Stop-Obama

I think it’s understandable that some Clinton Democrats will find it excruciatingly difficult to vote McCain - no matter what their take on Obama. I understand and emphasize, because I share the pain. There is no better candidate for the American people, than Hillary Clinton- and unless we can still get her on the ballot, we have a tough decision to make. The Obama folks at the DNC, know this.

That’s why, ads targeting Clinton Democrats and Independents, will make 2008 the “Vote Democratic” campaign - less “Vote Obama” than, “Can you Possibly vote Republican?!” This frame, is already evident in a new ad; it’s also politically inevitable- the DNC wants our vote, so it is forced to eschew their Presidential candidate’s name when communicating with us.

Meanwhile, Obama is already posing as the Ultimate American. His “Fight the Smears” Website has got two American Eagles, and its header consists of a Patriotic Quote about Transcending our sub-national divisions. It’s been a while – since the odd poll showed American’s didn’t cozy up much to Michelle Obama- that Barack had removed her from his introduction page, and replaced the family photo with a glowing, and much whitened picture of himself (the former picture was black and white). The “Welcome Hillary Supporters” in the right margin, is a token of “Reconciliation,” although there is no content whatsoever for those seeking an apology for Pfleger’s comments. This can’t be said about the McCain website, where I found a some favorable articles on Clinton as early as March.

While McCain may be better at welcoming Clinton supporters than Obama, this will be a hard push against the “Vote Democratic” campaign, which exploits two vulnerabilities of anti-Obama voters. One, the association between Bush 43-the GOP-McCain; two, McCain’s weaknesses on the economy. In this post, I will discuss the first.

***

The first vulnerability, is one explicitly foreseen by Axelrod in his campaign strategy. In 2004, Axelrod pushed against Mark Penn’s attempts to portray Kerry as a war hero and supporter of the Iraq war. He believed Kerry could not outdo the Republicans on war, and Kerry’s real chance was as a “mirror opposite” of George Bush - a kind of Howard Dean cum Vietnam War veteran. Kerry’s defeat, served to solidity Axelrod’s perspective, and in 2008, finally getting his hands on a candidate which he controls entirely (in 2004 he played third fiddle to Penn), Axelrod is going all out to play the “mirror opposite” card. To succeed, he needs to solidify the link between War-Iraq-Bush-McCain, a feat, requiring significantly less effort, than it took to spin Al-Qaeda and Hussein, in 2002. McCain, is a nominal hawk, with ideas about the Iraq war, that most Democrats find hard to stomach, and that’s just the start.

Change, is about youth and energy. The reason Obama cannot go a conference, even sitting at a small dinner table with a few voters, without the word “Change” figuring somewhere in the picture, is because he couldn’t find a better word to deflect everything McCain will be made to stand for by Democratic Election PR - retirement, old America, inflexibility, and lack of vibrancy. “Change” means McCain is a retrograde, it works directly against his own message of “authenticity” and “solidity”.

Fortunately for McCain, the ability of Axelrod to pigeonhole him as Bush III is severely limited by reality and facts. Unlike Obama, McCain has a solid record of bi-partisanship in the Senate. Unlike Obama, he stands out as one of the most original members of his party, where he can boast a solid centrist position. Whether Axelrod’s ability to form the Bush 43-the GOP-McCain link in Clinton Democrats and Independent minds succeeds, will depend entirely on whether or not the media take him up on this frame. For his part, McCain should have little trouble in dispelling Axelrod’s myth, with hard facts.

Just as in the mentioned ad, Democrats can take as much blame for the Iraq invasion, as they can for just about any snippet of this exaggerated video (with some exception). Curiously, McCain, cannot. He may be stolid on the Iraq war, but he’s solid on his independence from either party. Americans who consider themselves centrists, are closer to McCain, than Obama.

Regardless of how the media spin the McCain-Bush nexus, there is one aspect of this nexus they will leave to the netroots- namely- Obama’s foreign policy and Middle East advisers.

***

Obama supporters like to repeat that a vote for McCain is a vote for war and the reinstitution of the draft. I’d like to remind these gossipers, that MCain has explicitly stated he will not support a draft, and that if anyone is likely to drag us into war, it is the incompetent and bumbling fool, not the experienced tough-talker.

In geopolitics, war is about dissuasion and threat levels. The less you dissuade and more you lower the threat, the more appealing to potential adversaries you make any transgressions. McCain has no record of war, but unlike Obama, at least he has a record.

Part of McCain’s record, are his foreign policy advisers- including a few “neocons” such as William Kristol, and Randy Scheunemann. It is common knowledge, that these individuals dragged America into war - and will require little effort from DailyKos and Axelrod’s online surrogates, to exploit in forming the McCain war-monger association.

Unfortunatelly, common knowledge is often times wrong. Since it was the media, and not the “neocons” who dragged this country into the Iraq war, the media will have the good sense not to play the “neocon” card against McCain; since Obama’s undisciplined netroots are dominated by ignorant conspiracy theorists, the blogosphere will make
”neocons” central to the McCain-war monger narrative.

In 2002, Obama addressed a crowd in Chicago’s Lake Front, with a speech against the Iraq war. The grounds of his opposition to deposing Saddam, were conspiratorial. He mentioned Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith as armchair generals plotting with Karl Rove to divert attention from America’s domestic problems, by fomenting war abroad.
Why Obama chose these two particular individuals, and why he insinuated conspiracy among them, has yet to be explained by his campaign. In the face of steady media propaganda against Saddam Hussein, Obama never justified his speech to begin with, but thankfully, six years later his internet supporters will seek to fell McCain, by providing all the juicy details.

If there is one link between McCain and Bush 43, it is surely the “neocons,” and what could make Clinton’s McCain supporters, more vulnerable than this “proof” of McCain’s evil intentions?

The trouble with this “neocon” link, is simple. Argue as the Obama netroots may, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of a “neocon” conspiracy behind the Iraq war. The individuals concerned, Kristol and Scheunemann are intellectuals and policy experts, with decades of outstanding foreign policy experience. Unlike Obama’s advisers, their loyalty to America, the West, and Israel, cannot be doubted for one second. These are individuals of undisputable moral rectitude, and with policy outlooks driven by the overriding objective of securing America’s national security. Far from being a liability, McCain’s ability to attract intellectuals of such caliber and renown to his National Policy Team, deservers respect.

Of course, Obama roots will think otherwise. They will insist, irrespective of facts and proof, that “neocons” were behind the Iraq war, that Obama’s “judgment” in making a speech against it was “wise,” and that Americans are murderers and pillagers. Jodi Evans, a militant Obama bundler who promises to wreak havoc in Denver if Clinton forces show up, sums up these views with her recent “Ossama was right.”

At this stage, I’d like to remind Clinton supporters, why Clinton was (and lets pray, still can become) the best candidate this country could possibly vote into the Presidential Office. The views of Jodi Evans and Mr. Obama himself, are extremit and profoundly anti-American in the worst sense of the words. They are not main-stream, they are irresponsible, dangerous, and marginal.

America, even in its worst unilateral moments, is a country with allies, balancing their needs against one another and their adversaries, to maintain the world system. Extremists such as Evans, and most Obama supporters, imagine that the world would be a better place, if and only if, the US stopped ruining it. If we moved our troops out of Qatar, out of Iraq, out of Kyrgyzstan and/or Okinawa, supposedly the world would just magically prosper and bloom. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We are where we are, because that’s the make-up of the world’s balance of forces. Our country’s security is served through our global alliances. Our allies, rely on American political, economic, and military support, for their own security interest. Whether Jodi Evans likes it or not, we are bound to Japan, bound to NATO, bound to Israel, and bound to Columbia. Obama may think it a good idea, to threaten such alliances by undermining our allies trust in our ability to serve their interest. Clinton and McCain do not. Rightfully so.

Now there are few people in the American foreign policy establishment, who understand the importance of alliances- not to mention experience- and America’s national security interests, than the so called “neocons.” Individuals such as William Kristol and Charles Kreuthammer, may not appeal to the average Obama voter, but they are far more mainstream in the foreign policy establishment, than their maligners would have you believe, while their grasp of America’s foreign policy objectives and goals are unmatched; their dedication to our security, unparalleled. The largest liability of the “neocons” is their “ostensible” attachment to Israel.

This is a charge, bordering on anti-Semitic libel. Little wonder Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, take liking to it. More wonder, that Obama should justify his inexplicable “opposition” to the Iraq war in 2002, with arguments indistinct from theirs.

“Neocons” are certainly concerned with Israel- as is every single foreign policy expert in America, because Israel’s security is America’s security. Iran’s ability to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, certainly presents an immediate danger to Israel, and those concerned with Israel’s security, will lead the charge against Iran’s violations.

However, as all foreign affairs experts will tell you, while Israel is the focus of our occasional attention, all of Iran’s Middle East neighbors are likely to suffer if the Ayatollahs get the bomb. America’s national security depends in large part on our ability to maintain order and stability in the Middle East. Any disequilibrium, caused by an Iran capable of dominating the region by intimidating its smaller neighbors, and by blackmailing the international community into inaction through its development of Shattab rockets capable of delivering nuclear warheads as far as Central Europe, Moscow, Mumbai, and Cairo, Iran would destabilize the region for decades to come. America already lost Iran under Carter in 1979 - now, we cannot afford to lose to it. The neocons understand this better, than anyone else in Washington. They are the right people, for the right job, and should be treated accordingly.

***

Of the remaining two presidential candidates, the man best equipped to maintain America’s Role in the World, and guarantee our allies’ security, is the man surrounded by individuals with decades of experience of fighting the Soviets, and decades of experience in the Middle East - yes, some because they are concerned with Isreal’s safety and are Jewish, still others, who are equally concerned by Israel’s safety, but are not Jewish. While some may consider Podhoretz’ call to bomb Iran a sign of bellicosity- consider Obama’s own call to do the same when he addressed AIPAC last year. Rather than being a negative, having the likes of Robert Kagan advise you on your foreign politics, should be the most reassuring sign of maturity and credibility a candidate can possibly have! Recall that Kagan, is among the most skeptical and realistic evaluators of the modern world! Unlike his peers in the Democratic party, he was never carried away with balderdash about Soft Power and New-Politics, instead he emphasizes the brutality and illiberality of the non-developed world, and in his countless works seeks to bring Americans out of our ignorance about just what kind of world we live in – and to shape our expectations of foreign policy, accordingly.

Naturally, the Obama team will goad its online community to discredit the “neocons” with the charge that they, unlike other at the time, were the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war. Naturally, such a notion isn’t far removed from Obama’s own conspiratorial conception of the Iraq war. Instead of providing voters with a reasonable justification of his 2002 “anti-war” shpeel, the Obama camp is looking to fan the flames of Obama’s original conspiracy theories. Too bad they have inconvenient facts to spar with.

Facts which are - while certain “neocons” spoke out forcefully for the removal of Saddam- the fact is, who didn’t, and why? We already know who – Obama; we just need the why.

***

As has been reveled recently, at least forty retired Pentagon officials were used by the Pentagon -in a perfectly legal way (unfortunately)- to misinform the public about the need to invade Iraq. To do their manipulating, they needed the complicity of the media- and recent testimonies by some television moderators, corroborate precisely such complicity on the part of media executives.

How many such executives does it take to condone a major propaganda effort by the Pentagon? At least several hundred.

Speaking of the Pentagon, one prominent member, Collin Powell, delivered a speech at the UN, with the backing of the then embassador Negroponte, that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. The CIA’s George Tenet, convinced the entire Congress pf the USA, both Democratic and Republican, that this was the case. Tony Blair echoed the accusations. The German intelligence service, the French, the Italian, the Israeli, the Saudi Arabian, and of course British, all seconded the CIA estimate. So where are the “neocons”?

Hey Obamatrolls, you want to talk “neocons?” William Kristol, and Charles Kreuthammer? Twenty largely Jewish individuals among thousands of non-Jews pushing for the War in Iraq, around the entire world? Well, then I consider it conspiracy, and possible anti-Semitism. There is no other way I can understand the dubious slander, that the publisher of a little read newspaper known as the Weekly Standard, and a few of his authors, pushed the country into War.

Rather than focusing on the role of the White House, the Media, all the then Senators and Congressmen almost not one of whome made a coherent and well publicized anti-war argument, Obama’s netroots will smear McCain with his association with a few Jewish individuals who happen to be as vocal about the necessity of removing Saddam Hussien as Christopher Hitchens had been- and cite this as proof of McCain’s intention to reinstate the draft!

The reality is simpler, and starker. The individuals with which the Obama camp is the least comfortable, happen to be those who are consistently pro-American, pro-Western, and pro-Israel. Individuals who defend America when it is attacked, either from inept United Nation bureaucrats, the militant left-wing, or by terrorists. Unlike their counterparts in the extreme “left,” these individuals do not pander to Third World dictators and tyrants, they do not excuse atrocious acts of barbarism against America and its allies, and they are fearlessly trying to engage the world with America’s objectives in mind.

Now compare this with what Mr. Obama has to offer. His advisors make up a potpourri of inexperienced double-talkers. One is caught in England telling the Brits that Obama’s talk on Iraq is just talk. Another one is caught telling a journalist that America’s Middle East problems are Israel’s fault. A third supports books which claim that Jews are behind everything that is wrong with US foreign policy, while a fourth is seen negotiating with Hamas. These are Obama’s foreign policy “advisers?!”

***

McCain is not Bush. He is centrist in his social and domestic policy, and internationalist in his foreign policy. He has an unquestionable commitment to Democracy and Human Rights, and has surrounded himself with individuals with a record of defending both in the name of America’s national security interest.

Stuck with an Obama rejected by too many voters that Democrats need in order to take the White House in 2008, the DNC will attempt to portray the General Election as a struggle between itself, and the Republican Party, not Obama vs. McCain.

Unfortunately for this DNC strategy, McCain has already begun the process of bringing his party back into the center, and away from the Bush Evangelicals. Obama, on the other hand, has begun to talk to these Evangelicals, while taking our party from center, to off-center.

If subsequent election coverage indeed becomes one between Democrats and Republicans, then Obama may go on to become President. If, however, Republicans have their say, coverage will focus on the candidates themselves, and Axelrod will fail in making Obama the mirror image of Bush. Facts will be heard, and Obama will dissolve as the inexperienced radical that he is.

One thing to keep in mind as the situation develops, is that while McCain’s dominance of the GOP is favorable for Clinton Democrats, Obama’s transformation of the Democratic Party, is not.

I acknowledge that McCain certainly leaves the impression of being more war-like and hawkish than someone of Obama’s mendacious sensibilities. But impressions can be wrong. There is no reason to hesitate voting McCain, because of foreign policy. In fact, the opposite is true. Foreign policy is among the primary reasons one cannot possibly vote Obama.

As I already mentioned, voting Obama in the General Election, is as easily done by not voting, or voting third party, as it is voting directly for Obama. While the decision to go with McCain is troublesome for some, and unacceptably difficult for other, I counsel courage, and a sense of duty. Ultimately, elections aren’t really about you getting what you want, but about the country not getting, what you don’t want it to get. I wouldn’t wish Obama on anyone, and neither should you. He has already taken over the Democratic Party, are you going to let him take the whole country too?

Its tough voting McCain, but its got to be done. That simple, and it couldn’t be simpler.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS