnts, you beat me to posting that link!

[Kate]

jack, do you think the Awakening would have succeeded without COIN and the additional troops? Do you think Obama was right when he opposed the surge, predicting further chaos from the addition of more American troops, and when he proposed that we abandon Iraq in order to drive political reconciliation?

[renfro]

John Mccaines public image seems uncomfortable and forced but he still retains a degree of trust and whether blunt or inept his beliefs and shortcomings are somewhat apparent.
Obama excels with prepared and public oratory with little record of his beliefs now or how they will morph or eventually define his character or direction –- He pauses, occasionally stammers and appears unsure of himself in a less formal environment. The presidential race may well be decided in face to face debates where such traits and the ability to lead are exposed --- I believe McCains bluntness and experience to be an advantage.
To the ersatz academics and their easily influenced liberal proteges however that may fail to register or save the day!

[Marctnts]

No matter your political leanings, this is funny.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece

[Rogue]

Not to worry when Osama Yomama becomes "Commander of Chief", "Israel will always be a friend of Israel"

[jack]

At least McCain has announced no current plan to invade Chezchoslovakia.

[jack]

Here's a link to the story. And, for those of you who believe all information from the "wrong source" should be discounted, please note:

In an effort to cover their butt, CBS has now posted the entire interview online. Try cbs.com.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/video-of-the-mc.html

[Jim]

McCain's constant whining is fast becoming seriously irritating to people. The press is "his base," remember. They're covering up for his constant foreign policy blunders, which show his incredible lack of depth on the issues. When he went on his trips abroad earlier this year, he didn't bother to invite a the press. Now he's whining because Obama did think to do so.

Meanwhile he's desperately flailing around, saying Obama favors genocide, accusing Obama of sedition, and simply making stuff up about the "surge." And the press is covering for him.

[jack]

CBS ran an interview with McCain the other night. Couric asked McCain about Obama's statement that the Anabr Awakening" might have happened even without the surge. McCain's rambling answer included a statement that the awakening started only AFTER the surge began. "That is a matter of history."

The US military had briefed the press on the Anbar Awakening" in September of 2006. Several months before the surge was even announced.

CBS handled this by editting out McCain's actual answer and editing in his answer to an entire other question. FOX NEWS would have been so proud.

Damned liberal media going out of their way to fake something to make McCain look better.

[Sammy]

Listening to Obama speak reminds me of the lyrics to the Blues Traveler song, Hook.

"It doesnt matter what I say
So long as I sing with inflection
That makes you feel that Ill convey
Some inner truth of vast reflection
But Ive said nothing so far
And I can keep it up for as long as it takes
And it dont matter who you are
If Im doing my job then its your resolve that breaks

There is something amiss
I am being insincere
In fact I dont mean any of this
Still my confession draws you near
To confuse the issue I refer
To familiar heroes from long ago
No matter how much peter loved her
What made the pan refuse to grow"

Obama's got the hook.

[Rogue]

http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/stickers/design/26356876

[Dewey]

I'm looking for the "None of the Above" place to vote.