Of course, Barack Obama won the debate in Nashville last night, though the tone of the evening overall was slow and somber. As the night progressed, Obama was at once self-possessed and admiringly steady as a frazzled John McCain hurled one insult after another, many of them misguided, at the Democratic nominee.
Guided by the firm hand of NBC’s Tom Brokaw on the campus of Belmont University, Obama proved more than up to the night’s many challenges, at one point chiding an overmatched McCain: “This is the guy who sang, ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,’ who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of ’speaking softly’ … This is the person who, after we had — we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan– where he said, ‘Next up, Baghdad.’ ”
During the debate, McCain attacked Obama on inexperience, while he had his attack dog Sarah Palin sniffing along the campaign trail falsely connecting Obama to terrorists and extremist activity. Was it just me or did there seem something quite disingenuous about a self-proclaimed war hero not having the verve to attack his opponent in a face-to-face confrontation the same way he’s had others do behind his back?
McCain went on to accuse Obama of announcing a possible attack on Pakistan to which the ever-calm Obama explained that he never called for an attack on that region. Further, Obama insisted that his efforts in that arena would be for one reason only. “If Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should,” he stated firmly.
Yes, McCain, as he has during the past few weeks especially, seemed erratic with arms flailing as he wandered aimlessly around the small half-debate, half-Town Hall stage. Watching McCain stumble and falter during his disjointed answers made one frightened at the possible effects his presidency would have on this nation.
On Monday morning, my family buried my 108-year-old paternal grandmother. Her amazing journey in the deep South bore witness to the post-slave era, the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights movement. She also lived to see the emergence of one Barack Obama, and be touched by his spirit. In her honor and all the other souls who have endured to have their struggles manifest, I am resolved and relieved to know a McCain/Palin presidency is looking more and more as if it can’t and won’t happen …
‘night grandma and thanks.
Photo: Hoag Levins/Kevyn T. Johnson’s oil and collage ‘I’m Still Standing’
(Suggested draft speech fragments for Senator Obama)
During this campaign, meeting with our enemies without preconditions is usually discussed with reference to Iran and the security of Israel. Let me say that I have no illusions about the current Iranian leader. I know that he is publicly committed to the destruction of Israel. I know that Israel is fighting for its survival in a slow-motion war with groups supported by Iran. I know that rockets are falling on Israel every day. And I also know that Israel will never have peace, the Palestinians will never have a country, and that nothing is going to change unless we start to discuss the situation with all of the powers in the region, including Iran.
I do not propose meetings just for the sake of meetings, or agreements just for the sake of agreements. We must be unwavering in our support for human rights and democracy throughout the world. We must push for agreements which improve human rights. We must never compromise on our principles. But setting preconditions which prevent any meetings from ever taking place is part of a foreign policy which is based not on principles but on arrogance. While we are discussing preconditions the risk of a major conflict grows every day. While we are discussing preconditions the lives of people in the region are getting worse instead of better. While we discuss preconditions we may be missing opportunities to reduce the level of violence and improve the lives of people in the region.
I do not say that reducing the level of violence in the Middle East will be easy. I do not say that important agreements will be reached quickly. I do not even say that important agreements are possible. I say only that we should not give up without trying.
Suggested draft speech fragments for Senator Obama
Why we should meet with our enemies as well as our friends without preconditions:
If you want to have a fight with someone, you challenge them in public. If you challenge someone in public, they cannot back down or they will lose face with their supporters. Challenging the leader of another country in public can lead only to conflict, or to the preservation of the status quo.
If you want someone to change their behavior, you challenge them in private. People will choose to change their behavior if they can be convinced that is in their best interest to change. Agreements can be reached if the concerns of both parties are honestly discussed.
Significant agreements are not reached all at once, but in stages. Preconditions prevent the negotiation of the smaller confidence-building agreements which may eventually lead to an important treaty. That final treaty, made possible by first meeting without preconditions, may include most or all of what you wanted to demand as preconditions.
A meeting between the leaders of two countries can produce important results only after much preparation on both sides. But the setting of preconditions by either side for the start of negotiations is the same as making challenges in public. All of this preparation and negotiation may not result in any agreements, and may seem pointless at times, but this is the only road which may lead to progress.
Meeting with our enemies without preconditions is usually discussed with reference to Iran. Let me say that I have no illusions about the current Iranian leader. I know that he is publicly committed to the destruction of Israel. I know that Israel is fighting for its survival in a slow-motion war with gangs supported by Iran. I know that rockets are falling on Israel every day. And I know that Iran is trying to exploit the turmoil in their region for their own advantage. And I also know that Israel will never have peace, the Palestinians will never have a country, and that nothing is going to change unless we start to discuss the situation with all of the powers in the region, including Iran.
His bottom line: He liked Obama's answer, and he thought Hillary misconstrued what he meant by "preconditions" in acting like Obama had agreed to meet Fidel and Chavez with no diplomatic groundwork whatsoever. He said his question just meant there shouldn't be a requirement of a change in a country's behavior as a condition of talking to them.
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/07/stephen_speaks.html#more
This is my submission for soundbite of the week.
Dear Fellow Bloggers: please read below. It starts out as the standard political diatribe, but then morphs into a rather colorful and, I hope, interesting proposal. Any comments will be greatly appreciated.
We cannot wait until 2010, as Hillary proposes, to deal seriously with Iran and Syria (OK, Hugo Chavez can wait, but what's the point?)
Who has the moral high ground with Syria sheltering a million refugees from our war and our failed occupation?
Who needs whom? Thinking that we can get out of this war with our heads held high and our regal "POTAC" prestige intact is a naive and irresponsible pipe dream. (BTW I find all this POTAC stuff on the Hillary sites and from her supporters a little creepy and again, 1984-like - you know, the robot-like "All Hail the POTAC, All Hail the POTAC").
Well, nobody wants to hear the following, and I don't know when the correct time to say it to the broader public will be, but we are definitely going to have to eat some humble pie to get out of this disaster.
There are 5 well-known stages of major loss: shock, denial, anger, grief, and acceptance.
We're still in anger, and now is not the time to serve up the humble pie - we'll just get it thrown back in our faces in righteous, confused anger. However, those of us who are ahead of curve on this one (and have been since 2002) better get out our recipe books to figure out how to cook up various versions of old humble pie that will be tolerably palatable as we move into the stage of grieving for our lost war.
Now, humble pie is a delicacy (remember, the main ingredient is crow) that is certainly not to everyone's taste, but everyone knows in their heads that its good for them when they really need it, whether they like it or not, and consumption will speed up our transition out of that unpleasant grief stuff and into the acceptance stage, and that pleasant feeling of "I guess we're not that bad after all". But you don't get the dessert before you've eaten the pie.
Dear Fellow Bloggers: What do you think of all this? Am I way off target with my colorful musings or on the right track with this stuff? Do you think there's any hope for a humble-pie fest in 2008?
Our leader did get caught in a verbal trap on the issue of "negotiations without preconditions."
I think he understood the question to mean "preconditions" as opposed to meeting "without any diplomatic preparation". A summit meeting is always an intricate diplomatic dance of preparation. Not even summit meetings with Britain or Canada take place without preparation and agreement ("conditions") on a range of protocol and substantive issues.
Of course, he did say "conditions" with Chavez, but it would be no big stink to say "I meant preparations. I look forward to building upon my degree in international relations through further coaching in the fine points of diplomatic language from the superb professionals at the State Department, just like Bill Clinton was coached in 1992.
The political verbal parsing fogs the main issue: we cannot continue political grandstanding with our adversaries. Because of this politicing, Hillary Clinton has now taken the position that she will wait until at lease 2010 before she start serious negotiations with the Syrians and the Iranians. In this, she is profoundly mistaken, again.
I'd rather be in the position of correcting myself on the fine diplomatic nuances between diplomatic preparations and reconditions in an interview on Chavez than be in a position of having to justify waiting until 2010 before dealing realistically with the situation in Iraq."
