Memo #2 to Obama: Learn from Clark

The following is from MyDD's Todd Beeton, which I noticed just moments after I wrote my previous post chastising Barack Obama for giving into Republicans on everything.  Someone who's not doing that: General Wesley Clark.  Here's how Mr. Beeton summed it up:

"Usually when Democrats get in hot water with the media, whether mis-interpreted or not, the instinct is to immediately apologize and slink away. Sometimes that is called for. In Wesley Clark's case, it is not, and I am thrilled to see him sticking to his guns.(...)

(...)A friend I spoke with last night said he wished Clark would shut it as he feared it was only playing into McCain's hands by raising an issue that treads on McCain-friendly terrain. Personally, I'm glad Clark has taken on what is widely considered hallowed ground and the third rail (choose your metaphor...) Clark was uniquely equipped to deliver this message and while people's instinct may be to shirk away from the suggestion that McCain's service is anything but perfect preparation to be commander in chief, the conversation that Clark has initiated has allowed people to really think about the validity of the premise for the first time and actually question it.  

Way to go, General. Continue to stand strong. We have your back."

I'll second that "way to go, General".  Wesley Clark has nothing to apologize for and is right to not apologize.  Apologizing would only play into the Republican's hands (as Obama did on this very issue) and would continue to allow them to censor Democrats, out of fear of being called un-patriotic or un-American, from saying things that are true and need to be said.  

I hope Barack Obama takes note of Gen. Clark's behavior and begins to challenge John McCain and the Republicans.  On a side note, it's very ironic, that in the process of McCain and his team comparing Gen. Clark's comments to a "swift-boating" of McCain, that they actually question Gen. Clark's patriotism.  Indeed, in this instance, it wasn't John McCain being swift-boated, it was Gen. Wesley Clark. 

Memo to Obama: Grow a Backbone

The following is from Mark Halperin:

He (Obama) then came back to the room where the children were drawing pictures. Stooping over a table, he autographed a number of drawings. The children were delighted; one girl held her picture to her cheek after Obama signed it.

As he left, a boy tried to give him a fist bump. Obama said no.
“If I start that …” his voice trailed off.

That's right.  Obama is once again bending over backwards to appease Republicans.  First he gave in on FISA.  Then on the two Supreme Court rulings last week.  Then he threw Gen. Clark under the bus.  He is now pandering to evangelicals by promising to expand federal funding to churches and faith-based initiatives.  And today, because some Republicans called Obama's fist bump  a "terrorist fist jab", among other non-pleasing names, he has stopped doing it.  

I've said it once and I'll say it again: I'm sick and tired of Democrats giving into Republicans on everything.  It's bad enough when it's on serious policies, but it's absolutely outrageous when it's regarding a freakin hand gesture.  

Smart Take: The Columbia Journalism Review on "What Wesley Clark really said, and how the press missed it"

Zachary Roth at the Columbia Journalism Review has an new article up rightfully defending Gen. Wesley Clark against the smears by McCain and the media.  Here's Roth's very smart take:

__________________________________________________________

So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark.(...)

When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”(...)

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.(...)

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.(...)

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

It's Controversies Like This That Get My Blood Boiling...

Let's be clear: Wesley Clark, GENERAL Wesley Clark, neither said nor did anything to demean John McCain's service to this country.  

Here's the full quote from Gen. Clark from yesterday's Face the Nation that has stirred up all this controversy:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk.  It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.  That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, that wasn't a wartime squadron....

...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." 

What is so damn wrong about what Gen. Clark said?  He spoke the truth.  He did say, after all, that he honors McCain's service and that McCain was a hero to him.  But being in the military does not necessarily prepare you for being President.  And although it makes for a sympathetic story, being shot down and held as a POW is not a qualification for being President.  

And for Gen. Clark to be attacked by John McCain for being somehow disrespectful to the military is absurd.  McCain should apologize.  The media should apologize for making this a lead story today.  And Barack Obama also owes Gen. Clark an apology for coming out against them today.  Why isn't anyone standing up and saying that Gen. Clark has said nothing wrong?  But once again, the media and our Democratic nominee is falling into the trap of appeasing the Republicans.  John McCain says Obama needs to go to Iraq.  What does Obama do?  Schedule a trip to several countries around the world, with the anticipation of an unscheduled visit to Iraq.  McCain says that Gen. Clark was disrespectful to the military.  Obama comes out, agrees, and condemns Gen. Clark.  And all the while, the media plays along.  

I'm sick and tired of the reputation of great men and women being destroyed by the Republicans, the media, and the lack of backbone by some members of the Democratic party.  It happened to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, and now Gen. Wesley Clark.  Enough is enough.

Senators Obama and McCain On The Economy

Obama and McCain outlined their approach on how to revive the nation's economy.  Both their plans rely heavily on taxes.  Like Reagan-Bush and Bush 43, their's is a tax policy and not an economic policy so it will not result in a sustained economy or job creation on a sustained basis.  They seem to have learned nothing from the last three Republican Presidents concerning the economy.

 

McCain's Plan:  (1)  Reduce regulation. (Like as if Bush paid any attention to regulation)  (2)  Cut Corporate Taxes;  (3)  Expand free trade agreements;  (4)  Cut Government Spending;  (5)  Maintain Bush's tax cuts for the wealthier Americans.

 

Obama's Plan:  (1) Expand health insurance for all;  (2)  Reducing income inequality;  (3) Raise taxes on Wealthy Americans;  (4)  $50 Billion economic stimulus plan and tax cuts for middle income Americans.

 

McCain plans to pay for his proposal by reducing spending but Republican Presidents and Republicans in Congress including McCain do not have any record of reducing spending.  In fact the Republicans are the biggest spenders of all time and deficit spenders at that.

 

Obama plans to pay for his proposals by raising a variety of taxes including increasing capital gains rate to 20%; increasing taxes for families with incomes over $250,000. and ending the cap on Social Security income now set at $102,000. by also taxing income over $250,000.

 

McCain and Obama's announced plans are not an economic policy to answer the serious problem facing America.  Neither one mentions balancing the federal budget, so they are committed to keep piling on debt which is the main cause of our economic problems.  The United States can not keep paying a half trillion dollars a year just to pay interest payments on the national debt.

 

Where do they stand and what are their plans for the Greening of America, for conservation to reduce Energy usage; for reducing gasoline prices?  Both voted for Bush's energy bill that gave the Oil and Gas Companies $17 Billion in tax breaks.  The Oil and Gas Companies really needed that;  yea, tell me another fairytale.  They should both be urging congress to reduce the speed limit on the Interstate system to 55 MPH like President Carter did.  It worked and worked well.  In fact both of them should be in Washington introducing that measure.

 

I have commented before that stimulus packages do nothing to create a sound economy.  In fact they come after the economy goes south.  In other words, after the fact.  The idea is to have a sound economic policy that is broad based with the intent of balancing the federal budget.  We are near ending eight years of an administration who has wrecked the economy and put the country into record debt.  The President, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have offered no way to pay for the war in Iraq and the cost will soon hit the trillion dollar mark and climbing.  Sadly, Obama and McCain are AWOL on the issue.

 

We the people are asked to believe in change, yet both candidates have had an opportunity to change things in Congress but failed to do so.  New we have their proposals concerning the economy that also fails to change the status quo or to answer our economic problems.

 

We are told that this is an important time in our history, yet, we have two candidates without any original thought and still stuck with recycled proposals that are supposed to pass as an economic policy.  Where are Americas true leaders for the future?

The United States Policy Toward Israel Has To Change...NOW!!!

I have commented before how the U.S. relationship with Israel was not working and how Israel's leaders are the biggest obstacle to peace in the middle east and solving the Israel-Palestine problem.  The Bush administration in particular has done nothing to change the status quo concerning this problem.

 

Now we have a report coming out of Israel by Secretary of State Condi Rice as carried in the New Orleans Times Picayune dated 6-16-08 and I quote from the article.  "Israel's persistent building of Jewish homes on disputed land undermines the U.S. backed attempt to write an Israeli-Palestinian peace draft this year and invites questions about Israel's motives.  Using exceptionally harsh language the visiting U.S. envoy said Israel must understand the pall its actions cast over talks and on the confidence of the U.S. European nations and others that Israel is bargaining in good faith.  She said the Jewish state has apparently picked up the pace of housing expansion since President Bush inaugurated negotiations at Annapolis, Md."

 

The above statement is so hypocritical and comes 7-1/2 years too late for this administration who has over looked Israel's housing expansions since it came to office.  Bush and Rice like to demand a lot from other countries, but when it comes to Israel there are no demands for the peace process and for Israel to change its behavior.  The leaders of Israel and Bush will continue to increase tensions in the middle east with their arrogance.  Israel does not even honor their own agreements with the U.N. concerning the borders.

 

It is easy to see why the leaders of Israel dislike former President Carter.  They can not persuade him to go with their own failed policies.  Carter is the one American who has a handle on the real problem and what it takes to bring peace to the Israel and Palestinian conflict.  The Israel-Egyptian peace treaty that Carter led has been in force for almost 30 years and is working.  It is obvious the leaders of Israel do not want the same success with Palestine. 

 

It is way past time for the Bush administration to admit its failure and change the U.S. policy toward Israel.  Obama and McCain have been silent on the issue but they need to speak out and let the voters know where they stand on the issue.  After all, one of them will be the next President in January.

Bush, Israel, Iraq and Iran: A Deadly Combination

The Bush administration wants a security pact with Iraq on keeping U.S. Troops based there for the foreseeable future.  Bush wants this concluded before he leaves office and will tie the hands of the next President if put in effect.  Keeping American troops in Iraq will insure the U.S. of a continued war in the middle east for years to come with no end in sight.

 

An American presence in Iraq is not needed to protect the middle east or the security of the U.S., just as the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist was not needed.  Bush has put America and our men and women in uniform in danger with his reckless policies.  Iran is opposed to the U.S. military pact with Iraq and says the U.S. wants to use such American presence as a base to attack Iran.  They are probably right.  Bush says he does not need Congress to approve such a pact.  If that is true, Congress should not fund any such agreement.

 

Now we have Shaul Mofiz a cabinet minister in Israel's government of Prime Minister Olmert saying that Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program.  The Prime Minister distanced himself from that quote.  Israel, a country that former President Carter said had up to 150 nuclear weapons is secret about their own nuclear program but wants Iran to fess up concerning their program.  Since Shaul Mofiz made a threat of attacking Iran, I guess that means Iran can launch a preempted strike against Israel to protect its people.  Two can play Israel sorry game.

 

The present leaders of Israel and the U.S. are reckless with their policies and talk concerning the middle east and seem bent on having a nuclear war in that area.  The new U.S. President needs to change our policy and relationship in the middle east and Israel and promote real peace and stability in the area.  If the new U.S. President promotes the status quo with Israel and the middle east does anyone think that will make America safer? 

 

Our Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain need to stand up and be counted on what their policies would be in the middle east and with Israel.  So far they have taken no position on Bush's plan to have a treaty with Iraq on keeping a U.S. presence there with U.S. troops.  What a shame.  The status quo with Israel and the Middle East is unacceptable. 

Bush, Israel, Iraq and Iran: A Deadly Combination

The Bush administration wants a security pact with Iraq on keeping U.S. Troops based there for the foreseeable future.  Bush wants this concluded before he leaves office and will tie the hands of the next President if put in effect.  Keeping American troops in Iraq will insure the U.S. of a continued war in the middle east for years to come with no end in sight.

 

An American presence in Iraq is not needed to protect the middle east or the security of the U.S., just as the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist was not needed.  Bush has put America and our men and women in uniform in danger with his reckless policies.  Iran is opposed to the U.S. military pact with Iraq and says the U.S. wants to use such American presence as a base to attack Iran.  They are probably right.  Bush says he does not need Congress to approve such a pact.  If that is true, Congress should not fund any such agreement.

 

Now we have Shaul Mofiz a cabinet minister in Israel's government of Prime Minister Olmert saying that Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program.  The Prime Minister distanced himself from that quote.  Israel, a country that former President Carter said had up to 150 nuclear weapons is secret about their own nuclear program but wants Iran to fess up concerning their program.  Since Shaul Mofiz made a threat of attacking Iran, I guess that means Iran can launch a preempted strike against Israel to protect its people.  Two can play Israel sorry game.

 

The present leaders of Israel and the U.S. are reckless with their policies and talk concerning the middle east and seem bent on having a nuclear war in that area.  The new U.S. President needs to change our policy and relationship in the middle east and Israel and promote real peace and stability in the area.  If the new U.S. President promotes the status quo with Israel and the middle east does anyone think that will make America safer? 

 

Our Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain need to stand up and be counted on what their policies would be in the middle east and with Israel.  So far they have taken no position on Bush's plan to have a treaty with Iraq on keeping a U.S. presence there with U.S. troops.  What a shame.  The status quo with Israel and the Middle East is unacceptable. 

Remembering Tim Russert

I was shocked, needless to say, to hear of the untimely passing of Tim Russert this afternoon.  Tim contributed so much to the national discussion regarding politics and policy and he will be deeply missed.

Looking back and reflecting on Tim and his work, many things come to mind.  For one, I didn't always like him.  I despised him for being so tough with Hillary during her appearances. But at the same time, I was glued to the television, with a grin on my face, whenever he took the Republicans to task.  Looking back, Tim was being tough with Hillary, but he was also as tough with all his other guests.  Tim didn't play favorites.  He didn't take sides.  Was he a Republican?  Was he a Democrat?  I don't know and I don't think anyone does.  

In fact, I often heard my Democrat friends complain that Russert was a blatant Republican.  At the same time, if you ever checked out any of the conservative blogs, they were constantly claiming Russert was an out of control liberal.  I suppose thats when you know a journalist is truly doing their job --- not when one side loves you and the other hates you, not even when both sides love and praise you, but when both sides think you're playing for the opposite team.  

When Sunday would role around, there was only one Sunday show I was interested in seeing: Meet the Press.  The frequent hour long interviews with only one commercial interruption were unprecedented and truly covered all the bases.  

And although one couldn't tell what political affiliation Russert had, one could clearly tell one thing: Tim Russert loved politics.  Whenever he talked about politics, Russert's face lit up.  His level of excitement exceeded that of the proverbial "kid in a candy store".  

And the work Russert put in was also unbelievable.  He was on MSNBC's Morning Joe almost every day.  Then you could catch him just an hour later discussing politics with Meredith and Matt on the Today Show.  A few hours later he would be anchoring an hour of news coverage on MSNBC.  In another few hours, he was talking politics with Brian Williams on Nightly News.  He would then be a guest on Hardball or Countdown.  On Saturday, Russert hosted the hour long Tim Russert Show on MSNBC and then on Sunday it was Meet the Press on NBC.  No one worked harder.  And it's not as if Russert had to work like that either; he chose to.  As Vice-President of NBC news, Russert didn't have to do a damn thing: he chose to, though, because he loved politics and he loved sharing his passion with the American people.   

Finally, I just want to talk about Russert's influence on me, an influence I don't think I fully until tonight.  Tim would often, on Meet the Press, read a quote that his guest made in the past and then compare and contrast it with the same guest's most recent statements and positions.  Looking back, I did the same thing many times here.  It was just while reflecting on Tim that I came to realize this.  

In conclusion, I just want to extend my heart and prayers to the Russert family.  Tim Russert will always be remembered and will be sorely missed.  

Barack Obama: The Democratic Party's Nominee for President

Tuesday night Senator Obama reached the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination for President.  That vote will be confirmed at the Convention in August and Obama will carry the mantle of Democratic leadership in the general election in November. 

 

It is now Mr. Obama's responsibility to convince the voters that he is the best candidate to lead the country for the next four years.  Mr. McCain will carry the same burden for the Republican party.  There will now be a lot of focus on who will be picked as V.P. on both sides and the news media will try to tell us how important that choice is, but make no mistake, it is the Presidential candidate themselves who will bear the responsibility for selling their vision to the voters. 

 

There are those in the news media and other supporters of the candidates who are already talking about blaming some one else if the candidate they support looses.  The blame game has already been placed in the fast lane.

 

The chance of a nasty campaign in the general election are high.  The Republicans are masters at saying nasty things about their opponents because they themselves feel inadequate.  Because for the first time an African American is a Presidential nominee the race card will be played when nasty remarks are made even though it may not be a racist remark and before you know it the nasty campaign will be in high gear.

 

Personal attacks and false statements by politicians have been accepted by the voters for many years.  That is why it works.  Voters say they do not like it but end up using it to support their vote.  They also tolerate it by watching it on T.V. and listening to it on talk radio for hours.  Who wants a dull campaign when you can have a nasty one and the winner accomplishes nothing after the election.

 

The voters will find out real soon what kind of campaign Obama and McCain choose to run.  They are both talking change and the people have given them a chance to do so.  Lets see if they deliver on their promises and articulate what kind of change they are talking about. Lets also see if the voters have learned anything.