What the Democratic Race Comes Down To?
Far be it for this conservative blog to quote an op-ed drive-by by Alec Baldwin (James in particular will be thrilled). But he’s kind of got a point, doesn’t he, when he says:
What Mrs. Clinton has that Mr. Obama does not have, Mr. Obama can get. What Mr. Obama has that Mrs. Clinton does not have, she can never get.
Greenwald has just ripped McCain a new one here.
Google and Lexis/Nexis are making it very hard to polls like McCain to change history.
I don’t think I have ever seen anyone so deadly, so overwhelming, when he makes a point, like Glenn Greenwald. You really are watching a master craftsman at work.
It’s not really McCain’s fault, however. He is just following the neoconservative playbook, but they have contradicted themselves so many times there is no place left to run.
Comment by daveg — 2/21/2008 @ 9:58 am
Greenwald is accusing the Saudi government of attacking the US on 11/9/2001, or just saying that Saudi should be attacked for the actions of a few of its citizens? Weird.
Also, what sort of tool really thinks that the US can afford, in terms of its strategic future, to attack Saudi?
I read the whole article (which is mostly quotes) and I don’t see what Greenwald is trying to get at, unless his secret motivation is to advertise McCain as the sanest candidate on foreign policy (inappropriate jokes about bombing Iran aside).
Comment by Adam — 2/21/2008 @ 10:07 am
Incidentally, I do know the case that he’s actually trying to make, but wasn’t Obama’s speech a “If I was president this is what I’d do” one, rather than a speech given as a member of the Senate? One would expect any President (including Obama, incidentally) to weigh their words much more carefully because they are, in fact, the Commander in Chief of the military.
I don’t think that McCain’s attack on Obama, that Greenwald highlights, is very strong at all (because I don’t think that Obama would ever say something like that, particularly about Pakistan as an ally, when close to being, or as, President), but there’s nothing wrong with his other comments (other than, as I said, that the ‘bomb Iran’ thing was ill-judged even though it was meant as a joke).
McCain should have made the point that you don’t speculate about bombing an ally when that ally’s leader already has a domestic problem because of his relationship with the US. I am also pretty sure that, if he had the chance again, Obama wouldn’t have said it.
Comment by Adam — 2/21/2008 @ 10:20 am
I’ve not followed this closely at all, but I thought McCain was going after Obama for his statement on Pakistan. What does Saudi Arabia have to do with it?
Comment by tessellated — 2/21/2008 @ 10:59 am
That would be a question for Glenn Greenwald (who is making a wider point, to be fair, against McCain).
Comment by Adam — 2/21/2008 @ 11:51 am
Also, regarding the Baldwin quote, he’s right, I think. I saw the quote on the Corner (maybe yesterday) and thought at the time that its actually rather observant. What Obama has, none of the other candidates have (Huckabee is closest). Of course, against McCain, there are certain qualities that McCain has, in the minds of the voters, that are also not available to Obama. Being a great orator, however, is a hell of a trump card (which, given that oratory skills are not enormously rare, makes one wonder why they are possessed by so relatively few Presidential contenders).
Comment by Adam — 2/21/2008 @ 12:30 pm
Because people who boldly express themselves do not generally last long enough in politics to rise to the Presidency.
Comment by Rojas — 2/21/2008 @ 2:55 pm