Is Obama a Neoconservative?

If you haven't already, go read Obama's recent big foreign policy speech. It's caused some stir in the Blogosphere. The Washington Post wrote an article about it which compared basically said that Obama's view of foreign policy was similar to neoconservatives, which promted a prominent Kos diarist to write this :

So yeah, I understand why the neocons love Obama. He's not really challenging the reckless policy logic they have successfully instilled in your govenrment

I can't stress enough that this is a very prominent member, writing on the most widely read non-corporate political blog on the planet. About 500,000 people read Daily Kos a day.

Fortunately another blogger wrote a response diary that countered the misperception:

Fighting global warming. Diplomacy. International institutions. Combating pandemic flu. Increasing international aid. Sure Obama wants to maintain a strong military. Yes, he made the extremely non-controversial statement that he would attack a country that looked like it wanted to attack us. The fact that he talks extensively about the military during a time of war in his first, major foreign policy address doesn't make him a Iraq-invading, Bill Kristol-loving neo-conservative.

As for which viewpoint is right? Read the speech and decide for youself! Or watch the video of him on his site. But the paragraph that jumped out at me?

This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.

Yes. Obama says we don't need bluster or bombast...but intelligence. Does that sound like he's trying to be George W. Bush to you?

Like I said, read the speech and decide for yourself. But if you get the same impression I have, you need to ask yourself one additional question: Who benifits from knowingly lying about Obama's foreign policy views? People who want to promote some other candidate. It's very sad that politics always brings people's motives into question, but that's the way it is. Facts and advocacy have merged too much. This is the same tactic that they used on Obama when they said he want to a "Muslim School," even though he didn't. It's also the same tactic they used on Kerry when they said he faked injuries to try to get a medal, which he didn't. It's the same tactic they used on Bill Clinton when they tried to blame him in the Whitewater incedent but he didn't do anything illegal or even unethical.

If we are to recognize itentional misinformation and combat it, we are eventually going to have to move away from the safe question of "Is what you say true?" and sometimes have to say the more uncomfortable question, "Why are you lying?"

Who really won the first debate? With Poll!

If you missed the debate, you can still watch it on MSNBC. The big question, of course, is "who won?" In this format, unfortunately, there was no chance to prove a clear winner as no candidate had the podium long enough to say a serious answer. Some candidates did better than others, however.

Clinton: OK
She didn't stumble, and she didn't seem so boring that it was painful to watch her. Is that an achievement? Or does she need to do a very impressive performance to regain the momentum? We'll call it a draw.

Obama: Good
His answers were great. He had a couple of great moments, like when he corrected the moderator for taking his words out of context. Unfortunately the time contraints did not go well with his speaking style, so this was only a "good" performance instead of a great one.

Edwards: OK
Edwards failed to shine on any of the questions. He seemed to get lost in the noise, which isn't good for the candidate who's trying to break out of 3rd place. Still, although his answers were not stellar, his dilvery was still pretty good and he didn't make any huge mistakes.

Richardson: Poor
Richardson gave no good answer for why he thinks he should give other Hispanics better treatment because they are Hispanic. He also started breaking the rules of the debate towards the end and the answers he gave sometimes sounded like Fox News talking points.

Biden: Great
Biden spoke very well and had the best 1 liner of the night. He was asked "Can you assure voters that you will not be a gaffe machine on the world stage?" He responded with a simple "yes," and nothing more. The crowd went wild.

Dodd: Poor
Dodd's performance, like his candidacy, was extremely boring. None of his answers were special in any way, except for his answer to the question "Do you think there's a difference between civil unions and gay marriage?" Dodd started to answer by expressing a great story about how people would feel if it was their own children being denied rights, and how gay people deserve equality. He then ended the story by saying he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage. So first Dodd avioded answering the question, then he answered it wrong.

Kucinich: Poor
Kucinich knows he won't win and is there to "make a point." Unfortunately somebody else showed up and completely stole his spotlight...

Mike Gravel: Great
Unlike Kucinich, Gravel's performance will certainly be remembered and will get people talking. Most of what they say won't be favorable, but he got his ideas out into the public and that's all he could have hoped to achieve.

Post Debate Poll

Who won the first Democratic Presidential Debate?

Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Dodd
Kucinich
Gravel

View Results

Create your own myspace poll

Obama and Olbermann Respond to Giuliani

Rudy has been on the attack recently:

The former mayor said if a Democrat is elected, "it sounds to me like we're going on defense. We're going to wave the white flag there."

Kieth Olbermann had a great special comment on this, which you can view here.

Barack Obama had this to say:

"Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics. America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. I think we should focus on strengthening our intelligence, working with local authorities and doing all the things we haven't yet done to keep Americans safe. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack."

Barack Obama on Israel

The Jerusalem Post had this to say:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said Tuesday that America needs to ask Israel to help change the status quo in its conflict with the Palestinians, the only candidate at a National Jewish Democratic Council conference to suggest that there is any onus on the Jewish state when it comes to making peace with its neighbors.
"The United States government and an Obama presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security," he told the crowd of Democratic activists and campaign contributors. "But it can ask Israel to say that it is still possible for us to allow more than just this status quo of fear, terror, division. That can't be our long-term aspiration."

Compare this to what John Edwards said:

"Your future is our future," he said, speaking by live video to the Herzliya Conference near Tel Aviv.
According to reports Edwards praised Israel's willingness to compromise for the sake of securing peace with the Palestinian Arabs.

Hillary is even worse:

Asked if her support extended to Israel's bombing of the Beiruit international airport, she said, "I fully support Israel's right to defend itself."

She also apperently doesn't support democracy:

Sen. Clinton: First, I don't think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.
If we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure we did something to determine who was going to win...

So to recap...Obama actually thinks Israel does need to do some things differently. Edwards says that Israel as "made comprimises," after they've built a wall on Palestinian land and used white phospherous and cluster bombs on civilian targets. Hillary says she supports bombing a civilian airport (it was NOT a millitary base) as "self defense" and says we should have rigged the Palestinian elections.

Obama now tied with Clinton

A new poll has Barack Obama now tied with Hillary Clinton, 32% to 32%, with John Edwards at 17%. A few key points in the poll:

• This this the first poll to show Obama and Clinton in a tie
• The poll was conducted among "Likely Democratic Primary Voters"
• When they asked registered Democrats which candidate they felt more favorably towards, the result was also a statistical tie
• When they asked all voters which candidate they felt more favorably towards, Obama led by nine points.
• When they asked "unaffiliated" voters the same question, Obama led by 17.
• Many states have laws that allow people other than just registered Democrats to vote in Democratic primaries, so this could potentially have an impact on the nomination as well as the general election.
  
  

Obama's Carbon Cutting Plan & Supreme Court Response

Today, Obama unvieled his plan to reduce carbon emissions. He plans to raise standards on automobile fuel and increase research into alternative, renewable fuel sources. In addition, Obama issued the following statement regarding the recent Supreme Court decision restriting abotion.

"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

The Presidential election in 2008 determines more than who controls the executive branch: it determines who which ideology will control the Supreme Court. Women's rights, along with many other key freedoms, are hanging in the balance.

Barack Obama's "Lack of Experience"

Bill Moyers had this to say:

Who do you see as a key figure in the time ahead?

I wish I were wise enough to answer that question. Who would have thought that an obscure black preacher from Montgomery, Alabama would become Martin Luther King? I believe that elites have to let go. Hillary Clinton would make a good president, but the same old crowd would come back with her. But when I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas. I keep thinking that we need to let that happen again. People say, "Obama is so inexperienced." No, he's as experienced as Lincoln was when Lincoln went into the White House. Lincoln had two years in Congress and eight years in the state legislature. Obama represents a generational metaphor. He opens up new gates so that younger people can feel that there's opportunity for them, that they can come in with him and create new possibilities. That's what's important. I've been around a long time in journalism and politics, and I come down to "Put not your trust in princes, they will disappoint you every time."

Obama's lack of experience helps him as much as it hurts him because it gives him the opportunity to paint himself as a political outsider. The image of the "people's man" making a foray into politics tends to win over the experienced political insider. Many campaigns have won
in recent years with this mantra. President George W. Bush used it in 2000, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger used it 2003, Senators Jim Webb and Jon Tester used it to win in 2006. A slew of congressmen, including "Orleans" singer John Hall and professional football player Heath Shuler, have successfully used their non-existant record to their advantage.

Has Bush soured people to the idea of a no-experience candidate at the national level? Perhaps.
But do people still think of Bush as a Washington outsider? Probably not.

Introduction

This is the first post on my admittedly unoriginal blog. There are already several much bigger blogs on the likely next President of the United States, but I thought I'd take a stab at it, anyway.

To start off, I want to answer the question, "Why Barack?" There are two key reasons: talent and electability.

First, talent. Obama, unlike John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning. He's also been there for the troops when the Republicans in Congress were turning their backs.

Secondly, electability. Obama appears to be the only candidate who can truly compete with Hillary for the Democratic nomination. And he also appears to be gaining traction with the nation at large. Fully 33% of the country is "definitely" going to vote him, the highest number of any presidential candidate, according to the latest polls.

I plan to elaborate on both of these issues, as I know I'm only scratching the surface here. I'm also going to discuss other important reasons why Barack should win, such as the frightening possibilities that could happen to this country if one of the more crazy Republican candidates wins or the specific details of some of his excellent policy ideas. I also have the comments opened for everyone, and I plan to have polls and debate in order to get your input. Stay tuned.