Bring It On, George

If David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign chief, has been dreaming about how he can tie McCain to the Bush Legacy, he couldn’t have imagined a more perfect set-up that Bush’s ridiculous comments in Israel yesterday. Here is Barack this morning tieing the two Republicans in a perfect knot. Let’s hope Bush keeps inserting himself into the campaign.

It also served the purpose of emphasizing that the general election campaign between Obama and McCain has begun. I haven’t heard the name “Hillary Clinton” mentioned once in the last 24 hours.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Bring It On, George

  1. Hugo says:

    I don’t doubt that the President’s remarks encompassed Obama’s Rodney King Foreign Policy, but come on, the issue is bigger and older than Obama’s program and it’s an especially salient issue for Israelis. Obama acted as though it were all about the O—like a broadcast newspuff protesting that he’d just been bigfooted by the old hand. This sort of pipsqeak behavior is exactly what brought the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it scares me worse than my ex-wife does.

    The President has been defending his offense-forward foreign policy against the Rodneys since early 2002. It would be a simple matter for a news organization to count and then illustrate the many similar presidential remarks delivered by W before anyone outside Chicago cared much about Barack Obama; but such a project presupposes the continued existence of an American press.

    I don’t think the remarks were intended to bait Sen. Obama, but were they so intended, the gambit worked spectacularly to demonstrate that Candidate Obama is a babe in the woods on foreign policy. And just how many times do his handlers think voters will put up with that young man’s demonstrations of [self-]righteous indignation?

  2. Rick Turner says:

    And how much longer will we have to put up with Mission Accomplished cowboy antics? Are you trying to say that McBush has been a brilliant example of foreign policy leadership?

  3. I find it a little disheartening to see Obama waffle on the Hamas “appeasement” issue. From what I understand, he spoke in the past about dealing directly with Hamas. In this speech he plays down the issue, stating he has never said he would negotiate with “terrorist organizations.” The simple fact is that WE designated Hamas as a terrorist organization but the Palestinian people have recognized the party as leaders in a democratic election. All, in all, I can’t say that I can blame Obama for subtly altering his stance. Jimmy Carter has been pilloried in the press for meeting with Hamas representives. But the fact remains that it is not (or at least should not be) shameful to discuss peace with Hamas. This hard line will be the ruin of Mideast peace.

  4. Hugo says:

    Hi Rick. No, I’m trying to say that Barack Obama is a prima donna too silly to resist running against a lame duck. He shouldn’t mess with Texas. Instead he ought to tell his changelings what it is that they’re changing into under his stewardship.

  5. Morgan Warstler says:

    Jonathon, Obama’s not the guy you think he is… much more moderate in ME.

    I personally think the only thing Obama has to do win – is BIG STICK some poor bastard – point at someone in the ME and promise to beat the shit out of them. He keeps saying Pakistan, I don’t know if that cuts it, maybe the baddest baddie still alive in Afghan-land.

    Of course, I also personally think, we’re going to draw down on Iraq in the style and fashion of McCain’s “terms” between now and November, maybe once in August and again in October.

    As such, it wouldn’t be weird at all, if the election topic had become some other damn thing entirely.

  6. Jon Taplin says:

    Hugo- I think you are totally wrong on this one. I know Samantha Power well enough to say that Barack is very sophisticated about the Mid East.

    Unlike John McCain, who still doesn’t understand the difference between Sunnis and Shia. I think your snide “Can’t we all get along” reference is misplaced and actually Morgan is closer to the mark. Obama might take on Al Queada in the Western Territories of Pakistan.

  7. Hugo says:

    Now McCain’s a different story, at least as disturbing. As for Obama, he’s unmistakably feeling his way into foreign policy. Not the time to be seen doing that.

    In Atlanta we now cross the street when we see Mr. Carter coming. A GOP that would nominate John McCain is a party that’s lost its bearings. But at the same time the Democrats are positively insane to embrace this feel-good approach to foreign policy on account of a big bloc of callow spoilings who mistake their distaste for war for something noble or coherent.

    As for Hamas, my God, Palestine has no idea how to organize itself except through hatred and violence. How many times do you have to let the snake get the last laugh before you stop picking it up?

    Thus far Obama’s motto might as well be, “Steadfastly We Stand in Indignation—Or Resignation or Cooperation or Hopefully Something”. This dude’s getting nominated too early, and McCain too late.

  8. Hugo says:

    Moreover, Unruh would’ve had him for breakfast.

  9. Jon Taplin says:

    Hugo-Unruh was like Bill Clinton– an old Pol. That dog won’t hunt anymore, as Hillary has painfully learned.

    You’ve got to get out of Atlanta more. There is nothing “noble or coherent” about the foreign policy of the last seven years. You have to consider that the new ideas Obama’s people will bring to this field could help reposition us in the world where we are universally thought to have a cretin for President.

  10. BobbyG says:


    “Candidate Obama is a babe in the woods on foreign policy. ”

    Yeah, unlike that silky smooth, all-knowing,
    and effective statesman of the world George W. Bu’ush. LOL.

    Nice chuckle. Thanks.

  11. Hugo says:

    Well all right! Lord knows I do need to get outta here more, but may He also save us from people with new ideas about foreign policy. (Unless they’re cooking up an organization to supersede the moribund U.N.; that would be nice.)

    There is this. Harry Truman was sent to Congress to serve as bagman for the Kansas City boss. Once there, alone with his deeds and separated from his wife and mother, Truman experienced a moral crisis—a kind of epiphany, really—from which he emerged a different, far more moral and serious, person. He even managed to escape the payback due him from old Tom Pendergast.

    That was the cusp, then, between the old Truman—the unknown and unknowing Truman—and the Truman the world came to know and ultimately to admire. The old Harry was unknown even to Harry: he later admitted that he’d lost all sense of self. He hadn’t yet gained himself.

    I can’t help but transpose Kansas City and Chicago…

  12. Hugo says:

    BobbyG, is it Obama who shows Obama in a good light, or is it only George W. Bush who can do that?

  13. Morgan Warstler says:

    I know its unfashionable to LIKE Obama for the wrong reasons, but frankly that’s most of the reason to like him.

    Like Sam Power, Obama’s econ brain trust, is very pro-Business, so much so, that I believe Obama calling for a higher capital gains tax was a fib to appease the left – like NAFTA. Once in office, I expect him to leave both of those things alone.

    With him, we’d also be likely to end/amend affirmative action, cut back federal employees, raise the retirement age – all huge positives.

    He just has to stop looking like an effete pussy in the ME, which I don’t think is hard. He just needs a non-democratic guy/place to go after. Show a little bit of the crazy eye. Maybe he rallies hard against the Burkha.

    Again, I do think most of this would be moot, and a whole new set of issues arises, if the narrative became draw down – drawn down – draw down… it might not even help McCain. He might be the guy you want in time of war, if we suddenly are able to let Congressional Republicans scream WE WON, it might serve Obama as the national candidate.

  14. STS says:


    Obama may not have a long track record on ME issues, but what there is of it is a d*&n sight better than McCain’s. McCain is running for president as if he thought he was auditioning for a part in Twelve O’Clock High. Wrong movie, wrong war.

  15. Hugo says:


    Hi. They both scare me, and it’s not good-scary. Presidents Truman and Eisenhower (and DeGaulle) were good-scary. McCain supersedes Kissinger’s Madman Thesis, while Obama is like Joe Kennedy’s playboy son tripping with Khrushchev in Geneva.

    Perhaps the two men should debate several times on foreign policy topics alone. But what a horror show.

  16. Rick Turner says:

    So who anywhere near Washington IS any good at foreign policy? I don’t see any evidence anywhere in the world that we’ve done anything right in decades. We can’t even do disaster relief well. We certainly don’t handle places like Haiti, Darfour, Somalia, Kosovo, Chechnia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc. to anybody’s advantage…to say nothing of Iraq and it’s neighbors. The only one I see doing anything good is ex-president Carter, and he’s not doing so well with the Middle East. We don’t have any foreign policy other than being the big bully in the room and then being so stupid about how we swing our fists that we don’t even get what we say we’re after. Our foreign policy is based on some incredibly out of touch idea that all countries should be democracies just like us right now, never mind religious or cultural history. We don’t walk our talk, and we only swing our weight around where we think there is an enemy or where there may be natural resources we want. We do not defend human rights unless it’s a cover for other goals.

    Foreign policy has to be based in ethics, and that’s where Obama may just be way ahead of the pack.

  17. Hugo says:

    Rick, ye-e-a-ahh, sorta. But also the opposite. Know what I mean? We’re schitzy as hell. Yes.

Leave a Reply