Trapped on Virgin America from NY to LA for some five hours last night, I had the opportunity to do something I might not normally – watch Samantha Power’s interview with the BBC in its entirety. It had already been announced that the Pulitzer Prize winner was resigning her position with the Obama campaign, so I was surprised to see it still playing on the plane’s satellite TV, but there it was. (You can find it here.)
Power came off to me as a young woman quite full of herself and overly impressed with her own closeness to and influence on Obama. But perhaps I was reacting to the news I read elsewhere that the candidate text messages her (or did) in the middle of the night for foreign policy advice. What’s most interesting to me, however, is how Power characterized Obama’s approach to Iraq, which seems conspicuously different from his public statements. Apparently Mr. Obama’s vaunted 16-month withdrawal plan is only a “best-case scenario.” Well, there are plenty of those, as in the Dow will go up 2000 points next week or gas will drop to $1.75 a gallon by Thursday. What Power was clearly admitting, assuming she is correct, is that Obama–that lord of “new politics” and scourge of the “special interests”–has been conning the anti-war throngs. Maybe Rezko isn’t such an aberration.
When confronted with this hypocrisy, Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe pointed to Hillary Clinton as being equally hypocritical on the issue. MSNBC’s First Read wades into this mess as follows:
On Obama’s 16-month Iraq withdrawal plan, Power told BBC that it was a “best-case scenario,” that nothing firm could be decided in March 2008 without seeing the situation on the ground in Jan. 2009 and that “He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he‚Äôs crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator.” When asked about it, Plouffe defended Obama’s plan and deflected by pointing to retired Gen. Jack Keane’s comments on Clinton’s own intentions on withdrawing troops from Iraq.“He did not believe that she will pursue a quick withdrawal,” Plouffe said of Keane, who he said Clinton has developed a “close relationship” with.
Kean told the New York Sun this past weekend: “I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January ’09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made.”
He also said Clinton “generally supported the surge strategy in the sense she wanted it to succeed but she was skeptical about its chances.”
As far as I can recall, we have had not one single moment of honesty from either Clinton or Obama on this issue – the most important of our times – throughout these entire months of debates. What pathetic phonies.
Honesty? So now you expect honesty? :O)
“As far as I can recall, we have had not one single moment of honesty from either Clinton or Obama on this issue”
This is because no Democratic Party presidential candidate has any chance of winning the nomination without placating the far-left. These people are unforgiving on this issue. They are self-hating Americans and dishonest pacifists. A candidate is forced to embrace an extreme position—and therefore is unlikely to win the general election. Never forget that Bill Clinton was the last Democratic Party president since 1976. He was very fortunate that the Cold War had ended, and he could campaign almost solely on “It’s the economy, Stupid!” The year is 2008 and that luxury is no longer an option.
Don’t you think “on this issue” to be excessively charitable?
It is of course true that neither Clinton nor Obama can win the primary without placating the peaceniks — even if they do not want to.
It is partly their own fault, and the fault of their colleagues. If every hawkish or mildly hawkish Democrat stuck to his or her guns, the peacenik wing of the party would likely be a lot smaller.
They should have claimed credit for the surge, blamed Bush for taking too long to implement it, and neutralized John McCain. But they didn’t because they don’t get it.
Both Clinton and Obama are politicians .. which means they are both liars and cheats .. when they aren’t kissing babies, they are trying to steal their lollipops.
Now hang on a minute, Neo — isn’t that a line straight out of the movie version of “The Hunt for Red October”?
Not that I disagree with you…..
“Don’t you think “on this issue” to be excessively charitable?”
I am trying to be nice like a little teddy bear. Best for me to stay focused on this single issue.
“If every hawkish or mildly hawkish Democrat stuck to his or her guns”
These people have mostly been excommunicated from the Democratic Party. They have virtually zilch influence within establishment circles. Their next convention will be held in a telephone booth. The last time I checked Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman have been dead for decades. Joe Lieberman is also now registered as an independent.
Looking for honesty from a Clinton? Ask Slick if he’d sleep with Samantha?
I have noticed however, that Obama has contradicted Power and promised a speedy surrender.
The truth is one thing, politics is another.
It should be self evident that events and realities on the ground will dictate policy, but since this is the primaries we have to go through all this silliness.
I have to admit that Obama is looking a little less messianic now, and that is a good thing.
I like the tax-return kerf — how Hillary in her senate run lambasted Lazio unmercifully to open up his returns ‘in time for the voters to vet them’, but now, when Obama asks for HER returns, he’s “Ken Starr”.
Puke, vomit, retch.
My sources on the ground tell me that Bush has called both Hillary and Obama separately and talked reality in Iraq. As a result of these conversations both of them are back-peddling a bit. Evidently Bush has gotten through to them and what you’re hearing is a result of that….that’s what I hear, at least.
Michael (and David) you have explained exactly why I have changed my registration to Republican after 35 years as a Democrat. I still don’t consider myself much of a right-winger, but it is simply beyond the pale for what I call the Michael Moore wing of the party to be anywhere near the levers of power in this country. It is not only wrong, it is dangerous. What is sad is that I think most of the Dem party leadership isn’t really that far left, but they feel they must placate the “peaceniks” because they are a loud and active voice in the party.
Gary — you have to wonder if the human race would’ve survived to today if say five or ten thousand years ago tribes had inexplicably–possible after a few too many “fat” years–begun electing the most ignorant, hysterical, and mean chieftains they could possibly find to lead the culture, the defense, the hunt, the migration, the planting and harvesting and so forth.
I miss Sam Nunn.
…and Zell Miller
Buddy…”you have to wonder if the human race would’ve survived to today if say five or ten thousand years ago tribes had inexplicably–possible after a few too many “fat” years–begun electing the most ignorant, hysterical, and mean chieftains they could possibly find”…
Some probably did, and those tribes & their descendents are no longer with us. The problem now is that the scale of societies has grown so much greater that a bad leader can do far more damage.
Also, the bad-leader problem in tribal societies is mitigated by the fact that tribal societies tend to be very tradition-driven. Whatever policies worked in the past will probably continue working unless there is major change in the environment.
Unfortunately, even if the Democratic candidates are just “playing to the base,” their rhetoric alone, especially in the absurdly long presidential campaigns we have now, does tremendous damage to our war effort.
The jihadists have a non-stop cheering section to keep their spirits up no matter what the actual facts are on the ground.
The Dems complain about all the talk of a “long war,” or about McCain’s supposed “plans” to fight for a hundred years in Iraq, but if they would just tone down their remarks to honest disagreements about tactics or even strategy, we could be done a lot sooner.
Jamie Irons
Unspoken conventional wisdom: “America doesn’t really need wise leadership — we can indulge our whims — because our resources are so vast & deep that no matter what happens, we can, as we always have in the past, catch back up, repair any damage, and emerge stronger than ever”.
Photon (italics mine): “Whatever policies worked in the past will probably continue working unless there is major change in the environment.”
Such as, despite our tremedous post-WWII growth, having “fallen” — due to even greater growth (which as humanitarians we want) in the formerly-depressed rest of the world — by half, from 2/3 to 1/3 — of global GDP.
No, afraid we’re running out of relative surge capacity on all fronts — no more lousy, that is to say, 70′s and 90s style, presidents, please!