Obama Wins Coveted Robert Kagan (PNAC leader) Endorsement.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.

Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references ("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United States is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the "free world" these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our worthiness to lead. Personally, I like it.==

==Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.==

==Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."==

==Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.==

Read the rest at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

Note: Obama has since upped the ante to seeking 100,000 more troops to the currently 2.3 million person strong military.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Why doesn't this thread have 40 comments like the Kristol thread?

Oh yeah...

[Tellurian]

2. Ah, you picked up on that little "Inconvenient Truth.".

now I ask you, plain and simple. Would Al Gore be caught "dead" with any of these corrupt crew of sycophants working for his campaign; if he were running?
Probably, the same group of people who worked very hard to Steal the 2000 Election from him.

[Forkboy]

6. weekend

[jefferson_dem]

7. This editorial is from April.

Perhaps, for the sake of accuracy, you should have indicated that the piece is four months old in the OP.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. You must have missed this thread with 40+ replies and 25 recs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3476056&mesg_id=3476056

[Capn Sunshine]

19. well fo one thing, the tag teamers are leaving it alone

tag. you're it. :hi:

[struggle4progress]

69. Cuz nobody really gives a flyin fuck what PNACer Kagan says?

[OHdem10]

3. Another inconvenient truth---

One can see the centers of power when checking out Endorsements,
Advisors, Consultants.

I could say Obama is doing what he has to do to have a prayer
at winning an election in the USA.

If you want to cringe check out some of Rudy's recent hires--not
just advisors.

[Capn Sunshine]

16. My compliments

You've summarized things concisely without sniping. Winning is pretty important this time. Oh hell , EVERY time.

But we've learned what comes from failing to distinguish yourself from the Republicans, who will be running a "I'm not George Bush-I'm better" campaign that takes a page right out of Kerry's General election playbook

[msongs]

4. so much for the "I'm an outsider and i will do things differently" baloney nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. It is funny that those who promote that meme crow about him getting an "endorsement" from Brezinksi

Brezinksi is as insider/establishment as you get on foreign policy, and has been for decades.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Another day ... another bevy of Obama-bashing threads from DMC...

:eyes:

[Tellurian]

9. How is it bashing when Kagan is bragging publicly?

This WP pic looks troubling doesn't it?

[jefferson_dem]

10. Why does the pic look troubling?

Do African-American men frighten you?

[Tellurian]

18. Why would you say such a thing?

Obama looks overwhelmed, thats all. Was the pic related to the article?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Jeff_Dem is for PNAC "endorsement" threads while he is against them?

Where is his whining in this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3476056&mesg_id=3476056

[KaptBunnyPants]

8. Obama has already demonstrated that he won't attack at the first resort by opposing IWR.

A test the other front runners failed miserably. You see, there are things besides what a candidate says that tell us how militaristic they are, like their record. If Obama wants to increase the size of our armies slightly, or increase defense spending, I don't really care. What I care about is someone's proclivity to start unnecessary wars. The Iraq War was wrong not because it was preemptive, but because it is morally unjustifiable to attack a country with neither the intention or capability to attack us. Clinton had her chance to oppose this war, and she didn't take it. Hell, she didn't even go the Edwards route and abandon the war when it became clear that it was not only a moral but also a strategic mistake. Why pretend that someone's personal history of supporting unjustified and poorly conceived military action doesn't matter?

[Tellurian]

11. Nonsense-

what do you think the Pakistan flap was about, or didn't you hear about it?

[KaptBunnyPants]

13. You don't support military action in Pakistan?

That is where Bin Laden is. If you don't believe in MIHOP, then how could you oppose capturing the "mastermind" behind 911?

[Tellurian]

20. Did you get a note from OBL

saying: meet me in Pakistan? Otherwise, how do you know he's there for sure?

[KaptBunnyPants]

60. I don't know for sure. I can only act from the information available to me.

Even before the war in Iraq, military/intelligence reports were coming out of Afghanistan saying the leadership of Al Queda had crossed into Pakistan where US forces couldn't follow. Since no one I've heard from ever disagreed with that and the government was not trying to use these reports to justify some shameful act, I assumed it to be true. But we wouldn't be attacking just on my trust in our national news organizations. Presumably, Obama would only attack Pakistani territory if we had air-tight intelligence to believe that senior officials from Al Queda would be there. We've tried to get Pakistan's government to arrest these people, but every time they raid an area someone tips off the occupants there and we find empty buildings. So the choice is simple - do we allow Al Queda to operate with impunity out of Pakistan, or do we act ourselves? If the choice is the former for Hillary I don't see how she can sell herself as the Democratic candidate with the advantage on terrorism.

[Tellurian]

65. If I were Hillary, at the outset, I would make a huge diplomatic effort..

floating a peace initiative to all concerned. Bringing diplomacy to the table and allowing all the different groups the opportunity to air their grievances and try brokering a Truce agreement to begin with. With the intent of working toward a full fledged Peace agreement. I'd let them sort out who the trouble makers are and offer them help via the UN to get a handle on the terrorism if at all possible. There has to be something they want, that will satisfy them enough to stop the killing!

We can't arbitrarily go into sovereign countries to fight terrorism. Countries have to take responsibility for themselves to act to provide security for their citizens and tourists. If OBL is found in France, we can't just go there and start arresting and killing suspected AlQuida..

[dionysus]

67. great post!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. As leading neocon Kagan noted, where did Obama say he would only attack as a last resort? nt

[KaptBunnyPants]

63. He didn't say it, he showed it.

Politicians who were anti-war were considered to be throwing away their careers at the beginning of this war, and I commend him for making the right choice then. I remember a certain Democratic consultant who told Kerry that if he voted against the IWR he would never be president. He probably convinced more than a few Senators with that line. Obama doesn't want people to think that he is a pacifist because of his antiwar stance and so is avoiding that kind of rhetoric. But he's on record as opposing stupid wars, and that has to count for something when he is being accused of war mongering.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

68. That is a myth. Obama was in a unique position that made opposing the IWR smart for him

He was an obscure local politician fresh off a 2-to-1 defeat in a House race. He had no money, no statewide base. Opposing the IWR in 2002 in what eventually was a 7 candidate primary field gave him an issue to run on (Obama was the only one to speak out against the IWR in 2002) and an instant statewide base. He has continues to milk the IWR to this day.

You can't compare Obama's situation to that of Kerry's or of other senators. Obama was desperate and the IWR gave him a political hail mary that he has ridden, along with a healthy dose of luck and corporate media cheerleading, from Springfield to the cusp of the White House.

[RaleighNCDUer]

79. LOL!

So taking an anti-war position as a purely political calculation was the clever thing to do at a time when 85% of the country supported the war - when Bush's approval ratings were at an all-time high.

It was a position of political suicide - as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of much more experience and calculating politicians threw their support to the war.

You don't think that maybe he was right? That it was a principled position which, now, everybody can see was correct? And that maybe he is a shitload smarter than the vast majority of his opponants?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

81. What was the politically advantageous thing for someone in his shoes to do?

Support it and then run in a Democratic primary against 6 other candidates and have nothing to distinguish you from them, no issue to run on, no statewide base? If he did not speak out against the war in 2002 he would still be an obscure state senator. Look at what he has done since the political dynamics for him changed to the same ones HRC has faced (that of a senator with eyes on the White House). Name any differences between them on Iraq since then.

It was 70% nationally and in Illinois, a blue state, it was likely less. Where do you think most Democratic senate primary voters in Illinois stood on Iraq?

[AX10]

12. And why aren't there more attacks on Obama because of this?

If this were Hillary, this thread would be a flamewar and the mods would be forced to lock the thread.

So much hate towards Hillary, I don't know why. She is not perfect, but she is better than any Repuglikan.

[JTFrog]

14. The problem some of us

have with what you've said there is that you just assume that if nominated she'd win in '08, whereas we feel very strongly that her winning the nomination ensures a republican winning the general in '08.

Not knocking your opinion, just pointing out that it's a matter of perspective.

[creeksneakers2]

21. Edwards has high negatives too

and Obama scores poorly in some polls. The latest Rasmussen has Hillary at 54% negative, Edwards at 46% negative, and Obama at 45% negative. Hillary's ratings are likely to improve while Edwards' and Obama's are most likely to get worse.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. HRC wins Florida, Pennsyvlania, and Ohio. Obama loses all three and flips zero red states

Clinton also wins Arkansas, Kentucky, and Virginia to name a few. Obama is the least electable of the top 3, not Clinton.

[Dawgs]

44. You still spreading that lie (with no updated polls)?

From pollster.com.

07/30/2007
----------
Obama(46.3) > Giuliani(41.7) = +4.6
Edwards(46.7) > (44.8) = +1.9
Clinton(45.8) > Giuliani(44.3) = +1.5

07/18/2007
----------
Obama(49.7) > Romney(35.6) = +14.1
Edwards(51.1) > Romney(37.4) = +13.7
Clinton(48.6) > Romney(38.6) = +10.0

Obama(48.9) > Thompson(37.7) = +11.2
Edwards(49.3) > Thompson(39.3) = +10.0
Clinton(47.3) > Thompson(43.2) = +4.1

More recently--> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Dawgs busted lying again and apparently is unaware that the electoral college decides who wins

rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug-24-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Quinnipiac has Obama losing to Rudy in FL, OH & PA

From Aug 8th (all 3) http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089

From Aug 23rd (PA only) http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1095

RW Philosophy: Build a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

draft_mario_cuomo (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug-24-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. While Clinton wins FL and PA and ties in Ohio

* Florida - Clinton tops Giuliani 46 - 44 percent, flipping a 46 - 44 percent Giuliani lead July 23;
* Ohio - Clinton ties Giuliani 43 - 43 percent, compared to a 44 - 42 percent Clinton lead July 12;
* Pennsylvania - Clinton edges Giuliani 45 - 44 percent, compared to a 45 - 45 percent tie June 27.

Florida: Giuliani tops Obama 44 - 41 percent;
Ohio: Giuliani defeats Obama 42 - 39 percent;
Pennsylvania: Giuliani defeats Obama 45 - 39 percent
"With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection."--Why Rove and co. feared Edwards the most in 2004

[Dawgs]

47. How do you know that Obama doesn't flip any red states?

You don't, because there are no polls. And, your evidence that Obama loses Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio goes back to a May poll.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

61. Name 1 red state he flips--with evidence. A poll 2 days ago had him losing PA (HRC wins PA)

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1095

As to him losing Ohio and Florida there was a poll about two weeks ago (Obama losing PA is also included in this poll): http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Exactly. Look at this thread for confirmation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3476056&mesg_id=3476056

Obama has a special ability to get the Obama wing of the netroots to check their principles at the door (today's installment: PNAC praise is bad when it goes to HRC, good when PNACers praise Obama. Yesterday Obama fans dropped their hatred of the DLC when it was posted that his PAC give money to 72% of the Senate's DLC, plus Harold Ford--although this surely will not stop them from attacking HRC over the DLC. Obama's magic is limited only to things relating to him). This is why Obama, who praised Clinton's Third Way in his book, would be far more effective advocate for Third Way policies than Clinton. He can actually sell them to the very people who would be most naturally disposed to oppose them.

[AX10]

59. Back when I was an observer of this place,

I remember when this was "Dean Underground" during the 04' primary season. Now it's "Obama Underground" for the 08' season.

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. Maybe because the PNACer who supports Hillary has been one

of their top spokespersons for years, while nobody knows or cares who Kagan is?

[Capn Sunshine]

15. "Pure John Kennedy"

yeah, we've come a long way as a party since those reactionary days

[SOS]

17. Kagan endorses Obama for the Presidency?

Please copy and paste the "endorsement".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. The same way Bill Kristol endorsed HRC and Brezinksi "endorsed" Obama

Both promoted by Obama fans. :)

[smoogatz]

22. Is this not a copy-cat thread?

Anybody?

:shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

26. And a recycled story that's four months old too..

Whatever.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. PNAC support is great so long as it goes to Obama, not Clinton?

:crazy:

[Chicken George]

56. Nope it's not necessarily a copy-cat thread

I think it's more like a "Ain't payback a bitch" thread for that "Kristol "endorses" HRC" thread.

[LWolf]

29. "Pure John Kennedy."

Right. :sarcasm:

Admittedly, Obama's best, perhaps his only, positive trait is that he is an eloquent speaker.

JFK he is NOT.

8 years after the selection, the world has changed enough that PNAC is the kind of leadership that a signficant bloc of democrats support. :puke:

[killbotfactory]

30. He never endorses Obama

Nice try, though

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. Neither did Kristol formally endorse Clinton but that didn't stop you

Barack Obama: moving one goalpost at a time!

killbotfactory (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug-25-07 01:09 AM
Response to Original message
9. Maybe she'll take a picture with him

George W. Bush deserves a fair trial

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3476056#3476097

[killbotfactory]

38. Kristol makes a pretty strong statement

"Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. So does Kagan, and he backs it up by citing Obama's positions nt

[killbotfactory]

48. Not really

He just offers his snide spin of Obama's speech. Did you even read the article?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. What exactly do you disagree with Kagan about on Obama's speech?

Do you prefer neocon Terry "Obama's speech puts him closer to Bush than Hillary, his speech was like Bush's 2nd inaugural" Jeffrey?

[killbotfactory]

52. This part, for one

It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.

This guy is an asshole.

[jefferson_dem]

54. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Obama...

as claimed in the OP.

Oh well...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. What is your disagreement with that beyond "this guy is an asshole"?

[killbotfactory]

64. work on your reading comprehension

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. So you disagree with Obama's broad view of America's interests?

Why? What has Obama said that makes you think otherwise? "Hope" doesn't count.

[killbotfactory]

74. I can see the time spent conversing with you is wasted

Let me know when you want to have a coherent conversation that isn't just full non-sequiturs and mindless Obama bashing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. So you can't defend your "faith" and "hope" on this? No surprise there nt

[BeyondGeography]

32. One note Cujo continues to bang the anti-Obama drum

now that he has officially given up on Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. BeyondHypocrisy eloquently refutes neocon icon Kagan's points

The fact that people ranging from BeyondHypocrisy to a PNACer can support Obama's agenda says it all. He is a generic, vague entity that is everything to everyone.

[BeyondGeography]

37. This is just as lame as the threads that link Hillary to Kristol and Krauthammer

every time they say something complimentary about her.

You're not a stupid poster, you just play one on DU.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Where is your whining in those threads?

Besides, we need to evaluate their statements on the merits. It is irrational to dismiss them due to labels (whatever happened to a "new kind of politics" that transcended labels and ideologies, like progressive thinking and conservative thinking?). What exactly do you disagree with in Kagan's article? Thanks in advance.

[Cameron27]

40. dmc, you've given up on Edwards?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. I got my Edwards bumper sticker just today

:)

[Cameron27]

66. Oh noooooo!

I was beginning to have so much hope for you ;-)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

72. haha

:D

[TeamJordan23]

41. Why wasn't Obama for the Iraq war if you imply he is a neo-con?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Ask PNACer Robert Kagan, or better yet, read his article

Obama is for the Iraq war. Just because he hides it doesn't change it. He will keep an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified length of time. 75,000 troops for 8 years? Who knows? He refuses to tell us but will release video of him making a 3 pointer, though. :eyes:

[TeamJordan23]

46. LOL. You are delirious man. Go ahead and believe that Obama was pro-Iraq War. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. I said he "IS." He was against it before he was for continuing it

==The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.==

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

==We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.==

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Maybe you should learn what your candidate's platform actually is before supporting him?


Dear DMC,

Some say that all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have basically the same position on Iraq. I disagree.

I'd pull all of our troops out in 6-8 months. The other major candidates would leave some troops behind indefinitely.

That's a major difference -- any way you look at it.

On Sunday, at the ABC debate in Iowa, I asked the other candidates point blank: how many troops would you leave behind? 25,000? 50,000? 75,000? For how long?

I didn't get an answer.

The big campaigns, with their huge media budgets, think they can drown out our differences and control the conversation on Iraq.

My campaign depends on the grassroots support -- people like you -- to help us carry the truth of our message across the country.

Make a contribution -- just $20 is enough to make a difference -- and I'll invite you to join other supporters on Thursday, August 30th for a conference call on which I will present my plan for how we can end the war quickly and get all of our troops out.

No dodging the tough questions -- I want to tell you directly why I believe anything less than a plan that pulls out all the troops as quickly as possible isn't a plan to end the war at all.

The Iraqis must rebuild their own country, and they won't make the tough political compromises until they know we're serious about turning the country over to them. It is becoming increasingly clear you can't end the war AND leave troops behind. Pulling our troops out won't cause a civil war; our troops are targets in a civil war right now. We must redeploy them out of Iraq and then secure the region.

The Bush Administration has been using half-measures since this war started, and now we have to make a decision -- it is either in or out; now or after more people die. You can't have it both ways.

Saying that all Democrats have the same position because "any" Democrat would end the war eventually is a cop out. Saying there is no military solution in Iraq and then advocating leaving US troops behind to find the military solution you just said doesn't exist is nuts.

I am the only candidate committed to changing the conventional wisdom on Iraq. I am the only candidate with the diplomatic experience to get all our troops out and bring the Iraqi factions together. Join me on August 30th and I'll tell you how.

We'll have much to discuss on this conference call. I'll explain the plan, take your questions and we'll strategize on how to get my message out to more Americans.

There are options. There are solutions. We don't have to choose between change and experience. We don't have to leave troops behind.

There is another way.

Thank you for your help,

Governor Bill Richardson
Contribution Button

[killbotfactory]

71. you don't seem to understand

How we got into Iraq, and how we get out of Iraq, are two different issues.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. Is continuing a war being for a war or can you be against a war you want to continue?

:crazy:

When does Obama want to get out? 2 years? 4 years? 8 years? 20 years? He hasn't told us that but has told us what his name means. :eyes:

[HughMoran]

39. LOL!!!!! TOUCHE!!!!

This back and forth candidate slamming is hilarious!!

This is HUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

[AtomicKitten]

53. COPYCAT MAGIC!!! -- A snarky Op-Ed is "transformed" into an endorsement.

No links to the Op-Ed, the OP preferring someone's "take" on it which he further bastardizes. DU don't need no stinking context.

The OP pulls red meat directly from his arse to feed the haters. Bon appetit.

[venable]

55. AK, I disagree with you almost always, but I LOVE your David Brent clip

BTW Ricky Gervais said he didn't remember doing the dance at all, and when he saw it he was shocked and repulsed. It's fabulous.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Ricky thanks you.

:)

[venable]

73. And I thank you for bring it to us all.

peace.

[bvar22]

77. A pox on BOTH of their PNAC endorsed, Repub-lite houses!

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[draft_mario_cuomo]

78. More on Kagan's praise of Obama in "Republicans defect to Obama" article

==But last week a surprising new name joined the chorus of praise for the antiwar Obama � that of Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the late 1990s, which called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.==

But in an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was “pure John Kennedy”, a neocon hero of the cold war.

In his speech, Obama called for an increase in defence spending and an extra 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines to “stay on the offense” against terrorism and ensure America had “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world”. He talked about building democracies, stopping weapons of mass destruction and the right to take unilateral action to protect US “vital interests” if necessary, as well as the importance of building alliances.

“Personally, I liked it,” Kagan wrote.==

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece