As Obama rides the mighty wave of enthusiasm into the Democratic nomination, I wonder why his supporters aren't more concerned about his ongoing display of what can only be described as a fatal level of naiveté and poor judgment born of inexperience which could well doom his campaign.
The latest example is his reaction to Bush's comments before the Israeli Knesset. Bush made a general comment, accusing 'some people' of naively leaning towards appeasement with terrorist regimes. Bush didn't mention the Democrats and didn't even make an oblique reference to Obama, though the media immediately jumped on the speech and turned it into an accusation against Obama. He could just as easily have been talking about the useless leaders of the European Union.
Obama could have wisely ignored the comment, or brushed it off with a comment about Bush's foolish warmongering, but instead he proved that he was as naive as Bush accused him of being by reacting in a defensive way which made it clear he assumed the comments were about him, and that he believed there were legitimate grounds for accusing him of being an appeaser. Even if Bush may have very well meant to target the Democrats or Obama with his comments, he didn't explicitly do so. Obama did that for him.
As a politician, when someone lays out a sign-board which says fool and traitor, you don't want to pick it up and put it on, and that's what Obama essentially did. He fell into the simplest trap imaginable and basically colluded with Bush to make himself look unqualified to lead the country.
It doesn't help that his response was a blatant lie, of course. Claiming that he did not endorse unconditional negotiation with terrorist regimes when the video of him making that statement is available on YouTube isn't going to fly with anyone. In his responding speech Obama categorically denies having ever said what we all saw him say in a public debate and then goes on to volunteer to apply Bush's accusation of being an appeaser to himself and to all Democrats, doing more to hurt his and his party's reputation than Bush ever did.
His response shows a hypersensitivity on the issue which immediately flags him as guilty in the minds of those following the campaign. He'd have no reason to jump so unnecessarily to the defensive if he didn't feel that there was a fundamental validity to Bush's accusation. Even though Bush didn't accuse Obama of appeasement, Obama is essentially saying that Bush should have been making that accusation. Of course, Obama wasn't alone in leaping to legitimize Bush's remarks. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden quickly came to Obama's defense, again assuming that the accusations were directed at their party and thereby acknowledging in the minds of many that their party deserves to be accused of appeasement.
All of this ill-considered reaction came the day after Bush made his speech. In that time, someone in the Obama campaign ought to have told him what a bad idea his reaction was. It suggests that not only is the candidate terminally naive and lacking in judgment, but also that he's surrounded himself with political amateurs who let emotion override good sense. That does not bode well for the future of his presidential campaign or his ability to govern the country with maturity and good sense.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Harrison
Dave, rather than being naivety as you put it, this was actually a blessing for Obama: now he could bring Bush to the field of 2008 political debates, now he could lump McCain together with Bush.
2 - Dave Nalle
Let me get this straight, Bush makes a bang-up speech showing firm foreign policy leadership and Obama benefits from looking like a spineless appeaser in comparison?
Dave
3 - Dave Nalle
BTW, did no one mention to Obama that he's not running against Bush? McCain can use Obama's foolishness against him without associating himself with Bush at all.
Dave
4 - Baritone
It amazes me how differently people can respond to the same event.
To even suggest that Bush was aiming his comments toward anyone other than Barack Obama and/or the Democrats in general is ludicrous. Nobody in their right mind believed anything otherwise.
"Claiming that he did not endorse unconditional negotiation with terrorist regimes when the video of him making that statement is available on YouTube isn't going to fly with anyone."
Watch the You Tube video. At no time does Obama use the word "negotiate." A negotiation is a different animal than simply talking with someone.
Perhaps by "talking" we could determine if there is anything over which to begin a negotiation.
How much longer are we to continue to pretend that these countries don't exist. Does Dave really believe that the Bush policy of burying his head in the sand has been profitable? While we continue to keep all of those countries at bay, refusing to deal with them out of some holier than thou attitude of moral superiority, one or more of them will eventually rise up and bite us in the ass. Who's the naive one?
And as Obama pointed out, Nixon and Reagan - "The Great Republican God Who Could Do No Wrong." -maintained dialogue with the leaders of China and the Soviet Union respectively.
Pretty much the entire press response to the incident gave an unqualified win to Obama. Dave's response is one of the few who found anything remotely in favor of Bush/McCain.
The more that Obama and the Democrats maintain the connection between McCain and Bush is a plus. McCain's sad task is to try to separate himself from his predecessor. I don't know if that's possible. He pretty much mimics Bush regarding all the major issues. Bush has managed to render himself the least popular president ever - at least ever since any kind of polling has been available. I don't know that I'd want to ride on his coat tails. Backlash can be a bitch.
B-tone
5 - El Bicho
Your assessment is widely off the mark. Understandably, it may not have worked for you but it then again was it directed toward you or your demographic for approval?
"the media immediately jumped on the speech and turned it into an accusation against Obama."
That's because it was. CNN's Ed Henry reports, "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party," and no doubt he wasn't the only media person to hear that.
Rather than sit back and wait for the conservative media to run with the story and tag him an appeaser, Obama got in front of it and led the discussion with his version of the story, an important campaign tactic, and if you don't think so, ask John Kerry. It doesn't matter what was said before because the public has a short attention span.
Obama jumping into the fray also allowed stories about Hilary's WV beatdown and Obama's difficulties with white rural voters to fall by the wayside, another good tactic.
Considering their approval ratings, Obama is better served to be running against Bush than he is McCain.
He's not my guy, but Obama and his team aren't the amateurs you make them out to be.
6 - bliffle
It's a political mistake to elevate an opponents charge, but it is also a political mistake to ignore a charge in hopes of diminishing it. Obama may have made a mistake, but it's still very early in the campaign and these kind of mistakes will be forgotten and gone by November. Obama gets the benefit of learning something cheaply, if he puts it to good use in his political formation.
At this early stage they're just measuring reach. It'll get more interesting when they get warmed up.
7 - Baritone
I don't see how this exchange could have hurt Obama given his timely response. El Bicho's allusion to Kerry is apt. No candidate can let things like this go by without responding. I suppose Obama and his people may learn to modulate their responses a bit better.
But Bush's accusation that Obama and the Dems are "appeasers" similar to Chamberlain with Hitler is pretty shitty in anybody's book.
I think it's interesting that Bush's quote from a U.S. Senator actually came from a conservtive Republican from Idaho. Maybe Georgie should dust off his history books.
B-tone
8 - Tom
Dave,
The facts are the facts. I think those who have spoken out here on this blog against your one-sided response to the issue are absolutely correct. As well, the evidence presented that Bsh aides asserted the Bush attack regarding appeasement was aimed directly at Mr. Obama is starck, clear and in-focus. Give us a break, we want real reporting, not opinion.
9 - Tom
"BTW, did no one mention to Obama that he's not running against Bush?"
Most thinking people would beleive that Mr. Obama is aware of that. By casting any presidential candidate in such an ignorant light puts you in a questionable frame.
Here's the jist of it: All presidential candidates have surrogates and supporters who are well prepared to defend their candidate and deflect negative attention from their candidate. For any candidate to sit and do nothing about this shows no resolve, backbone, tenacity or with-it-ness to withstand agressive political tactics. Just like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama needs to address the connections between McCain and Bushs' policy. It's fair game since McCain is running on a similar failed political platform as we have seen the last 8 years.
10 - Clavos
Give us a break, we want real reporting, not opinion.
Then only read the pieces labeled "News."
This one is labeled "Opinion."
11 - Baritone
Yeah, Tom. I pretty much agree with you, but this ain't the CBS Evening News. This is an opinion page. No impartiality allowed.
B-tone
12 - Ruvy
Actually, the part that amused me about Bush's Knesset speech is how he put some honey on his poisoned snake oil of "peace", and how the idiots in the Knesset swallowed it down.
Of course Obama is inexperienced, Dave! His knowledge is in how to slide by without doing anything substantive - when community organizers get tired or banging their heads against the wall, that is the pattern they most often fall into. It's relatively painless, and can lead to other things - like the Illinois legislature and the US Congress - even the presidency, if they do it right....
Face it, Dave.
If there are actually elections in November, and if the prick wins, and if he is allowed to take office, you'll be stuck with him.
For guys like me, the idiot is a beacon of hope - that the average Israeli will see a Jew-hater in office, and throw out (the window) the American puppets here....
13 - Clavos
Since when is the CBS Evening News impartial?
(Or Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.?)
14 - Baritone
You know Clav, I watch network news with some regularity, mostly NBC, but also CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and others. While CNN and MSNBC have commentators who are blatently biased, I cannot remember a single instance of obviously biased reporting on NBC, or NPR for that matter.
The attitude that all media are openly biased is pretty much ubiquitous here regardless of which side of the aisle.
Since you brought it up, give me a specific example of biased reporting from one of the major networks. I'm not talking about commentators like Keith Olberman or Bill O'Reilly, but news readers, if you will, like Brian Williams or even Katie Couric. Give me one.
B-tone
15 - Dave Nalle
Does Dave really believe that the Bush policy of burying his head in the sand has been profitable?
No one is holding up Bush's foreign policy as an example of brilliance, though he has had his successes.
But the basic principle remains true. You don't hold open-ended talks with criminal regimes. You make them come to the table with something in hand to prove that they are in earnest, because they have already demonstrated that they are not trustworthy. It's like negotiating with someone holding hostages. You get them to release the women and kids to prove they are in earnest before you begin to negotiate over their demands.
Dave
16 - El Bicho
Does Dave really pose on sites as Marion Berry? The mind boggles with questions.
17 - Dave Nalle
That's because it was. CNN's Ed Henry reports, "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party," and no doubt he wasn't the only media person to hear that.
Nonetheless, as it was worded, it was not an attack on any specific person or group. Obama could have used that as the basis for avoiding having to deal with the question directly, leaving answering the charges up to expendable surrogates. Obama really didn't want to legitimize the charge by addressing it, because his prior statements are a matter of record and he can't get away with just denying them as he has tried to do.
Rather than sit back and wait for the conservative media to run with the story and tag him an appeaser,
The conservative media has been calling various democrats appeasers for years.
Obama got in front of it and led the discussion with his version of the story,
Which was a transparent lie.
an important campaign tactic, and if you don't think so, ask John Kerry. It doesn't matter what was said before because the public has a short attention span.
The quotes can be brought up again and again and again by pundits and in commercials. There's no escaping the past.
Obama jumping into the fray also allowed stories about Hilary's WV beatdown and Obama's difficulties with white rural voters to fall by the wayside, another good tactic.
Hadn't considered that strategy. Seems a high price to pay, but it might have factored in.
Considering their approval ratings, Obama is better served to be running against Bush than he is McCain.
Except that McCain is making a pretty good case that he's running against the Democrats and the complacent fat-cat Republicans at the same time. No one sensible is going to confuse McCain and Bush, regardless of the limited congruency of their positions on Iraq.
Dave
18 - El Bicho
"Nonetheless, as it was worded, it was not an attack on any specific person or group. Obama could have used that as the basis for avoiding having to deal with the question directly, leaving answering the charges up to expendable surrogates."
One of the knocks against Obama is that he will have a weak chin against Republicans in the Fall, and he's trying to counter that by jumping into the fray swinging. Again, his strategy may not be to court you, so your reaction to it may not matter to him.
"Obama really didn't want to legitimize the charge by addressing it, because his prior statements are a matter of record and he can't get away with just denying them as he has tried to do."
Public figures do it all the time. Works for some.
"Which was a transparent lie."
While you are correct, unfortunately in politics, a lie is in the eye of the beholder.
"Except that McCain is making a pretty good case that he's running against the Democrats and the complacent fat-cat Republicans at the same time."
We won't know until November if he makes a good enough case or not.
"No one sensible..."
Now, Dave "The bitch done set me up" Nalle, since when has voting been restricted to just the sensible people?
19 - Marcia
Inconceivable that Pres. Bush could have been referring to Jimmy Carter, recently seen putting flowers on his buddy Arafat's grave, or the administration of France, which has now publicly admitted they've been chatting up Hamas for a while.
You'd think that since he's trying to deny agreeing to talk to enemy regimes without preconditions, Obama would have the sense to change the Foreign Policy page of his website, which still says:
"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”
and
“Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Scroll down to "Diplomacy" and "Talk to Foes and Friends"
Obviously, one of his staffers is at fault.
20 - Baritone
Again, you guys just can't see the forest for the trees. Obama did NOT lie. Never has he stated that he would "negotiate" nor did he refer to anything that can be remotely construed as "appeasement."
Regarding Bush: "...though he has had his successes."
Name one! Bush's administration has been a cluster fuck to this country since he entered the WH.
You all seem to believe that McCain is some kind of wise, crafty old fart who will out wit and out charge Obama in the fall. Did anyone see McCain's near melt down when challenged on the "Straight Talk Bus" regarding his hallucinogenic dreams about the world in 2013? He couldn't manage a coherent answer and his anger was mere seconds away from blowing the lid off the damn bus.
Anyone who thinks Obama will be a lightweight come fall is in for a surprise. What will surprise me is when the going really gets tough on old Johnnie and he doesn't pop his cork everytime one of his idiotic dreams is challenged.
Head to head in a debate, McCain doesn't stand a chance against Obama. Obama can and will remain cool under fire and can think on his feet. He will garner ALL the style points.(And, if you don't believe that counts, then you apparently don't believe in the efficacy of American advertising, the spine that supports our beloved capitalist economy.) It will be Kennedy/Nixon all over again. True, McCain doesn't suffer from five o'clock shadow or a pondering brow. But when the spittal starts flying, all the camera operators better have some paper towel handy.
B-tone
21 - R C Lindemann
To think that a man named Barack Hussein Obama could be POTUS boggles the mind and strikes terror in the hearts of many. With a name like that he should be prez of some tiny country in the mideast or in Africa.
I don't like the company this dude keeps, like with the "Rev" Wright.
RL
22 - Baritone
RC er RL,
Yeah, it's all in the name, isn't it? I'm not sure the "dude" is still keeping company with the good Rev. Wright.
But at least you've found all the important issues from which to make an informed decision.
B-tone
23 - Lee Richards
Obama was politically astute to react the way he did.
Bush's foreign policy is a shambles, largely because HE won't listen; tying McCain to a meddling, floundering, impotent failure is exactly the right political message to get out.
Obama definitely IS running against Bush--his war, his economy, his foreign policy, his domestic screw-ups, and his intractable delusions. The more Bush says about Obama, the deeper the hole for McCain.
24 - WB
Once again Obama doesn't stand behind his words. He said he would 'talk' directly with terrorist countries like Iran. When somebody points this out, he cries like a little girl. Notice how everytime somebody points out his words and positions, he cries. Ya right, this guy is definitely presidential material.....
25 - Jordan Richardson
As an outsider, I'm having a little trouble understanding how someone isn't leadership material when they have a position that favours diplomacy to cowboy justice. Maybe that's just the "wussy Canadian" in me, but why wouldn't a leader with experience with Islam and an understanding of how to discuss issues with people of a different culture be an absolutely valuable tool considering the position the United States is in at this moment in their history?
Can somebody explain to me how somebody with a rational mind considers the idea of diplomatic negotiations, broader cultural understanding, and firm resolve as a negative notion to follow as the "leader of the free world?"
Also WB, since when is the act of defending one's position akin to "crying?" I saw no evidence of Obama doing anything other than defending his position as per negotiation. The mindgames and idiotic mumbo-jumbo pulled by mega media outlets in America seems to have reached more people than I thought. It now seems that individuals with no understanding of other cultures, world history, or foreign affairs are sounding off on all issues related to the very different cultures of Iran, Syria, and other regions of the world that the United States continues to prove their ignorance with.
When will it end?