Short on Judgment

[GaryC 7]

Short on Judgment

An experience experiment for Obama.

By Jonah Goldberg

It looks like the presidential battle will be about one overarching theme: judgment versus experience. And Exhibit A will be the Iraq war.

Barack Obama insists that judgment is more important than experience. Truth be told, he’s right. A wise leader with no experience is preferable to a moron with plenty. But that’s not really our choice.

John McCain argues that experience yields good judgment. The battle-scarred soldier, the trial-tested lawyer, the accomplished surgeon: They make the right calls because they’ve clocked field time. McCain contends he’s walked through the fire and learned valuable lessons as a result.

Obama’s people frame things differently. Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod recently told the Huffington Post: “It is not a question of longevity in government. It is a question of judgment, it is a question of a willingness to challenge policies that have failed. And (McCain) seems just dug in.”

On the surface, this all sounds like a perfectly reasonable disagreement — indeed, it sounds like precisely the sort of debate we should be having during a presidential election.

The problem is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Obama, who was a young state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago and a star parishioner of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ when the country was debating invading Iraq, would have voters believe that he carefully weighed the pros and cons and concluded it would be a bad idea.

You may be willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I am not. A far more plausible explanation is that Obama took the position you would expect him to take. Just as it never occurred to him that his pastor would be an albatross in a national election, it never dawned on him that he should take a stance other than the one expected of anyone on the far Left of the Democratic Party, never mind on the far Left of the Chicago Democratic machine. This doesn’t necessarily obviate Obama’s bragging rights, but the idea that in 2002 he would have taken any other stance strikes me as unlikely as Michael Moore siding with the pro-Bush camp.

Even if you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the facts.

As a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2003, Obama said he would “unequivocally” oppose President Bush on the war. But once in office, he voted for every war-funding bill — until he decided to run for president.

After the invasion, Obama did not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq. Right around the time he delivered his brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

In other words, while he opposed the war, he was committed to Bush’s initially flawed military strategy. That was not the position of Moveon.org.

During the long battle for the Democratic nomination, however, Obama’s position evolved (or devolved) into a consistent call for withdrawal in order to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton. When the Bush administration finally surged troops last year, it was Obama who “dug in,” insisting that it wouldn’t work — and in fact would make things even worse.

By last November, the success of the surge was obvious to all open-minded observers, yet Obama insisted that the gains had come merely in a few “certain neighborhoods.” Anbar and Diyala provinces are somewhat larger than mere “neighborhoods” (ditto the “Triangle of Death”). In January, Obama’s denial took a new form. During a debate, he suggested that progress was attributable to the Democratic congressional victories in 2006, because Sunnis saw that America would soon bug out.

Meantime, there was the supposedly dogmatic McCain challenging Bush’s approach to Iraq nearly from the get-go. In the summer of 2003, in response to the upswing in violence, he called for “a lot more military” in order to win in Iraq. He said he had “no confidence” in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In May 2004, McCain told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that “we’ve got to adjust to the realities of the situation as it exists and that means doing whatever is necessary and acting decisively.”

McCain was challenging Bush when Obama was assuring voters there wasn’t “much difference” between his position and Bush’s. And now Obama is locked into a position despite the facts on the ground. Obama may indeed have great judgment, but his record shows little experience employing it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWE3N...TY2MzFjZTcxOTc=

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Right around the time he delivered his brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.â€

Recycling Slick Willy's rebuked allegations to make a point? Very weak. Check your facts and those of the one's you quote. If that's all you guys got, then you're in trouble. Making Bush's poodle look good must be a hard job.

Barack Obama "said in 2004 there was no difference between (Obama) and George Bush on the war."

Bill Clinton on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 in Dartmouth, N.H.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[alienlovechild 75]

Better check your own facts, dog. If you look at McCain and Obama's voting records in the Senate, you'll see Obama is a hard-core liberal who follows his ideology and lies about his bipartisan record. McCain, by contrast, has been the most outspoken critic within his own party.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings.../08election.pdf

Obama has managed to hoodwink the Democrat voters and the party without giving much the way of specifics beyond "hope and change". He's going to have to con independent voters which he can probably do if voters overlook the fact the man has the least experience, never had real leadership role nor has he been tested beyond the campaign. He's a great conartist who should change his campaign theme to "The Candy Man." Come on, sign along.

Who can take a PR blunder, sprinkle it with dew

Cover it with choc'late and a false miracle or two

The Obama Man, oh the Obama Man can

The Obama Man can 'cause he mixes it with liberalism and makes the world feel good

Who can take a rainbow coalition, wrap it in a sigh (and fainting spells)

Soak the taxpayers and make a groovy lemon pie

The Obama Man, the Obama Man can (Chorus of worshippers. . yes, He can, yes, He can, ye He can. . .)

The Obama Man can 'cause he mixes it with liberalism and makes the world feel good

The Obama Man makes everything he says satisfying and delicious

Now you talk about playing on childhood wishes, you'll be forced to eat the environmentally friendly dishes

Oh, who can rip-off tomorrow, dip it in a lunatic's dream

Can't separate the lies from the facts and collect up all the cream

The Obama Man, oh the Obama Man can (Chorus of worshippers. . yes, He can, yes, He can, ye He can. . .)

The Obama Man can 'cause he mixes it with liberalism and makes the world feel good

The Obama Man makes everything he says satisfying and delicious

Now you talk about playing on childhood wishes, you'll be forced to eat the environmentally friendly dishes

Yeah, yeah, yeah

Who can rip off tomorrow, dip it in a lunatic's dream

Can't separate the lies from the facts and collect up all the cream

The Obama Man, the Obama Man can (Chorus of worshippers. . yes, He can, yes, He can, ye He can. . .)

The Obama Man can 'cause he mixes it with liberalism and makes the world feel good

Yes, the Obama Man can 'cause he mixes it with liberalism and makes the world feel good

a-Obama Man, a-Obama Man, a-Obama Man

Obama Man, a-Obama Man, a-Obama Man

Obama Man, a-Obama Man, a-Obama Man

*Warning, listening to too many of Obama's sugary sweet speeches can lead to vomiting, obesity, diabetes and the loss of most of your income.

Edited June 5, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Peikko 1,575]

Is it not possible to have just one thread about the candidates without resorting to this kind of jingoism? The original post is intersting and I would really like to see a good debate on this without the 'Bush's poodle' and 'Obama-man' ditty type posting.

I guess it's partly because researching to get some real information beyond 'my guy is great, your guy sucks' is too much like hard work.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is it not possible to have just one thread about the candidates without resorting to this kind of jingoism? The original post is intersting and I would really like to see a good debate on this without the 'Bush's poodle' and 'Obama-man' ditty type posting.

The original article actually tries to build a case on a claim that has been shown to be untrue. What's so interesting about that? It's propaganda. And very weak propaganda at that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Prove it's not true without calling the other candidate names and I'll be more inclined to believe it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Prove it's not true without calling the other candidate names and I'll be more inclined to believe it.

I provided a link to the site that shows it ain't true where they don't call anyone any names. Click on the link.

[rclouse 0]

Prove it's not true without calling the other candidate names and I'll be more inclined to believe it.

Prove McCain never fathered a black baby.

[alienlovechild 75]

Prove that McCain isn't Obama's father. Obama is related to VP Cheney and their may be a connection somewhere in West Virginia.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is really silly.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Prove it's not true without calling the other candidate names and I'll be more inclined to believe it.

Prove McCain never fathered a black baby.

mccain is "deeply involved" in minority rights.

[Peikko 1,575]

I will follow the link.

There is certainly some slanted journalism in the OP article. For instance the sloppy logic that leads from this:

Obama, who was a young state senator from a very liberal district in Chicago and a star parishioner of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ(Making sensational mountains out of mole hills?) when the country was debating invading Iraq, would have voters believe that he carefully weighed the pros and cons and concluded it would be a bad idea.

to this

A far more plausible explanation that Obama took the position you would expect him to take... Just as it never occurred to him that his pastor would be an albatross in a national election, it never dawned on him that he should take a stance other than the one expected of anyone on the far Left of the Democratic Party, never mind on the far Left of the Chicago Democratic machine.

Pure speculation. Why is this explanation 'more plausible'? I am assuming it's more plausible because the author thinks that you can just take the fact that he went to a church who's pastor habitually uses colourful turns of phrase in his sermons as an indication of Barack's inability to think beyond cliches. That just isn't a rational argument. It is only more plausible if the author has some concrete evidence that Barack apposed the war on 'instinct' as apposed to judgement.

However, it seems that the author is content to make these trite implications, the 'liberal left is apposed to war period and doesn't need to bother to investigate the reasons for their opposition on a case by case basis. More plausible? Not to me.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, your link doesn't counteract what the article states. The OP article is talking about the position Barack held:

...After the invasion, Obama did not favor an immediate pullout from Iraq. Right around the time he delivered his brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune that when it came to the war, “there’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

In other words, while he opposed the war, he was committed to Bush’s initially flawed military strategy. That was not the position of Moveon.org.

The article you cite suggests that Bill deliberately fudged this quote to imply that he wasn't always against the war's inception. It is quite clear that that in this article it is being used correctly and that there was a period of time that he did support the continuation of the war once it had started (quite rightly in my opinion too).

That doesn't take away from the fact that McCain's postion and Bush's position on the war and the right tactics to employ are different and have consistantly been different and that is a pertinant fact.

[Tsup2 0]

Gary,

All the Obama supporters on this site will immediately discredit or discount any information about their candidate that is contrary to his uplifting and hope filled message. You really cant reason with them with facts.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Tsup2

[Peikko 1,575]

Tsup2

Please take your PM's elsewhere. Thank you.