« Going Long | Main | Gang of 14 »

Stenography: Or, Real Journalism at Last

25 Feb 2008 11:37 am

Just like a real fake journalist, I spent some time on a conference call this morning with some of Barack Obama's people and can now faithfully recount to you, the audience, what they told me. One, by way of prebuttal to a foreign policy speech Hillary Clinton will deliver today, Susan Rice outlined three key missteps of judgment she said Clinton had made:

  • Supporting the invasion of Iraq, support that Rice emphasized was not limited to 2002 but extended for several additional years.
  • "Voting to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment"
  • Agreeing with Bush and McCain on a Musharraf-centric approach to Pakistan "that short-cited point of view which underplayed the importance of the democracy movement in Pakistan backfired and has left us scrambling to convince the Pakistani people that our interests in Pakistan extend beyond one man."

Scott Gration then said a bunch of stuff that I didn't think was very interesting. Then Richard Danzig emphasized that the Obama campaign's theme of change "extends not just to the domestic world but also very strikingly to the foreign policy world." He alleged that "Senator Clinton is trapped within an establishment view of the world" at a time when "we hugely need to present a new face to the world." But not just a new face in the superficial sense, Danzig said we need to present a new face to the world through some dramatic new substantive policies. He highlighted, in particular, Obama's focus on non-proliferation issues and willingness to support dramatic multi-lateral arsenal cuts and specifically commit to a long-range goal of zero nuclear weapons.

This last bit had resonance for me because I think it's been one of the big under-reported issue arguments of the campaign. Barack Obama and John Edwards both specifically endorsed the Kissinger/Nunn/Perry/Shultz call for a zero nukes policy. Clinton neither embraced nor rejected that view, instead choosing to mischaracterize the issue by writing that "former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to 'rekindle the vision,' shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons." That's just not what they called on us to do, and I'd sort of like to know what Clinton thinks about the issue at hand. And, yes, it's weird to cite agreeing with these four very establishmentarian figures as an example of Obama being willing to buck the establishment.

In other news, I felt that Rice was using a sarcastic tone of voice to convey frustration with the fact that Clinton's campaign has been allowed to get away with waiting until very late in the game to deliver her Major Foreign Policy Address while also billing herself the candidate of substance. Rice also emphasized the idea that Clinton is trying to have it both ways on the experience issue, claiming full partnership in her husband's presidency as a sign of readiness to be commander in chief while also wanting to distance herself from things like NAFTA that may be unpopular today. I thought the hypocrisy allegation sort of lacked bite. Rice and several other Obama advisors worked in the Clinton administration. If they want to say that, in their experience, Clinton didn't play the sort of substantive role she's now saying she played, they ought to come out and say so directly. They were there and we weren't and there's no contradiction between having been involved and sometimes losing a policy argument.

Nota Bene: This sort of big time journalism talking to important people on the phone can be done while wearing pajamas from the privacy of your own home.

Share This

Comments (27)

"Nota Bene: This sort of big time journalism talking to important people on the phone can be done while wearing pajamas from the privacy of your own home."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can also have sex with Italian porn stars using the same method.

I would point out that Ronald Reagan also wished for a nuke-less world. Just another parallel.

But apparently you have to disavow the pajamas if the NYT decides to write you up. Bummer.

supporting the invasion of Iraq, support that Rice emphasized was not limited to 2002 but extended for several additional years.

To me, this is a big deal. They didn't only differ on the 2002 vote, as Clinton suggested during one of the debates. She continued supporting the war for a long time, until it became unpopular.

"That's just not what they called on us to do, and I'd sort of like to know what Clinton thinks about the issue at hand"

Why? You've fallen in love with Prince Obama, nothing she says is going to change that. And it's not that you truly want to know what she thinks about the issue, you suspect she has a weak position and would like to attack it; don't disguise this as genuine interest. She doesn't owe you crap.

If she pulls this off and becomes our nominee, you, Kos, Frank Rich, et al, will be in an interesting position. You can always pull a Lieberman and form your own party with Barack as your Caudillo with all those independents and cross-over Republicans that propelled him to the frontrunner slot. The funny thing is those people will probably vote for McCain anyway. Interesting position indeed.

Actually, I agree with Susan Rice. Clinton is trying to burnish her national security credentials (and she is indeed on the Senate Armed services Committee), but during the Clinton administration, she didn't have security clearance and never saw a Presidential Daily Briefing. So how can she claim nat-sec points for that time?

Matt,

Since you mentioned stenography, I just have a quick question.

I notice no mention of Israel/Palestine (and I don't want to turn this into an I/P thread, and apologies if that ends up happening) in your reportage.

Did it not come up on the call?

"To me, this is a big deal. They didn't only differ on the 2002 vote, as Clinton suggested during one of the debates. She continued supporting the war for a long time, until it became unpopular"

That's funny, b/c HRC's and BO's votes on Iraq are identical, including Iraq supplemental funding votes ("nobody wants to play chicken with the troops" 04/01/2007, Barack cowardly demagoging his vote for Iraq funding).

You want a real anti-war democrat? Look at Russ Feingold's record, his votes are the standard as far as anti-war senators go. BO and HRC votes are identical -- well he skipped the Lieberman-Kyl vote, just like he voted "present" in IL. But go on, keep on deluding yourself.

It's pretty darned hard to wage any sort of war in Afghanistan wihtout being President-or- Dictator-of-Pakistan-centric. When you need to overfly Pakistani airspace, you pretty much need to pretend the guy who has the most control of the Pakistani military is the wonderullest guy ever. "Uncle Joe" Stalin and all that.

Maps can be troubling things........

Israel,

The point is that, during a debate, HRC defended her 2002 vote by saying she (along with many others) were deceived by Bush into thinking that war would be a last resort. If that were true, then logically she should have opposed Bush in early 2003 when it was clear that he invaded despite Saddam capitulating.
She should at least have gone on the record as saying that invading at that time was a mistake. She did not.


Wow -- I didn't realize that Russ Feingold was running for president! Good point: I think I'll vote for him.

And yes, it's going to be sad if Clinton wins the nomination. No doubt Matt and Barack will have form their own political party. It seems pretty inevitable.

This is fun! let's try some other counterfactuals: Um . . . Matt, what are you going to say when Belgium turns into an aggressive nuclear-armed superpower and forces us all to eat enormous quantities of mussels and cheap Belgian beer. Then, my naive friend, you'll rue your policy on nonproliferation!!!!

Kinda off topic. Right now HRC is giving her speech but no network coverage. I mean this is getting to be silly, the nomination contest is not even over and the nets are already dissing her.

1) Hmmm. I favor efforts at nonproliferation -- and I realize the difficulty in getting other nations to restrain getting nukes so long as you have the power to wipe them off the face of the earth.

2) Nonetheless, I don't favor getting rid of ALL of our nukes. China's approach -- of keeping 15 ICBMS -- seems most reasonable to me. Enough to deter an aggressor but not so much as to make people think you're planning to conquer the world.

You'll probably need around 45 total --in missile field clusters like our Minuteman fields in North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. The idea is that you space the individual silos on 3 mile separations. The reason for that is that someone can't do a First Strike (aka cut the head off the chicken) by attacking all of your ICBMS at once.

3) If someone is aiming a nuke at Silo A then it CAN'T attack Silo A's adjacent neighbors (Silos B and C) because the nuclear fireball that incinderates Silo A will also incinderate the incoming warheads aimed at Silos B and C -- and Silo B and C are just far enough away to not be damaged by the attack on Silo A) The required time delay between when the Nuke hits Silo A and when followon nukes can be sent at Silos B and C gives you time to launch Silos B and C.

Samantha Power was on Charlie Rose discussing her new book and Obama and she was really good. She suggested he'd extract more from the Europeans and allies.

"Israel:"

If she pulls this off and becomes our nominee, you, Kos, Frank Rich, et al, will be in an interesting position. You can always pull a Lieberman and form your own party with Barack as your Caudillo with all those independents and cross-over Republicans that propelled him to the frontrunner slot. The funny thing is those people will probably vote for McCain anyway. Interesting position indeed.

Don't the polls have Obama beating McCain? But the polls had Hillary beating Obama so they're not to be trusted.

It is interesting which bloggers and pundits analyzed the race realistically and objectively. Like Obsidian Wings and Scott Lemieux among others. Frank Rich had a great column yesterday:

"As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country."

...

"What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.”"

At the end of last Thursday's debate Clinton did give a hint that she might gracefully concede, but today's op-ed by Geraldine Ferraro - who I like - suggests she won't.

At least MattY knows he's a hack. What happened to the fight-the-power lefties? That's a serious question: virtualy every leftie in the wonderful extended commentariat is simply a partisan hack.

And, yes, it's weird to cite agreeing with these four very establishmentarian figures as an example of Obama being willing to buck the establishment.

Actually, it's not weird at all. Nunn, Perry, Kissinger and Shultz are establishment figures, but on this issue, they are all fighting The Man. And by virtue of their otherwise non-DFH status, they help to convince those who are way of DFHs that ridding the world of nuclear weapons might actually be sensible thing to do.

MNPundit

There's a difference between "wishing for a nuclear free world" and having an actual policy for one.

well he skipped the Lieberman-Kyl vote, just like he voted "present" in IL

This myth again. Once more: Obama showed up for a whole day expecting to vote No on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. It didn't get to a vote, and Harry Reid stated that the vote would be set aside and wouldn't come up again "in the near future." Obama took that to mean he could keep a campaign appointment the next day, and flew to NH.

Well, what do you know, but the next morning, 10am, Harry Reid calls a vote on the amendment, with Senators given two hours to assemble. There was nothing Obama could do except release a statement saying he would have voted against the amendment if he were there.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html#comments

"Short-cited"?

Uh, you're not a very good stenographer.

Nota Bene: This sort of big time journalism talking to important people on the phone can be done while wearing pajamas from the privacy of your own home.

You can tie that point in with your "tax and deregulation" one. Here's how: back in ye the olden days of the regulated Ma Bell, they only let you do that stuff if you were working at IBM in your grey flannel suit. :-)

More seriously, I really appreciate how you give the skinny of what campaign folks are spinning to you whenever you are invited into these thingies, whether you support the candidate or not.

That's the kind of thing you do that keeps me coming back to your blog.

The campaign shit that so many complain about is never going to stop if more people don't spill the beans like you do, instead regurgitating and reframing campaign messages and passing them off as their own, eseentially campaign agents.

I honestly wish they would realize that they could just actually honestly and straightforwardly publish their talking points of the day in the morning on the internet and get a better end effect than they do now.

Nota bene: If you purchase a pair of work pajamas and use them exclusively for conference calls with political bigwigs, you may be able to write them off your taxes as a business expense.

So Obama skipped the vote because he was campaigning for president. I guess it wasn't really that important then. Kind of like that subcommittee he supposedly chairs.

saying he would have voted against the amendment if he were there.
Interestingly, Obama also would have voted against the $87B Iraq supplemental all though he has voted to approve all but one funding bill since becoming a Senator.

As an America-hating Commie, do you prefer your pajamas black or pink?

Susan Rice should take a long vacation. Baghdad would be good. It's way past time for Obama to drop the "I was right on Iraq" bullshit. He doesn't need to continue pandering to the lefties, who are all hypnotized by now, and if he keeps this up he'll only hurt himself in November. And the rap on Kyle-Lieberman is a total phoney--no one in their right mind thought Bush was going to strike Iran with no support to do so in Congress (which this vote clearly was not), in the Pentagon (including from his own SecDef), or in the country at large. Pure campaign hokum.

As pointed out above, Obama's Senate votes on Iraq have been identical to Hillary's, and he has stated clearly that he doesn't know himself how he would have voted in 2002 if he'd been representing all of Illinois (and the greater nation) in the Senate instead of a rather narrow, rather left-wing constituency in Chicago. Moreover, he's talking pretty much the same plan for Iraq, which would leave about half the troops there indefinately; and he's asking for 96,000 more infantry troops. Wonder what he wants them for?

Obama needs to remind his staff that just because polls indicate lots of voters are fed up with the way the war's been conducted doesn't mean they are in favor of declaring defeat.

Re Robert Powell's comment "And the rap on Kyle-Lieberman is a total phoney--no one in their right mind thought Bush was going to strike Iran with no support to do so in Congress "
-------------
I wasn't worried about Bush invading Iran -- as Israeli billionaire (and top Democratic donor ) Haim Saban noted, Bush has been "Israel's best friend" but no longer has the political capital to address Iran.

No, I was worried about Kyle-Lieberman being used by Haim's client HILLARY. As part of her "being good for Israel". See the Haaretz interview I've cited several times.

I would also like to hear more about the differences between Obama and Clinton on Israel-Palestine. I guess it is too hot to handle for the candidates, but what about bloggers and MSM?

Daniel Levy has a good post on Obama and Israel, but I would like to see a lot more.

Matt: "This sort of big time journalism talking to important people on the phone can be done while wearing pajamas from the privacy of your own home."

You can jerk off that way, too, which appears to be more the case here.

What did you learn that WE DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW from Obama's statements over the last X months?

The problem with Obama's policy on non-proliferation is that it appears to an excuse to focus on Iran and thus appear more of a hawk to the AIPAC crowd. (Hint: It isn't working. Clinton is their candidate - even over McCain, as the Haaretz poll showed.)

It would be nice if he meant the parts about unilateral nuke cuts and supporting NP, but we'll have to see if he really does, or if it's nothing more than campaign rhetoric and an excuse to be belligerent with Iran to prove he's not a "peace-nik" to the military-industrial complex.

As for the possibility of an Iran war, Cheney is still Vice-President, has the ear and agreement with Israel that Iran needs to be bombed - so as Rambo put it, "Nothing is over!"

I listened last night to Scott Horton's interview with Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where his work focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, missile defense, Iraq, Iran, military policy, nuclear terrorism, and other national security issues. He agrees that the threat of a war with Iran is not past.

MP3 here: http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_02_22_gard.mp3


Comments closed March 10, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.