home

Obama Echoes Biden Echoing McCain

So much for that progressive foreign policy you were expecting in an Obama Administration. Obama strikes a pose on the Russia-Georgia conflict:

I’m proud to join my friend, Senator Joe Biden, in calling for an additional $1 billion in reconstruction assistance for the people of Georgia."

Any money for South Ossetia in there? Or how about Joe Biden saying "Russia’s actions in Georgia will have consequences?” You on board with that Sen. Obama? Or his, via Greenwald and Billmon, vigorous lobbying for expanding NATO to Georgia? BTW, here is a part of an Obama speech Matt Yglesias admired:

I am running for President because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like George Bush Republicans.

Now Joe Biden and John McCain are sounding good to Obama on foreign policy. Progressive foreign policy? We hardly knew ya.

P.S Some added irony on Biden as VP on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Via Politico, from a Joe Biden 1988 ad in the presidential race:

A classic Joe Biden ad from 1988, which begins: "The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation. A President has got to know the territory, but that's not enough.
< Chairs and Forks to Be Missing At Many Convention Parties | Obama and Veep Pick to Appear in IL.. Saturday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    deal breaker for many i think! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    i often didn't agree with biden on many things but i thought he was at least smart. now? i think he is wrong and obama's me too is just too much. and if i feel this way, many others will also.

    Ho hum (none / 0) (#116)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    Another day, another great reason not to vote for Obama.

    How and why is this guy supposed to be the best we can do, again?

    Parent

    ok! thinking, thinking, thinking! (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    hmmmmm, i'm still thinking! smile!

    Parent
    Yglesias (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    I stopped reading him during the primary not for the Hillary bashing but because I could not read one more post telling me that Obama was going to bring all these fresh new foreign policy thinkers to Washington and get rid of the old crew.  Presumably these fresh new thinkers would be like Matthew Yglesias!  At least that's what it sounded like to me.  Whatever else Obama is, he is not surrounded by new foreign policy thinkers (or domestic ones either, for that matter).  But then perhaps Yglesias is too young to remember Tom Daschle as Minority Leader.

    You won't be getting what you are looking (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    for out of Obama and Biden.  It sort of scares me though because they both seem sort of clueless about what they are stirring up.

    I Cannot Believe (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    the Democrats think that foreign policy holds their key to the WH (nevermind it's bad foreign policy).  The economy trumps every poll for what people care about.  The economy is the Democrats' strong suit in the same poll.  I can't decide if it's hubris or stupidity, but they need to stop this madness and talk about healthcare and jobs. Quit talking up how much you're going to invest in other countries.  We have a city that has never been rebuilt, a rapidly climbing foreclosure rate and an economy that's tanking.  

    A Biden VP pick would be a disaster because it plays into the foreign policy framing.  It encourages these kinds of issues to take center stage.  Not to mention Biden's horrible record as a flack for the credit card companies, on women's issues (cough*Anita Hill hearings*cough), and just in general.  The only up side to a Biden candidacy would be the Veep debate if Rudy were on the other side, but Rudy's not going to be it.  So can we please move on to someone who will talk about jobs.  

    Oh (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    I see the political upside to Biden and even acting the fool on foreign policy.

    I am objecting to it because it is BAD foreign policy.

    Parent

    I'm Glad You See It (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    Because I don't.  I guess I see the upside to pandering to the media narrative on the big bad Russkies and the innocent "American ally" (as CNN repeatedly called Georgia, because that should tell you all you need to know).  Obama is very dependent on media narrative.

    But overall any media narrative that emphasizes foreign policy is a loser for him.  Picking Biden makes it more likely that'll be the focus.  That's what Biden is known for.  That's not good for Democrats, IMO, especially when they're simply chasing after the GOP.  The American people are sick of Republicans, but I suspect will still prefer a real Republican to a fake one.  And while Obama is a little too good of a fake Republican for my taste, you can bet the GOP voters won't be fooled.

    Parent

    In case you haven't noticed it, (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    the Obama campaign is on the defense, not the offense.  It's been that way since before the primaries ended.  The Obama campaign responds, it doesn't propose.  They let Hillary set the agenda in the primary and now they are letting McCain set the agenda in the general.  

    We probably won't hear much about healthcare or the economy unless McCain starts touting his big proposals -- and I don't think McCain has a great healthcare plan so that might be something that just disappears.    

    Parent

    Maybe their internal polling (none / 0) (#42)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:56:16 PM EST
    is revealing something along the lines of this?

    Parent
    sounds like biden is the new cheney! (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    that is not a pleasing thought.

    Cheney with an uncontrollable mouth (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    what a frightening thought

    Parent
    Gergiev, the famous conductor [a (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    a personal friend of Putin's, and who was born in Ossetia,is in Edinburgh, where is is currently conducting the London Symphony Orchestra and will soon conduct the Mariinsky Opera;  he says:  Russia is in the right, etc. etc.  The National Ballet of Georgia is also in Edinburgh; the artistic director just as adamantly states Georgia is in the right.  The press is enjoying the back and forth, but, is critical of the British politicians who are falling all over each other to be the first to show up in Tbilisi.  

    In America (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    the acid test is not which politician can be the first to visit Tbilisi, but which can be the first to pronounce it.

    Parent
    stop confusing us with facts! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Turkana on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    hope 'n' change, btd, hope 'n' change. repeat after me: hope 'n' change, hope 'n' change!

    Poms poms at the ready . . . (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    speaking of pom poms (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    this may be a bit ot but for some reason I woke up this morning thinking he is going to confound everyone and pick Hillary for VP.


    Parent
    Wake up (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    Ain't gonna happen.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    I have been on vacation for a few days and am more out of touch with reality than usual.
    but it just makes so much damn sense.

    Parent
    According to a Huff Post headline, Bill (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    Clinton praised McCain's energy policy.  Now, IF the headline is correct (big if), that would tend to make Hillary less likely as VP choice.  But, a Huff Post opinion piece says maybe she is the best choice.  So  confusing.

    Parent
    Typical HuffPo BS (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:45:11 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#99)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    $50 says that Bill Clinton does a better job making a case for Obama at the convention than either Obama or his VP nominee.  

    Parent
    Go Obama! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    Go go Obama!
    Hey!

    Go Obama!
    Go go Obama!
    Hey!  

    Give me an O!
    Give me a B!
    Give me an A!

    **********

    (Just trying out the cheers!  Rah!)

    Parent

    i think it's backwards (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    should be change n hope.....

    Parent
    I like you thinking (none / 0) (#68)
    by delandjim on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    Change and Hope for __ __?

    Parent
    Do the American people (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    really care about Georgia?

    I understand obviously that people are concerned now, but I am unconvinced that symbolic/political gestures involving Georgia will be effective in the long run.  I don't think the American people have a great sense of what Georgia is and why we should help them.  Am I wrong?

    I hope Obama doesn't promise his way into a corner on this issue.

    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    Americans are insecure and are foreign policy hawks.  Never talk to Americans about peace because they see it as weak.

    Parent
    americans are concerned more (none / 0) (#124)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    about the usa. if these pols act all excited about georgia and don't give a dang about us, then there will be a reckoning.

    Parent
    New politics (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    Americans have a certain mindset that does not change easily.  On foreign policy Americans are hawks, and Obama has to appear like a hawk or he'll lose big.  Hillary always took tough stands because she knows her audience, but she always had the dove of diplomacy on her shoulders.  She got beat up by the NYT when she spoke of obliterating Iran if it used nuclear arms against its neighbor, Israel.  Well my friends, she knew what it takes to win and not flip-flop.  Obama is trying now to carve a hawkish image, but it's too late. I'm a peace lover, but I don't know what Obama is about.  He's the type to listen to pundits and do what they say because he has no experience and no integrity about any belief.  That's dangerous.  I know McCain is a true hawk, but I know his history.  I'll take a chance.

    I think Americans are tired of hawks (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    actually.

    I think that the idea of attacking Iran was defeated solely on the basis of most Americans' war fatigue.

    I happen to think that BushCult setting up Russia is sort of a last stab at creating a scary scenario around which to campaign - Russia!  Is "scary"...

    And I don't actually think that this "We're all Georgians now" thing is catching on the way the GOP hoped it would.

    And yet, my party's leadership have chosen to adopt it for fear that the American public will suddenly be revitalized by a new "threat" and want to be hawks again.

    Except for the small group of people who still thinking we are talking about Georgia the state here, I just don't see this conflict cutting to the hearts of Americans and inspiring them to lay down their lives against an adversary like Russia.  I just don't.

    Biden, Obama and others in our leadership are just showing how out of touch they are with the American public.  It is too bad imo.

    Parent

    I hope you're right but.. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    I wouldn't count the idea of war with Iran out.

    The crap with Poland's missile "defense" system was getting nowhere for what seemed like years. Then, Russia-Georgia stirs the pot and -bam- system in Poland.

    Bush is still running the show.
    Democrats like Pelosi and Obama are worthless as a counter-force.
    They are ready to become cheerleaders at the drop of a hat.

    Some incident - somewhere - a distraction of sorts - and bam!
    War with Iran. We have them surrounded on all sides and are ready to strike.

    Obama will fall in with McCain and Pelosi and Reid and the rest, wave the flag and we'll be down the tubes.

    Parent

    I make no warranties on them (none / 0) (#125)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    not continuing to try, but I do think that Americans are largely desensitized to the alarm bells that BushCult so successfully manipulated them with in previous years.

    We'll see what goes on.  No one cared about Kuwait until the PR firm stepped in and generated news stories that made them care, but people weren't really tired at that point - nor were they tired in the run up to the second Iraq invasion.  I think the mood of the country is dramatically different now.

    Parent

    The idea of attacking Iran (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    (if it WAS actually defeated) was done by the army, already broken and suffering.  Only the Air Farce still thinks it would be fun.

    Parent
    People in America just didn't respond (none / 0) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    to the idea the way they responded to attacking Iraq though.  The GOP kept trying to rattle our cage, but most people just discounted them.  There simply was no political cover from the people to aid Bush in forcing the issue.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    Georgia is not Israel in terms of political impact.

    Russia is not Iran.

    This political equivalence is wrongheaded.

    Parent

    Georgia is not Israel (none / 0) (#106)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    You are right.  I never said it was.  I was simply trying to make a point: On foreign policy Americans are hawks and any talk of peace is labeled as appeasing and weak.  Georgia all of a sudden is big because Russia crossed and attacked Georgia.  That's when Americans lose all perspective.  During Israel's attack of Lebanon, the US behaved shamelessly, and there was no dissent from the American people.  I'd love for the US to change its foreign policy, but it can't be done because of the people's mindset.  Carter didn't get us into any war and he is the poster child for a wimp.

    Parent
    We have a certain mindset (none / 0) (#74)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    because it is the mindset our leaders push. Both parties love to pull out the  boogeyman and saber rattle(it's good for the defense dept. contractors biz.)

    So much for that nuance stuff.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#107)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    The government always mirror the people it governs.  The people in the US government are Americans, hence it reflects Americans.  I said that to a Mexican when traveling through Mexico when he complained about the government.  I said: The problem with the government of Mexico is that all the people in the government are Mexicans.  That statement shut him up.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#117)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    Yeah that's why we're out of Iraq and that's why we have FISA.

    I have a couple of bridges I'm interested in selling? Which would you prefer Brooklyn or San Fransisco?

    Parent

    No outrage (none / 0) (#119)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    Americans support Social Security and therefore politicians don't touch it.  When politicians go against American mindset, it backfires.  There was no outrage, except for the blogs about FISA.  You want to sell a bridge? I think you bought it if you think that the government does not reflect the American mentality.

    Parent
    My husband rarely visits (none / 0) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:46:08 PM EST
    blogotopia and I assure you he was outraged. So were the other everyday folk I talked to. They weren't surprised though mind you. Its why Congress AND the President have low approval ratings.

    You're fooling yourself if you believe Congress cares about what everyday folk think beyond the seemingly small period of time right before their reelection.

    Parent

    We were wondering here how Obama would handle (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    the Georgia/Ossetia mess--after his initial statement of a reasonable and rational approach met with MCM criticism, he began walking it more toward the McSame approach, with somewhat less bellicose language but the same bottom line. I kind of figured he would be what Andrew Bacevich described: American president as imperial president.

    Alas.

    And, now, I think we have a fairly concrete example of what he may actually do.

    Unless he's lying--or creating a false image in order win.

    Who and what is the real Obama?

    David Brooks and Gail Collins were on NPR sometime this morning (during my morning dipping in and out of being in radio hearing distance), and they both stated they're increasingly unable to predict how either McSame or Obama will act as president.

    Amazing: Clarity has left the house, folks. We're into heavy campaign fog. Which is why I loved a commenter's description of Obama's answers at the faith interview: word fog.

    I Read Posts Like This Here Daily (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by creeper on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    and yet the administrators of this site say they support Barack Obama. When are you guys going to wake up?

    The man is NOT presidential material and the fact that there's a "D" after his name doesn't change that.

    For a little more insight into the Obama campaign, check out Kids For Obama.

    Get 'em while they're young and they're yours for life.

     

    This was the funniest one (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    Draw a picture of Senator Barack Obama or "an expression of Democracy". For example, the Senator sitting in the White House or working on Capitol Hill. You can send your drawing to the Obama for America Campaign Headquarters in Chicago and it will be posted for the Senator to see

    (My emphasis) - Ha!  

    Maybe they can draw Obama desperately calling the Presidents of Russia and Georgia to stop all this nonsense until after the election because it might make him look bad. <snark>

    Parent

    That's pretty funny.... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    Am I reading too much into it as an educator that they might be inadvertently creating the impression in young minds that Obama = democracy? Would it have killed them to give as a further example a picture of people voting?

    Parent
    Stick to the topic (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    are do not comment in my threads.

    Parent
    BTD, Respectfully (none / 0) (#121)
    by creeper on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    the topic was yet another reversal by Obama on a crucial issue.  I do not understand how you can continue to post diaries so sharply critical of Barack Obama and yet support him.

    Does the "D" mean that much?

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    A classic Joe Biden ad from 1988, which begins: "The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, and the economic future of the next generation.

    Agreed.  Mr. "Can't I just eat my waffles in peace?" is not exactly the person you want for an international crisis.  This is going to be horrendous for Democrats.

    Horrendous.

    Man, Joe Biden (none / 0) (#92)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    should really take his boobs and go home.

    Parent
    as much as I am Biden person (none / 0) (#100)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST

    and have been all along, there is something about this period of uncertainty that makes you like all the floated possibilities and then gasp with horror at their prospects.

    I saw that old Biden ad and nothing says flip flop like cutting between scenes of him bald and cutting to him with a full head of white hair looking like Hollywood agent Ed Limato.

    Will no one invent the perfect candidate :-(

    Parent

    Surely there's a market-based solution to this. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    Surely.

    You're right! There is! (none / 0) (#88)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    Damn.  Why didn't I think of that?

    Georgia could just BUY Ossetia.

    Game over.

    Parent

    Isn't that what the billion dollar (none / 0) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    package is for?

    Parent
    If you thought so, (none / 0) (#127)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    you're way quicker than I am!

    Why didn't they just say so?  I thought it was for building schools and hospitals and other silly stuff like that.  Y'know, 'reconstruction.'

    If I'd known it was for real estate, I wouldn't have been so quick to criticize.  An investment!  Is there any waterfront?  Hot springs?  View property?

    Parent

    Red flag (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    When Obama campaigned for Lieberman, calling upon the citizens of Connecticut to have the "good sense" to reelect "Joe", it seemed an in-your-face statement by Obama that he was not the principled anti-Iraq-war candidate that self-styled progressives were touting.

    Progressives, by and large, looked the other way.

    To me, it was a huge red flag about Obama.

    Now we see him chiming in with every other right-wing Bush-like enterprise- whether it be Iran, Iraq, Pakistan or Russia.

    I can't define the mechanism by which people numb themselves to reality. More and more, it seems like the Obama phenomenon was fueled by a rabid sexism focused on Hillary Clinton. It was like a drunken rage.

    And while we're tossing around a billion here and a billion there, how about a billion for New Orleans?  

    Weird innit? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    I can't define the mechanism by which people numb themselves to reality. More and more, it seems like the Obama phenomenon was fueled by a rabid sexism focused on Hillary Clinton. It was like a drunken rage.

    Yeah.  It was.  One with a veeeeeery long hangover.

    Parent

    makes some sense (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by souvarine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    Politically Obama is making sense here, the Soviet Union is long gone but you can still lose an election by backing down from the Russians. I don't share billmon's concern about expanding NATO, just because it is part of Cheney's plots doesn't make it a bad idea.

    It is great to see billmon posting again though, he's given me a reason to visit dailykos.

    Tough Talk (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    The Biden/Obama response seems to be tough talk to Russia and buy-offs($1 Billion for starters) as a palliative for Georgians.  A retrospective attempt at solution, but where is the prospective, diplomatic and even-handed strategy?  Biden should check into Neil Kinnock's writings, there might be something there he can appropriate.

    Heh (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    So you (none / 0) (#2)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    are against the US helping an ally reconstruct their country after an invasion of their country by Russia? You would have Obama come out and say we will not lend a hand in the reconstruction?
    I disagree. Georgia is no saint but neither is Russia. We contributed to this whole debacle with Bush's overt actions to encourage Georgia to thumb their nose at Russia.
    Now you want us to totally abandon Georgia?
    This is the least offensive comment Obama can make in support of an ally without condoning their actions.


    Um (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    I am certainly against announcing it the way Biden did it and with the belligerent tone added to it.

    I am CERTAINLY against expansion of NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia.

    I am certainly against Democrats tryiong to look strong on national security be acting like Bush Republicans.

    I take it you are in favor of all of those things.

    Parent

    I would like Georgia and the Ukraine (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    to be "able" to join NATO, but not in this fashion.  Other than that, I'm in agreement with you.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:42:40 PM EST
    There is no fashion in the near future that makes allowing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO a sane policy.

    IT is incredibly provocative and unnecessary.

    But here is a question for you, what is the purpose of NATO in your opinion?

    Parent

    A means of unity that deters aggression (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    Right (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    But there has to be a limit, otherwise we could just invite every country other than Russia into NATO, and we'd have no more worries ever!

    The Georgia situation has been a bit of a gut-check for the West in the sense that it has forced the US and Europe to think seriously about whether they really, honest-to-God want to be in the position of having to defend Georgia with military force over its contentious border issues.  Quite clearly, we cannot be the guarantors of peace with respect to every border conflict in every corner of the world.  That's why this situation has made clear that admitting Georgia to NATO is not feasible at this time.

    Parent

    I'm not saying we should defend (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Georgia with its issues.  It is okay for Georgia to work towards NATO membership though and work towards peace and stability.  In doing so perhaps letting Ossetia go as it desires to go gets the democracy of Georgia into the alliance.  In such ways peace is made.

    Parent
    Very good (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    Expanding NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia would SPARK military conflict, not deter it.

    That is why it is a bad idea.

    Parent

    It does not have to (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    spark military conflict.  Georgia was the first to throw organized military stones in this brawl.  Having a goal of joining NATO is not a "bad" goal.

    Parent
    It is in the case of Georgia (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    It should be strongly discouraged.

    Parent
    Georgia should be encouraged to (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    meet membership requirements.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    Georgia should be told that realistically, NATO will not be adding Georgia any time soon.

    Parent
    You really do support (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    hope and change tepidly.

    Parent
    Per NATO website, there is a primary (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    goal of mutual defense.  But, look at all the former components of the Soviet bloc who are now members of NATO and nowhere near the supposed area of NATO when it was initially formed:

    NATO members

    Then there is the "democracy" requirement.

    Parent

    Georgia does not meet the requirements (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    at this time and with each passing day does so less and less.  Neither Bush, McCain, Obama, or Biden seem to care though that how they are proposing to address this situation reeks of inviting the destruction of the village in order to save it.

    Parent
    no way! (none / 0) (#35)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    Hmm (none / 0) (#11)
    by danmac on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    "I am running for President because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting, and voting like George Bush Republicans."

    Isn't Obama saying here that trying to look strong on national security by acting like George Bush Republicans is exactly what he is against?

    Parent

    I think this is just (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    another example of one of Barack's highly nuanced comments, kind of like when he said he was against FISA.  

    Parent
    tee, hee, hee (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    Um yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    Do you have a point?

    Parent
    I do agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    with you on NATO membership. That is not something we should rush into without extensive thought and study. Even then, I would probably oppose it. Lower the tempature in this region.
    South Ossetia is a mixed population of Georgians,Ossetians and Russians...sound familiar? Another Iraq..we need to go slow.

    Parent
    So maybe you should have read my whole post (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    full NATO staus is a mistake (none / 0) (#76)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:22:58 PM EST

    The problem with Georgia in NATO isnt that  they dont meet or couldnt meet the criterion.

    Its that Georgia isnt defensible. You cant add some one to a mutual defense treaty if it is impossible for you to defend them, it just makes you look bad when something happens.

    West Germany was going hard enough to defend in land war, I dont see how it can be done in Georgia. Maybe we could get air superiority but we couldn't hold ground.

    Parent

    The problem for most of us (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    is the fact that we are taking sides. Not only that but in this case we are taking sides for the country who basically says screw what the citizenry of Ossetia wants. Doesn't sound very democratic to me. I guess we are only interested in "democracy" when it suits our needs.

    Parent
    helping an ally reconstruct their country... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    But, we haven't finished reconstructing Iraq yet, or Afghanistan.

    Parent
    It is hard to reconstruct much of anything (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    when it is in the middle of a war zone and sadly what Biden and Obama are proposing and working towards will likely keep Georgia a war zone while they attempt to reconstruct....how Bushesque

    Parent
    personally i wish they were as (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    concerned about rebuilding the good old usa.

    Parent
    Or New Orleans. (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    a billion here (none / 0) (#15)
    by bigbay on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    a billion there

    Parent
    Borrowed from our pals (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    the Chinese communists!

    Irony is dead.

    Parent

    ...or New Orleans (none / 0) (#53)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Sorry, oldpro, I was typing when your post came up (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:14:17 PM EST
    On a purely practical level..... (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    ...announcing that you want to send another 1 billion dollars overseas when people are not doing so well here probably isn't going to impress a lot of voters. But what do I know.

    Parent
    Tax and spend Democrats... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    back to the R talking points!

    Don't just give them the ammunition...help 'em load the gun.

    Dumb.

    Parent

    use common sense. we can't afford to (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    rebuilt new orleans, our bridges, our highway, insure those not insured. we are frigging broke.

    Parent
    Beyond 'broke.' (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    We are in debt up to our eyeballs.

    Parent
    Obama and Biden... (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    can put on their work gloves and hard hats and help the Georgians rebuild all they want.  Nobody will stop them.

    I object to a billion of our dollars being thrown at Georgia when we've got an over-taxed middle class, a deficit the size of the Milky Way, 2 bloody and expensive foreign occupations, and bridges falling down here at home.  Seriously...wtf are they smoking?  Must be better than my sh*t.

    Parent

    riiight (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    yes i am. (none / 0) (#33)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    How about the government (none / 0) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    transparency thing, as far as I can see it's the only "new change" from what we've been doing left?

    Sigh. We'vve come a Loooooong way baby. Not. I'm at the point where I figure I shouldn't be holding my breath hoping for any real change anyway. Viva la status quo(at least I might have a hope of keeping one or two of my rights).

    Depressing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Platypus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    This is all very depressing.

    And it certainly gives significant weight to the Green/Nader-type criticism that there is almost no substantial difference between the two mainstream parties...

    Biden for VP would be hilarious on FAs... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Exeter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    ...and everything else. Can you imagine trying to keep Joe on the Obama talking points?  

    Joe would GIVE Obama (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    his talking points.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    which is part of the reason why I still have my doubts that it's Biden.

    In any case, latest rumor is that we'll know tonight.

    Parent

    But, so what if Biden isn't the VP pick? (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    You still have Obama parroting what Biden/McCain are saying, so regardless of whether Obama is the VP pick or the next Secretary of State, you are hearing the Obama policy, and you now know that he appears to have rejected the sane (Nunn) approach.  

    Although, who knows?  He is as likely to agree with Nunn after he gets some pushback, and then try to convince us that he and Biden were saying that all along.  Wouldn't be the first time we heard, "I've said all along that..." or "it has always been my position that..."

    At this stage, I don't see how a different VP helps either the situation or his chances; if this is the policy Obama has approved, I think you're seeing a preview of coming attractions.

    Parent

    Back to WORM (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    What Obama Really Meant.

    Wonder if that would fly this time.

    Parent

    I thought we wouldn't know (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    before Wed according to the O camp last night?

    Parent
    I don't believe anything I hear (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    until it's official.

    Parent
    I'm With You On That (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    It may be that everything I've feared would turn out to be true has been this election season, but I still hold out "hope" that eventually Obama will do something that won't alienate me.  Doesn't he have to eventually do something I like?  Odd are, right?  

    Parent
    Here's to "hope" (none / 0) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    at least we'll be on message until his announcement anyways eh?

    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Exeter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    It seems like Biden wouldn't be the "safe choice."  He would, however, be a very articulate and convincing attack dog to go after McCain... a central job of the VP candidate that is often overlooked.

    Parent
    imagine the repub talking points! (none / 0) (#47)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    Obama has hired a VP speech writer according to (none / 0) (#67)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    CNN. Would this point to Biden?

    Maybe Obama is the VP! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    Let's hope. (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:39:03 PM EST
    I am black and a staunch Hillary Clinton Supporter (none / 0) (#71)
    by rottodamn on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    I am left of left but I'm not sure about the identity of the other lefties around here. I had to stop visiting most lefty blogs because of their abusive treatment of Hillary during the primaries. I hope this blog stays rational.

    Hillary has to pander though she was crucified by the left for it she has to do it. I give Obama the same leeway to do the same. There is no way any Democrat will win this election by only looking at the birds eye view of the popular vote. One needs to look at the fight and the demographics on a state by state basis.

    Those of you who are so idealistic or unrealistic to think that a candidate should only reach left are not thinking clearly. I am bitter and angry about the primary but I am a Democrat. I will support Obama should he get the nod.

    Whether it is Hillary or Obama, the base needs to stay put and hopefully they can pull in some independent and centrist type voters for the election. Give the Democratic candidates room to maneuver.

    That said I feel the plan all along was to bump The Clintons out of the Dem Darling spotlight and return the party back to its former and some might think rightful owners, the Kennedys and the old guard.

    And being that they have the youth vote behind them, the old guard will rule for years to come. What's going on in the Democratic Party is bigger than Obama. He is simply the vehicle to bring it into action. There was much plotting in the background by the Democrats, Republicans, Karl Rove, the media etc., to bounce Hillary out of this election.

    I'm not saying they conspired together just they all wanted the same thing.

    McCain has to huff and puff about the Georgian conflict. War is his strength. But Obama can't sit there like a choir boy or worst yet a pacifist and say nothing in return. Of course he's going to roar back and you might not like his response.

    This is getting as funny to read (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by chel2551 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    and a staunch Hillary Clinton Supporter

    as "Check out his website"...

    especially in view of what sentiments always follow this pronouncement as far as Obama is concerned.

    Parent

    I gave money to Hillary's campaign so (none / 0) (#110)
    by rottodamn on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you mean by "check out his website".

    The only thing I was pointing out is the right gives there candidates all kinds of leeway to say whatever and doesn't hold it against him or her because they know who the guy is at the core and want him elected.

    I extended the same leeway to Hillary and fought like hell for months on blogs fighting for her until I couldn't take the nastiness anymore. I was surprised by the nastiness of the left and of course expected the nastiness of the right.

    I'm being sincere here. I'm sure you have been battered by Obamabots before and hence think I am one of them but I can assure you I'm not. I have always supported Hillary. And I would support her to ROAR back about the Georgian conflict. The fact is Dems any Dem looks weak and like a pacifist to a righty and some independent voters. Isn't that who Hillary or Obama would have to woo and her/his base should stay put?

    Anyway, I hated when the Obamabots stated the reason they couldn't support Hillary is because she panders too much. I told them then, if a person wants to win they will have to pander at some point. Your vote is a single vote.

    I hope the Dems are better off after this convention!

    Parent

    Actually the RIght does no such thing (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    John McCain has gone so far to the right it is not even funny.

    Please deal in facts. TYou are just blathering BS now.

    Parent

    Of course McCain has gone far right (none / 0) (#122)
    by rottodamn on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    Those are the people who he has to get on board to  support him. They know full well he is not a true right wing conservative. McCain is a moderate. Moderates don't have a problem with McCain but the far right does. He isn't throwing them under the bus though, he is pandering to them. He needs their votes.

    They told him no Romney. He has to placate those people to make them feel as if they will still have a voice in his admin and some power should he win.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    should have run as a hawk during the primary then if he believes that is the way to win. Right now he looks like a flip flopper and his supporters have been played for chumps once agian.

    Parent
    Go to the PUMA sites. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    This site supports Obama all the way into defeat.

    Parent
    Your comment (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    is bizarre.

    I would not even know how to start replying to it.

    Parent

    I really wonder (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    what my peacenik Obama-supporter pals are thinking about this.

    They're probably calling a prayer vigil.

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#109)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    ...the term "progressive foreign policy" should be synonymous with "appeasing Russian aggression". Obama's staff evidently realizes that if these two terms were to become synonymous it would make McCain a shoo-in (to borrow a phrase) in November. It would be a real nightmare scenario: the Democrats are against the use of force, but only if the force is American. Is that the slogan you are trying to hand to the Republicans?

    Ah, 1938 (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    Welcome all right wing commenters!

    Parent
    We are the Huns we have been waiting for! (none / 0) (#118)
    by karmadillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    No peaceniks allowed.

    Parent
    Especially Delicious (none / 0) (#126)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    Was Billmon's update, in which he showed just how rash and unwise Obama's and Biden's "expand NATO now" attitude is.  The current pro-U.S. government of Georgia is not exactly stable.  What happens if, after being admitted to NATO and has gained entry to all the secret workings and plans of the alliance, Georgia then elects a pro-Russian government?  What will Obama and the other foreign policy geniuses do then?