I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on…I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain…
Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I’ve passed those tests and my two opponents have not.
These remarks are causing quite an uproar, and all I can think is: So this is what a coded dog-whistle sounds like. The racists and the right-wing christians have been using them for so long, I never thought it’d get around to me. But the truth is, somewhere in the depths shallows of my subconscious the rationale goes like this: Anyone who has been involved, in any substantial way, in the Washington approach to foreign policy over the last twenty years is automatically tainted. Never mind Clinton’s war vote and McCain’s…complete warmongering insanity; the point is more basic than that: Experience in American foreign policy decision-making is a disqualifying characteristic, just as Obama is implying.
I’m not naive enough to believe that this opinion will be shared by any large portion of the electorate, and I hope Obama isn’t, either. I’m also not credulous enough to take this claim at face value, but just for a moment my subconscious peacenik sheepdog sat up and begged.
29 Responses to “Woof! Ban the Bomb!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
And this is why I support the guy. I liked Edwards better, because he was willing to be directly confrontational with the corporate system. But people weren’t ready to strain their ears to hear that over the total corporate media blackout. Obama’s just more subtle about it, as you accurately point out. Hillary, for reasons that are by no means entirely her fault, will have to act like the Iron Lady and go for more force than is strictly necessary. McCain is batshit crazy.
My only fear is that this makes Obama sound smart, and we’ve had two elections where the American people have liked the obviously stupid guy enough to make it close enough that cheating worked.
Holy mother of stupid, now it turns into this:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
A trip to Pakistan in college?? Now we KNOW he’s a Secret Muslim!
But what Obama has, which Kerry didn’t, is charisma. His has not yet (and I hope it won’t) become a negative campaign; it has been a hopefully one. Also, Michelle Obama is equally intelligent and charismatic- Teresa Heinz Kerry looked like she really resented being beside her husband and was judging the crowds, deeming them unworthy of her presense.
Emotions and subtleties like these add more to tipping the scales sometimes…
(rolls over)
Of course conservative bloggers are saying that this means he is being “too proud” and “has too much ego”.
A polite way of saying, well, you know.
Ms Kate, it’s not just conservatives. Clinton supporters at HuffPo are saying that “we just went through eight years of a cocky underexperienced president, now we want more?”
One of my biggest regrets about Hillary was that, as a woman, she would be expected to be “tough” on defense or she’d be accused of being a typical woman and unfit to be leader in a time of war.
The only problem is, the one she has to run to the right of on defense, to prove she’s not a woman, is John McCain.
It’s very depressing
After 2004, I am me of little faith. I honestly expect John McCrackenstein to be your next President.
I’ve never wanted to be proven wrong so hard.
I grow a new gray hair whenever I hear/read the man’s name.
The other interesting thing in the HuPo post is the self-projection: “What Barack Obama’s remarks last night in San Francisco reveal, however, is his self-confidence–to the point of cockiness–right now.”
I interpreted the same way you did–that we don’t need more of the same. But from Fowler’s previous post, we see that she’s on a fashion interpretation kick (got Gore?):
Obama exits, shakes a few hands — there aren’t that many eager spectators, so it’s looking like Philly isn’t as easy a lay as Altoona –and moves on down the sidewalk. The light catches the fabric of his suit. You know he is vain, because only fit thin guys can get away with shiny fabric.
People should really leave fashion to the professionals….
Well, anyone who runs for president is too cocky and has too much ego!
But the second paragraph Amanda quoted strikes me as odd:
How has he passed those tests? He’s got a lot of charisma, but he has a rather thin record; after all, he’s only been in the Senate for three years, and a year of that has been spent running for president. That he hasn’t been tested would be more realistic than to claim he has passed the tests.
What’s the whistle? I don’t get it.
I like the tactic, and yet it’s a sad thing for the country when not being a callous warmongering opportunist is potentially the deciding qualification for a presidential candidate.
A dogwhistle is only meant to communicate with those who can pick up on it, and the message here is: if you supported the Iraq war, you are unqualified to be president.
Which I damn well agree with, but many citizens probably wouldn’t if baldly stated as that.
Dana:
He’s recognized that killing a bunch of innocent people in Iraq requires more than a pack of lies and the ability to get away with it.
Sirkowski -
Specifically, the “temperament” is a dogwhistle about McCain’s infamous rage (he’s on record as having called his wife a c**t in public for teasing him about balding), and the “insists on good intelligence” is a dogwhistle about all the Democrats, including Clinton, who fell for the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
My ears perked right up, too. Anyone who supported the Iraq war is unfit for office. Damn straight.
o it’s looking like Philly isn’t as easy a lay as Altoona
WTF?
No, really, WTF?
I think we killed the purpose of the dog whistle- we’re not supposed to SAY we understand it, and then spell it out. Dogwhistles are supposed to give people plausible deniablity.
Dana,
If you have questions, RTFM - go to Obama’s website. Plenty to read there.
Hillary’s “foreign policy” experience consists of tea with the wives of visiting heads of state and some rather overblown junkets. That and warmongering noises in support of one of the planet’s most egregious aparteid regimes.
Obama actually dove right in in the Senate and went after the weapons of mass destruction based on solid evidence, not invented evidence. He was heavily involved in securing fissionable materials so the nastier of the unstable nasties wouldn’t get their hands on him.
Dana, in an era where the metric of being a “serious” politician was to support the war in Iraq, Obama opposed it. McCain and Clinton failed those tests when it counted. Think how the situation would have been different if McCain had been brave enough to say, “invading iraq is a bad idea right now; I’m not going to support it!” But he couldn’t do it, and that’s enough to make me not look well upon his potential as a president, compared to Obama. If McCain has some major foreign policy moments that he’s passed in the last 8 years, I haven’t heard them, so I really don’t know what justifies his claim that he should be president.
It seems to me that their position on the Iraq occupation is the ONLY foreign-policy test that these non-Presidents have had in recent history. What other situation has required everyone in the room to put their cards on the table?
Dana can’t even RTFname of the poster!
Obama just convinced me.
Ruff.
That’s not all that I got out of those statements. IMO, He’s implying that they are unicultural Americans (the stereotypical ‘ugly Americans’ who criticize other countries while they’re there for being insufficiently like America, The Perfect).
But by dint of his heritage and upbringing Obama has a more multinational mindset. He’s willing to see other cultures as being equally valid on their own terms instead of being failed-America-copies. In otherwords, he’s not an Imperialist, and I think he’ll do a lot to improve our internation reputation.
Ultimagely, I’m not disagreeing with you, he is saying he’s less likely to go off half cocked at the semi-mythical 3am call, but it will be because he has more understanding and empathy for world matters. The corollary to this implication is that others would say ‘Some not-American country is daring to rattle their sabers? Bomb ‘em.’
The sad thing is that McCain has explicitly validated that corollary… “Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran”
I’m not hearing the whistle, or maybe I’ve just been hearing it for long enough that I’m not noticing a different note. Isn’t this just Obama’s tried-and-true “judgment” tactic he’s been using to check the “experience” point for months?
This is a fantastic sentiment, I just don’t think I believe that he’s passed the test either. At the very least, he still voted for funding, and he hasn’t taken Iran off the table. I’m unimpressed by every candidate (least unimpressed with him, but still), but will vote democrat in the election only because our country will completely implode with McCain as president.
…and Ms. Kate goes right for the “she only drank tea with wives” jugular.
But Obama’s for peace, so he’s got “experience.”
The contortions. They burn!
Auguste, I have held a very similar opinion for some time now. The reason the pundits were constantly surprised by Obama’s better than expected showings in the early primaries was that they were too steeped in the conventional wisdom of the beltway. For the other 81% of us who are not so happy with present trends, the more issues [read “votes”] and the longer any politician has been aligned with the current administration, the more contaminated they are unconsciously seen to be. it is crude thinking [or, as you put it “shallow”] and yet when one closes the curtain and is in the claustrophobic confines of the polling booth, it may come down to just such approximating summaries of good and evil for most voters.
Go’Bama!
Oh. What I heard was that his brief experiences as a male CHILD naturally trump the (objectively longer) experiences of a female ADULT.
Obviously.
Ah, I guess it was too obvious for me to see it as a whistle.
John McCain’s not a female. Or an adult, if his temper control is any guide.