If you haven't seen it yet, go read the transcript of Barack Obama talking to Fareed Zakaria about foreign policy. I think Zakaria's hit the sweet spot right now on the continuum between IR wonk and Tom Friedman where he's accessible but also making sense and Obama shows that smart people look much better answering smart questions than silly ones. He's got a sensible appreciation for the realpolitik tradition and also for how international institutions play a vital role in the contemporary world. Plus at one point he sounds like he's been reading The Prosperity Agenda or, more likely, getting briefed by its authors.
« Do Gay Adoptions Hurt Children? | Main | The Small Business Lie »
Obama and Zakaria
15 Jul 2008 12:12 pm
Comments (20)
Zakaria's GPS show, in general, has been pretty good. Quite a contrast to the piles of stupid we're normally served by the talking heads.
i bet he read "Heads in the Sand"
Did you see Zakaria's interview with Kissinger?Zakaria asked him about the nuke tech they gave Iran in the 80's. Well Kissinger was unable to talk...he studdered and stammered for about 10 seconds before he could put some words together and for a sentence. It was a thing of beauty.
What a great interview. And yet how sad that it seems so unusual for a major Presidential candidate to eloquently articulate a deep body of information. You just can't imagine Bush or McCain (or even Kerry) giving anything like the same aura of knowing what the hell they're talking about.
ZAKARIA: You are going to Europe and the Middle East. You know that in places like France you have 85 percent approval ratings.
Isn't that going to make some Americans very suspicious? If all of Europe likes you, if France likes you, there must be something wrong.
I thought that was funny.
MY:
You do realize that Glennzilla ripped Nancy Soderberg a new one the other day, right? Sounds like she is more for a police state then she let on in her book.
After that interview, Zakaria proclaimed Obama the second coming of George H.W. Bush.
That's a compliment from Zakaria. And it's a compliment for Yglesias.
But Democrats might wonder why a member of the "lefty blogosphere" like Yglesias wants a replay of the first Bush administration.
Democrats might wonder why a member of the "lefty blogosphere" like Yglesias wants the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter.
I understand Yglesias wants to protect his capital gains, but still...
You'd think there would be some shame. But there isn't. Just naked protection of trust-fund scumbag position.
Petey, if that's really you, I have to congratulate you- for a long time your comments have played like a broken record and my inclination was to be annoyed, but these days I really have to just step back and admire how you've reached new levels of self-parody. It's genius at work.
But Democrats might wonder why a member of the "lefty blogosphere" like Yglesias wants a replay of the first Bush administration.
Maybe because they got a lot right about post-Cold War foreign policy...
Entire Interview Video
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2008/07/14/fareed.zakaria.obama.cnn
"Maybe because they got a lot right about post-Cold War foreign policy..."
Yeah. The invasions of Iraq and Somalia worked out soooooo well for US interests, not to mention the interests of the invaded countries. Bush was a real winner.
Yglesias has been relentlessly lying to bring about the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. Folks may want to think twice about precisely what that means.
Considering that Obama has no policy agenda to get enacted in the '09-'10 Congress, is the satisfaction of the team victory really worth the decimation of the Democratic Congress that will follow in the 2010 elections? I understand that's it worth it for Yglesias' personal financial interests, but we're not all trust-fund scumbags, y'know...
Wow, how refreshing is this?
And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces. ... But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse."
Contrasts quite nicely with "They hate us for our freedom!" And I like this dig at McCain's gaffes earlier in the year, although since I can't view the video, maybe it just seems like a dig in text:
And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.
I understand that's it worth it for Yglesias' personal financial interests
The InTrade dime grifter protests too much, methinks.
Petey -- one might well ask why you're working so relentlessly for the election of John McCain -- a president who'd be a good deal more conservative than Jimmy Carter.
As for Obama and George HW Bush, obviously the point of the analogy is that their foreign policies might be similar. On domestic policy, Obama is calling for universal preschool, a vast expansion of affordable health insurance, huge new investments in infrastructure, etc. I liked Edwards better, too, but it's time to grow up -- this is a progressive agenda.
the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter. Folks may want to think twice about precisely what that means.
That you consider the Clintons Republicans? Makes sense of your support of Senator Clinton's campaign, in any case.
Obama: "So, there are a lot of problems there. But a big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president."
And exactly HOW are you going to do that, Senator?
Without a strategic and tactical plan, it's all talk.
He also talks about "isolating Iran" which is the LAST thing the Middle East or the US needs. We need to engage Iran, not isolate them.
Obama is clueless about foreign policy. He may not be malicious like Bush and Cheney, but his policies will fail anyway because they are based on flawed premises.
Petey: "Yeah. The invasions of Iraq and Somalia worked out soooooo well for US interests, not to mention the interests of the invaded countries. Bush was a real winner"
The first invasion of Iraq worked out much better than the second invsasion of Iraq, which both of your preferred candidates, Clinton and Edwards, voted for. Odd that you'd choose to fight over this, when your own preferences were so foolish and war-happy.
"I understand Yglesias wants to protect his capital gains, but still..."
Yglesias has investments to protect?!! Elitist! (j/k)
I sort of responded to this in a blog post, if anyone is interested.
http://apshort.blogspot.com/2008/07/friedman-ization-of-obama.html
APS
Comments closed July 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Obama read his book, remember:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_hUqhilguoPs/SDWj7dFYsAI/AAAAAAAACWI/tkB3MyGuWBk/s400/obama%2Bpost%2Bamerica.jpg
Posted by dbroock | July 15, 2008 12:39 PM