Kagan on Obama Continued

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers catches Bob Kagan playing a bit fast and loose with Obama's speech. The best part is this. Obama concludes his thoughts on nuclear proliferation thusly:

Finally, if we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, “The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status – another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.” Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch. We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.

From this, Kagan gleans merely that Obama "talks about . . . maintaining 'a strong nuclear deterrent.'" Which, of course, he does talk about -- in the context of cutting the nuclear weapons budget and restoring reciprocity to the global nonproliferation bargain. The proliferation stuff was the best part of the speech -- an area where rhetorical rubber hit the road and he came down on the right side. I genuinely wonder why Kagan thinks it's a good idea to portray Obama as being on his side on nuclear issues when he isn't -- I don't really buy the notion that it's all part of some conspiracy to discredit him with Democratic voters.

Comments

The guy who has been wrong about everything is wrong once again.

Color me surprised.

Posted by alphie | May 7, 2007 12:40 PM

"I genuinely wonder why Kagan thinks it's a good idea to portray Obama as being on his side on nuclear issues when he isn't -- I don't really buy the notion that it's all part of some conspiracy to discredit him with Democratic voters."

I'd guess the key to understanding this is the narrative of Obama's Harvard Law Review presidency election.

The election was an all-day affair with the ego-crushing drama of a reality TV show. Inside Pound Hall, the editors picked apart the intellectual and social skills of the 19 contenders, eliminating them in batches. At the last moment, the conservative faction, its initial candidates defeated, threw its support to Mr. Obama. “Whatever his politics, we felt he would give us a fair shake,” said Bradford Berenson, a former associate White House counsel in the Bush administration.

Obama scares nobody. It's why he's currently running just about as strongly as Edwards in general election matchups.

Of course, the downside is that the best one can hope for from an Obama Presidency is the Clinton administration part deux.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 12:47 PM

Hey, Sausagely! There's a new column from Marty you oughtta be hatin' on!

Posted by BP | May 7, 2007 12:59 PM

Obama scares nobody.

Put another way, some conservatives are becoming resigned to the fact that the Republican candidates are absolute zeroes. Obama's intellect and speaking style impress them, so they must take up this exercise in eliminating the cognitive dissonance of rooting for a Democratic candidate.

In the 2004 primaries, I remember similar articles about Edwards - a lot of Republicans dug him.

“Whatever his politics, we felt he would give us a fair shake."

Nothing wrong with integrity.

Posted by Kuz | May 7, 2007 1:00 PM

"Obama scares nobody."

This is a good point. I do really like Obama's air of wonky, reasonable competence, and I worry a bit about Edwards being equally good with the policy details on stuff like non-proliferation. And I don't think the best case for Obama is Clinton II at all. But Edwards' willingness to run as an actual, unapologetic liberal is winning me over right now.

It's interesting: somehow I'm genuinely convincing myself that one of these two is going to be the next President. I'm never this optimistic....

Posted by Katherine | May 7, 2007 1:08 PM

"In the 2004 primaries, I remember similar articles about Edwards - a lot of Republicans dug him."

Obama is running the Edwards '04 campaign.

Axelrod, y'know...

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 1:13 PM

Kagan's dishonesty does suggest that there's an agenda here. My guess is that it's just a clumsy attempt at flattery. Remember that these are people who didn't hesitate to praise Bush, in spite of the obvious cognitive dissonances. Politicians will overlook your errors and logical inconsistencies as long as you continue to say positive things about them.

Posted by MattF | May 7, 2007 1:32 PM

Once again, with Kagan it's a question of "evil or stupid?"

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2007 1:42 PM

Didn't Edwards end up firing Axelrod? What I take from that is that the two didn't fit together very well. It's different now since Axelrod and Obama have been close for a long time. Obama is running pretty much the campaign that he wants.

Anyways, I'm tired of a President who "scares" a large swath of the population. And I doubt Edwards could possibly be the "unapologetic liberal" in the oval office that he is now, in the democratic primary. He's a politican who has to conform to political realities, and his campaign platform doesn't change that dynamic one bit.

Posted by Korha | May 7, 2007 1:52 PM

"And I doubt Edwards could possibly be the "unapologetic liberal" in the oval office that he is now"

Compromise is an essential element of politics, sure.

But if you can win the WH running proudly from outside of the mainstream, you thus move the mainstream.

Reagan ran as a proud conservative, and although he made compromises as President, he still moved the mainstream to the right merely by the fact of his election.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 1:59 PM

If you read Audacity of Hope, you see that Obama has the intellectual abd rhetorical chops to show that he understands conservative ideas, and can state them fairly, before he goes on to disagree with them. This undoubtedly endears him somewhat to conservative intellectuals. Edwards will say whatever he thinks you want to hear.

Posted by Pithlord | May 7, 2007 2:29 PM

"Kagan's dishonesty does suggest that there's an agenda here."

This is where I come down on this. This seems a way too incorrect for a smart guy like Kagan to not be doing this on purpose. What other explanation could their be?

Posted by Anon | May 7, 2007 4:25 PM

"Reagan ran as a proud conservative, and although he made compromises as President, he still moved the mainstream to the right merely by the fact of his election."

Petey,
A lot of people here seem to get annoyed by your persistence in making the same arguments over and over again. I'm not sure I agree with this particular one or not, but I admire your diligence in trying to convince as many people as possible that this is true. But to truly learn from the Republicans, you need to find a way to get other people to start repeating the same message.

Posted by mpowell | May 7, 2007 6:58 PM

Kagan's a liar. If he told the truth, he'd probably have to whip himself in penance - and not to God (shall we say). It's really just an AEI scumbag trashing a Democratic politician with whatever lie is handy.

Posted by Barry | May 7, 2007 9:08 PM

Crackhead Barack Hussein Obama hates the West and Euro-Americans (whites) with a passion. He will not rest until he's weakened white America as much as possible and replaced it with a multicultural totalitarian dictatorship under the control of multinational bureaucrats.

Posted by Shakespeare | May 7, 2007 11:22 PM

"But to truly learn from the Republicans, you need to find a way to get other people to start repeating the same message."

Mission Accomplished

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 3:57 AM

Is he surprised that bush hasn't kept a promise?
Where the hell has he been for the last 6 years?

Posted by merlallen | May 8, 2007 5:12 AM

fuck you shakespeare, you brain dead dittomonkey

Posted by merlallen | May 8, 2007 5:16 AM