Did Obama's West Point speech make the case?

Guessing at the response of the audience on hand -- some of which will likely end up fighting in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- based on a few selected shots of cadets that have been prepping for finals and were there near the end of their day after an evening meal is fairly difficult. I think it’s safe to assume the range of reactions at West Point was broad, but there certainly were many cadets who seemed very eager indeed to shake the President’s hand and have their picture taken with him afterward.

I’d say the President laid out supporting evidence for the decisions he’s made, and articulated the goals and mission scope rather succinctly given it’s a distillation down from months of meetings and briefings with countless military and civilian advisors and other world leaders or their emissaries.

Nonetheless, those with an ax to grind were quick to fill the airwaves and the internet with every negative angle they could remotely connect, from comparisons to Viet Nam (which Obama had already effectively rebutted during the speech) to the dollar cost relative to enacting health care (a valid point, which utterly fails to address the reality that neither NATO nor the U.S. is prepared for the chaos that would ensue if we simply recalled every allied soldier as quickly as is logistically feasible.)

There’s no, “deadline that guarantees the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters will hide their weapons until the coast is clear,” as some have suggested There’s a target for turning over control to a sovereign government that nonetheless includes the potential that they can’t be entirely ready that promptly. A Jihad-oriented, radical branch of Islam calling itself Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban is as bent on controlling the world as Hitler was, and the choices are clear: deal with them there, now, or they will export terror around the world at the time of their choosing.

The bottom line is that after nearly a year of consultation President Obama made a very difficult decision to commit more American lives to help ensure a NATO success, thereby limiting the probability of Al Qaeda mounting an effective strike against countries not enamored of this radicalized, extremist interpretation of Islamic law. Naturally audience reaction is mixed, and the emotionally charged nature of this decision means that even among those who watched him speak many weren't listening to what the speech said, but for what they expected to hear.

That effect will only be magnified as the echoes of supposedly informed opinion rebound on the talk shows and websites which depend on ratings to generate ad revenues. The President was organized and thorough, the rest is up to the listeners. If you didn't get it, "raw and unfiltered," and/or you don't track down transcript you're likely to be hearing what you expect, too.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

As president, What Would Obama Do?

Most voters distrust political advertising and avoid official campaign web sites. Most news reports describe controversies, poll results, and fund raising – they’re more interested in ratings and advertising revenues than in what they “report” on. Many of the most popular programs and sources display an obvious bias, including this one (no offense, Zennie, I think they know we're early voters for Obama.) Where is the information?

Most voters distrust political advertising and avoid official campaign web sites. Worse, most news reports describe controversies, poll results, and fund raising – they're more interested in ratings and advertising revenues than in what they "report" on. Many of the most popular programs and sources display an obvious bias (as does this site.)

In these difficult times any new president requires the support and trust of the electorate, including particularly those who voted for the other party. The changes we need on everything from the burden of taxes to education of health care reform will require making many people more aware of what he would do if and when elected.

I often point you to information on the candidate's web sites if what you find here isn't answering your questions, though obviously the level of detail and transparency is different comparing Obama and McCain's officially published information (presumably because that's controlled by their campaign advisors who are fanatical about persuasion.) Searches will turn up some of the less-official answers to questions about deregulation, etc., inspiring anecdotes of personal dedication, and it's fairly easy to find actual voting information online, but AskObamaNow.com has lots of the answers collected in one place about the most likely man to be our next President.

AskObamaNow.com answers the question, "What would Obama do if elected?" It’s a voter-friendly web site featuring short videos of Barack Obama simply giving direct answers to common questions. I'm still looking for an AskMcCainNow site to appear. Thus far I can only find his record; no luck on what he'd do.

read more | digg story

Palin avoids imploding during VP debate

Did Governor Palin's performance change the outcome of the election? Almost certainly not, though she probably did succeed in getting the attention back on Senator McCain. Her answers were obviously much less spontaneous, and accordingly less substantive, less revealing, and generally less related to the questions Gwen Ifill posed. In fact, the debate may have been overshadowed by the revelation that the McCain campaign has written off Michigan, and will even continue running ads there.

Both candidates foreshadowed their strengths and styles for the evening handling the very first question, Biden gave a fairly soft answer when asked had the previous week been DC at its best or its worst, but Governor Palin essentially ignored the question altogether to assert that McCain, who had championed Wall Street deregulation, nonetheless had warned people "two years ago" that something bad might be looming.

What came through from Senator Biden was the sense of a man who genuinely grasps the enormity of the dual crises facing America: the meltdown in our economy and the damage to our standing in the world that the policies of the Bush administration have wrought. Biden was considerably more willing to show himself to us, while his opponent's agenda was clearly to echo now-familiar talking points wrapped in folksy colloquialisms – a sort of blending of the styles of George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Biden did seem to gloss over that the time-tested Republican campaign theme of "lowering taxes" which has not by any means strengthened our economy during the Bush administration. So perhaps casual viewers looking for bright spots in Palin's performance will buy her assertion that a vote for McCain isn't likely to continue current policies even though Biden did once basically dare her to name one way in which McCain offered any real change. We're left to wonder if gosh-darnits meant to sound like Reagan are sufficient evidence of a viable Vice President or not. As a strategic goal, distancing the McCain~Palin ticket from Bush and Cheney is obviously prudent, yet speaking at a tactical "in the limelight" level, Sarah Palin mispronouncing nuclear in the same way that George Bush does surely emphasized her similarities to our increasingly unpopular President.

When Ms. Ifill asked how a VP might change the partisan posturing that we associate with Washington politics the two answers were markedly different. Biden's story about being given a come-uppance and his resulting lesson about not judging another motives rang with credible humility. Palin, on the other hand, after suggesting the secret was in selecting political appointees without regard to their politics (that's a trifle naïve, I must say) then immediately launched into a highly partisan smear as she made her appeal to voters to pick Republicans to return to the Oval Office.

Who dealt with the questions better?

Palin dodged the question when both candidates were asked about their weaknesses. Biden was forthcoming, whereas the Governor clearly launched into talking points. Asked about policy issues they'd had to change on during their careers Biden admitted to giving up his original ideal about selecting judicial nominees based solely on temperament and intellect, learning there was reason to consider "judicial philosophy" as well. Palin cited not vetoing budgets when she lacked support. In other words she'd learned she couldn't dictate from a minority position, which frankly sounded like she didn't understand the question although it's a good lesson.

Biden did have the upper hand in the exchanges about taxes. The Governor was obviously in talking point territory on that topic, while Senator Biden clarified and debunked those points and how they relate to wage earners under $250,000, regardless of if they are small business owners or not. A format that allowed longer responses probably would have provided Biden the opening to talk about how tax cuts haven't been creating jobs lately, but the rules for the VP debate cut down the intervals each had for speaking in comparison to the Presidential events, and that frankly worked in Palin's favor.

Well moderated evening

Any questions or concerns about Gwen Ifill's impartiality as a moderator have been erased by her style of presenting both with similarly sticky questions – and letting both hear both questions before replying when the two were different, such as on challenging the Governor to explain why she'd said she didn't know what a VP did ("it was a joke") whereas Ifill noted Biden had been quoted as saying he'd never be a VP (which he didn't actually have to address, since Palin wanted BOTH to be seen as jokes - Sarah let Joe off the hook.) Ifill had moderated the vice-presidential debate between Republican candidate Dick Cheney and Democratic candidate Senator John Edwards during the 2004 debate, but her as-yet-unpublished book had been the source of some hand-wringing among certain pundits during the 24-36 hours before the debate.

One outstanding quandary for those who were paying close attention to Palin's talking points is how to reconcile her assertions about getting government out of the way with such statements as being the first Governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet. That's not exactly a small-government approach, although it did allow her to nearly deflect questions about what causes climate change. Biden, of course, was quick to point out that while it's all well and good to talk about avoiding finger pointing, yet it's hard to solve problems if you don't know what the cause is. Perhaps his best shot of the night came early on when he likened McCain's proposals to tax health care benefits while deregulating the health care insurance system as a "Bridge to Nowhere."

Republicans can relax, she passed.

Still, it must be said, Governor Palin was much better prepared for this than she had been for her interviews with Katie Couric, and surely exceeded the expectations of many who watched the debate. Did she win? Not in the traditional sense of providing substantive answers related to the questions. Yet political debates are not judged solely by that standard, and since she likely didn't drive conservative voters away she also didn't lose.

If the standard is which candidate presented a person ready to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, a question Ifill asked about, Senator Biden's more thoughtful, spontaneous familiarity with the national policy issues outshined the Governor's repeated references to Alaska as an energy producing state. There can be little doubt in the minds of the voters that the Obama~Biden policies will diverge sharply from those in force currently, whereas based on Palin's performance, (which didn't meet the level she attained reading her acceptance speech at the RNC,) a vote for McCain~Palin is, indeed, a vote for more of the same.

Digg this article...

Zbigniew Brezinski - Foreign policy Guru stumps for Barack Obama - CNN

Foreign policy expert stumps for Obama

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Providing a much-needed boost to a candidate whose judgment in international affairs has been called into question, former President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezinski, introduced Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, during a campaign stop in Clinton, Iowa on Wednesday.

“I’m here today because I strongly believe that the next election is not just to choose a new president,” Brezinski said. “The choice that you will be making will define America’s role in a historically new era. We have elections every four years, but only once in a while is a new president facing the opportunity to shape a new sense of direction for America,” explained Brezinski.

Brezinski, who stood out for his relatively hawkish views in an administration that often emphasized human rights, told the crowd that by invading Iraq the “United States has become engaged in what is essentially a colonial war in the post-colonial era.” He also opined that the Iraq war “has discredited America worldwide,” and warned that the conflict in Iraq might spread to Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Saying Obama “was not, like many others, a Johnny-come-lately” with regard to realizing that the Iraq war was a so-called “fool’s enterprise,” Brezinski told the members of the crowd that they had the opportunity to change the world by supporting the Illinois senator.

In August, Brezinski supported Obama during a foreign policy spat between the Illinois senator and his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York. In addition to advising President Carter, Brezinski also was adviser to officials in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

– CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

CNN / YouTube Debate Question - The U.S and Hugo Chavez

This CNN YouTube Presidential Debate question stems from comments made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last year. The video of President Chavez was a rare find and appears in this question clip.

Senator Barack Obama On U.S. Foreign Policy @ Chicago Council on Global Affairs - NY Times

Obama Outlines His Foreign Policy Views
NY Times | April 23, 2007

By Jeff Zeleny

CHICAGO, April 23 -- Senator Barack Obama said today that even though the global image of the United States has been sullied by the war in Iraq and a "foreign policy based on a flawed ideology," America must repair its standing in the world and resist the temptation to turn inward.

"America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America," Mr. Obama said. "We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission - we must lead the world, by deed and example."

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama presented himself as a presidential candidate "who can speak directly to the world." After a sharp critique of President Bush, Mr. Obama called for increasing foreign aid to developing countries, expanding and modernizing the military and rebuilding fractured alliances.

"This president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open," Mr. Obama said. "And it's time to fill that role once more."

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat elected to the United States Senate two years ago, delivered the first major foreign policy address of his Democratic presidential bid to hundreds of supporters in the ballroom of a downtown hotel here. It is the first of several policy speeches he is scheduled to deliver in the coming weeks as he works to define his candidacy with specific proposals an Obama administration would pursue.

"This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership," Mr. Obama said. "The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it."

He added: "This is going to require a new spirit, not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence."

In the opening three months of his presidential race, Mr. Obama has solidified his role as one of the leading contenders for the nomination, raising more money than any of his rivals for the primary campaign. But Mr. Obama is also striving to expand his appeal beyond that of a best-selling author and political celebrity as he tackles questions of substance and policy.

The United States must build a 21st century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to "showing wisdom in how we deploy it." He called for expanding American ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. But less than 1 percent of the military can speak Arabic, Mandarin or Korean - a shortcoming he said needs to be corrected through training and recruitment.

"We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect," Mr. Obama said. "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision."

The Bush administration, Mr. Obama said, "squandered that opportunity" to unite the world after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The war in Iraq, he said, "was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies, a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset."

"And after all the lives lost and the billions of dollars spent, many Americans may find it tempting to turn inward, and cede our claim of leadership in world affairs," Mr. Obama said. "I insist, however, that such an abandonment of our leadership is a mistake we must not make."

If elected, Mr. Obama said he would lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials across the world within four years. In addition to securing stockpiles of nuclear material, Mr. Obama said the United States should work to negotiate a ban on producing new nuclear weapons material.

To discourage countries from building weapons programs, Mr. Obama endorsed the concept of providing reactor fuel through an international nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Mr. Obama said he would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join.

Mr. Obama also called for the United States to rebuild its alliances, reform the United Nations and strengthen NATO.

"We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair," Mr. Obama said. "I agree, but this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box."

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, dismissed Mr. Obama's criticism.

"Senator Obama started his career with a tone of hope, but has quickly turned to one of blame," Ms. Miller said. "Obama has no foreign policy experience; therefore has no record of having done anything - wrong or otherwise. His comments today blamed others and failed to detail his own plan for success."