Farnsworth,Luther P.
04-15-2008, 09:48 PM
LOL ... of course he's full of shit on all this glorious crap he claiming he will do.
f he were elected, Obama's global popularity would be tricky to leverage. Certainly, some of the premises on which his popularity rests would prove to be valid: He might handle Guantanamo in a different way, pay more attention to global warming, speak more softly, and hide the stick?for a while. But doing those things would eventually make it more difficult for him to operate in the world of power politics.
On Iraq, as Samantha Power publicly admitted (and this was the real reason she had to resign), his plan for a quick withdrawal is no more than a "best-case scenario." On climate change, he can talk the talk, but what exactly can be done is far from clear. And for Obama, who's smart enough to ensure that people do not see him as naive now - hence the talk about bombing terrorists in Pakistan - tough action would be necessary to prove his seriousness. Six months ago -when I wrote about the Darfur refugee crisis - I mentioned one such incident involving newly elected President Bill Clinton:
After CIA agents visited his house in Arkansas before he was even inaugurated, Clinton had to roll back his criticism of the first Bush administration's strict policy against accepting refugees from Haiti. The agents presented him with satellite photos that showed tens of thousands of Haitians hacking down houses and trees in anticipation of the new, less restrictive administration.
Obama would face the same dilemma - and probably on more than one issue. If his diplomats or military advisers told him that the Iranians perceived his willingness to talk as a sign of weakness, he might reconsider his pledge to meet with the Iranian president as quickly as he now promises. Maybe when presented with confidential data gathered by eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, he would be less keen to drop all the measures taken by Bush and criticized by the opposition. Maybe his belief that "the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide" in Darfur would put him at odds with reality or with some members of the international community.
In each of these cases, Obama would suffer the consequences of high expectations. He would be trapped between the desire to preserve his high standing in the world and the need to act in ways that would erode that standing. Of course - his advisers would argue - it is better to have this political goodwill in the first place. But even if that were true, political goodwill should always be handled delicately. Starting modestly and building up is also an option, sometimes a better one if you aim to keep expectations realistic (This, I think, is the way John McCain would play his cards internationally.)
High expectations could also hurt Obama domestically. If Americans expect world opinion to become pro-American if Obama wins, they will be disappointed. Opinion polls, especially in Europe, proved way before 9/11 that frustration with its world domination is a cause for hostility. If, on the other hand, Americans perceive Obama as someone who will act to appease world opinion, they might become angry.
So, here is one task Obama will have to shoulder if and when he becomes the nominee (the same holds true for Clinton, albeit to a lesser degree): Prepare the world for disappointment. Yes, popularity in Germany and Egypt can be flattering. Yes, initial cooperation with U.N. Security Council members might be easier than confrontation. Yes, Obama-mania is showing signs of moving beyond America's borders and becoming a global movement.
Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=973440&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=3#article973440)
Electing this idiot will be a total disaster.
f he were elected, Obama's global popularity would be tricky to leverage. Certainly, some of the premises on which his popularity rests would prove to be valid: He might handle Guantanamo in a different way, pay more attention to global warming, speak more softly, and hide the stick?for a while. But doing those things would eventually make it more difficult for him to operate in the world of power politics.
On Iraq, as Samantha Power publicly admitted (and this was the real reason she had to resign), his plan for a quick withdrawal is no more than a "best-case scenario." On climate change, he can talk the talk, but what exactly can be done is far from clear. And for Obama, who's smart enough to ensure that people do not see him as naive now - hence the talk about bombing terrorists in Pakistan - tough action would be necessary to prove his seriousness. Six months ago -when I wrote about the Darfur refugee crisis - I mentioned one such incident involving newly elected President Bill Clinton:
After CIA agents visited his house in Arkansas before he was even inaugurated, Clinton had to roll back his criticism of the first Bush administration's strict policy against accepting refugees from Haiti. The agents presented him with satellite photos that showed tens of thousands of Haitians hacking down houses and trees in anticipation of the new, less restrictive administration.
Obama would face the same dilemma - and probably on more than one issue. If his diplomats or military advisers told him that the Iranians perceived his willingness to talk as a sign of weakness, he might reconsider his pledge to meet with the Iranian president as quickly as he now promises. Maybe when presented with confidential data gathered by eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, he would be less keen to drop all the measures taken by Bush and criticized by the opposition. Maybe his belief that "the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide" in Darfur would put him at odds with reality or with some members of the international community.
In each of these cases, Obama would suffer the consequences of high expectations. He would be trapped between the desire to preserve his high standing in the world and the need to act in ways that would erode that standing. Of course - his advisers would argue - it is better to have this political goodwill in the first place. But even if that were true, political goodwill should always be handled delicately. Starting modestly and building up is also an option, sometimes a better one if you aim to keep expectations realistic (This, I think, is the way John McCain would play his cards internationally.)
High expectations could also hurt Obama domestically. If Americans expect world opinion to become pro-American if Obama wins, they will be disappointed. Opinion polls, especially in Europe, proved way before 9/11 that frustration with its world domination is a cause for hostility. If, on the other hand, Americans perceive Obama as someone who will act to appease world opinion, they might become angry.
So, here is one task Obama will have to shoulder if and when he becomes the nominee (the same holds true for Clinton, albeit to a lesser degree): Prepare the world for disappointment. Yes, popularity in Germany and Egypt can be flattering. Yes, initial cooperation with U.N. Security Council members might be easier than confrontation. Yes, Obama-mania is showing signs of moving beyond America's borders and becoming a global movement.
Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=973440&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=3#article973440)
Electing this idiot will be a total disaster.