Organizing for America | Tom Fennell's Obama Blog: 0/m transferred to "Draft Gore"

$200/m transferred to "Draft Gore"

By Tom Fennell - Aug 4th, 2007 at 9:50 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: authenticity, gore, Iraq, Pakistan

This past week Barack failed those of use who thought he was against playing politics with foreign policy.

Action may be needed in Pakistan, but it is fraught with danger, and Barack didn't even address that. As if all that hampered Bush and Cheney was a lack of will. Ha!

The whole speech was clearly geared towards his image problems, not our real problems, and as such was a travesty.

Declaring an intervention in Pakistan a year and a half before his presidency hugely undermines his credibility in the Muslim Mid-East, which is one of his greatest assets. Don't think they're not listening.

Now I'm wondering about the sincerity of his opposition to the war in 2002. Was he just pandering to his left-wing urban Chicago constituency then?

I've just transferred my $200/m to "Draft Gore"

I like Obama, and I hope I'll be back, but if that is to happen he needs to do something to restore my faith in his authenticity and his ability to not to pander to our worst emotions, the ones that have lead us to tragedy in Iraq.

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

FOREIGN POLICY | Report to Admin

By Rome Aug 4th 2007 at 10:34 am EDT

Maby I'm mistaken, but this was Barack's FOREIGN POLICY address. While he did address how securing our homeland was a integral part of his policy, a foreign policy is structured in terms of terroist, our relationship with other countries, etc.

Foreign Policy Address | Report to Admin

By Tom Fennell Aug 4th 2007 at 11:28 am EDT

One can make a foreign policy address without playing politics with foreign policy. Unfortunately Barack did the latter.

One of Obama's biggest assets over Hillary was his credibility in the Mid-East, and by announcing an intervention a year and a half before his presidency, that's going to go down the tubes.

It's one thing to say "we need to get Al-Qaeda, and we can't exclude a unilateral intervention", but its something to say "we must intervene" when you're not even President, and then to give lots of press before and after on this new "tough stance."

It's only this inept born-again inverventionist militarism that got him into the nuclear question, which Hillary ran rings around him on.

And the only reason the whole issue came up is not because of real need to clarify policy, but because he was running scared from being called weak the previous weak. I thought he could win the battle by holding to his guns on diplomacy, despite the media's attempt to sink him on that one, but he definitely blinked by chickening out and playing the bully instead.

In short: he let political calculus distort his foreign policy, exactly our main dissatisfaction with Hillary.

I like Obama, and hope he can restore the faith of the anti-militarist left (not pacifist, and not even necessarily anti-war), but for now he's lost us. And we're not a fringe group - 30% of the American people were against the Iraq war. I think committed anti-militarists were the heart and soul of the enthusiasm for Obama's campaign, and we cannot stomach half-baked unilateral interventionist declarations.

Gore? Probably Not | Report to Admin

By David Pearl Aug 4th 2007 at 12:22 pm EDT

I hear many people voicing the opinion that Al Gore should run for president, but I think Gore is hoping to head the Environmental Protection Agency or some similar post after a new president is elected in 2008. see full blog: Sen. Obama shines in presidential debate: Link

Re: Gore? Probably Not | Report to Admin

By Tom Fennell Aug 4th 2007 at 1:21 pm EDT

I now think Obama would make a great Vice President under President Gores tutelage.

And everyone say's Gore's on a diet, and you know what that means!

Re: Gore? Probably Not | Report to Admin

By Tom Fennell Aug 4th 2007 at 1:25 pm EDT

Obama was No. 1 until is walked away from his base with adolescent tough-guy talk.

He'll make a great Vice-President undert the tutelage of Al Gore.

Re: Gore? Probably Not | Report to Admin

By Robert Aug 4th 2007 at 1:52 pm EDT

Barack remains No 1 because he made a promise, not a threat and what he said makes sense. A good leader trives on being well liked, one of the boys (so to speak). A mark of a great leader is to balance being fair and being firm. Senator has that mark.

$200/m transferred to "Draft Gore" | Report to Admin

By Robert Aug 4th 2007 at 1:44 pm EDT

Dear Tom:
You sound like one of Hillary's supporters who comes to Barack's website to stir up doubt. What Obama said was right on both issues. 1)To go after the real terrorist in Pakistan and Afganistan. 2) The nuclear issue: Your Hillary skirted the issue while Obama confronted it. That why he is needed in the white house! No more business as usual!
Robert

Re: $200/m transferred to "Draft Gore" | Report to Admin

By Tom Fennell Aug 4th 2007 at 4:40 pm EDT

Robert & Angela, you have definitely added insult to injury. Before making your accusations, did you look at my blog on this site?

No, you're caught up in the game and have become blind, just like Obama has - caught up in the hate race.

Even if its necessary to take action in Pakistan, announcing it in a political speech is reprehensible.

Al Qaeda is definitely a threat, but its now clear that Obama is as clueless as the others about how the threat must be countered.

Direct action may have made sense before Iraq. Now it will be as disaterous as Iraq was. A border raid won't do anything except boost politician's ratings, and losing Pakistan to the radicals is the last thing we need know.

Obama's speech reflected none of these realities, just ra-ra let's go get them A-rabs populism. Again. Haven't we learned?

Draft Gore.

Re: $200/m transferred to "Draft Gore" | Report to Admin

By Tom Fennell Aug 4th 2007 at 4:42 pm EDT

Don't call her "my Hillary".

You're as caught up in Hillary hate as I was. I don't like either of them much now.

I'm all for no-first strike policy, but that would be a major shift in US military policy indeed. You don't bring it up as an off-the-cuff remark on Pakistan.

Serious rookie stuff. Just like people say.

Re: $200/m transferred to "Draft Gore" | Report to Admin

By Micah Aug 5th 2007 at 11:25 am EDT

I can assure with every last dollar in my bank account Al Gore is not running, so take your pick from the current field but you need to get back into reality. Al Gore is not going to run no matter how much money or people join Draft Gore. I have met the man multiple times. He does not want the presidency any more.

Obama could say the word, boo! and it will be covered over the AP. He is in the precarious situation that anything he says can automatically be deemed political in nature. If his speeches prove one thing, it is that he is not afraid to make decisions that are a departure from existing foreign policy. I think that is important to remember. You also talk about the speech he made as if Obama would start the next major U.S. war. If Obama did as he said and struck Al Queida within Pakistan, Obama would not be starting another war. He would be taking out very specific targets. The United States regularly struck terrorist and military targets in Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia under President Clinton and none of those strikes started a war.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.