Just Showing Up

Mike Tomasky has a good column about how Barack Obama's changing the game in the U.S. foreign policy debate, holding his ground and fighting and it seems to be working. One thing I'll note about this is that while it may not be true that 99 percent of life is just showing up, Obama's been showing us that showing up is a lot of it. There's nothing really shockingly novel about what he's been saying, it's just that as someone who's genuinely untainted by the failures of the past seven years he stands up and labels attacks on him continuities with the failures of the past seven years.

It's not that clever, but it doesn't need to be any more clever than that. George Bush has already handed the other side a huge dump of ammunition. And now there's a candidate who's ready to pick it up off the floor and shoot back. Shoot back, I might add, on point without shifting targets to the economy or veterans' benefits or whatever else.

Comments

FIRST! fuck all you fuckers1!!!1

Posted by bad joke dood | May 19, 2008 11:20 AM

Tomasky is spot on.

Last week's exchange represents two of the biggest reasons for his nomination.

1. He's someone who represents an alternative foreign policy narrative.

2. He doesn't badge when he gets attacked.

Yet again, watching him deliver the remarks clearly and forcefully- which as Matt points out weren't really special in substance- , one couldn't help but wonder: Why did it take so long? Was it so difficult for the Democratic party to find someone who could perform politics 101?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 19, 2008 11:22 AM

It's not that clever, but it doesn't need to be any more clever than that.

At the risk of sounding sappy it’s more a matter of courage then cleverness. As blogs like this one document daily there is a vast set of people pressuring Democratic candidates to tow the line, act tough, be serious etc, etc. I think John Edwards deserves the most credit for this, but Obama has certainly taken up the cause and run with it.

Given his family background, I’m sure he felt the pressure to be hawkish more then most politicians. It’s genuine credit to Obama’s character that he’s taken the foreign policy positions that he has.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 19, 2008 11:29 AM

I couldn't help noticing that in his remarks Obama tries to out-hawk McCain on Hamas. He says he would never negociate with Hamas which I suppose is reasonable political rhetoric, but not very good foreign policy. Hamas is a governing party in the Palestinian Authority. McCain was right when he we need to deal with them. I wish Obama had said so and just went after McCain on hypocrisy instead of trying to be the "tougher" one.

Still, it's nice that this story is breaking in Obama's favor.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 19, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't know if it is "clever", but what Obama is doing is quite smart. It goes beyond just tying McCain as tightly as possible to the unpopular policies of Bush (and using the phrase "Bush-McCain" as often as possible). Obama also drew parallels between McCain's political style and Bush's political style (claiming that on this issue they were both being uncivil, dishonest, hypocritical, fear-mongering, and so on). And Obama, of course, is smart to do this, because McCain is in fact currently credited by many with having a more popular political style than Bush, and so Obama benefits by undermining this notion.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 12:03 PM

Yes, Obama is standing up (as he should), but you have to admit that it's easier than in the past because he's holding a much stronger foreign policy hand than McCain. Obama can point to where he was right. McCain is trying to defend a 7 year record of failure that he supports.

All McCain can say is "experience", but being wrong so many times and thus being experienced mostly at failure doesn't qualify you to be Commander in Chief.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 12:06 PM

It will work right up until he tries to apply it. At which point, he'll learn (or not) what Jimmy Carter never did figure out - "jaw jaw" only works with entities that are interested in some level of compromise. With those who are implacable, it's just a waste of time. Which does not mean that force is the only other option - sometimes studied indifference is the best and only real option available.

Posted by James Robertson | May 19, 2008 12:14 PM

"Mike Tomasky has a good column about how Barack Obama's changing the game in the U.S. foreign policy debate, holding his ground and fighting and [b]it seems to be working.[/b]"

I'm a little curious to know where I can find evidence of it seeming to be working. The Obama fellow ran on negotiating with enemies in the context of a Democratic primary where you often get points for striking lefty poses. I thought his choice of words after Bush's speech was both strange (how is McCain "irresponsible"? are rural voters really "bitter"?) and telling (the "naive" crack makes me think he'll be running openly against the promotion of political reform in the Arab World in a way that Kerry only split hairs).

McCain seems to be playing the optimist: whatever you think about Iraq we're in this reform thing for the long haul and the only way out is forward. In my view reasonable people don't want the country more deeply entangled in the mideast but sometimes what you want is not what you - as an adult - know you need to do.

In the Democratic primary Barack Obama was the optimist foil - the apostle of hope - to Hillary's frumpy realism. Now he is the cynic wanting - it seems - to wash his hands of our troubles in the Arab world, resorting to the old Democratic pander on social security: if McCain is elected you folks will eat cat food. We've seen this show before. We know how it usually ends.

Posted by Linus | May 19, 2008 12:24 PM

It will work right up until he tries to apply it. At which point, he'll learn (or not) what Jimmy Carter never did figure out - "jaw jaw" only works with entities that are interested in some level of compromise. With those who are implacable, it's just a waste of time. Which does not mean that force is the only other option - sometimes studied indifference is the best and only real option available.

I think you are just stating the obvious: sometimes talking works, sometimes indifference is good, sometimes force is required. Isn't the point here that the Right eliminates talking from their toolbox?

Posted by MarkT | May 19, 2008 12:44 PM

JR said... At which point, he'll learn (or not) what Jimmy Carter never did figure out - "jaw jaw" only works with entities that are interested in some level of compromise. With those who are implacable, it's just a waste of time.

Obama's judgment on Afghanistan vs. Iraq show he's learned that lesson already. McCain has yet to show, in any substantive way, that he actually understands the use of diplomacy, or when one needs to shift from negotiation to military force. In fact, McCain's record shows a short path to force. Diplomacy worked with Libya (and Kaddafi was a known terrorist), but McCain's sweeping views on diplomacy would mean that we would have never even talked to him.

Linus said... McCain seems to be playing the optimist: whatever you think about Iraq we're in this reform thing for the long haul and the only way out is forward.

Obama is playing the realist and McCain a cheerleader for a team losing badly. "The only way out is forward" is a cute slogan, but is the same old lame cheerleader crap being peddled by Bush, McCain, and the GOP for 5 years. "Failure is not an option!" These are merely weak words from people with more beliefs than ideas.

Neither Bush nor McCain have been able to articulate clearly how this will work (and wishing doesn't make it so). Benchmarks have come and gone over and over again, to the point where they won't define any because they've missed almost all of them. Instead, they've been redefining "success" to the point where it is close to meaningless. They're arming militias for short-term gain, but can't explain why those same militias won't use those weapons to hold or extend their own power. Cluelessness abounds.

Linus said... Now he is the cynic wanting - it seems - to wash his hands of our troubles in the Arab world, resorting to the old Democratic pander on social security: if McCain is elected you folks will eat cat food. We've seen this show before. We know how it usually ends.

Wow. What a babbling rant. How did you tie a consistent view that we shouldn't be in Iraq to Social Security? If your brand of pretzel logic is what passes for reason in the GOP, it certainly explains a lot about the past 7 years.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 12:48 PM

And now there's a candidate who's ready to pick it up off the floor and shoot back. Shoot back, I might add, on point without shifting targets to the economy or veterans' benefits or whatever else.
************************************************

Riiight - that's why he was out trying to scare old people about Social Security yesterday. Or whatever else

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-obama19-2008may19,0,372672.story

Posted by Campesino | May 19, 2008 12:49 PM

"I couldn't help noticing that in his remarks Obama tries to out-hawk McCain on Hamas. He says he would never negociate with Hamas which I suppose is reasonable political rhetoric, but not very good foreign policy. Hamas is a governing party in the Palestinian Authority. McCain was right when he we need to deal with them. I wish Obama had said so and just went after McCain on hypocrisy instead of trying to be the "tougher" one."

To a certain extent it's just good politics. However, the big question isn't so much us negotiating with Hamas - we are not currently in armed conflict no do we have anything material the other really wants - but to help ensure that Israel negotiates with Hamas in good faith.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 12:50 PM

Linus,

It is one thing to be optimistic about the ability of the people of the United States to voluntarily come together and work toward common solutions to our mutual problems. It is another thing to be optimistic about the ability of the U.S. military to force the Iraqi people to do the same against their will.

And in fact the very problem with that view is that if you were really optimistic about the future of Iraq, it wouldn't be clear why Iraq needed the U.S. military to achieve that future for itself. So, McCain needs us to be too pessimistic about Iraq to think it can make do without us, but so optimistic about the ability of our military to shape the future of Iraq that all his dreams for Iraq will come true. And it is pretty clear that for quite a while now, the American people are disinclined to believe that the U.S. military has the power to determine Iraq's future in that fashion.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 1:01 PM

It is another thing to be optimistic about the ability of the U.S. military to force the Iraqi people to do the same against their will.

But, but, but, they greeted us as liberators, right? At least that was John McCain's prediction in 2003. And success was fairly easy, wasn't it? At least that was John McCain's prediction in 2002.

Watch the Double Talk Express for more pearls of McCain wisdom.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 1:10 PM

Sullivan spotted Obama's ability to avoid the defensive crouch on national security ages ago.

I was disappointed by Tomasky's opinion that Obama was on 'dodgy' ground, presumably by threatening to appease terrorist-lovers that are set to annihilate Israel in a nuclear holocaust. If most of the highly-informed liberal pundits seem to believe this then I am wondering whether some of the commentators on Tomasky's piece are right, that Obama is on the wrong side of the argument and will lose out in the end, and, as Kristol speculated today, the people will put a 'strong' national security Republican in the White House and settle for a Democrat-controlled congress. God help us all if it comes to pass is all I can say.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 19, 2008 1:25 PM

Right on, Matt. I don't think people realize just how important it is that Obama is willing to take on the GOP's approach to foreign policy. People trust the Democrats on just about everything else right now, and if Obama can claim ownership of a responsible foreign policy for the Democrats, the GOP will be out of power for a decade.

And to the person who said that we shouldn't negotiate with implacable enemies: to whom were you referring? Certainly not Iran, who offered to end their nuclear program in 2004 but was rebuffed by a Bush Administration hell-bent on regime change. There's no real reason to believe that Iranian clerics like Khameni aren't willing to make a deal that's in their interest (since they were willing to before) and they're the ones who really run the country.

Posted by Lev | May 19, 2008 1:26 PM

Right on, Matt. I don't think people realize just how important it is that Obama is willing to take on the GOP's approach to foreign policy. People trust the Democrats on just about everything else right now, and if Obama can claim ownership of a responsible foreign policy for the Democrats, the GOP will be out of power for a decade.

And to the person who said that we shouldn't negotiate with implacable enemies: to whom were you referring? Certainly not Iran, who offered to end their nuclear program in 2004 but was rebuffed by a Bush Administration hell-bent on regime change. There's no real reason to believe that Iranian clerics like Khameni aren't willing to make a deal that's in their interest (since they were willing to before) and they're the ones who really run the country.

Posted by Lev | May 19, 2008 1:29 PM

Right on, Matt. I don't think people realize just how important it is that Obama is willing to take on the GOP's approach to foreign policy. People trust the Democrats on just about everything else right now, and if Obama can claim ownership of a responsible foreign policy for the Democrats, the GOP will be out of power for a decade.

And to the person who said that we shouldn't negotiate with implacable enemies: to whom were you referring? Certainly not Iran, who offered to end their nuclear program in 2004 but was rebuffed by a Bush Administration hell-bent on regime change. There's no real reason to believe that Iranian clerics like Khameni aren't willing to make a deal that's in their interest (since they were willing to before) and they're the ones who really run the country.

Posted by Lev | May 19, 2008 1:31 PM

"George Bush has already handed the other side a huge dump of ammunition."

Quite literally true -- though that was a different other side than our other side.

Posted by BarryG | May 19, 2008 2:15 PM

"It is one thing to be optimistic about the ability of the people of the United States to voluntarily come together and work toward common solutions to our mutual problems. It is another thing to be optimistic about the ability of the U.S. military to force the Iraqi people to do the same against their will."

I think the point McCain may make is that it's about more than Iraq, that it's about political reform throughout the region.

I'm not objecting to the idea that America is supposed to be a republic and that Democrats should be the guardians of republican values just that there are certain realities that rhetoric won't change.

My guess is that if Barack Obama loses in November Democrats will tell themselves it was because he's black, or half-black, or whatever (he's not the candidate of identity politics you understand) just like they told themselves John Kerry lost in 2004 because he was swift-boated. In reality I think that if he loses it will be for the same reason Democratic presidential candidates have been losing for a long time: national security.

Posted by Linus | May 19, 2008 2:38 PM

Senator Obama will expose them (Republicans) as Wizards (as in Oz --illusionary figures behind a curtain of Deceit!) The Republican Magicians are at it again -- all smoke & mirrors and huff and puff. We are tired of their trickery's based on illusions and not fact, and like the Wizard of Oz, when the curtain is pulled back by "the light of truth", be exposed as fakers and con-artists, with loud, scary voices with no Real Power, pulling strings of "make believe" and deceit, and why should we go down the "yellow-brick-road" over and over again!

This massed negativity has been a real detriment to American economic progress and peace in Iraq. Such people are like a millstone around the neck of humanity, crippling true effort, murmuring Family Values, yet do nothing but impede true progress while humanity is dying. This massed, organized negativity has been what has enabled them to work so ruthlessly with power and success at the destruction of all that has attempted to get in the way of their projects, desires and greed. They also refuse to recognize that humanity can solve its problems without aggression and force and instead use the energy of goodwill, sharing and cooperation.

If you disagree with their policies, they cry out in unison: I'll huff and puff and blow your house down in hopes of inciting fear and getting the opposing party to back down! Only this time, we will not be fooled again by these "fakers and con-artists" and our House will withstand the onslaught of this False, Fleeting Wind that has devastated the American way of life, no more!

Posted by Angellight | May 19, 2008 4:33 PM

"Mike Tomasky has a good column about how Barack Obama's changing the game in the U.S. foreign policy debate,..."

Tomasky's column is a joke. Obama is proving himself to be nothing more than an appeaser and a liar with every utterance he makes.

As a matter of fact, it is possible that Bush may have been referring to France's foreign minister Bernard Kouchner as the appeaser, since Kouchner has just revealed that his office has had informal discussions with Hamas. Only Dems would think the world revolves around them.

Posted by SteveIL | May 19, 2008 6:21 PM

The problem with Obama is his foreign policy is based on the same level of ignorance - if not maliciousness - as the Bushies.

Obama thinks he can win in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. But he doesn't understand the realities of those countries and the circumstances around them. Thus his foreign policy is bound to fail, and he will end up with the same militarist approach Bush has applied from day one. And that approach will continue to fail as it has so far.

Obama may not be the militarist Bush and McCain are, but his foreign policy approaches are not going to be effective - unless we get lucky and he manages to put some advisers on board who have a clue - which, frankly, is unlikely.

As long as Obama thinks Iran is a "threat" and Afghanistan and Pakistan are somehow "winnable", he's going to lose in his foreign policy and national security policies.

But his immediate problem is: what is he going to do as the Democratic candidate who is on record as saying Iran is a "threat" when Bush launches a strike on Iran before the election?

What is he going to do if Bush escalates those strikes into full scale war with Iran before Obama takes office in January, assuming he even wins against McCain the "war hero"?

I've yet to hear ONE DEMOCRAT discuss those possibilities.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 19, 2008 6:40 PM

It was a pretty good column, but the notion that he's on dodgy ground is bullshit. One of the reasons that Chavez and Ahmadinejad have so much domestic political power is because of the stupid rhetoric and warmongering of the American political establishment. Just negotiating with them will reduce their power and improve America's soft power--which is something that is ultimately more important than our hard power.

The fake pose of machismo is one of the worst aspects or us foreign policy. Barring destroying the military industiral complex it's hard to think of something more meaningful Obama could do to return some sanity to our national security strategy.

His changing the mindset that led us into war is by far the best thing any candidate has said this cycle.

Posted by Client #11 | May 19, 2008 11:26 PM