The Interpretation of the latest Rasmussen Reports Poll over at the Daily Kos bodes ill for our candidate– " It is now evident that Hillary Clinton has came out the winner of the spat the two had for the past week which shows Clinton's strength and experience."
Obama's approach has been strong, unremorseful and this is great. However, his critique of Washington Experience does nothing to prove what Obama's unique experience is, much less show that it is more desireable than what the other candidates have to offer.
Obama makes the effective argument, I think, that "experience," as in "Washington experience" didn't prevent the US from making the most significant foreign policy mistake in this countries history. Some of Washington's most experienced people – Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. got us into this ill-fated and ill-advised war in Iraq, while even experienced folks in the opposition went along with the rationale for this war.
Seeing all of these crusty old men and their stale view of a foreign policy and crude
understanding of the world today, Obama offers something new. He offers to meet with world leaders of our enemies. Why not?
Obama then states that he would strike in Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence. Not smooth, perhaps, but completely in-line with current American policy. His mistake? He said it outloud.
Next, Obama says no, he won't use nuclear weapons on Osama Bin Laden's cave. He's criticized for "taking the nuclear option off the table – something an "experienced Washington pol" would never do, despite the fact that a majority of Americans and 98% of the rest of the worlds population would shun such a move. The political fallout for America would rival the actual nuclear fallout!
In addition to his general critique of stale Washington group think, Obama passes a secondary challenge - not backing down from his statements idea. This shows strength.
But now, he must expound on his critique of the "Washington Way" - he can't just dismiss it out of hand. That didn't work in 2004 when Dems could only muster attacks on Bush's mistakes in Iraq. They had no affirmative oposing ideas - at least, none of them got through.
Obama needs to define, or perhaps, redefine 'experience.' He needs to expound, perhaps poetically as he can do so well, on what experience means to him, what his experience is, and how it will translate into valuable experience in the White House. In my personal opinion, Obama's experience has created an amazing leader - someone brave enough to challenge accepted wisdom and not back down. Someone who can motivate people. Someone who's willing to take the radical road of practical politics.
There’s the possibility of elections in Pakiston in October 2007. Whether Musharraf allows for a free and fair election is in doubt. Musharraf has been in trouble as of late and news media questions, “What will happen to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons should Musharraf fall?” The assumption is that his successor would be a radical fundamentalist intent on our destruction. Not likely. In fact, the outcome might be just the opposite.
Pakistan’s two most popular parties are the PPP and the Muslim League – both are described as relatively centrist with the PPP on the center left and the Muslim League on the center-right. Would not a centrist elected democracy in the region be more ideal than a military ruler? (“President Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup, in October 1999). Its just this kind dictator – one who appears attached to American strings while doing everything possible to protect his personal power– that has for too many years, ruled in the Middle east and elsewhere, and led to angry and violence opposition from a disenfranchised people.
Putting pressure on Musharraf is the right thing to do. Talks of unilateral attacks with or without permission from the government, (despite the fact that it’s current US policy,) was not smooth. Instead, Obama should speak out about free and fair elections in Pakistan. Make a grand showing (without tanks, bombers and ground troops) that the US supports democracy around the world for real.
Tonight, during the YouTube debate, I decided to pledge myself to Obama '08. I've done this before, I suppose. I loved Bill Clinton, still do - he was brilliant, charismatic, schrewd but his screw-up opened the door for DeLay, Gingrich and ultimately, George Bush. Then there was Howard Dean -blunt, almost brash with his honesty, tough but a wonk at heart and then there was that silly scream that did him in.
So here I am, about to jump in with both feet for Barak. I believe in this guy because he's brilliant, charismatic, reasonable, and dare I say it, honest. His answer on Gay marriage tonight was right on - differentiating between legal rights granted by the state and the religious rite that is the pervue of the church was exactly the right answser. It is the most practical answer that maintains a rigid distinction between church and state (which is at the heart of the gay issue). Though it may not be seen as such by those who have a knee jerk opposition to gay people, Obama's response might reach the reasonable person out there who hasn't yet made up their mind.
It's this the practical yet righteous road that Sen. Obama has been on since I first saw him at the Democratic convention - his famous Red State/Blue State speech. I believe this practical righteousness could bring a lot of practical, thinking and caring folks together. At least I hope it will. I'm tired of the division and I want a new politics of hope.
That's why I'm here and I'm here to help.
