The Obama World Tour

Obama said he was puzzled by the criticism by some of his trip abroad as "audacious" or somehow inappropriate, arguing as he did in a press conference yesterday that McCain had also traveled to these countries -- as well as to Mexico, Canada, and Colombia after winning his party's nomination.

"Nobody suggested that that was 'audacious.' I think people assumed that what he was doing was talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That's part of the job that I'm applying for," he said. "Now, I admit we did it really well. But that shouldn't be a strike against me. You know, if I was bumbling and fumbling through this thing, I would have been criticized for that."

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

rabel22 wrote:

But until they have debates how do you know Obama will best Mc Cain. He sure didn't blow Hillary away. As a matter of fact at times he didn't look good at all. I would like to see him think on his feet more and not give scripted speeches so much. Reagan was a great speech reader but not so much of a president.

of course it's all speculation... which does make one wonder why Obama won't do it.... at first glance he certainly seems head and shoulders above McCain in the speaking department... but great speech doesn't necessarily contain great content.

My take is that he learned his lesson in the primary. There is no value to 10 debates. You run out of questions after three and start asking about what jewelry the candidates wear. He's got three debates scheduled. Why do you need more than that?

Is that the politics of change or the same old same old?

I don't think Obama need abandon sound political strategy to effect change. Quite the contrary, really; because he has to win to effect anything.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Is that the politics of change or the same old same old?

I don't think Obama need abandon sound political strategy to effect change. Quite the contrary, really; because he has to win to effect anything.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Is that the politics of change or the same old same old?

I don't think Obama need abandon sound political strategy to effect change. Quite the contrary, really; because he has to win to effect anything.

so in order to effect the politics of change he has to follow the standard play book?

Let me paraphrase.... insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Obama seems to be involved in all sorts of high level meetings. He may be more centrist than his original cheerleaders thought?

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2008_7_28.html#D689C831

I personally, and I'm just a bear.... would debate or face off with anyone anytime anywhere if I was completely confident in my positions and views and not concern myself with anything else.

The fact that one must play the game in order to get in and change the game speaks volumes IMO.... and has been going on for years and years.

Let me paraphrase.... insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result but....... hope springs eternal does it not?

It's really scary out there, and I'm not talking about terrorists; its' our economy.

But many analysts believe that if Obama completes his march to the Oval Office, this backing will dissipate the first time he presses Europe to send more troops to Afghanistan or to support an aggressive U.S. military stance at odds with Europe's strong preference for diplomacy over cruise missiles.

They also believe that complex long-standing disputes over issues like trade tariffs and the use of genetically modified food would not be solved more easily just because of the new president's evident popularity in Europe.

Germano Dottori, an analyst at Rome's Center for Strategic Studies, said the enthusiasm for Obama is likely to "cool down at the first real test" because he does not reflect a fundamental policy change.

Everyone is ready to clap their hands when Obama talks about 'tearing down the walls,' but when he asks Europe to pay the price for it I am sure the doubts will resurface," Dottori said. "Obama is not calling for a demilitarization of U.S. foreign policy and when European audiences realize this, their enthusiasm will fade away."

This dynamic can already be seen in Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel, through her spokesman, showered Obama with praise for his stated desire to work with Europe, but pointed out that Germany cannot accede to his desire to place more troops in Afghanistan for the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Inderjeet Parma, head of the politics department at the University of Manchester in England, said he read every Obama speech since 2002 before concluding that Obama would not represent a basic change in U.S. policy. This would inevitably lead to a serious loss of popularity in Europe, he said.

"Obama hasn't said too much of great substance yet, he's made a lot of friendly overtures, but he'll be asking for commitments and burden sharing, and that's when other countries might find it hard to go along," Parma said.

Political analysts also believe that Obama's trade policies, as spelled out during the primary campaign, are more protectionist than McCain's and more likely to lead to a confrontation with Europe.