Battle-Tested
With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.
Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.
Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.
What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?
How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?
How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?
Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.
George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.
In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.
Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.
In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.
Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."
If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.
Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.
This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama wasn't there for the vote. That will work when he's in the White House, just leave for the day if it looks like things are getting tough.
McCain needs a nap....
quote" Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO."
haha that's why i've been saying for years her as president and obama as vice president!! haha
what a great post! thank you :)
Say what you like Joe. We've already seen that Hillary can't even handle Barack. How exactly is she more qualified to handle McCain?
Clinton voted against the Levin amendment, that would have expressly barred an Iraq invasion without congressional approval, then misrepresented what the amendment said during a debate. She even lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, for goodness sakes. She's received more defense contractor money than any candidate in either party, and is knee deep in Wall Street money as well. She is a founder of, I believe, or active participant in the DLC, which is neo-con (or neo-lib if you prefer) central for the Democratic party. Her current foreign policy advisors supported the invasion, and she has criticized Bush for being too easy on Iran, not to mention her ridiculous vote for the Iran sanctions measure. She sure doesn't look like someone who will change our trajectory of becoming a bankrupt empire.
Quote: "How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that ..."
Push-polling, anyone?
"Would it change your mind about Sen. Obama if you knew that ...?"
It is the height of absurdity to attempt to link Senator Obama with the highly suspect and partisan Kenyan leader Raila Odinga, who happens to be from the same ethnic group with Obama's father. There is no illusion Raila is the greatest opportunistic politician in Kenya and will use every photo opportunity to hype his drum major. As a politician he has a right to do so, and is fully responsible for his actions. The author attempts to show during Obama's visit to Kenya, he accorded Raila greater attention than anyone else in a partisan way that may be interpreted as "ethnic biased". This is disturbing and intended to fan the suspicion between communities, not withstanding an insult to the Senator. At the time of this visit, Raila was a senior cabinet minister in the Kenya government and enjoyed as much populism within his Luo community as elsewhere. Obama did rub the government the wrong way for highlighting corruption, while acknowledges corruption is a major problem in Kenya. A result of the current crisis in Kenya is the total failure of president Kibaki to offer any tangible political growth since taking over in 2002. Unfortunately while the country has seen unprecedented economic growth, the failed political leadership from Kibaki and again Raila in his perenial opportunism have brought the country to the brink of a civil war. Raila's big donors was the GOP, while Kibaki has been cozy with the Clintons, since he got personal attention for offering "free education in Kenya"
The attempt to align Senator Obama with ethnic strive however remotely should raise alarm bells among Africans, is embarrassing to Kenyans, and must be rejected outrightly. Obama's foreigh policy is based on what is just and right universally. Surely, if he can face American enemies such as Iran, what is it to make of warring parties in Kenya?
Africa more than anyone else needs Obama, not so much because of his heritage connection, but to finally have a fair hearing from the most influential external force in their lives. Africa your time is now.
Its astonishing that this article is the first time that I have seen reference to Sen. Obama's campaigning in Kenya in 2006 on behalf of a candidate (Raile Odinga) who is, according to published reports, a "cousin" allied with "Islamic extremists."
Sen. Obama meet Willy Horton.
After reading the article by Ambassador Wilson, and doing a very basic internet search, we can see that he, in fact, is part of a lonely group of distinguished commentators who have observed that this set of facts, unexplained by Sen. Obama, could derail his candidacy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/132628/105/469/447013
Senator Obama has, according to one report, campaigned for the Kenyan leader Raila Odinga in August 2006.
http://www.nysun.com/article/69273
Mr. Odinga claims that he is the cousin of Barack Obama -- no comment from BO.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm
Mr. Odinga is said to be an ally of Islamic extremists.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572509823&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
There also appears to be a photograph of Sen. Obama campaigning for Mr. Odinga.
http://www.jaluo.com/wangwach/0806/obama/obama4.jpg. It may or may not be authentic, but Sen. Obama should address it.
Thank you Joe Wilson (and HP) for bringing this important matter to a wider public audience. It deserves greater scrutiny, even if there is a perfectly reasonable explanation by Sen. Obama.
Wow Roanoke, I'm also astonished that it's the first time you've seen a reference about Odinga in the media, but you've already prepared this nice list of links for everyone's use. Give Wilson a high five for doing Bill a favor (maybe he'll get a state department job if Hillary wins) and let Penn know that everything is going according to plan. I can't wait to see what's going to happen next!
Senator Obama has, according to ONE REPORT--from the NEW YORK SUN--campaigned for Odinga. Ask yourself why it hasn't been printed by any reputable journalistic institutions, and instead is relegated to a right-wing smear rag like the Sun. There's no evidence for it. The single piece of evidence that appears to link the two men is a photograph which you liked to, but if you bother to look up the "Liverpool VCT, Care & Treatment" that appears on the banner in the picture you'll find that it's an HIV/AIDS treatment center in Kenya. This picture comes from when Obama went to Africa to advance HIV/AIDS testing and prevention, and it's not at all unusual that he'd happen to get a picture alongside a local politician.
The only reputable link between the two men comes from the BBC story which claims Odinga says Obama is his cousin, but doesn't comment on whether or not that's true. Even if it is, I think we're a bit beyond finding guilt through family association.
Here's a more impartial source that tells about what Obama is actually doing to try to help broker peace and end the killing (instead of the anonymous hit pieces or quotes from self aggrandizing thugs you see above).
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498963
barack gives us hope, and not very many people are capable of pulling the american people out of the deep injury and deception of the last 7 years....he's run a very clean campaign, taking no contributions from lobbys, and no one else can make that claim either!-PEACE
OBAMA '08
The fact that Obama is a distant cousin of Dick Cheney is as relevant as a claimed relationship with some guy he met once in a country he's only visited for a few days. The photo you "uncovered" looks like a standard photo op shot at a speech by Obama while he was visiting Kenya,
Shouldn't we be researching and "exposing" Clinton's and McCain's ancestors too? I heard that Hillary is related to a horse thief who was hung for his crimes. Obviously this disqualifies her for public office!
Hillary will be better at fighting the Repugnicant smear machine. Hope is good, but we need more than "hope" - we need action.
The next president will have more than a full time job just repairing the damage Bush and his cronies have done to America and our standing in the world, and Hillary is far better equipped to do that job.
Having said that, Obama is uniquely bestowed with the ability to move people, and what I would really like to see his him running as Hillary's vice-president.
That will accomplish two great things:
First - it will make the Democrats an unbeatable force in winning the election - not only the presidential election, but Congress and local elections too.
Second - it will almost assure 16 years of Democratic presidency - two terms for Hillary and then two for Obama!
Hopefully we will see that happen!
I was sitting here st my home in New Jersey and knew that a vote for the authorization was a vote for war. The very fact that Hilary Clinton did not know, makes her unqualified for the office. If Obama said that he might have done exactly as Bush did, which believe he did, at least he knew what was going on.
Didn't he endorse her along time ago..
I love the McCain-Obama Senate exchange chronicled here.
It's amusing how the interpretation of this as McCain "intimidation" or Obama "meekness" is so subjective.
The McCain tact is undeniably "dismissive" and seems very familiar to the approach taken by The Clintons toward Obama and this entire campaign. And we see how that's turning out.
Specifically, let's see how McCain fares under that type of dismissive attack from the President of the United States. Oh yeah, we know he imploded in his own anger and self-hatred against George Bush.
But Obama did face almost exactly this from the most popular former President alive, Bill Clinton, between Iowa and NH.
Clinton's pre-NH "Fairy Tale" rant against Obama accusing him practically of lying about his record on Iraq and ending in "GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!", was analagous to "you don't know an RPG from a bong".
And I even thought that Obama's meek responses then about having repeatedly corrected the record for The Clintons about his Iraq position was feeble....but again, how has that turned out?
Would McCain be happy to have that transcript broadcast on every network and re-printed on the front page of the major dailies?
We think not. But even if we agree it's not good public relations or good politics; are we sure that the Ambassador's view that this McCain tact even qualifies as intimidation far less anything that would be effective from an electoral or policy standpoint?
I tend to agree with Obama that whoever wins the DEM primary will be the "baddest".
McCain's condescending attitude revealed here just seals the deal and made my day. Like The Clintons, he doesn't understand the people are so over 911 and Iraq; that he and the REPS won't even know what hit them.
Obama/Biden '08.
Thank you Mr. Wilson. The power of your words and the informed authority from which you speak, is critical to the forward movement of this primary decision-making process.
I am a devoted and steadfast Hillary supporter and to find such positive pro-Clinton conviction on the pages of the Huffington Post is nothing short of a miracle.
I agree with every word and appreciate that Arianna published this article. The Other Side is rarely heard from here.
great article.
Obama and I have a lot in common...we both stated we were against the war from the start and did nothing about it.
Worse for Senator Obama he voted to fund it and time and again and we never saw him mobilize the people ,as he claims will happen when he is president, to stop the war. And where was this great anti-war candidate... on the Senate Floor voting to fund the very war he says he was against..
Oh, but don't you know that he is going to stop the war. Really, he's going to get around to actually doing something about it sometime soon. You know, after the election. Reminds me of Nixon's campaign back when he had a "secret" plan to end the Viet Nam war if only we would elect him.
Neither candidate has any claim to being someone who has done anything to end that stupid war.
So because Obama didn't throw a hissy fit at McCain, he's not tough. So far he's stood up very well to the Clinton Machine. Clinton will alienate the rightwing and we'll have four more years of getting nothing done in this country. It's time we got back to the days of JFK, where dignity actually reigned in Washington, where we had statesmen like Humphrey, Dirksen, Goldwater, Johnson, etc. You may not have agreed with them, but there was civility and things got done. Clinton can't do that.
If one looks carefully at Obama and his record we find that he was a do nothing senator in Illinois who voted "present" the majority of the time rather than putting himself “on the line” supporting or opposing legislation that might hurt his political ambitions. He failed to meet with a group lobbying for equal rights for the GLBT because he had a photo op that came up. His comments of opposition to the war are disingenuous, at best. We don't need another GWB in the White House proclaiming things that just aren’t true. Obama has neither the experience nor the honesty necessary to gain my vote. Obama is no JFK nor is he a Humphrey, Dirksen or Goldwater. And, please don't forget that Johnson was the one who sent the first 3,000 American troops to invade Vietnam. Clinton has worked on both sides of the aisle very effectively. Obama has not. When I asked him what his actions would be regarding the building of the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad and the construction of a huge US Air Force base in Iraq he had no answer. That’s not the response of a man prepared to be president.
Being able to work both sidea of the aisle is such an important qualification for President. There is no-one running (or in Washington, in general, PERIOD) who would be more capable of building the coalitions we need to attack our country's problems, than HRC.
He voted "present" a total of 129 times out of over 4000 votes during his tenure. That's less than 3% of his total, certainly not "the majority of the time." And the times he did vote "present" were often part of a larger legislative strategy--did you miss the statement by the leader of Illinois Planned Parenthood talking about how the Planned Parenthood Council ASKED Obama to make several of these "present" votes in order to help stymie anti-choice legislation?
How exactly did you ask Obama this question? Through one of a thousand unsolicited e-mails his office gets on a daily basis?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
