We know that now in retrospect. It wasn’t as clear then but I thought it was clear enough.
Excellent point.
That’s scary as hell.
He’s been a great patriot and public servant. I honor that. But I think it’s incredibly clear he’s the poorer choice of our two presidential candidates
In 2000, the attitude expressed in that article may well have gotten him elected. As it is, there’s going to be plenty of…well, let’s say militant civilians who’ll rally behind him for being an international asshole. But given that we’ve all seen how well that worked with Bush, McCain’s base is (I hope) going to be a lot smaller now than it would have been back then.
This’ll make it tougher for McCain to sell his ‘Iraq as Korea’ vision:
Iraq lawmakers want U.S. forces out as part of deal
Sheesh. They need to lighten up a bit. I still can’t listen to that song with out laughing.
I guess it’s only funny when Colbert or Stewart do stuff like that.
I heard a “Bomb Iran!” to the tune of “Barbara Ann” song on the radio during the 1979-81 hostage crisis. It was funny then, in a frustrated-angry sort of way. Now it’s just scary. Like hearing “We begin bombing in five minutes!” from the man who actually had control of the bombs.
I thought that was funny at the time, and I still do. Part of that is that even then, it seemed pretty clear that Reagan didn’t want to bomb Russia, even if some of the people working for him did.
Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings had a long post about Obama in October 2006 that I wanted to excerpt here:
And then she goes into detail about legislation Obama’s worked on relating to weapons proliferation, avian flu, medical malpractice, and genetic testing, following that up with further for-instances without the detail.
Compare that with McCain, who gets bored with even the basics of domestic or economic policy, and can’t be bothered to learn even basic details about issues he seems to really care about, like Iraq.
Nobody wants a micromanager as President (we already tried that, 30 years ago), but in order to manage well, you have to be able to understand well enough to at least briefly grasp the basics and a few major details of what’s in front of you, before moving on to the next thing. Obama can and will do this; McCain, probably not.
For the full effect, you really need to put the whole quote in there:
Personally, I liked his polish joke better:
deleted.
Obama today stated that any two-state solution must leave Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, which is pissing off the Palestinians. Even though he was making a speech to AIPAC, he should at least have balanced it by adding that, except for EJ, Israel should get to keep no territory east of the Green Line, and especially not between the Green Line and the Wall.
Still and all, he does have a better chance than Bush (or McCain) of working out a final settlement, if only because he’s done nothing in particular to alienate the Pals as yet. (And being a Muslim is bound to help. 
)
Referring to Obama:
Do keep in mind that it was Obama and only Obama that pointed out what a stupid idea suspending the fuel tax would be. True, he knew that 'cause he’d seen it fail at the state level (where he supported it) but he 1)admited his mistake. 2) Learned from it. 3)Took the correct stand even though it probably hurt his campaign.
As he told CNN last night, Israel won’t like parts of his speech and the Palestinians won’t like part of his speech, which is what negotiation is all about — finding the compromises.
You might be surprised to learn that Obama’s chief economic advisor is a Chicagoan, Austin Goolsbee, who is of the Hayek and Friedman mold. Goolsbee has said that free trade is extremely important, but that NAFTA is not free trade. He says that the first few pages of the NAFTA agreement tout free trade, but the remaining 1,800 pages are full of loopholes, exceptions, regulations, and special favors.
There will always be taxes, no matter who is president. It’s just a matter of who pays what. Obama’s plan echoes the anti-Keynesians, lifting the tax and regulation burden on middle class labor and upstart entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is the level at which America excels. Here’s what Obama says in his own words:
I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It’s led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery.That’s decidedly NOT a leftist economic view.
Perhaps not Liberal, but I think like any politician it depends on who he’s talking to at the moment as to what economic message he is sending out. Personally I like to think that Obama will be like Clinton in his first term…starting out with a pretty left leaning economics agenda but then shifting it to the center when he sees (or is told by his advisor’s) that this will be a better path.
I suppose we are going to find out as it looks to me at this point as if Obama is going to go all the way. I’m not TOO worried about a heavy left wing economics agenda from Obama…I think he’s to smart for that. But I guess we’ll see.
-XT
I’d just like to remind people of something that Obama knows. The Left-Center-Right model of politics is old hat. He knows that he is not bound by left and right and whatever is between. Liberalism and authoritarianism move off that line and open a whole new plane of political discourse. See the Nolan Chart.
For those inclined to think that Obama is too soft, too namby-pamby to stand up to tough guys, dictators, and the Republican smear machine, consider what Al Giordano is saying over at The Field:
I’ve been thinking a lot about how Obama handled Lieberman – took him by the hand on the Senate floor, outwardly cordial but I bet that grip was saying “You ain’t going nowhere, mister”; took him to a spot where everyone – colleagues and press alike – could see them but nobody could overhear them; proceeded to demonstrate unmistakable leader of the pack body language, yet left the actual conversation unknown, to give Joementum a scrap of face-saving cover: Oh, yeh, Obama the new Big Dog is pissing on every lamppost and bush. It’s his party now.
No more spineless, slow-reacting Democratic leadership. No more rolling over for the opposition if it so much as growls. Look at what he’s done just in the 72 hours – 72 hours! – since he took the nomination to lock his hands on the levers of power.
Anyone who’s thinking from his handling of Hillary during the primaries that he’ll be easy meat for the Republicans against McCain is in for the steamrolling of their political life. He’ll win fair, but he’ll win tough – ruthlessly tough if he has to.
And that bit of theater with 95-year-old Charles Edwards and the walking stick? Loved it, even though it’s not easy to be guffawing through a lump in your throat.
Yup Eddy, Obama is explicitly demonstrating that he knows how to speak softly but carry a big stick.
Of course, there are other ways to systematize political views. See the Pournelle Chart, the Political Axis, and others.
I honestly think that McCain’s campaign will not be able to match Obama’s for energy, certainly not in terms of money. And I actually think McCain’s heart is not entirely in it any more. He has sold himself as an independent thinking Republican, yet he is being eaten alive by the Republican machinery he needs to win. I think over the election season it will totallyu drain his resolve.