Barack Obama is No John Kerry

With a single speech on Friday Barack Obama showed he is no John Kerry. He will fight back immediately against scurrilous charges with reason and fact, not empty rhetoric.

Obama has the benefit of voters who've turned away from Bush and the Iraq invasion in droves. Kerry did not have that advantage. Incredibly, the verdict on Iraq was still out for many American voters in 2004 even though it was exceedingly clear to those not fooled by patriotic propaganda and fear-mongering that the war was the world's worst foreign policy blunder since the Soviet's 1980 invasion of Afghanistan.

Even without strong popular support, Kerry lacked the resolve to quickly respond to false charges against him with passion and facts.

Obama has ridden a tsunami of support precisely because he has been mostly speaking his mind since before Iowa. After eight years of Bush the American people are ready for a little truth.

Hence Obama laid it on the line in his speech in Watertown, South Dakota. He attacked men who use the flag to cloak aggressive wars for economic and political gain and then challenge the patriotism of those who dare question their motives.

"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for the failed policies" in the Middle East that have allowed terrorism to flourish, Obama said. He accused both of "hypocrisy, fear peddling, fear mongering ... bluster" and "dishonest, divisive" tactics.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America," Obama said, "that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place."

The facts are on Obama's side, as they were on Kerry's, but Obama is quick on the draw. He is bold. And he will have all summer to pound McCain on the dangerous course he is plotting and to pull back the patriotic drapes to unveil his unvarnished militarism. Obama will try to dispel Americans' fears by downgrading foreign threats to their rightful place, to be managed with diplomacy -- a lost American art.

"What's puzzling is that this in any way would be controversial," Obama said about meeting with international opponents. "This has been the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently." Even Bush's father sent James Baker to sit across a table from Tariq Aziz before launching the 1991 Gulf War. It may have been pure theater, but George W. Bush's administration has been too arrogant to at least make a show of diplomacy.

With this kind of feisty defense and counterattack during the general election campaign, Obama should not only challenge McCain's specific attacks on him, but should also confront the prevailing militarist myths, purveyed by McCain, that have ensnared Americans since the end of World War II.

That was a just war that pulled America out of the Depression. It left the U.S. the first global power standing astride a devastated world. What did America do with that overwhelming wealth and power? Did it use it to advance social and economic progress or exaggerate a manageable threat from a devastated Soviet Union? *

The military industry's profits proved too good to give up. Peace could ruin a militarized economy. Truman devised the National Security state that has propped up external threats to keep the armaments factories humming, has ignored America's domestic needs and has overthrown governments, including democracies, to spread American power. These interventions in developing nations were often cloaked in the language and symbolism of World War II: a simplistic good vs. evil that masked aggressive American intentions. That's why when post-war America launches aggressive wars we hear targeted leaders compared to Hitler and anti-war Americans branded "appeasers."

Despite Bush's WWII references at the Knesset, this is not the same U.S. military that defeated the real threats of Fascism and Japanese militarism. To keep on the offensive securing resources and markets after the Soviet collapse, Cold War alarmists like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz updated the exaggerated threat with Islamic terrorism. America dresses up like a World War II soldier to once again fight an "evil" it helped create with its offensive policies.

To sell wars and defense contracts presidents must sell fear. Obama marked McCain as both a fear and a warmonger. McCain is a champion of the post-war bonanza for the Pentagon and the military industries. This trend was only briefly set back with defeat in Vietnam. But it was restored seven years later by the Reagan counter-revolt, which we are still suffering under.

This is the best chance since 1947 for a presidential candidate to confront these WWII myths and the glorification of violence and rein in American militarism. The time is right and Obama is showing he has the stomach to do it. The biggest battle though will come if he is elected, when he must confront the brass and the oligarchic interests that have grown so wealthy selling the American people with the myth that we are still fighting World War II.

That is when Obama will really be tested as a leader.

This is the theme of my new book written with Sen. Mike Gravel: "A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man's Fight to Stop It," out later this month from Seven Stories Press. It is a history of American militarism and how to overcome the fear it thrives on.

Comments

[realityczech4u]

Neither Obama nor Kerry are war heroes. Where the difference lies is that unlike Kerry, Obama hasn't claimed to be one.

[StinkyPete]

As much as I don't like Sen Kerry - and I really don't (nothin' personal just political). He did serve in the military, he showed up for duty, he carried a weapon as required, he was fired upon and returned fire with his weapon. He may or may not have 'actually' deserved his medals - as far as I'm concerned he and all others who served in that fiasco can have as many medals as they want.

[rnb]

"Obama will try to dispel Americans' fears by downgrading foreign threats to their rightful place, to be managed with diplomacy -- a lost American art."

I think this is a strong point for Obama, which is placing things into context. He spent a little time today explaining how JFK succeeded using diplomacy instead of war during the missile crisis, and that's when the Soviets had enough nuclear capability to destroy the planet several times over. Iran is still attempting to make its first nuclear weapon, and Bush and McCain would have us believe that Iran poses a larger threat than the USSR ever did.

[StinkyPete]

They're trying to coax Sen Obama out. Will he challenge the false claims about weapons of Iranian manufacture - will he take a philosophy that is at variance with that of the "Israel Firsters"? He isn't taking much of a stand, but verbose in his indignation and expression wrt quality of attack.

[DickTater]

The difference between RightWing SwiftBoating and Dem responses isn't so much who is the responder or how quick or pugilistic the responder is.

The Media plays the most important card. By endlessly repeating nicely wrapped negative messages from the RightWing.....and stepping all over the response from the LeftWing.

It is much easier to yell "You Fag" at someone on the digital playground, than it is to answer "I am not. If I were gay, how can you explain my wife and 2 kids, and my endless string of affairs with women in my earlier life. Do you have any proof? Has anyone EVER come forward and claimed I had a gay affair with them? If not, then I believe you need to look at your own sexual inadequacies and why you are so threatened/panicked about someone else's love life"

So, the RightWing as always comes up with a slick one-liner, and it is echoed ENDLESSLY by the pres....and measured, reasoned response from the Dem is always muted and never played. And as always, the pundits will talk all over it for days wondering how the Dem can possibly rebound from the devestating allegation that he is indeed a Fag. And how he has an image problem. They never denounce the Repubs, even if they have piles of contrary evidence.

The Media is going to be the biggest RightWing cheerleader again. We have to find ways to take the CorporoMedia to the sidelines as much as possible.

[research]

If some punk calls me a fag I usually just say: "You wish!"

[NorthDecoder]

Another correction: Watertown is in SOUTH Dakota, not NORTH Dakota.

(Not shouting. Just emphasizing the operative word.)

Best wishes.

[secondedition]

this statement is BS wrong,

"Even without strong popular support, Kerry lacked the resolve to quickly respond to false charges against him with passion and facts. "
The Kerry campaign DID FIGHT BACK, with what it had to work with. They fought off the Swift Boat attacks in April as well as in the general election. They chose a bit of a different strtategy, whereas Senator Kerry was to stay above the fray as it was thought Presidents and Presidential candidates should have others available to defend them. And the Kerry camp had some fine people denfending him. They fought back immediately. UNFORTUNATELY, the Kerry campaign did not have AS MUCH MONEY $$$$$, The MEDIA ATTENTION, or THE ENTIRE SUPPORT OF THE DEMOCRATS BEHIND HIM.
If Senator Obama is doing better than Kerry did in 2004, that is only because he has benefited from observing what went down in the 2004 election and four more years of Bush.

Oh, and frankly, I would love to see Obama be even more like Senator Kerry.

[charon]

I agree. Kerry and his staff also underestimated the gullibility of the electorate and the corruption of the MSM which kept playing the swift boat crap without criticism.

[wwsword]

Yeah, Obama's not as bright. Bush was talking about those who express a desire to negotiate with terrorists and Obama jumped up and down waving his arms yelling "Hey America! I'm the appeaser Bush is talking about!" It was among the most stupid things I have ever seen a president candidate do. Republicans are stunned at Obama's stupidity. "If the shoe fits...." they all thought to themselves.

If Obama and his followers can't see the difference between the swiftboating of Kerry, which went after Kerry by name, and Bush giving a speech in the Knesset repeating his view that the US shouldn't negotiate with terrorists - a view he has expressed since early in his presidency - then the Democrats are in even more trouble that I thought they were.

[eyeronie]

I disagree on Obama owning the "appeaser" label. I doubt the White House explanation for W's remarks. Whether you think Bush was referring to Carter or being philosophical, he was using the same language (and analogies) republicans have been using for years to characterize their opponents. Surely we all can see that in time the same attack was headed Obama's way, with the Hamas "endorsement" smear thrown out there to push this perception.

So I think it's wishful thinking that Obama could have layed low and avoided this confrontation, as it will be fundamental to the republican's campaign. He's trying to turn things around on the right by calling them out on their fearmongering and by characterizing their cowboy diplomacy as dangerous to our security. He's pointing out, in a way, that they have blood on their hands. It's something Kerry and Clinton had a harder time doing because of their war votes. As previously noted it's also a way to tie Bush and McBush together.

Lauria is right, this was a taste of something different out of the democratic nominee. Time will tell if it works.

[tpresnyc]

As long as we're talking about who's not very bright - ok, let's just say you're a little naive. First of all, Bush WAS referring to the Democrats in general and Obama specifically; there's no doubt about that. But it doesn't matter. Obama seized the opportunity to highlight the speech and turn the tables on Bush and McCain.

And it worked - Bush has been slammed from every direction (except by the 28% who still support him), and it set the tone for the rest of Bush's pathetic, pleading tour of the Middle East. He knew McCain would instinctively support Bush's statements, which gave Obama yet another chance to join them at the hip under the "3rd Bush Term" umbrella..

It's working like a charm.

[1LESSUV]

Hey, if one accepts your premise that Bush wasn't injecting himself into the US presidential contest (which I think is flat out wrong), then Obama's swift response is even more brilliant. Show toughness and further the link between Bush and McCain even as the latter tries to distance himself from the most unpopular President in modern times. Obama's commandeered the terms of the debate -- a winning strategy if I ever saw one.

[wwsword]

No, it means Obama owned the label appeaser. Had he left it alone, the speech would have been unremarkable. Who listens to the president in the Knesset? Who listens to the president anywhere he opens his mouth anymore?

[thevoicereason]

The is still on his heels, still on the defense, still letting the opposition define the tone, the substance, and the agenda. The republicans constantly brand the democrats as effete(males), weak on defense, followers not leaders, intellectual eggheads - where a man of action is necessary. So how does responding to this type of political attack with an intellectual argument save the day? I doesn't. If responding to the Republicans is going to be what hits the front page, then expect another 4 years of republicans in the white house. This is advertising 101 people. Isn't anyone in the democrat camp aware of these simple concepts?

Democrats. Try offense for a change. If anyone should be defending his position it should be Bush, and by proxy McCain. The only reason the democrats are even in the running is because the Republicans are sinking their own ship. Being the guy left standing after the other guy just plain screwed up, is not a leadership position.

[Independent007]

WWSWORD,

If you think Obama is the problem then you don't understand what millions of Americans want.
I guess you think Bush is not the problem right?
You think that McCain's militarism will win in this election where the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq?
Then my friend, you need to read a bit more.
Obama is not an "unelectable candidate", as you assert, but will show you and those who think like you that Americans will turn the page from the vile and vitriol of the Republican Party who has led this country to the edge of a precipice.

[Thorn]

The WHAT is "still on his heels"? And "I doesn't"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[thevoicereason]

The common phrase "on his heels" refers to someone who is defensive. "I doesn't" is an obvious typo in which I meant to write "It doesn't." Most people can figure out that missing letter.

Are your questions pointed at the substance of my post? Debate would require us to embrace more than one way of looking at things. Demeaning the spelling in a post is not a counterpoint. Your attempt to suppress an idea, by assigning some sort of value to my post writing is weak and disingenuous. Try again.

[BluesDogLefty]

Yes, look I like Kerry a lot. But he needed to be able to communicate with ordinary people--like FDR, Truman, JFK, RFK, and Obama.

Also, Kerry would probably be president now if the day after the Shift Boat accusations came out, he would have come out aggressively. He should have called those guys liars and confronted them with very harsh language. He served in combat and was wounded and he saw buddies die and he actually killed enemy combatants. I always said that if he came out and literally called them "F***ing liars" the country would have rallied to him.

[missjabez]

I liked John Kerry, and I think he would have made a fine president. However, he wasn't quick enough on the trigger when those ridiculous Swift Boat stories came out. He must have thought that those stories were too ridiculous to dignify with a response. He vastly overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Obama doesn't do that. I'm proud that he's come out swinging.

[MPeter]

Great article. Do not worry about the great battle to come after he is elected. Why? Because the electoral map has been changing during this primary season, right before our own eyes. Republicans will be wiped out and for the first time, we actually stand on a threshold of having up to 60 Senators and an overwhelming majority of Congressmen. The electoral map has changed, thanks to Obama, the young new voters, those who were disillusioned before but have returned and the indeppendents. Republicans are in real trouble. By the way, even Nader is not in play this time, even though he is running!!!!

[Thorn]

Gosh. You sure sound like an expert on "Barak" Obama.

[Thorn]

(You're welcome for the correction!)