How Republicans can beat Obama (maybe)

Tony Blankley explained how recently:

"Overly broad charges against him are dangerous. Republicans will make a mistake if they take to calling him "too liberal for America." He is too liberal, but they need to make the charge specific point by specific point...The Republicans must systematically make a hundred tightly argued, irrefutable critiques of very specific examples of Obama's policy being wrong for at least 60 percent of America. America may be going through one of our episodic style shifts. In 1932, FDR's conversational style trumped Hoover's old oratory. In 1960, JFK's coolness and wit caught the emerging post-World War II sophistication of our culture. Twenty years later America, tired of sophisticated cynicism, was ready to return to Reagan's old-fashioned sentiments and values. Obama is tapping into a curious alchemy of youthful idealism tempered by Internet edginess. Republicans must communicate their values and policies through that prism, or they will not communicate at all."

Yes--we're not talking here about abandoning principle. Obama is too far to the left, and Republicans and conservatives must communicate it. But not the old, clunky way, by shouting
"liberal" at him. That won't work in these changing times. Reagan understood that, and hence learned to package conservatism in his warm, sunny, optimistic manner. So must we learn to change today, too.

He should Barack away from that

Candidate Barack Obama recently, while on the stump, criticized Bush administration policy on Iran--and showed why, in foreign policy, he's not yet ready for prime time: "It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism,” Mr. Obama said. “But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran.”

No, he's not saying anything here he hasn't said before.
But it reminds us of what Candidate Obama still hasn't learned. He has yet to grasp that, in foreign policy, you need to keep your opponents guessing. He has failed to understand that, especially in dealing with hostile nations, especially in seeking to pressure them, you mustn't publicly take ANYTHING off the table. Sure, it could be that, privately, national leaders will have decided that there are some things we won't do. But you don't admit that publicly. That will keep the opponent guessing, and thus feeling more pressure, and perhaps being more flexible.

Starlight, Star bright

Or, my celebrity's bigger than yours.
Barack Obama has Oprah. But Senator Clinton has Magic Johnson.
I suspect Oprah's the bigger catch, though.

The power of O

As has been widely reported, Oprah held her big fundraiser for Obama last night.
She's going to be involved in this campaign. She says she will back Obama in a big, visible way.
Fundamental question: yes, a lot of people watch Oprah's show. But how much influence on VOTERS does she have? Will she influence how people VOTE? Stay tuned.

Democrats Campaign 2008 update: battle of ideas

Note, in this NY Times article today on Senator Clinton's campaign, this nugget concerning her major campaign speech of yesterday. Quote: "Mrs. Clinton spoke on the first day of a two-day kickoff for her fall push, which her camp is calling “The Change We Need,” a parry to Mr. Obama’s effort to position himself as the candidate of change. The stage at Mrs. Clinton’s rallies, in Concord and here in Portsmouth, included the words “Change + Experience” — an example of the Clinton camp’s argument that she is the most experienced candidate and would still represent change, as a woman and an ideological opposite of President Bush. “Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience,” Mrs. Clinton said in Concord. “Well, with me, you don’t have to choose. I have spent my entire life fighting for change.”

Problem: this shows that Mrs. Clinton is on the defensive. Senator Obama has already claimed the "change" idea for himself. Hillary up to now has discussed the notion of change some, but had not made it an emphasis of her campaign. But now she is. It smacks of "Look, I'm for change, too." That's playing defense, with the issues framed the way Obama wants them framed. It's not a good sign for the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton is identified with Washington D.C; she's seen as an insider. Barack Obama's relative youth, the fact that he hasn't been in Washington nearly as long, will make it almost impossible for anyone to trump him in the "change" department. We'll see if he's able to take full advantage of this.

Outrage of the day

The presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama claimed today that Bush administration policy in Afghanistan consisted "solely of air raids and bombing of civilians." Details here. It's such a moronic, and obviously false, statement that it's hardly worth spending time on. Suffice it to say that, for one thing, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are made up of some 3,000 air force personnel...and over 17,000 army personnel. Yes, ground troops.

Sure, but all we do there is bomb...

Another Obama bumble

In an interview with the Associated Press, Obama said: "...he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance.” “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Mr. Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”

This is a mistake, in my opinion. It may indeed be that, as president, you would decide, in the internal foreign policy councils of the administration, not to use nukes. But you don't say it publicly. You don't take the use of any weapon "off the table." And that's because you don't want our enemies to have any advance knowledge, any certainty, of what we would or wouldn't do. We want our enemies uncertain, off-balance. Another mistaken foreign policy opinion, in my view, coming from young Senator Obama. Again, however, I don't know that this will hurt him with the Democratic primary electorate. It may well help him.

Obama, Clinton in New Hampshire dead heat

More details here. Senator Clinton last week jumped on Obama last week, as you remember, when he said he would meet personally with the leaders of Syria or Cuba in his first year as president. Clinton said that was "irresponsible" and "naive." As you remember, I suggested that Mrs. Clinton was correct from the point of view of policy; but I wasn't so sure that her attacks would play so well with liberal Democratic primary voters. The tightening race in New Hampshire suggests that maybe, indeed, she went too far. It also means that Democratic activisits are pretty liberal.

Rewindorama on Senator Obama

You know, what's especially interesting about Senator Obama's tough talk today on Pakistan is what happens we contrast it with one of the first major foreign policy addresses the Senator gave, back in late April to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Let's take a look...

Back in April, Senator Obama said: "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision." Hmmm--plenty of "tough talk" from you today, though.

Back in April, Senator Obama said: "And America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world's forgotten corners - because while there will always be those who succumb to hate and strap bombs to their bodies, there are millions more who want to take another path - who want our beacon of hope to shine its light their way." Actually, here the Senator agrees with President Bush, who argues that people in the world have an instinctive yearning for democracy, which is why America must seek to promote it (in Iraq, for example).

Back in April, Senator Obama said: "Our interests are best served when people and governments from Jerusalem and Amman to Damascus and Tehran understand that America will stand with our friends, work hard to build a peaceful Middle East, and refuse to cede the future of the region to those who seek perpetual conflict and instability." Er, withdrawing from Iraq and abandoning its government is not a good example of standing "with our friends"; and should leaving Iraq make it a haven for terrorists, what will that do to the region? And what would invading Pakistan without that government's consent do to our standing in the region?

Back in April, Senator Obama urged a doubling of our foreign aid spending by 2012, saying: "Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The danger, of course, is if we do anything that encourages the destroyers to think that their destruction has influenced our decisions, That they have made us think we must bribe them to cease their destruction.

Senator Obama had some sensible recommendations in his speech, as well. We may very well need to expand the size of our military in coming years to meet the many threats facing us. But he today contradicted himself...

Obama to urge new offensives...

So today Senator Obama will make a speech in which he says an Obama administration will strike Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan, as well as send more troops to Afghanistan (while pulling out from Iraq). Muscular-sounding. Which is what he's seeking. And being more aggressive against Al Q in Pakistan isn't a bad idea. One suspects here, though, that the Obama camp is being a bit reactive, trying to burnish it's tough-on-terror and knowledgeable-on-foreign-policy credentials in the wake of last week's dust-up with the Clinton campaign over meeting with foreign leaders. Is Obama really sincere about this? It smacks less of sincerity, and more of a political move, to me. But Democrats will have to decide. UPDATE: and maybe I'm too hasty in suggesting that Obama might have a much of an idea here in the first place. Obama is suggesting striking in Pakistan even if its government doesn't give us the OK. That's reckless, given that for example the Musharraf regime has been cooperative with us to a point vs Al Qaeda (do we want to risk that?), and given that Pakistan has nukes (if we invade Pakistan to go after Al Q but without their consent, do we want to risk a war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan?). John Podhoretz at The Corner suggests Obama put this forward only for effect, that he'd never do it. He may be right.

Hillary vs Obama

Ann Althouse (and others) think that Hillary Clinton's answer in the most recent Democrats' debate, to the question of whether a president should be meeting in her first year as president with Syria or Cuba, was so superior to that of Barack Obama, and her campaign's pouncing on it in the post-debate spin so effective, that it has clearly established her as the "superior candidate." Well, maybe. I agree Senator Clinton's answer was superior, in terms of principle, common sense, statecraft, etc.

One caveat, though: this doesn't necessarily mean that Senator Clinton now has a big leg up among Democrats for the nomination. Remember, we're talking about Democratic primary voters here. They're far more liberal. And I think that means that such voters love the idea of being willing to talk with anyone, any time. There are a lot of Democrats who clearly believe that negotiations, talking, in and of itself is almost always a good thing. Now had a Republican candidate, in the Republican primary season, made a statement like Obama's at a GOP debate, oh, no question, he'd be finished among Republicans. But the Democrats' nomination won't be decided by Republicans, or members of the mainstream media, or us (hopefully sensible) bloggers. It'll be decided by Democratic primary voters. And they may see this, along with the Clinton Machine's heavy cannon fire in the wake of it, very differently. We'll see.

Democratic debate aside: Senator Obama's bad history

By the way: last night, in eagerly affirming that he would in his first year as president talk personally and directly with the Syrians, talk personally and directly with the Cubans, talk personally and directly with the Iranians, Senator Obama invoked Ronald Reagan. He claimed that, hey, Reagan didn't like the Soviet Union, but he talked with them, so...

But that's a distortion. Yes, Reagan talked with the Soviets; he eventually had several summit meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev. But: not right away. Not in his first year. In fact, throughout his entire first term, Reagan had no summit meetings, none, with either Leonid Brezhnev or, after he died, Yuri Andropov or, after he died, Konstantin Chernenko. The time wasn't right. And the Democrats during the 1984 election attacked him for it; for example, Walter Mondale at the 1984 Democratic National Convention said: "But the truth is that between us, we have the capacity to destroy the planet. Every president since the bomb went off understood that and talked with the Soviets and negotiated arms control. Why has this administration failed? Why haven't they tried? Why can't they understand the cry of Americans and human beings for sense and sanity in control of these God awful weapons? Why, why?
Why can't we meet in summit conferences with the Soviet Union at least once a year?"

Senator Obama was wrong on the facts in invoking President Reagan in this way. UPDATE: Welcome, readers of The Corner! Come back often. NR and The Corner remain must-reads for any conservative...

Guess we need to decide on genocide

Hmmm, again. (Via Drudge) Senator Barack Obama today said that preventing genocide isn't a good enough reason for the U.S. to say in Iraq: "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "

Er, well, but Senator, folks on your side of the aisle did in fact in the past say that preventing genocide was a good reason for us to go into Bosnia; some said it was a reason to go into Rwanda; others say it's a good reason to go into Darfur. What do you say to those folks? Hope someone asks him...