home

Obama Adds Nato and Europe to Campaign Speeches

After last week's debate when Barack Obama acknowledged he hadn't held a single hearing on Nato and Afghanistan during his year as chair of the European Affairs subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because he was running for President, he's now giving lectures to Europe in his campaign speeches.

[He said] European governments had to pull their weight in Afghanistan and not rely so much on the United States to do the "dirty work" against Taliban fighters.....

He said the US needs more support from its NATO allies in Afghanistan and implied Germany should lift its ban on combat operations in the dangerous south.

More....

He even sounded like George W. Bush:

[He] set a new tone on his campaign plane by telling reporters there had to be more give and take between Washington and its NATO allies.

"I've been very clear that we do need more support from them," he said, referring to NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan. "We also may need to lift some of the constraints that they have placed on their forces there."

He didn't name any countries. But Germany, Italy and Spain have been under pressure from NATO and the administration of US President George W. Bush (more...) to devote more soldiers to risky missions in Afghanistan.

Well, maybe he's been very clear but without holding a hearing, it's likely nobody heard him.

Hillary makes this point:

"My opponent likes to talk about what he will do, but there was a perfect example last night about the difference between talk and action,” she said yesterday, per NBC/NJ's Athena Jones. “He was given the responsibility of chairing what's called a subcommittee in the Congress responsible for the European countries and our alliance with them and as part of that responsibility was NATO… [W]hat you learned last night is he's never held a substantive hearing or meeting to look at what is going on in NATO, to take a hard look at what's happening in Europe and in fact the reason he hasn't as he said is because he got the assignment when he started running for president. Well, I don't think that's an adequate excuse.”

Not to mention:

...the RNC used this very line of attack on Obama yesterday as well…

Joe Conason was on this story in December.

Senate hearings do not merely provide occasions for grandstanding as many voters may suspect, but fulfill a critical purpose in providing information and perspective to lawmakers. In the Senate, the foreign relations subcommittees have few direct legislative responsibilities, but they have traditionally gathered substantive research for the committee itself and for the rest of the Senate.

That is why congressional hearings matter, and why a subcommittee chairmanship represents a significant responsibility. Knowledge is not just power but the fundamental requirement for either house of Congress to act as an equal of the executive branch in government.

Today, Turkana at Left Coaster writes about the similarity between Obama and Bush on the topic.

< Judge Vacates Order Shutting Down Website | Obama and Presidential History >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    this one really pissed me off (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    i've been writing a lot about bush's attempts to blame nato and europe for his failures in afghanistan, and obama did essentially the same thing. here's my take, at tlc.

    just added a link to your post (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    thanks.

    Parent
    Funny how Jeralyn didn't quote this part (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST

    Still, Obama couched his challenge to Europe in a promise to do more listening. He addressed a sore point in trans-Atlantic relations by saying that an Obama presidency would pay attention to its European allies.

    "It is also important for us to send a signal that we're going to be listening to them when it comes to policies that they find objectionable," he said, "Iraq being at the top of the list."

    or what Clinton said yesterday was basically exactly the same thing:


    "I will also be a commander in chief who refocuses on winning the war in Afghanistan," she said. "I will do everything in my power to reverse our declining position in Afghanistan," she said, vowing to make it clear to allies in NATO "that this is their war too."


    Parent
    I don't understand your point (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    There's nothing inherently wrong with his statement.  It's just disingenuous of him to say he's "going to listen" when he's had the opportunity for over a year to do some listening and to actually LEARN something about Europe.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:30:59 PM EST
    I would have liked it if he had done more oversight. And it's a legitimate, but not a make or break issue for me. But Jeralyn was using selective quoting to suggest he's taking up a right-wing position on the issue when he's clearly not (and, in fact, taking the same stand as Clinton).

    Parent
    I would have liked it (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    If he had done any oversight. Seriously, are we paying him to campaign and talk about stuff or to be a Senator and do something? Both Clinton and Obama deserve criticism for lots of talk and no action on the war in Iraq, and Obama deserves criticism for not bothering to do his job on his subcommittee.

    Parent
    you don't understnad Andrew (1.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    Clinton good. Obama bad.

    Everything else is a deduction from that.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    you may just be so used to seeing the exact opposite everywhere you turn it just seems that way in comparison.


    Parent
    I want to see the actual Obama quote... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    ...before I draw any conclusions from what Obama said, because IMHO the description of his statement (NATO allies need to do more, especially of the 'dirty work') makes it obvious that he doesn't understand how the world works, and how diplomacy works.

    There are key differences between what Clinton said (basically, that when she's president, the US will do all it can to succeed in Afghanistan, but it will also expect the help of its NATO allies), and the description of what Obama said.

    And this doesn't cut it:

    "It is also important for us to send a signal that we're going to be listening to them when it comes to policies that they find objectionable," he said, "Iraq being at the top of the list."

    Its condescending, and putting Iraq at the top of the list is completely tone deaf.   Iraq isn't at the top of Europe's list of problems it has with US policies... Iraq is a US problem, not a European one.  And if there is a non-European issue that Europe has a hard time with, its US policy toward the Palestine/Israel conflict.   And seriously, Obama is going to 'listen' about Iraq, when both Obama and Europe already pretty much agree that US policy sucks.  How very generous of him.

    Parent

    Both quotes (none / 0) (#30)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    are just brief AP-style summaries of what the candidates said. I think you're reading way more into the meaning than what is possible from these short quotes.

    And it's clear that our rift with Europe started because of Iraq. Saying that we want to hear their opinion, especially on an issue we've been shutting them out on, is now considered a bad thing?

    Parent

    Here's how AP treats quotes: (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    If it's between double quotes, it is exactly, verbatim, what the person said.  There are strict rules about this - to misquote, summarize, or invent anything between double quotes and attribute it as a direct quote is forbidden and potentially actionable.


     Saying that we want to hear their opinion, especially on an issue we've been shutting them out on, is now considered a bad thing?

    No, but saying we want to hear their opinion, when one has not made the effort to hear them by holding Senate subcommittee meetings on Europe because one is too busy campaigning for president, is highly hypocritical.

    Parent

    top of the list (none / 0) (#33)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    Saying that we want to hear their opinion, especially on an issue we've been shutting them out on, is now considered a bad thing?

    no, saying its at the top of the list is a bad thing....completely tone deaf, because it says that US priorities will determine the agenda.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#35)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    there are still quite a few coalition of the willing countries still left in Europe. For starters, our main ally, the UK. So I would assume that they still have things they want to say about Iraq.

    Parent
    A European (none / 0) (#56)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#49)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    Canada is pissed off also at NATO allies who are not pitching in to help in Afghanistan.  

    Parent
    You forgot (none / 0) (#55)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    Poland.

    Parent
    Hillarious... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:27:08 AM EST
    "don't forget a about Poland" moment from George.

    Parent
    Europe and NATO (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by 0 politico on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    8-)

    We are now supposed to just forget the 13 or 14 months of inaction here.  It's all good now.  He's talking foreign relations and security now.  Everyone go back to feeling good.

    Right.

    The question is will any of the voters notice this before the Republicans drive a fully loaded semi-trailer through the gaping hole in the resume?

    Guess we'll see.

    Obama's Abdication of Committee Role (none / 0) (#59)
    by Athena on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    I don't know why Hillary just started talking about this all now.  It was on the blogs in January - and talked about - and I always thought it deserved more exposure. Glad to see it surface now, anyway.

    Parent
    this man has as much chance of being (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    elected in the fall as a truck load of Ice Cream has of not melting before it drives across country without refrigeration...I can hear Karl Rove leaping in glee as the attacks already....

    I thought that about GWB too (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    I was absolutely ecstatic when GWB was nominated.  McCain would surely have beaten Gore, but GWB?  No way.

    I was proven wrong.

    With the right media and the right circumstances anyone can win.

    And the right wing may WANT someone who will feel excessively "challenged" by the job, because then they can blame all the Republican fiascos in government on the new Democratic person.  And people will believe them.

    Parent

    you make a good point (none / 0) (#16)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM EST
    Hillary has decided to run on her resume - as if being first lady is a qualification - but whatever.

    Since that is her strategy, then all her supporters are now locked into pushing this idea that the only legitimate basis for choosing a president is looking to their resume.

    But that is not what the actual real people out in the country look to. Oh, they may look at it and take it as some background information - to meet some threshold level of assuance that the candidate knows the ropes. But they are looking primarily for something different.

    They look for leadership ability and, above all, trust. That sense that, for whatever reason - and it varies from person to person, they are comfortable with the judgement and thought processes of the candidate.

    So my advice to Clinton supporters - don't get too wrapped up in putting so much emphasis on what you see as Hillary's strong suit. Whether it is or isn't a clear winning point in her favor, it is not necessarily what the average voter thinks most important.

    Parent

    Well, thanks for the advice but (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    we already live in the real world.  We well know what 'the average voter thinks is important.'  And that's the problem.  People don't care about 'that competence thing' until the levees fail...the earthquakes and tornadoes hit...th rivers flood and the wildfires rage in the West.

    Until then - meanwhile - turn on the ballgame and hand me a beer!  And, oh yeah...GO Obama!

    We're Number One!  We're Number One!

    Oops...damn...

    Parent

    Who knows what they look for. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:05:57 PM EST
    But obviously the resume shows where you have and haven't been a leader.  If the general election process turns Obama's resume not into one that is lesser than Hillary's, but into one that is blank, the projected image of his leadership ability will not be so hot.  And here is a spot in his resume where he.has.done.NOTHING.  He needs to come up with a better explanation.  Is he going to retain his chairman position until he becomes President?  Is he going to ignore the Committee when he's President?  He needs a better explanation.

    Parent
    More sad. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST

    Hillary has decided to run on her resume - as if being first lady is a qualification - but whatever.

    That's just more proof of the sad mentality of Obama supporters.

    They look for leadership ability and, above all, trust. That sense that, for whatever reason - and it varies from person to person, they are comfortable with the judgement and thought processes of the candidate.

    And the more that comes out about Obama, the less people are trusting him.

    Parent

    BrandingIron, (none / 0) (#47)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:01:45 PM EST
    I just saw a comment of yours in another post that said that Hillary v. Barack reminded you of All About Eve. Don't know if you've seen this or know about Sen. Alice Palmer but....

    Obama knows his way around a ballot.

    BTW I've seen you mention that you have a blog in a couple of comments. Do you have a link?

    Parent

    Oh yes, I mentioned the (none / 0) (#68)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    Alice Palmer incident somewhere today on TL too, when I was talking about winning a tough campaign vs. "winning" a campaign by eliminating your opponents on technicalities/clearing the field.

    I have a few blogs but nothing huge.  My HC.com blog is this one.  I post a LOT in this community on LJ (handle is theclamsman), though a lot of the posts are friends locked and you have to join to see them (but there are a few open/unlocked ones, as I look at the community in another tab here).  Some day I will have a real blog, LOL!

    Parent

    well actually, that may be true for you (none / 0) (#51)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:23:31 PM EST
    but it is hard to look at the polls, and the results of the recent primaries and caucuses, and to conclude that "less people are trusting him".

    Y'know, if maybe Hillary had turned a 20+ pt lead in TX and OH into a 30 pt lead, then I might begin to consider your point.

    As for resumes...Obama has a certain amount of experience. If you set aside Hillary's service as first lady of AR and the US, then their resumes, while different in kind, are not all that different in depth. Hillary has 7 years in the US senate as her only elected position. Obama has 3, but also 8 in the IL senate. Both have extensive experience in other venues, corporate boards, or do-good organizations, or community organizing etc. But since Hillary emphasizes her vastly greater experience, the argument must rest on her first lady experience - that is the factor that really underlies the difference.

    Parent

    Experience. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:56:43 PM EST
    Clinton's experience goes back farther than First lady of Arkansas (and again, thank you so very much for the subtle implication that Hillary's experience hinges on her husband's office holding).  The McGovern campaigning and the Nixon impeachment inquiry work happened before Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas.  Actually, Hillary got lots of her own political experience before Bill became Governor and to go into it would mean I'd have to sit here for hours telling you her life story (she has been passionate about politics since she was a little girl, BTW).

    This is a work in progress (she is lacking inthe Obama department, but we're helping her fill it in) by someone else at HC.com, but here's something to start with:

    Side by Side Comparison of Hillary/Obama

    For six of the seven years Obama spent in the Illinois General Assembly, he got nothing accomplished.  Why?  Because the Republicans wouldn't have any of it.  So much for being the grand "uniter" that he wants everyone to believe that he is.  That bill that he touts as one of his greatest accomplishments of his Illinois Senate carrer, the one on videotaped confessions/racial profiling?  Senator Rickey Hendon was the original sponsor of the bill and did all the dirty work for it/got all of the heat for it until Majority Leader Jones took it away from him and appointed Obama as its sponsor.  So much for doing the legwork needed for "his" landmark bill.  And while we're on the subject of his work, how about the fact that Obama doesn't seem to care about anything but getting the nomination, even if it means faking some experience (must I, in this thread, bring up the committee that he neglected)?  He does not speak for the Democratic party:  He speaks for himself and his image as an icon that would be the "first black President" (which is ironic, given that he avoids being labelled as such at all costs, see following).  He even distances himself from Democratic issues and progressive ones, to boot:  He won't go to the SOTBU or deal with black issues for fear of being "the black candidate", he won't be photographed with Gavin Newsom for fear of being "pro-gay-marriage", he won't vote definitively on issues for fear that his votes can be used against him...well, if that's "experience", then it's experience that does not speak or do justice towards a candidate who is for the Democratic party and its core issues.

    Parent

    they are comfortable with (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    I will give you enough credit to assume this is not the "who to have a beer with" thing.


    Parent
    Tano (none / 0) (#27)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    You say
    "But that is not what the actual real people out in the country look to."

    How do you know?

    Parent

    know? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    Well, I don't know anything with absolute certainty. But it is my opinion based on decades of watching politics with great absorption. And I offer it as a contrast to the opinions of others.

    Parent
    Uh, no thanks (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    I won't accept it. I was responding to the top post where the poster suggested that Obama is taking up right-wing position on the issue. 1) It's clear that he isn't taking Bushs' stance on the issue 2) Clinton is taking the same stance, so I'm not sure why it's a strike against him.


    I deleted the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:43:28 PM EST
    Calling Obama names and personally attacking him is not allowed.

    Parent
    what about the hundreds (none / 0) (#22)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    if not thousands of instances of him being called a plagiarist, liar, crook, empty-suit, cult-leader, and generally all-around evil person etc. etc.

    Parent
    I dont remember evil (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    but Im sort of new

    Parent
    If you can find an instance (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:36:02 PM EST
    of him being called a liar or a crook, as in "O is a liar" or "O is a crook" they will be deleted. I've erased the few I've seen, but I don't read every comment.

    Parent
    " Obama is a liar and a demagogue," (none / 0) (#70)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST
    the latter being kind of redundant of the former ...

    Jeralyn,

    I have specifically called Obama a liar and a demagogue for putting an outright lie on his website and claiming the same thing in his speeches, namely that he was anti-war while he was "running for the US Senate in 2002."

    From his website:

    As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq ...

    The inference of this claim is that his anti-war speech, made October 2, 2002, in Chicago, was a serious, principled and risky position for him to take because he was "a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002."

    He clearly and provably wasn't running for the US Senate when he made that remark or took that anti-war position.  Rather, he was running for the IL state senate in a highly anti-war district, to which he was reelected one month later.

    Furthermore, he didn't announce he was "a candidate for the United States Senate" until January 21, 2003.

    The point is he is demagoguing the issue by lying about his position, which is perhaps the singular issue that he wants Americans to believe sets himself apart from Hillary Clinton in his qualifications for the Dem nomination and, ultimately, the presidency.

    Its a transparent lie that none of us should allow him to get away with.

    Delete it if you must, but it is supported by the evidence ...

    Parent

    Where in HRC's comments (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    does she blame Europe/NATO for not doing enough in Afghanistan.  They're not the same at all.  

    The only group (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    doing "enough" in Afghanistan is the Taliban, and they're on the other side.

    The oil pipeline cuts through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea (there's a natural gas pipeline that cuts east to India). It would be interesting to see who owns those pipelines, because they are heading in the wrong direction to help Europe. It's bad enough for Americans to fight and die and go in debt for American oil companies, but why should the Euros fight for Exxon?  

    Sooo, back to the elections!

    Parent

    That is a very good question. (none / 0) (#52)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    we agree on something  :-)


    Parent
    Speaking of ads (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    Have you seen the one from Nicholson endorsing Hillary?  Pretty darned good


    Here is the (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    Sorry for not hat-tipping you (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    but I saw the link from Magster, not this one till just now. Next time!

    Parent
    The word audacity comes to mind (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:02:07 PM EST
    Barack Obama acknowledged he hadn't held a single hearing on Nato and Afghanistan during his year as chair of the European Affairs subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because he was running for President, he's now giving lectures to Europe in his campaign speeches.

    Watching the last debate, I was actually shocked when he so casually tossed off his "busy campaigning" excuse for not holding hearings -- that seemed bizarre.

    It seems audacious to follow up that remark with with series of remarks.

    Huge mistake on Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    part.  Every time he mentions Europe or NATO it will draw attention to this FAILURE to take care of business on that front in the Senate.  If it is true that he lobbied hard for the appointment - and then only used it to prop up a pathetic resume re foreign policy while doing none of the actual work...well, there's a word for that.

    And this is the basic difference between a workhorse like Hillary Clinton and a showhorse like Obama.

    Amazing that his supporters try to explain this away.  Have they no investment in integrity at all?

    Parent

    Well, this would follow an Obama pattern, then. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    If it is true that he lobbied hard for the appointment - and then only used it to prop up a pathetic resume re foreign policy while doing none of the actual work...well, there's a word for that.

    Spivak's article supports this idea that Obama doesn't DO the work that is required of his job and would much rather just take the credit for work others do.  What you wrote above is striking when you compare it to this:

    Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

    "I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

    "I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

    And yet Hendon is an Obama for Prez supporter.  I don't know what's wrong with these people...what are they expecting of Obama the Guy Who Does Nothing to do?  All of his supporters can't be so blind as to JUST want him in there for the sake of his "historic" nomination, can they?

    More and more information about Obama's inaction is coming out;  more and more proof to the claim that he's "all talk, no action".  I just hope that it isn't too late for the voters.

    Parent

    Yes. I had forgotten (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:58:21 PM EST
    that article...thanks for quoting it.

    As for Senator Hendon, et al....sigh....there is no explaining some people or their 'reasoning.'  They simply hitch their wagon to a star and hope (thee's that word again) for the best.

    Parent

    With a Democrat Abroad partner .. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    .. my American "other-half" is working in London at the moment. He was telling me that they really don't like the tone of Obama. Ordering, telling, dictating etc - just like Bush. Do as your told attitude is extremely condescending.
    At least Hillary has some manners!  

    Parent
    Still thinking (none / 0) (#42)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    In fact, it almost reminds me of the Gary Hart, "I dare you to follow me" thing.

    He pretty much got away with that excuse during the debate.  I mean, I've hardly heard a word about except on the blogs.  But don't remarks like this just DARE someone to make an issue of it?

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#64)
    by andrewwm on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    I'm in England for half of the year, and I guarantee you that most of the English people favor Obama over Clinton. It doesn't mean anything, of course, but most Englishpeople favor Obama over Clinton.

    Parent
    I know, right? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    There's a video of him that splices a previous speech he gave on Afghanistan with his answer at the debate the other night.

    Video.

    I wish Hillary would have made a big deal about that  fact and that answer. I was yelling at my computer

    "PICK UP THE KNIFE HILLARY!"

    She should have said something like "Only in government can a man who is not doing his current job can ask for a promotion. Everyone watching this should try that at their job and see how long they remain employed."

    It would have been the defining moment everyone was looking for and she needed.

    Parent

    Great line. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    I'll pass it on...

    "Only in government can a man who is not doing his current job ask for a promotion!"

    And not just any old promotion...he hasn't run his own committee but now he wants to leverage that into CEO of the Free World!

    Only in America!

    Yup.  That's audacity, alright!

    Parent

    And it seems to me that the "real" (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:02:40 PM EST
     Obama is not the one of inspiring oratory, but the one who, when it came to real work, took the easy way out, found someone else willing to give him credit for it, or had a lame excuse for not doing it; these are not attributes that will serve us well if he is in the WH come January, 2009.

    As for his newly-discovered interest in issues that have been waiting in an empty hearing room for the last 14 months, it sounds like more BS to me.  I would be willing to bet that any number of people here could provide more substance, and more understanding of these issues than Obama has - or can.

    If nothing else, the committee assigment presented a golden opportunity for a highy intelligent individual to learn the kinds of things he would need to know as president.  The reason what he says lacks authority is because he has no authority.

    This is an issue that is going to inflict serious damage in the hands of a Republican opponent, and I have to say that it ticks me off that Obama's dereliction of duty has hurt the Democrats' chances of prevailing in November.

    Audacious, indeed.

    Parent

    Germany, beer and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:39:59 PM EST
    Well, the Europeans will not and do not want to increase involvement with administrations that perpetuate brutality.  In their countries no one will risk increasing involvement with the way we run things.  Yesterday, two people told me about the Obama comment.  One said:  "another cowboy will start scolding Europe".  It will not be a magic trick to get Europe to participate-- good luck by starting out with that attitude.  

    Is he talking to the "old" Europe or (none / 0) (#1)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    the "new" Europe.  Seriously, I can't believe the free pass he's received for his 'too busy campaigning to hold a hearing' comment.  I wonder what took her so long to bring it up?  

    I read from a blogger on TM that HRC has been pressuring the press corps to bring this up--maybe it's starting to work.

    blame someone else? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Tano on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    what are you talking about? He just pointed out that Clinton is saying the same thing as Obama. So if Obama is "sounding like George Bush" (barf), then so is Clinton.

    And no personal attacks on the candidates. Its supposedly not allowed. At least not against Hillary. And since it has here been demonstrated that she said the same thing as him, then your insult to Obama might apply to her too...

    I think you owe an apology (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    to Jeralyn, who promptly deleted the offending comment. It's not just "supposedly" not allowed, it's "not allowed" full stop.

    Parent
    Barack was not to busy to vote for Dick (none / 0) (#36)
    by DemBillC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    Cheneys' Energy bill. The worst in History.

    And THAT took audacity... (none / 0) (#38)
    by oldpro on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    or something...

    Parent
    I really was livid when Cheney would not disclose (none / 0) (#39)
    by DemBillC on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    who he met with. The fact that Barack voted for it lost him my vote.

    Parent
    Welcome to the real world, folks. (none / 0) (#54)
    by DanDaMan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    If Obama is starting to sound like Bush he must think he's got the nomination wrapped up. Did you for a minute think he'd continue to pander to the nutroots when he no longer needs them anymore? From now on, if he has any hope of winning, he and his advisors know he has to sound mainstream and appeal to normal Americans, not the rabid fringe.

    funny thing about (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    afghanistan: we started that war too. granted, we had a legitimate reason, but it's our broken china, not europe's. to whine that countries that we told we were going in there, regardless of how they or anyone else felt about it, not "pulling their weight" is itself disengenuous.

    odd that no one seems to pointed that out. but i digress.........................

    The Chicken or The Egg? (none / 0) (#58)
    by DanDaMan on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:17:45 PM EST
    It could be argued the war was started by the Jihadists on 9/11 and that Europe might have an important interest in stopping them.

    Parent
    Auchi, Rezko and Obama (none / 0) (#60)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    Jeralyn, there seems to be some confusion out there as to whether the trial starts March 3rd or March 5th. Could you clarify?
    Also are there any news on this front that will make some real
    news in the MSM before Tuesday March 4th?

    Please update us !!  

    PS:  BTW Larry Johnson is trying to contact you.

    Rezko starts March 3 (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    With jury selection. Opening arguments will probably be the 5th or 6th.

    Parent
    Impact? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 07:57:57 PM EST
    Thanks for clarifying that Jeralyn.

    So what's your take on the impact, if any at all (?)
    in Tuesday's primaries?

    Thanks again.

    Parent

    Hillary and Rudy to open Saturday Night Live! (none / 0) (#69)
    by ivs814 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST