Centerfield

What he offers, in short, is hope. Hope that our politics can move beyond bitter wrangling. Hope that our position in the world can return to the point where we can accomplish things via persuasion. Hope that things can get better.

Like you, I don't agree with all his positions or with everything he says. But I think there is something to be said for someone who actually listens more, even if he starts out agreeing with me less.

I think he is a good candidate. I likely won't vote for him because of difference of opinion on my major policy issues. It will be interesting to see how he progresses through the primaries.

As far as skipping the first debate, he doesn't need it right now. It can not help him much at this time. Only reason for this one is to get name recognition and play for money. The primary voters are not even going to care about it. He has enough campaign inertia that this first very early debate has very little potential positive and a lot more potential negative. I do suspect he will take part in the ones in April, though.

For me, it will be interesting to see how the campaign staff fills out. Granted, that is not a big issue for the majority of people. The fact is that the kind of people a candidate surrounds him or herself with is really important, since many of them will end up being policy staff.

Obama will be a good competitive candidate. It is highly unlikely he can win my vote, though. Not impossible. However, it ranks right up there with the chances of Florida State going undefeated in football in the fall.

Dear Starbucks Republican:

Just for you.

Best,
Carla

Max, I'm glad you said "old ways" plural. Because our ways have been dynamic -- as in changing with circumstances. Some have held constant, of course, but others have changed in order to better deal with changing circumstances.

And how do we decide if something new will be better? In the only way that really works: trying out the ones that seem plausible and seeing how they perform in the real world. The bad ones get tossed, the good ones get kept. As for the ones in-between, whether they get kept, modified, or tossed depends on a lot of factors. But keeping the old ways just because they worked at one time is a good way to end up in the dust bin of history.

After reading this and the recent little coup d'etat with the firing of a number of Federal prosecuters, there is no wonder why a fresh political face, like Obama's has such mass appeal.

As for Putin, gosh I thought he and Bush were like, you know, BFF's. I mean, can old Pootie Poot be that bad? After all our, according to our President "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Of couse if someone called me Pootie Poot I'd target a few ICBM's at Crawford, TX.

Both McCain and Lieberman have been wrong on a lot of things regarding Iraq so I'm not really convinced that McCain isn't just showboating to appeal to his steadily shrinking base. I don't regard Putin's statement regarding no "one" (re: USA )upholding human rights as threatening, just realistic. The post-Cold war world is fractured and the US has lost all moral authority regarding human rights(Another 200 year old American legacy down the sewer). I think what's being overlooked is the change in "moral authority" that someone like Obama or Hillary would bring to the international and domestic stage. A reclamation of our moral standing.
US is the world's biggest arms dealer, only a bit beat out in the 3rd world by Russia. And if you're a big country and across the ocean and also bordering are other large countries that spend WAAAAY more on arms than you do, gosh what would you do? Regardless of who's in charge of Russia the confrontational dynamics that the current administration spawned will be the same (Putin is out soon)until Obama or someone else can help change the dynamic.

As for President, I wouldn't mind the guy who wasn't chosen by the Supreme Court in 2000, who wouldn't have blown Katrina, Iraq, the budget, or used the Executive branch in the most dictatorial way ever in our history.

"Both McCain and Lieberman have been wrong on a lot of things regarding Iraq so I'm not really convinced that McCain isn't just showboating to appeal to his steadily shrinking base"

Marcus your comments just get better and better. So McCain and Lieberman have been wrong before, so their defense of America in response to Putin's garbage is suspect. What a crock.

As for your other comments, it's the same old run at Bush B.S. Nothing new.

I could point out that our arms sales are to our allies and Putin sells to our adversaries. I guess that is a small point. Your comment about "no one" is a contradictory slap at both our NSS and the UN. A good twofer on your part. It is facinating how you actually defend Putin and express little discomfort.

Yes, Mr. Bush has squandered America's moral authority. Another load of crap.

OH gee... our Post-Cold War is fractured and can't get up. Iran might as well already have the bomb. Saddam shouldn't have been stopped from getting his. The sky has fallen so run to the woods. What a lame vision.

Yes, Putin SHOULD be pointing missiles at Crawford for name-calling. He should escalate an arms race because we dare to eliminate extremists and defend our allies with defensive systems. So Obama appeals to your thinking?

"And if you're a big country and across the ocean and also bordering are other large countries that spend WAAAAY more on arms than you do, gosh what would you do?" Well, I don't know if this qualifies as such.

"Regardless of who's in charge of Russia the confrontational dynamics that the current administration spawned will be the same (Putin is out soon)...." Some more great wisdom that imples Russia will change with Putin out and that WE spawned Russian behavior. LOL

Point made

"Because our ways have been dynamic -- as in changing with circumstances." When did we capitulate and ignore such growing threats in our past without serious detriment to what followed? How is what the anti-war wing suggests ever been a part of our NSS? Please tell us all.

"Some have held constant, of course, but others have changed in order to better deal with changing circumstances." Please tell us, which remained constant, defense of allies, support of democracy, containment of obvious threats, and protection of open markets?

"And how do we decide if something new will be better?"

Why not try disbanding our military and see if that works? Let's help Iran get a bomb and see if that works too? Do you consider these things before you post?

"In the only way that really works: trying out the ones that seem plausible and seeing how they perform in the real world. The bad ones get tossed, the good ones get kept. As for the ones in-between, whether they get kept, modified, or tossed depends on a lot of factors. But keeping the old ways just because they worked at one time is a good way to end up in the dust bin of history."

Yes, let's toss FDR (who Putin claims he is most like) and try.......Stalin. Maybe that would work. If gasoline gets poor miles per gallon, let's try Pepsi. If evolution can't explain everything, let's try Intelligent Design. Let's just be Democratic about it with not much consideration for the classical "Liberal" part. You are playing with the historical moment when the cat runs out of the bag. This has zero to do about Bush and EVERYTHING to do about Western hegemony and self-defense which obviously you are willing to experiment with because of a political disgust of Bush. Now that approach is truly Bush League, don't you think? Perhaps FDR should have tried helping Hitler, or Truman, Stalin. After all, back then Stalin was ready to start nuclear war.

Just astounding.....

I repeat, the lack of response from Democrats over the escalating B.S. and threats from Putin is pathetic. Candidates can spout hot air all they want, but missing realism and the defense of our nation’s NSS in a moment of uncertainty is NOT the sign of American leadership. Not when Merkel has more to say in America’s defense than any Democrat candidate does. Obama is running for the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. Our history is long and fairly clear. We have soldiers in harms way and defending front lines around the world. He might want to start acting like the leader of the free world so we can see how it suits him, otherwise his candidacy will be what end s up in the scrape heap of history, your comments notwithstanding.

Here's a pointer to the speech text.

Come on, Max. Surely you can manage to come up with some examples that really are plausible. Rather than plain silly. At least, I think that your examples (all, be it noted, of things that we didn't try. rather than things we did) fail the plausibility test.

I'm not saying that there haven't been any mis-steps; just that over the years we have tried some plausible changes and kept the ones that worked.

And this has nothing to do with my opinion of Bush. (Who, be it noted, has tossed out a fair number of what _I_ would regard as "old ways" -- whether for better or worse is another discussion.) It has to do with the merits of trying something new, even though it is new.

Your original comment was so broad and vague it signified nothing. I was referring to what extremists and our "partners" have been up to and how we have "centristly" dealt with such threats in the past. I asked you to specify where our "old ways" which mean doing what was laid out in our NSS for sixty years and longer, were jettisoned and produced greater security. Viet Nam? The Gulf War? Korea? Or just Iraq? I assume you can't think of too many where we actually rejected the NSS and found security in using another measure. I do not support the idea that EVERY OLD WAY AND EVERY ACTION it advocates is always applicable. Some concepts deserve the pasture and new ones (see pre-emption) can be added, but you made your point clearly enough.

"The post-Cold war world is fractured and the US has lost all moral authority regarding human rights" .....and its pre-eminent role in enforcing international law and third-party verification I presume. LOL. Bush would be Godly if he could have done all that

First, you describe the Post-Cold World as fractured. No, it is a less confrontational conflict between Totalitarianism and Liberal Democracy while simultaneously, the rise of extreme groups like Jihadists exploit the underlying global tensions and modern apathies. The Old Way still applies, though the TACTICS may change. We still fight poverty with productivity to invite our liberal values into the world. Are we not proud of capita;lism anymore? We promote Democracy and Individual Rights and the collective nature of peaceful enforcement of law. Without security and enforcement (as easily defended by Russian and Chinese soldiers were they offered), there are few political reconciliations. From an evolutionary point of view, cooperation on the scale Democratic Utopias require would demand far more altruistic punishment than is presently deployed in Darfur or Iran. Being somewhat idealistic, how could we ever reach the Promised Land if we come to a point where we value our liberty and security no differently than Putin or Hu?

The Old Way does not make the US supreme Deciders. The Old Way does not mean we pay all the costs. The Old Way did not rest on the promises of our adversaries. Nothing has really changed. We may have changed tactics when dealing with the terror threat, but the principles remain. How Bush has mangled or not mangled foreign policy is not the issue. I once posted Clinton's NSS on more liberal blogs and they were appalled. They thought our NSS was actually a former Soviet one. LOL. Well, so far we have been quite successful. Half the anger is generated by our success. We have been more than patient with Putin and Hu. We have invited them into talks with North Korea and into the Middle East. Chinese steals a great deal of secrets from us. Bush is simply a tool for cover by those who have been following their own strategies for decades. I do not excuse the Bush mistakes nor did I vote for the man. Underlying the attack on Bush, is a more dangerous contempt for the principles defining our present and past NSS.

As far as "new" approaches, Obamas suggestions are nothing new or untried. You don't negotiate with Iran when its partner, Russia is in favor of Iran not getting a bomb AND denouncing any real effort to prevent one. What does Iran get by negotiating? Then why should Georgians not have the right to negotiate out Putin's army? What has negotiations with Darfur gotten the dead? It is the same old game with modern advertising used to misdirect. Now that is something the Old Ways need. Perhaps Mr. Obama can dust off the old thinking that vanquished past threats and apply some new charisma to them. By now, the principles that led former Presidents might sound new. But that isn't what he is now saying, is it? And one other thing. After Putin was done dissing America, he said he thought that Bush was a decent guy and that he did not think America was planning to attack Russia. That is probably a better characterization of Bush than he gets from Kos.

That Obama fellow sure do talk purty, don't he?

Seriously, it's a stump speech. It's a pretty good one. But he's not the Second Coming. And if he keeps trying to warp himself in Lincoln he's gonna have to change parties.

Well, if he took a hardline against our adversaries, he would have to switch Parties too, at this point.

And in light of "slavery" issue, I found it a bit ironic. Is this a guy who would cut Grant and Sherman some slack? How about Petraeous and Gates?

Please, sir, your man crush on Senator Obama is becoming a bit unseemly. The comparison has now gone from Capraesque to Lincolnesque. Beyond the cosmetics of charisma, what has he done to justify this Kierkegaardian leap?

By the way, didn't William the Pardoner fire all the federal prosecutors back in 1993?

Please, sir, your man crush on Senator Obama is becoming a bit unseemly. The comparison has now gone from Capraesque to Lincolnesque. Beyond the cosmetics of charisma, what has he done to justify this Kierkegaardian leap?

By the way, didn't William the Pardoner fire all the federal prosecutors back in 1993?

Doncha hate it when they stutter?

Yep, Billy Boy fired a whole slew of US attorneys. And Bush fired a few. No shocker, folks. Most folks don't understand that system. Full US Attorneys (all 93 of them) serve at the discretion of the President. It's an explicitly political appointment, no less so than a Cabinet post. Blame the first US Congress, which set it up that way in 1789.

Assistant US attorneys are career track civil service employees, and have all the career protection of any other civil service employee. But as soon you step out of the civil service track into the appointment track, you're on your own. I have friends who have turned down presidential appointments to higher positions in assorted departments for just that reason. Some are quite willing to make the jump--AFTER they've got their full civil service time in for pensions and such. Not one second before. They know that the second the admin changes--or anytime before if the whim hits the Oval Office--they will be out of a job, so they lock in their retirements first.

Listening to appointees whining about their 100% inevitable firings amuses me.

since I was at that announcement yesterday, could you tell me what Matthews thought of the speech right after he spoke?
With Matthews, he is curious and intrigued about Obama but,is clearly a clintonista. I am really curious how he took the speech.
Since I was there in the cold after going 3 hours to get there, I am clearly backing this man for president. there is just no way to not see he is the right man at the right moment and He is the one for president. I cannot see who else could bring what he does. The fact that he could heal this nation and repair our image and rejoin our allies in common cause like no one else. This is the one who must be our next president.

Praise the Lord. Obama has come to heal the world.......

Get a grip. The best thing you can do to help the man to win is to get him to adjust his national security policies. The mess in the world requires far more than nice words. If Obama's foreign policy can evolve and become far more realistic and tough, I may have no other option but to vote for him. My remarks here are just projections of that wish. Now is not the time for weakness, flip-flopping and defeatism. Clintons will have their comments soon enough, as will Lieberman and McCain. They, like interviewers will question Obama's silence in the face of belligerency. He better be careful to lay down sound bites that will surely bite him. SLN had a good point last night.

Poor Lincoln, first his bedroom......

He better be careful NOT TO to lay down sound bites that will surely bite him.

sorry

For clarification, Mathew is Starbucks Republican, Starbucks Republican is Mathew... Others who linked to this site kept using my full name so I chose a tag. I am public servant who works for an elected official and her views come before mine, so the tag is an attempt to not have my political opinions splattered all over the internet.

The significance of the tag? Starbucks Republican is a term given to those of us in 2004 who wear our heart on the left and our pocket book on the right and have become disenchanted with the Republican Party under the political leadership of Karl Rove. Some of us voted for Kerry, and others like myself held our nose and voted for Bush. I will not say I regret that decision, but I will say that it may be time for a change of party in the White House, and Barack Obama may be that needed change. I am simply no longer willing to choose the best Republican, but the rather the best candidate. Does that mean I am now an independent? I'll leave that up to you.

Well, I can say I haven't ever voted for a Republican. Take that into account when you read my posts. I didn't vote for Bush to mangle Iraq or alienate many who did not have to be. I refused to support the "conservative" domestic policies or Bush's great tact on energy and environment. I will continue to save my fire for those I have supported before and who know better than allowing the anti-war crowd in the door. Obama should know better too. Democrats have lost running on anti-Bush and appeasment. I will try my best to lend support to those who want to change this stupidity. Obama has the potential, but if he doesn't act like a Commander in Chief, Democrats will either win and screw up, or lose. The world in 2008 will be tougher than it is now. I will not join those terrorists who think the US will finally go home if the Democrats win. Obama should change this perception. If he goes center, what can anti-war do? Vote Hillary?