Obama '08?

Some have even visited the US, and said they wished they could live here.

Dag, I don't like liars.

Adam Smith and the Village's Amusement at War
(updated below)

As Greg Sargent notes, Barack Obama delivered a speech yesterday which echoed many of the most common critiques made by bloggers of the political establishment. In particular, Obama empashized that the fault for the Iraq War does not lie -- certainly not exclusively -- with George Bush and Dick Cheney, but rather with the Washington establishment as a whole. And particularly as the war has dragged on with no end in sight, the culpability of the Beltway Establishment generally has grown and become much more dispersed:

There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes -- it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought. . . .

[T]he American people weren't just failed by a President -- they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. By a foreign policy elite that largely boarded the bandwagon for war. And most of all by the majority of a Congress -- a coequal branch of government -- that voted to give the President the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day.

Obama proceeded to identify virtually every other Beltway branch that bears responsibility for what has become of our country: "conventional thinking in Washington" -- "Some leading Democrats" - "the most experienced voices in Washington [who counseled] that the only way for Democrats to look tough was to talk, act and vote like a Republican" - "much of Washington."

This speech simultaneously highlights both the promise of Obama's candidacy -- he is the only viable candidate both willing and able to make this critique convincingly -- and also its disappointment thus far, due to what Michael Crowley, in a quite good article in The New Republic, describes as "the disappointingly conventional Obama campaign."

October 3, 2007, 6:27 pm
Obama Talks About Growing Up Without His Father
By Jeff Zeleny

WASHINGTON, Iowa - By now, the stump speeches delivered by presidential candidates have become routine, at least to many of the politically inclined voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. So the most interesting moments at campaign appearances often are inspired from those seated in the audience.

Near the end of a stop here today, Senator Barack Obama was asked this question from a man seated in the crowd at the Washington County fairgrounds: "What would you say is the most painful and character-building experience of your life that puts you in a position to make important decisions of life and death and the well being of our country?"
For a moment or two, Mr. Obama paused. It was far different from the string of questions posed on policies and issues. Finally, he said: "It's a terrific question."

And here, in its entirety, is his answer:

"I would say the fact that I grew up without a father in the home. What that meant was that I had to learn very early on to figure out what was important and what wasn't, and exercise my own judgment and in some ways to raise myself.

My mother was wonderful and was a foundation of love for me, but as a young man growing up, I didn't have a lot of role models and I made a lot of mistakes, but I learned to figure out that there are certain values that were important to me that I had to be true to.

Nobody was going to force me to be honest. Nobody was going to force me to work hard. Nobody was going to force me to have drive and ambition. Nobody was going to force me to have empathy for other people. But if I really thought those values were important, I had to live them out.

That's why it's so important for me now, both as a United States senator and as a president candidate, but also as a father and a husband to wake up every morning and ask myself, am I living up to those values that I say are important? Because if I'm not, then I shouldn't be president."

I like this very much...

Quote:

Adam Smith and the Village's Amusement at War
(updated below)

etc.


That was useful for me to see. Thanks.

CHANGE....Andrew Sullivan on Barack Obama:

He is very, very careful not to get too angry as a black candidate. Perhaps too careful for his core message: real change. What he needs to do is find a way to explain how serious he is about change while explaining that he alone can overcome the boomer polarization that has prevented it.

I hear this a lot, but I wonder if it misreads the American mood at the moment. Sure, the public is ready for "real change," but what kind of change? There are several obvious possibilities:

• A change from George Bush. Yes, definitely. But all three of the major Democratic candidates offer this.
  
  
• A change from movement conservatism. Ditto.
  
  
• A change from the the bitter polarization of recent years
• Change from the "I'm on a mission from God" style of leadership. George Bush figured he could change the world by ruling from his gut. The result has been six years of ceaseless tension and drama, from Terry Schiavo to Iraq to Social Security to Katrina. In this sense, I suspect the American public wants less change. They'd like to see someone who can simply govern competently, someone who actually takes policy seriously, and someone who can restore an American consensus on foreign policy overseas. From this perspective, Hillary Clinton is the agent of change, not Obama.

The strengths and weaknesses of the three major Democratic candidates bubble just slightly below the surface, I think. All three are electable, for example, but which one is most likely to help with downballot races? (My guess: Obama.) All three have similar healthcare plans, but which one is most likely to get something decent passed into law? (My guess: Hillary.) All three kinda sorta want to get us out of Iraq, but which one is most likely to do it? (My guess: Edwards.) Take your pick.

In a televised interview with columnist Al Hunt, Bill echoed Hillary Clinton's claim that Obama is too "inexperienced" for the Oval Office. He said:

"I was, in terms of experience, was closer to Senator Obama, I suppose, in 1988 when I came within a day of announcing... I really didn't think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to run."

When Clinton did run for president, in 1992, he was the same age as Obama is today.

[..] the so-far neutral Robert Reich (one of the few cabinet-level veterans of the Clinton White House that is still widely beloved and trusted among Democrats) [..] jumped up from the sidelines and kicked in an extra point for Obama.

Reich said: "While I can understand Bill Clinton's eagerness to undermine his wife's most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win."

Bill Clinton's attempted put-down offered Obama a clean shot at the rival camp through its surrogate [..].

In an act of political jiu-jitsu, Obama turned Clinton's words about experience from 1992 into a Wayback Machine endorsement of his own 2008 quest. In a 1992 debate with George H. W. Bush, Clinton had said: "The same old experience is not relevant... you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience."

"He's exactly right," smiled Obama.

Score!