Noam Scheiber thinks Obama missed a chance in the debate to talk tough on Iran and Israel. Maybe, but why not argue that Obama passed on a chance to make a fool of himself - would anyone believe tough talk from him anyway? Would that have been "cool"?
My goodness, Joan Walsh saw a different debate than I did.
Posted by: Jane | September 27, 2008 at 02:21 PM
The McCain campaign should run his closing answer as an ad. I would guess there is nothing in the debate agreement to prohibit that as both campaigns have debate ads out now.
Posted by: Elliott | September 27, 2008 at 02:35 PM
would anyone believe tough talk from him anyway?
McCain attacks Obama for being too tough:
So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.
OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/
Posted by: baked alaska | September 27, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Getting the Dates Wrong
We also caught McCain getting his congressional history a little wrong.
McCain: Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman,
the one -- the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald
Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon. And I saw that, and I saw the
situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that because I was afraid
that they couldn't make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several
hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly
300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.
This isn’t quite right. Marines were initially deployed to Lebanon in August 1982. McCain, however, was not elected to the U.S. House until November 1982, more than three months after Marines had already landed.
McCain is referring to a 1983 vote to invoke the War Powers Act. That bill, which Ronald Reagan signed into law on October 12, 1983, authorized an 18-month deployment for the Marines. On October 13, a suicide bomber destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut. McCain did in fact break with most Republicans to vote against the bill.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
Posted by: baked alaska | September 27, 2008 at 02:45 PM
25 years is a long time, and McCain was essentially right in his statement.
Obama's statement regarding Pakistani sovereignty was absurd. How does one not violate Pakistan's territory to "take them out" if they're hiding in the Northwest Territories? His statement reminded me of one of Jeff Goldblum's lines in Independence Day, which was played for laughs.
Posted by: matt | September 27, 2008 at 02:55 PM
U.S. confirms incursion into Pakistan
Women, children among as many as 20 reported dead in cross-border raid
NBC News and news services
updated 9:54 a.m. CT, Wed., Sept. 3, 2008
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - American forces conducted a raid inside Pakistan on Wednesday, a senior U.S. military official said, in the first known foreign ground assault against a suspected Taliban haven. Pakistan's government condemned the action, saying it killed at least 15 people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26522492/
Posted by: baked alaska | September 27, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Good news half baked... maybe the messiah can get another bracelet for the next debate!
Posted by: Bob | September 27, 2008 at 03:12 PM
A raid is far different than his threat to invade another sovereign country, especially when that country is supposed to be an ally. And do you seriously think that the Pakistani President isn't approving of these raids?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 27, 2008 at 03:31 PM
O's idea of foreign policy: Extend a friendly hand to your enemies and invade your allies.
Posted by: John | September 27, 2008 at 03:46 PM
I suspect Israel is capable of understanding what Obama's word on Israel is worth when he has 300 foreign policy advisers and not one appears to be pro Israel.
LUN
There's also little things like one of Obama's bundlers and her supporters are able to get a private meeting with Ahmadinejad in New York last week.
"A founding member of the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois met in New York City Wednesday night with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
"Given Evans' closeness to regular contacts with Obama and his campaign, it is fair to ask if she is acting as an intermediary for Obama.
Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans' attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.
Others attending the meeting with Ahmadinejad included anti-American activists who support the terrorists in Iraq and work anti-American governments: Medea Benjamin, Brian Becker, Leslie Cagan, Larry Holmes and Ramsey Clark."
Article
Posted by: Pagar | September 27, 2008 at 04:00 PM
McCain's point is not that raids into Pakistan won't happen - that is current US policy and was when Obama made headlines with his macho posturing.
McCain's point is that you don't advertise it and force Pakistan to address it - their Prez has to show his independence by saying no, and the whole situation unravels from there.
Sometimes a wink and a nod is sufficient, but not when Obama was trolling for votes and looking for a chance to bluster. He really is either irresponsible or inexperienced. Or both.
Compounding the absurdity - he seems to get that putting N Korea in the Axis of Evil and publicly condemning them was not helpful, but can't get the same point with Pakistan. Maybe if DKos could start revising their talking points he could figure this out.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | September 27, 2008 at 05:16 PM
it figures that a-hole Clark was involved with the Iranians. He has been a disgrace to this country for 40 years. Remember, he was once the attorney general of this country, and those are the people Obama has in his circle of friends. Him, Ayers, Jimmy Carter, etc would just as soon sell us out than defend this country.
Posted by: matt | September 27, 2008 at 05:29 PM
At the risk of repeating myself once too often, my vote for most whacked out Obama gaffe came in his O'Reilly interview when he claimed Pakistan was using our aid money to prepare for war with India. One of his 300 advisors must have read him the riot act, because we haven't heard him saying that again! For a guy who puts so much stock in diplomacy, he makes mistakes that are so stunning they would get a mere intern booted from the State Department. Last night's exchange on Pakistan was also emblematic of the Obama tap dance on foreign policy.
Although too few people do it, it's always instructive to read what Obama actually said, instead of being distracted by his "affect." Here's a salient bit from McCain:
Now note the strawman in Obama's response: Indeed, nobody talked about attacking Pakistan -- including John McCain. McCain talked about the folly of committing to precisely the kind of military strikes Obama describes in public, which is diplomatic idiocy of the first order. Obama can't even get politesse right, let alone diplomacy.When Obama faults the Bush administration for lack of commitment to diplomacy, he is, in fact, talking about high profile public diplomacy, not working diplomacy which is an entirely different beast. The kind of public diplomacy at issue in meeting without preconditions, for example, is not insignificant. The most important part of real diplomatic negotiation, however, is the part that you never see and of which Obama appears utterly unaware.
Obama also made an intriguing slip last night in discussing Russia & Georgia:
The six-party talks, of course, were central to Bush's much criticized initiative on resolving the problem of North Korea -- something I'd bet Obama expected McCain to bring up, and which he had been prepped to counter. To my great disappointment, Bush ultimately caved to what I suspect was State Dept. pressure, and tried precisely the kind of direct diplomacy with NoKo that Obama now claims (in contrast to his formerly unconditional stance) will be a feature of his new administration. Obama is virtually condemning the combined European mission to deal with Iran, which the Bush Administration has very actively supported, in favor of taking...... unilateral action! Holy shades of Bush! To compound Obama's apparent myopia, the direct engagement with North Korean he touts is precisely the approach that is failing -- for a second monumental time -- right before our eyes. The list of Obama's hapless talking points is entirely divorced from realities on the ground. He's not just reviving old ideas from 60's radicals, he's like a rerun of failed foreign policies up to and including the present day in Washington.Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 05:46 PM
I figure anyone stupid enough to fall for the old kerry line that we should have focused all our troops and attention in Afghanistan is too stupid to run a rug shop let alone this country,jmh. Anything else he says has to be as dumb as that.
Posted by: clarice | September 27, 2008 at 05:50 PM
But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.
JMH, I would like to thank you for again bringing up that Pakistan/India highlight from Obama. He did make similar comments about India and Pakistan prior to that, and I've wondered what is in his mind. I sometimes think he wants to just show off that he knows India and Pakistan are at odds with each other.
I hope he understands we need them both as allies, and his saying stupid stuff can hurt our relationship with either.
As far as N Korea goes, he is stupid to try to rub that in Bush's face. Really, Madeline Albright who engaged in direct talks and champagne toasts with Kim Jong Il himself is one of his advisors. Jimmy Carter, who negotiated that ridiculous treaty over the head of Clinton is one of his endorsers.
They may want to blame Bush for their failures, but that doesn't make it true. McCain needs to find out how ignorant Obama truly is about that whole situation.
Posted by: MayBee | September 27, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Clarice:
The great attraction, and the ultimate fraud, of nuance is that most voters don't really know what you're talking about and unfortunately assume that you must know more than they do. I personally believe that the majority of voters are perfectly capable of understanding almost anything that is clearly described to them. When you're getting spin from so many sides, choosing between them becomes a toss up.
One of McCain's ultimate advantages could quite possibly be the fact that people can actually understand what he is saying, no matter how ploddingly he says it. It worked for Bush, and despite his current unpopularity, it's something that doesn't seem to go out of style. Obama seems to be saying something, but afterwords, with the exception of a catch phrase or two, it's hard to remember what it was.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 06:07 PM
Among the things that have not worked with North Korea are talking to them and not talking to them. Obama's welcome to point out that North Korea is closer to developing a nuclear weapon, but if he can stop it - we'd all love to see the plan.
On Iran, at least he didn't bring back Kerry's "outsourcing our diplomacy" line (remember "outsourcing"? When did that stop being a concern?)
Posted by: bgates | September 27, 2008 at 06:10 PM
I wonder if Obama was advised to tie foreign policy into domestic issues wherever he could last night. That might explain what ended up just looking like a messy clutch of confusing non sequiturs.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Yes, jmh..though snake oil always has purchasers, doesn't it?
Posted by: clarice | September 27, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Among the things that have not worked with North Korea are talking to them and not talking to them.
Exactly.
Also, talking to them in small groups and talking to them with mulitple interested allies- some democracies, some not.
The one country that seems to have been successfully disarmed this decade is Libya. Remind me again how much the IAEA knew about them, and how we found out about them, Obama.
Posted by: MayBee | September 27, 2008 at 06:26 PM
The general public may not have noticed McCain skewering Obama on the Russia/China vetoes in the U.N., but Obama clearly had virutally no where to go when McCain talked up his league of democricies concept. It's really quite remarkable that in a foreign policy debate, the United Nations was mentioned a total of one time -- by John McCain.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 06:28 PM
MayBee:
"Remind me again how much the IAEA knew about them, and how we found out about them, Obama"
.....and why they finally decided to come clean.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 06:36 PM
I think John Hawkins has it right:
A new addition to the pantheon of memorable moments in debate history
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 27, 2008 at 07:08 PM
We've launched strikes at Hamza Rabia, Laith al Libbi, the previous emirate envoy to Iraq; al Utaibi; we've also targeted Zawahiri any number of times; in operations that seem more out of the Pave Spike/Delta
program in Colombia; where we probably had spotters
Posted by: narciso | September 27, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Sara, when Obama is speaking off the cuff, I actually think he has a real problem with subject-verb-object and veers off on new tangents all the time, using oddly placed conjunctions between unfinished phrases. It's amazing how often he just throws in an "and" (or and "uh") and keeps on talking. I suspect that's part of why it seems so hard for him to figure out when and where to stop the flow.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 07:59 PM
My favorite was when he veered off of Russia and the threat it posed to drilling. It was simply amazing.
Posted by: Jane | September 27, 2008 at 08:19 PM
I think anyone who says he has the lawyers gift of verbal legerdemain hasn't spent enough time with real lawyers.
He's a rank amateur.
Posted by: clarice | September 27, 2008 at 08:28 PM
Don't get me started on the way Obama meanders as he speaks. It is what prompted my son last night to say over and over, "What the hell is he talking about."
I know I can barely follow him and I have a pretty good idea of the subjects, but for someone who doesn't pay attention, like son and d-i-l, it sounds like gobbledygook.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 27, 2008 at 08:30 PM
And lest we forget, there's Obama's profligate use of the passive tense to avoid any actual attribution (or, IMO, an identifiable lie):
"The notion was" is a formulation which deftly avoids putting that notion in his father's brain, but implying that it was, indeed, a motivating factor.As usual, when you actually read his closing statement, it's hard to believe he probably wrote it down in advance (note the "ands"):
Not exactly a model of eloquence, clarity or logic.Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 08:32 PM
That would be passive voice, of course, not passive tense.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 08:37 PM
Translation:We should spend more money on scholarships for communist goatherders from Kenya to come here and father another child to be abandoned and THEN the children of the world will love us again.
But the scholaship to Harvard was apparently the impetus for his paternal abandonment wasn't it?
Posted by: clarice | September 27, 2008 at 08:55 PM
LOL Clarice,
When I heard that last night I thought the exact same thing - with some illegal immigration stuff add for good measure.
Posted by: Jane | September 27, 2008 at 09:06 PM
I know I can barely follow him and I have a pretty good idea of the subjects,
I've given up, in part because if he says something politically foolish it will be made unsaid in no short time. I tune the Great Rhetorician out almost completely, paying him only the attention required to catch him spouting some nonsense deserving of unending mockery. I conclude that my ability to provide useful analysis has quickly bypassed nil and is now in negative territory.
In that spirit, I suggest he follow the example of Truman and place upon his desk a sign that celebrates a major feature of his extemporaneous oratory: The Glottis Stops Here.
Posted by: Elliott | September 27, 2008 at 09:14 PM
Marc Ambinder really twists Henry Kissinger's CNN interview to claim that Kissinger is using a debater's trick, when it apparent form the quote that he and Obama are taking it out of context ...
Last ime I checked, Condi Rice was not President and George Bush was not Secretary Of State.
Posted by: Neo | September 27, 2008 at 09:45 PM
I didn't quote the first sentence of his final statement, but I did think it was laugh out loud funny:
And I just rolled. He's reading My Pet Goat -- to the voters. Does he really think anybody cares about his frakkin' funny name any more, or doesn't know where he got it? Is that really supposed to be a foreign policy credential? Foreign policy for kids is the new nuance?
Now, courtesy of HotAir's headlines, what you do when your jaw hits the floor before you're finish dropping it? President Obama
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 27, 2008 at 11:08 PM
JMH, I also think that shows Obama isn't confident on his feet. That was his prepared closing line, but it seemed out of place after McCain had said he wasn't ready to be President. The juxtaposition of McCain's "I don't need on the job training" and Obama's "My father came from Kenya" did not inure to his benefit in my opinion and a better prepared or more skilled politician might have had an alternate close at the ready.
Posted by: Elliott | September 27, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I agree Elliott. He just seemed like a total lightweight. Of course, he is a total lightweight. I don't think he's actually ever had to be a functioning politician.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 28, 2008 at 12:17 AM
PELOSI CONFISCATES AIDES' BLACKBERRIES TO PREVENT LEAKS...
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 28, 2008 at 12:50 AM
From the above link:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 28, 2008 at 12:52 AM
How many times did Captain Zero mention Off-gaun-y-stawn* in his vaunted speech in 2002? Suffice it to say he lived up to his most deserved sobriquet:
By the new standards that the Obama campaign has established that means he was completely unconcerned about what happened there.
___________________
*He didn't refer to "Afghanistan" either.
Posted by: Elliott | September 28, 2008 at 01:00 AM