Obama/Romney '08

[malikstein]

There's a very revealing Washington Post article comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy. In short, they are both almost totally in agreement with Bush. So, if you want four more wars, vote Obama/Romney '08.

The teaser:

"FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST - have laid
out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released prior to
publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you
cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:
(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.

(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.

(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq
and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for
American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is
an operative word for both of them."

The rest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060300951.html

[Kiouni]

1. OP-ED piece

Obama has been a strong supporter of troop with-drawl.

[LynneSin]

2. Did he just vote for the time table withdrawel

Or perhaps there's a second Barack Obama in the senate that I'm not aware of. I mean Barack Obama is such a common name here in the United States, perhaps I'm referring to the wrong one

:eyes:

[Kiouni]

4. Timed with-drawl

That was doomed to fail. You can't deal logically with Bush and force him into a corner he would simply let the troops die to serve a point.

"So let's put aside the fear mongering and let's put aside the rhetoric and let's put aside the politics and let's come together and ... all of us support the troops," Obama told a labor gathering in Chicago as he called for bringing the troops home. "That's our message to George Bush. That's our message to John McCain. That's our message to Mitt Romney. That's our message to Republicans in Congress."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/25/mccain_romney_assail_democrats_on_iraq/

[w4rma]

3. Obama is mostly rhetoric and very little substance from what I've been observing.

I wonder why big media seems to like Barack Obama so much. I wonder why the Republican machine attacks Edwards so much during the primary and Obama/Hillary so little. I am 100% positive that Obama's honeymoon will not last into the general campaign.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. This helps explain why the media likes mystery candidate Obama so much

This also helps explains why HRC, who received 93.4% of Obama's total, is pushed by the corporate media as well.

Obama beat even Republican Rudy and DLC shill HRC on Wall Street. That speaks for itself...look beyond the glitter...

Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street
Big Banks' Employees Gave Senator $479,000 in 1st Quarter

By Kristin Jensen and Christine Harper
Bloomberg News
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; Page D02

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) on their home turf in the first quarter, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street.

The Illinois senator raised $479,209 from employees at the banks in the quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Giuliani collected $473,442, and Clinton got $447,625. The figures are based on employers listed by the donors; in some cases, names are incomplete or missing.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

[ripple]

53. Don't fool yourself

Edwards would love to be raising that kind of cash from Wall Street.

Given his work in the hedge fund industry, it's a little bit surprising that he isn't doing better in that arena. Either way, yours is a typical pot-meet-kettle argument.

[Colobo]

11. You should be more concerned about why your man is still in a distant 3rd

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. How does he fare where people can see him for themselves?

The race is far more competitive in Iowa and NH where people can regularly see all the candidates speak for themselves, hear about more than two candidates on a regular basis in the local press coverage. Of course the two corporate candidates will lead in national polls.

P.S. Kerry was tied with Sharpton in the sacred national polls in November of 2003. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

37. Oh why, Oh Why do you Hate Obama!

I think that Obama's foreign policy views are good ones. He knew that Iraq was a dumb war from the start....which proved to be brilliant and totally accurate.

[TeamJordan23]

39. Can you tell me some of Edward's strong distinct foreign policy proposals?

Thanks, I am wondering what John can offer us that Obama can't.

[FrenchieCat]

40. An 4 year late Apology

over and over again.

[Dawgs]

44. Obama was correct about the Iraq war since 2002. It's a documented fact.

Edwards was partly responsible for this war. Obama knew it was wrong, and even stated that it could turn into a civil war.

Do you agree with Obama or John Edwards on who was right?

[w4rma]

47. Obama and Hillary tacitly supported the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

Obama said, before Bush began his veto threats, that he would support a bill with no restrictions.

And today that's exactly what we have.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/1/135422/4038

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

[Dawgs]

52. Again, Obama was against the war in 2002.

That is a fact. Watch him in this video (link below) if you want to see how he was right. Edwards, and you, can cry all you want. Obama did the right thing to vote against the IWR-2007. Him not speaking up before hand is irrelevant.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid416308493/bctid659820802

[cleveramerican]

5. They are both longshots

and they are both taking safe positions.I am not that shocked.

[earthlover]

6. was it a "safe position" for Obama to oppose the Iraq War when most Americans supported it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. That was before he had national ambitions

It is clear that since he became a national figure with the ultimate ambition he has been playing it safe. Look at the record. He has an identical record (99%) on Iraq as HRC in the senate and an identical plan to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ ). The only difference is HRC calls it a "residual" force and Obama a "limited" force.

[NYCGirl]

29. So he did what he felt was right — and did it on videotape, too.

That was not political expedience.

[rucky]

36. Romney will get the GOP nomination. n/t

[earthlover]

7. I thought the op-ed piece was a parody at first

On the foreign policy issue most dominant, Romney and Obama are far from similar. Obama has opposed Iraq for years. Romney hasn't.

I guess that makes them almost identical. SARC

[malikstein]

8. You might want to read a progressive

analysis of Obama's Foreign Affairs article:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/31/8023/76395

In the reality based community, we try to keep our eyes wide open, and we don't jump on corporate press bandwagons.

[LBJDemocrat]

13. Interesting link

I worry that since he has a Muslim middle name and has had some experiences living in a Muslim country, he may be needlessly aggressive as president to fend off worries about his culture.

And in his debates and in his generally pusillanimous record in the Senate, it's clear he's a little bit insecure.

[earthlover]

16. Ah...that nefarious middle name!

I suppose Obama got to choose it? HA!

"his culture"?....huh?....Obama's culture is America's. Just because he is black and just because he spent time in other countries does NOT mean his culture is not ours! What a racist and nativist prejudice!!!!

I think our culture is expanded by inclusion. If you want to go off about someone's middle name and someone's "culture" I would suggest that the Republican Party might be a good home for your mind set.

Yesterday you said you heard people think Obama was a "jerk", something you could not substantiate. Now more hateful nonsense.

I am beginning to think you don't like Obama very much as a person. You think?

[LBJDemocrat]

20. Go back to that thread

You'll find that someone backed up what I was saying about Obama being a jerk.

And yeah; it's not right to criticize him based on his name. But it IS a possible explanation.

No; I don't like Obama as a person. His book is what did it. 400 pages of insincere fluff.

But if he publicly makes his opposition to free trade known, then I'll tone down my anti-Obama remarks.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Obama is Wall Street's favorite. He will never come out against corporate, er, "free" trade imo nt

[FrenchieCat]

38. well it wasn't Obama working for Hedgefunds..........learning and

shit while saying that he deplored the practice that the firm he was employed by (and earning 1/2 million) practiced! :eyes:

[elizm]

59. Who's insecure????

I'm thinking it is you and all of the people here on this board involved in this hit piece. I'm guessing the new Gallop Poll has you all freaking out, AS IT SHOULD. But wouldn't your time be better spent trying to talk positively about your own candidate??

[earthlover]

14. so is it really "reality based" to say Romney and Obama are the same?

I guess some folks thought Gore and Bush were the same too, so they voted for Nader and allowed Bush to win and we all know it was NOT reality-based to think they were the same. I kinda think there are some differences between Obama and Romney. And between Hillary and Romney. And between Obama and Hillary. But maybe it's me and everyone else is the same.

[LBJDemocrat]

22. Gore and Bush weren't that different back then

I remind you that Gore was running on the Clinton legacy (which was just a socially libertarian version of Reaganism) and that he had Lieberman as a running mate. Gore has distanced himself from such factions of the party, but back then, he was pure DLC.

Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq, and the tax system would be more fair and so would the composition of the Supreme Court; but let's not exaggerate.

We're not talking about Hillary here; we're talking about Obama. As far as I know, Hillary is a LOT more progressive than Obama.

[NYCGirl]

30. And we now see what a load of bullshit that meme was. NT

[earthlover]

31. let's not exaggate the differences between Gore and the worst president in history?

How can you exaggerate how bad Bush is? The major reason why we have Bush as President is that enough Nader supporters in Florida couldn't see much difference between Gore and Bush. The idea that Obama is the same as Romney is ludicrous! There is not a single Democratic candidate that is the same as Romney, not even close. Sure, nobody may measure up to that perfect persona of the ideal Democrat, but they aren't running against that, they are running against Republicans!

[Dawgs]

45. Thank you.

After 8 years of Clinton and 6+ years of Bush, I'm amazed that some people still throw out that 'there all the same' bullshit line.

Obama has been just as much anti-war as Gore or anyone here on DU.

Come on people, quit riding your candidates jock and get informed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Wow. That warrants a thread of its own. We need to know what the mystery candidate actually thinks

nt

[NYCGirl]

12. You do realize that Fred Hiatt is a right winger? NT

[Bullet1987]

15. Don't buy that article...

Romney and Obama are NOTHING alike...nothing...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Yes, Obama has more Wall Street support than Romney nt

[LBJDemocrat]

24. They won't listen

This is how Wall Street perpetuates its control of the population - by fielding MTV-friendly candidates with youthful personalities.

I think people don't get it that while there are some companies that profit from Iraq, much of Wall Street doesn't give a flying f**k and they'll promote an anti-war candidate as long as he keeps the free trade globalist agenda moving along.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Exactly nt

[NYCGirl]

25. And Edwards has more support from Law Firms,

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K01

Casinos/Gambling:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=N07

So what?

[LBJDemocrat]

27. I already knew that and don't care.

Everyone has to get their money from somewhere.

[earthlover]

32. but not from Wall Street, right?

Ironies abound.....

[LBJDemocrat]

33. My reasoning:

Law firms have complicated motives. They're not exactly paid based on how much their client companies are making. Rather, they thrive off complicated tax codes that make lawyers in demand. It's not very clear-cut.

Corporate incentives are a different story.

[earthlover]

43. complicated motives indeed

Interesting thought pattern there. So I guess if we have a candidate who is optimistic, charismatic, is a Democrat all the way, appeals to independents, youth,minorities, opposes Iraq, and even Wall Street likes him....I guess that is bad, it means he is in their back pocket. But if we have someone that that trial lawyers like and give money to, that is fine, because it is ok to be in their back pocket.

Hate to break it to you, but all of the candidates try to get Wall Street money. PS more voters are turned off by lawyers than Wall Street.....

[malikstein]

56. Not only Wall Street, but the Crown family,

that's military-industrial giant General Dynamics, likes Obama. When a candidate has folks like that his your corner, you can be sure that he is working for the Establishment, not the people.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. He is the law firm candidate but has little casino support

He is by far the favorite of law firms. That may mean that they see him as someone whose platform is most consistent with their agenda. Or it could be a result of kinship they feel with Edwards, a successful former lawyer. Obama became a law professor, not a "practicing" lawyer in the usual sense, and HRC is not perceived as a lawyer, despite landing a job with a prestigious Arkansas law firm. Neither have any Wall Street credentials. So what is it about their platform that appeals to Wall Street? HRC beat even Romney and McCain on Wall Street, almost beat Giuliani. Obama beat everyone on Wall Street...

As far as casinos/gambling is concerned, here are the numbers (Edwards received only $4,000 more than Obama. That is not significant, like, let's say, $300,000...):

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)


graph $118,200

Christopher J. Dodd (D)


graph $40,700

Hillary Clinton (D)


graph $34,350

John McCain (R)


graph $15,400

John Edwards (D)


graph $6,900

Bill Richardson (D)


graph $3,050

Barack Obama (D)


graph $2,800

Mitt Romney (R)


graph $2,100

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)


graph $2,100

[NYCGirl]

19. I'm not. NT

[malikstein]

41. Of course I do.

Do you have a substantive refutation of his analysis?

I also posted a progressive's analysis who comes to the same conclusion as Hiatt without saying that Obama and Romney back the same foreign policy.

Show us the substantive difference in their Foreign Affairs articles. That's what counts, not stump speeches. Why does it count? Because the Establishment will weed out contenders based on things like articles in Foreign Affairs and presentations to the Council on Foreign Relations. Stump speeches are for the bewildered.

[malikstein]

42. Of course I do.

Do you have a substantive refutation of his analysis?

I also posted a progressive's analysis who comes to the same conclusion as Hiatt without saying that Obama and Romney back the same foreign policy.

Show us the substantive difference in their Foreign Affairs articles. That's what counts, not stump speeches. Why does it count? Because the Establishment will weed out contenders based on things like articles in Foreign Affairs and presentations to the Council on Foreign Relations. Stump speeches are for the bewildered.

[illinoisprogressive]

34. you are so off base. here is a review of the foriegn policy on TMP

they are not alike and he goes into this and why. Maybe you should take some time out, Maliksten, and read first before posting.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jun/05/barak_obama_on_the_middle_east

[rufus dog]

35. the same?

That is very very weak. LBJ as for your statement that the corps want "MTV types"

What are you saying Obama is some type of gangsta rapper? Reading your post I am trying to figure if you have some issue with his race. Also, being a white, liberal voter under 50 I agree with what Obama said in his book (I also agree that it was a bit Utopian, but can not support your insincere viewpoint) regarding the bickering between the generation that came of age during the 60's and early 70's. It is time for this country to move on and that generation will be fighting for the next 30 years over who was right. That is fine, but those generations that followed are done with it, time for a president without the baggage.

[Dawgs]

46. This thread is embarrassing.

Isn't there a rule against someone posting an untruthful hit piece written by a right wing hack targeting a Democrat?

[malikstein]

48. Please note, as I said above,

that progressives are coming to similar conclusions about Obama's foreign policy:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/31/8023/76395

Now, if you want to scream right wing hack, close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, that's up to you. But, don't claim you weren't warned.

[Dawgs]

51. I'm sorry, but your post and dailykos link does nothing to change my mind.

Obama is right. It's too bad you can see it.

[zulchzulu]

49. Can you post some NewsMax and Drudge for us too...

Thanks!

:puke:

[mckeown1128]

50. What a joke!!

That article has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever wasted my time reading. :eyes:

[ripple]

54. Typical hit-piece

and a big yawn as far as I'm concerned.

I'm more bothered by the fact that two DU'ers somehow found it worthy of a recommendation. That's pretty fucked up.

[malikstein]

55. Why does man of peace Obama

call for an even larger US military?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060607E.shtml

Who's the enemy that requires the US to dedicate so much of its dwindling wealth to ever-increasing military spending?

[Alpharetta]

57. That's a lightweight argument

there are plenty of reasons to have a stronger military other than as a tool for Bush's adventures.

Our military is getting worn out. We're thin in Afghanistan. We're even thinner wherever the next hurricane hits.

[malikstein]

58. That's a lightweight response.

The US is way over-invested in arms and way under-invested in diplomacy. There is no reason in the world for a republic to have 700+ military installations in foreign countries. There is no reason for the US to be the world's policeman.

From the beginning of the republic, our statesmen counselled against foreign entanglements at the risk of losing our democratic institutions. If we want an empire, we need to outfight everybody else on the planet and to pour out wealth into a black hole. If we want a republic we seek accomodation, as does the European Union.

I, for one, will not vote for any candidate who wants to increase the military and the wealth of the owners of the military-industrial complex.