According to the NYT, Obama has a brain trust of 300 (!) foreign policy advisers. Talk about dizzying. It’s a little hard to sift through five opinions let along 300. But so it goes. The man clearly wants to burnish his foreign policy bona fides. But it’s reassuring, at least in part. If you page through the list, you find many familiar names who have worked in the field for years for various administrations. [Who hasn't Dennis Ross worked for?-ed.]
Still, you have to look at this list as a giant application form for job-seeking foreign policy journeymen. A few weeks back when it looked as if Obama was a slam-dunk for the presidency, they were probably signing up in droves. Now, with the election tightening, perhaps some of them will consider signing up with McCain. Of course, then they might have to deal with someone who already has his own opinions about the subject. Obama seems like a tabula rasa.
Oh, there you go, playing the rasa card.
…Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Scott
Barack “Barry” Obama has enough problem with the increasing numbers of Americans who want to drill for oil in the “pristine” areas of the country. Also, there is something else that may severely damage the Obama campaign: there is serious speculation that it throws money around like a drunken sailor! Obama’s people seem to be making fools of themselves.
“Obama seems like a tabula rasa.”
Seems. What a weasel word. Can you make an actual argument about Obama’s foreign policy views without relying upon speculation? He supported, and continues to support, the war in Afghanistan. To me, Afghanistan should’ve been the starting point for this war, but Iraq was something good people could disagree about. You had people like Michael Ledeen (Roger’s buddy) arguing that we had to invade Iraq to reestablish ourselves in the world. Okay, that’s one view. But I also think one should be able to oppose the intervention (though I didn’t) without being called soft or naive.
If anything, that Obama has 300 foreign policy advisors shows me he is not an ideologue on foreign policy; alas, neither is McCain, for his advisors range from Kristol and Lieberman to Scowcroft and Powell.
In his blind backing of Republican candidates since at least 2004, however, it is Roger who has revealed himself to be an ideologue.
Jay:
And your blind backing of BHO is?
Jay,
Michael Leeden did not support the invasion of Iraq. He was against it. You can look it up.
Charlie,
As a Yankee, there are certain Republicans I support, and have supported (Bloomberg when he was an R, Bill Weld, Weicker when he was an R, Chris Shays before he lost his cool in the ’06 election.). If the GOP actually made room for people like this on the national stage, I’d give the Party a second look. I don’t blindly support Obama, but I don’t recognize the John McCain of today, and I wish Roger would be fairer in his coverage, living up to the standards he pined for in the Lieberman-Lamont race.
Obama is the one.
Jay is so certain of it he is willing to sacrifice himself to save him.
Seems. What a weasel word. Can you make an actual argument about Obama’s foreign policy views without relying upon speculation?
Beats me. I haven’t a clue what Obama really thinks and I’m not sure Obama does either. It’s even not clear to me that he has really thought much about anything. He sure doesn’t seem to know much.
In your blind hatred of anyone who continues to support the war in Iraq, you, Jay, reveal yourself to be the ideologue.
Poor Obama. All that negative coverage has just been overwhelming.
In all fairness, I’m sure has his own opinions – I just don’t agree with them. So-called “soft power” has its place, but not against this enemy.
And Jay: Afghanistan *was* the “starting point for this war.” We just won in Iraq sooner. No matter who is elected, I hope we can all agree that we will support the new administration’s effort to win in Afghanistan as well.
Just as an aside, it has become tiresome – since the surge turned the tide, particularly – to hear people talk about the fight in Afghanistan as a hopeless case that is somehow irreparably hampered by the “distraction” of Iraq. Tactics are evolving and new offensives are forthcoming, our soldiers are the best on earth and WILL prevail, regardless of the chattering class who always think they know so much better. History is now being written…by us. That some don’t like it means exactly squat. Victory is what matters; And it is victory we shall have.
McCain ran for president in 2000, and has been a senator for over 20 years.
While Obama never ran for president (until now) and has only been a senator for less than 6 years.
So when I goggle McCain I get 74,900,000.
But when I goggle Obama I get 154,000,000.
For every smear of McCain “the republican attack machine” has over 2 smears of Obama.
Jay has every reason in the world to be upset. It seems like everywhere he looks Obama is getting smeared
Obama seems like a tabula rasa.
If that be the case, what do you call McCain, who has flip-flopped on dozens of major issues?
300?
“This is madness!”
“THIS IS OBAMA!!!”
Seriously – how is that helpful? Does he have his pollster gather information and give him percentages? How many of them are more than a few degrees off of each other? Are any of them strict contrarians from liberal foreign policy orthodoxy, so he can get non-stawman arguments from the other side?
By the way, Roger isn’t exactly alone in wondering why the tabula is quite so rasa…
Jim Geraghty:
http://tinyurl.com/5ccotw
…and what the implications might be…
Charles Krauthammer:
http://tinyurl.com/5u78jd
Some good points, to be sure.
Scott
If Obama needs 300 advisors in a particular subject area, isn’t that proof that he doesn’t know squat about that subject?
Perhaps he can call them The 300. Then, some of us might begin to take a second look at his policies toward Persia. (As long as I don’t have to see Dennis Ross in a toga!)
Geez Tess, if McCain didn’t change any of his positions over the course of his 71 years, he’d be a reactionary fool. No one expects or even wants their leaders remain rigidly fixed no matter what. But they do expect and need a leader who has a core. Obama does not, or if he does, we don’t yet have any evidence of what it is. He hasn’t been around long enough for voters to know, and what little time he has been around has not been reassuring. Bill Clinton was young when he was elected, but he had a record to be judged on. Obama does not.
tess, I can only speak for myself, and as somebody who will probably vote for McCain, he’s far from my ideal candidate in a number of ways. McCain/Feingold is an abomination, his immigration stances have been daft, and I’ve taken a certain amount of pleasure as the Maverick’s MSM buds have stabbed him in the back after being so nice to him when he was such a congenial quote machine and lovable underdog. But my perfect candidate doesn’t exist, at least not in this race. So I have to figure out how he nets out in what’s important to me, flip-flops and all. As I imagine most people do.
How can 300 people possibly “advise” the candidate. Imagine the amount of face time each gets in a meeting with the Anointed One. Who(m)is he kidding?
Jay, Roger supports Lieberman. Too bad there is no rooom for him in the Democrat party even though he is in accord on every issue except one.
Only 300? There are still 60 angles to cover.
Amusingly in the NYT article is that maximum wind-tunnel Richard Holbrooke has been shunted off to a non-team-leader status who isn’t part of the “senior working group”. This must be a particularly galling piece of humble pie to somebody who performed the highly improbable feat in 2004 of making the Winter soldier appear to be not the biggest stuffed shirt on the bus. This is what happens when you stitch your fate onto a pantsuit.