Obama 'The Man for the Moment'
Obama, primed to talk foreign policy, in Portsmouth, N.H. today. (AP).
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- There was no mistaking the purpose of a foreign policy wonk-fest that Barack Obama's campaign convened here today for the benefit of 120 New Hampshire voters and the attendant television cameras. Amid stepped-up attacks by Hillary Clinton claiming that Obama lacks the experience to face a dangerous world, the Obama camp turned loose a half dozen of the foreign policy experts in his fold to show the world the kind of high-caliber minds that are advising the first-term senator, who joined the panel of experts after nearly two hours of their deep ruminations.
Noticeable among all the chin-tugging foreign policy talk was the unlikely tack that the experts took in making their case that Obama does possess the necessary experience for the job. One might expect that campaign advisers in their shoes would try to play down the risks that the country faces at this moment in time, to make voters more comfortable about handing the reins to someone who only three years ago was biding his time in the Illinois state Senate. Instead, the panelists went in the exact opposite direction. They talked over and over again about what a perilous position the country now finds itself in on multiple fronts -- from the threat of anti-American extremism to nuclear proliferation to global warming -- and concluded that only Obama could save the day.
At points, the Obama advisers verged on the foreboding. John Hutson, a retired rear admiral and judge advocate general in the Navy who is now head of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H. summarized the state of affairs as follows: "I'm very sad and very worried about what's happened to our foreign policy. I'm very worried that historians are going to look back at the early days of the 21st century and say that's where the U.S. got derailed, that's where we made a wrong turn, that's where the U.S. began to become the next former great power." He added: "The U.S. is no longer a world leader in our foreign policy. We're not even a world follower. We're just an outlier." Anthony Lake, national security adviser in the Clinton Administration, was similarly alarmed about the situation in Pakistan: "If we do not get serious, a very serious situation could turn into a disaster."
What the country and the world needed at such a fraught pass, the advisers said, was Obama's fresh perspective, candor and ability to bridge gaps both within the country and around the world. Their praise of their man conjured a veritable Superman of diplomacy. "It would be transformative overnight," Lake said of the worldwide effect of an Obama election as president. Said Hutson: "Who is the inspirational leader who will bring us together rather than dividing us, who's going to make the U.S. a leader again on the world scene? I think it's pretty clear." Obama, he added, "has a wonderful blend of confidence and humility, and not all the candidates have that." Harvard's Samantha Power declared that the "urgency of this moment" demanded Obama's "fresh, pragmatic and unbeholden approach." Added her Harvard colleague Sarah Sewall, a former Pentagon official, "We need a transformative approach, and that's where Barack Obama comes in." Obama, she added, has "character, courage and unconventional wisdom -- and that is precisely what we need and why Barack Obama is the man for the moment."
All this buildup was a tough act to follow once Obama finally joined the panel himself -- audience members would have been forgiven for expecting the ghost of Dean Acheson in his place given all the hype. But he mostly held his own, seeming to relish the chance to show off his foreign policy learning and academic side. He focused his remarks around the need for "openness" in foreign policy (with the implication that not only President Bush but also Hillary Clinton have lacked forthrightness) and offered long discursive answers to the audience's almost comically erudite questions, including one from a small businessman about the global supply chain's role in the reduction of world conflicts and another from a former student of Margaret Mead, on the need for a more anthropological mindset in the foreign service. (Obama: "My mother was an anthropologist, so the Margaret Mead reference, I'm always hip to.")
Afterward, some of the Obama gurus were asked why they were offering such a dark view of world affairs as part of a pitch for a candidate with a short foreign policy resume. They answered that it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. "It is a perilous time," said Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs. "It's dishonest to deny that and one thing we don't want to be is dishonest."
But she maintained that Obama was nonetheless the best person for the moment, as she took issue with Clinton's claim that her years as first lady qualified her for president, as well as Clinton's mockery of Obama's claim that his years living in Indonesia as a child helped give him foreign policy perspective. "Those who say this (the Indonesia years) is his only claim to foreign policy leadership are deliberately distorting what he said as well as his background," Rice said. "What you get by osmosis living and working in the White House, I don't discount that, but it's not the same thing as being the face of the country's foreign policy or being the person who had to make the tough decisions and deal with crises and work around an inflexible bureaucracy to get things done. That's a lot of silliness."
Richard Danzig, secretary of the Navy in the Clinton administration, concurred. "The whole point of this campaign is to call it like we see it. I don't think any of us is going to understate the risks just because of some ethereal political advantage," he said. "And given a risky world, I'd rather have him."
At least some of the voters in attendance seemed to agree after surviving the nearly three hour long session. "It sounds like he's got a really good core of international advisers," said Chris Moody, a business consultant. But how did Obama's foreign policy experience compare with that of Clinton, who points to her work as First Lady? "She's had exposure through Bill, sure," said Moody. "But she's had no more direct experience in making decisions than Obama has."
--Alec MacGillis
Posted at 6:30 PM ET on Nov 27, 2007
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: ICA2101 | November 30, 2007 5:51 AM
here is alink to the forum for those that missed it
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/Cx7J
Posted by: milton | November 29, 2007 12:22 AM
GWB's foreign policy claim prior to his "election" is no different than those of Hillary Clinton -- My father was a president and my husband was a president. What is this, another third world country?
What Bush and Hillary lacked and lacks is WISDOM and that is exactly what Obama has. He is the only effectively sell re-branded America with considerable credibility not the one who aboslve her constitutional duty to verify the facts and raise the hard questions on the senate floor.
Posted by: chaudryam | November 29, 2007 12:14 AM
A moment that's just how long Obama should last,he is almost as unqualified as W.We don't need another president that needs training wheels.
Posted by: nobush | November 28, 2007 7:59 PM
Five-Four-Three-Two-One!
Ok Obasama,
Your moment in the spotlight is over!
Go back to trying to learn to use your Congressional Law Background to try to ever concieve some Legislation that will ever see the Light of Day!
And when YOU figure out how to the Job you only recently began to try to LEARN, show Billary how to do it TOO!
LEGISLATORS do NOT belong in the Exectutive Post!
Folks hire attorneys to represent them in Court, NOT as Business Consultants or Chairmen!
Unless you are Walmart wanting to open doors with China, and the Lawyer has a Governor/ President hopefull for a Husband!
Posted by: rat-the | November 28, 2007 7:19 PM
holywoodog - A bit of advice from someone who likes Edwards and Obama (in that order) and cannot stand Clinton. Take the pledge. Millions of Democrats have and I expect millions more will before this farse of a primary is over. If Clinton is the nominee, if she appears *anywhere* on the ticket, I wont vote for one single Democratic candidate. Not one. I don't care if it's the Democratic candidate for local dog catcher. If they loose, tough. If the party hacks think they are going to stick us with a dirtbag like CLinton and get away with it, they had better think again, becasue it is going to cost them dearly.
Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 28, 2007 7:01 PM
Obama I love. I'm afraid, though, he will just break my heart and I'll end up in a shot-gun marriage to Hillary.
Posted by: holywoodog | November 28, 2007 5:17 PM
Thanks, GG.
It's sad how pitiful the MSM is today. Just look the latest WH propaganda piece that Ruth Kohen did today in the WaPo.
They think we can't check it ourselves - but with the Net, we can.
Posted by: WillSeattle | November 28, 2007 2:25 PM
WillSeattle, you are SPOT-ON!!! MSM doesn't know what to do when a candidate refuses to speak purely in sound bites.
Reading your comment, I couldn't help but think of Michelle Obama's interview on MSNBC. She said that the media complain about programmed candidates but, when faced with a truth-teller, freak out. By the way, after running the tape, MSNBC made a point of mentioning that though the Obama campaign sent a list of talking points, Ms. Obama did NOT stick to them. She easily addressed issues which the campaign had asked MSNBC not to bring up.
Posted by: GordonsGirl | November 28, 2007 12:41 PM
Hookman, I have never heard Senator Obama speak the phrase," I would bomb Pakistan." He has specifically stated he would strike terrorists in the mountains on the border of Afganistan and Pakistan. He has also stated that he would not use nuclear weapons to bomb terrist camps. Maybe one three hour viewing was not sufficient for you and you should check it out again on Obama.com when they get it posted.
Posted by: dan.kemp | November 28, 2007 11:20 AM
Sounds like a bunch of Back-Seat Drunk Drivers!
When he is not being Enigmatic, Barack hussein is swallowing his shoes-Both at once!
Check out the FOUR Pinochios at the Fact Checker-AGAIN!
That Obasama Bus is Weaving!
HEY, just a thought-
Why don't all the Dimocrat LEGISLATORS, keep trying to do their JOBS, until they finally learn how(11% Approval-Geez!), and let real Statesmen run the Exectutive Branch-Without THEIR Drunken Back-Seat Driving!
Posted by: rat-the | November 28, 2007 11:18 AM
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
I understand that you are very busy working on a mountain of issues that are important to you and your primary constituency in Massachusetts, and I cannot expect that this letter will reach you directly. But I hope that whoever may read this letter on your behalf will convey to you it's primary request and a synopsis of my motivation for sending it at this time.
Before making my request, I would like to thank you for all the work you've done for our country over the last 30 years. In recent times, you've been one of the only prominent voices that consistently speak up for the rights and dignity of the average American. I support you and all the work you've done over the years.
But even though you are very busy, I would like to add one more item to the list of things you are currently working on that I think can be of great importance to citizens of the United States, as well as to citizens of other countries around the world. I don't know if your office may have received similar requests already, but I am sure I am not the only American hoping for your help on this one.
I would like ask you on behalf of all progressively minded Americans, and myself, to support and publicly endorse Senator Obama's candidacy for Presidency of the United States. If you may agree, I hope you do it soon- because I feel we may be running out of time.
I strongly believe, as do others, that we are now at a crucial junction in our country's history. On one side, we have a chance to move forward in terms of unity, cooperation and mutual respect. On the other, we have the chance to continue on the same divisive, and recently imperialistic, path that has left us uncomfortably close to a state of moral bankruptcy. It is my sincere belief that Sen. Obama is the candidate best suited to help us navigate the challenges that lie ahead and move the country forward- in a positive direction.
It is without doubt that we have not had a President that could effectively bring the country together since the presidency of your late brother, John F. Kennedy. In these times of war and uncertainty, I think it is also worth remembering that during the Cuban Missile Crisis there were a number of voices in then President Kennedy's cabinet that pushed for a war which could have easily led to the end of civilization, at least as we know it. Fortunately one not so "deeply experienced" man with the right combination of reason, common sense, and sufficient independence of character, lead us away from the brink of war and potential Armageddon. Of course I hope we do not find ourselves in a dilemma of similar gravity during the term of the next President, but if we do, I feel Sen. Obama has the character, if not experience, to help carry us through.
It has been said that your support was instrumental in helping Sen. Kerry to win Iowa and eventually the democratic nomination in 2004. Alas, Senator Kerry did not win the election. Right now we are heading for a situation in which Sen. Clinton wins the democratic nomination but miraculously loses the presidency. This, in my opinion, would be a great tragedy.
For the sake of the country and millions of Americans who are at the moment without voice, but not without hope, would you please endorse Barrack Obama for President, thank you.
Sincerely Yours
Godfrey Alleyne
Posted by: ga | November 28, 2007 9:41 AM
Hoomank - are you honestly comparing this event to anything remotely resembling Bush's foreign policy expertise? Bush so wholly lacked foreign policy experience in his personal, professional, and academic career that he, the son of a President and millionaire, had never even visited Europe until he took office. Never! That's fine for your regular person on the street, but certainly not for someone claiming the most powerful post on the planet. And, once again, Obama has never claimed his only experience is living in Indonesia, he's using it as an example. A fine example, to be sure.
Frankly, his position on Pakistan doesn't seem so far off the mark, especially considering it is exactly the opposite opinion of the Bush administration whose judgement I don't consider too valid. It is not in any way like Bush's aggression towards Iraq, and I find it so typical to denounce any practical mention of military action as analogous to Bush. There were wars before Bush, and there will be wars after Bush, the trick is how to minimize them by doing things correctly.
Bush is a figurehead and nothing more. If the guy could head back to his ranch tomorrow, he'd be out of there at 12.01 am. Having some "brilliant" minds surrounding him no more impacted his decision making than if he was surrounded by ferrets. Obama could actually sit up there for 3 hours with these people and talk foreign policy wonkiness to the point where this pathetic journalist couldn't even keep his lazy eyes open. That's smarts, that's thoughfulness, that's paying attention. Obama is so far beyond Bush he's in another solar system.
It had to get worse before it gets better - maybe now we're finally at the getting better. Go Obama!
Posted by: squintz | November 28, 2007 9:13 AM
it takes self-deprograming to understand
our perceptions are manipulated by pr firms and ads.
Obama represents a dream he can't deliver.
However he will be helpful for the dreamer to come. He was launched to the ring to secure clinton's victory while distracting the populace with obama's unquestionable charms. to say no today does not mean no tomorrow.
Posted by: tabita | November 28, 2007 8:28 AM
Obama has the best vision for 21st century global politics, one who can remove us from the GOP's stale Cold War doctrine or Clinton's "C'mon Get Happy" hippie ideaology.
Barack Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is a leader for today's world. He will be extremely effective and possibly one of the finest chief executives we have had.
One clear indicator of that is the fact that critics can launch only semantical arguments against him --the clear sign of a capable leader on the horizon.
Posted by: masonbartender | November 28, 2007 8:05 AM
obama is doing exactly as clinton does.
branding himself. The truth does not count much.
BUT the manipulation of it is what makes the difference.Obama's Pakistan jumping answer to war makes him not electable invalidating the
rest of his narrative. what change are you talking about oh vamos!
One day he might be a great senator.
He has multiple qualities and a great smile
Posted by: tabita | November 28, 2007 7:56 AM
I am appalled at your misprepresantation of this event. Apparently you missed the fact that these "high caliber minds" were lavishly endorsing Senator Barack Obama and participating in a foreign policy forum to express to Americans their views answering questions from the audience for at least an hour and a half. This was just one more example of Senator Obama's openness, honesty, and lack of fear in speaking with forthrightness about the serious issues facing our country. (not to mention the fact that his contribution to the forum displayed his amazing intelligence ) I enjoyed this event tremendously and look forward to hearing everything Senator Obama has to say in the future.
Posted by: Katy7540 | November 28, 2007 3:53 AM
Why does Sen. Obama scare the MSM so?
Because they don't control him.
Because he tells the truth and they're used to being lied to 24/7.
Because he talks with and listens to America and what we really care about, not what they want us to pay attention to.
We smell your fear ...
Posted by: WillSeattle | November 28, 2007 2:10 AM
In my opinion, Senator Obama has shown the best foreign policy judgment of any candidate in the field. He vocally opposed the war in Iraq at great political risk to himself. In a number of articles and public discussions, such as the one mentioned in this piece, he has shown a deep understanding of the need to preserve and strengthen American global leadership and he has the confidence of the leading foreign policy thinkers and policy makers on both sides of the aisle.
While his opponents make issue of his experience, Obama is the only candidate with the kind of experience necessary to successfully rebuild American credibility and influence in the eyes of the world.
More Bush-Clinton Era politics will not serve our interests at home or abroad. Sadly, they communicate only 'more of the same' from Washington to a great many Americans dissatisfied with Washington politics and looking for a new direction. The great challenges of the day, both domestically and internationally, call for our nation to identify and take advantage of new opportunity. This will require new ideas, fresh perspective, and intelligent leadership capable of bridging division. Given these needs, I can't name a better choice for president in '08 than Senator Obama. He has my vote, without a doubt.
Posted by: maq1 | November 28, 2007 1:08 AM
I hate to say it but we've seen this before. Eight years ago, then now president Bush talked about how he had a good team of foreign policy advisors -- the implication being that he would trust the "experts" to help him make his decisions.
Of course, the problem with this approach, is that you can't outsource your foreign policy. Advisors often given conflicting advice -- some of it good, some of it bad. A president should have his own opinions on how foreign policy should be run, to filter these ideas. Because foreign policy is a subtle, complex art and science -- sometimes requiring what are at first counterintuitive responses to complex problems, this knowledge cannot be gleaned overnight. It's the kind of thing that requires at least a few years of intense study, combined with on-the-ground experience.
I really like Obama as a person. I think he can empathize with the common person and those around the world who suffer. I like his message. But a foreign policy expert he is not. And parading a cast of people other than himself will not change the fact that he has very little to show for foreign policy experience other than living in indonesia as a child. Hardly the experience that would allow him to navigate the complex web of diplomacy, competing interests, and the formation of consensus -- all the things a president is called to do while in office. It does not prepare him for dealing with those who would seek to threaten us.
Case in point: His comment that he would bomb Pakistan if they were not more cooperative, speaks volumes about his lack of experience on the subtleties of using force. We already have a president who carelessly used force, some say as a first resort. His name is Bush and we don't need another one.
Posted by: hoomank | November 28, 2007 12:45 AM
I thinkwish the 'real' candidate is yet to come.
whoever might be is definitely media-wise.
All candidates are deja trasnochados
their words lacking luster like ruminant cattles having dinner.
Not that exciting to watch.
Posted by: tabita | November 27, 2007 11:56 PM
Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god
Posted by: lanefiller | November 27, 2007 11:31 PM
When the idiot son of the former President and ex-CIA chief was appointed to office by his fathers hand-picked Supreme Court, everyone said, "but the young AWOL, drunken ex-cheerleader has no foreign policy experience, he's never traveled outside the country?" No matter, we were told he has surrounded himself with very smart and experienced men (from the disgraced Nixon years), they'll keep the ship of state steady. Yeah, that worked out really well, huh?
I never saw Bush sit down, in public, unscripted, and discuss anything with intelligence and deliberation. Just his snarky smirk obvious discomfort with the English language. What you saw Obama do is what real leaders and statesman do. How refreshing.
Posted by: thebobbob | November 27, 2007 11:13 PM
Oh Alec..I'm very sorry..you and you're fellow 'journalists' time of dealing with a POTUS who couldn't compete with your 7th grade vocabulary is over.
Obama is a grown up. An intelligent and articulate one to boot!..You have to actually study up in order to interview him..imagine that..you can't continue on this delusion of being superiour to your commander in chief once January 09 comes along. And I know that pisses you off..Come on, be a man and admit it..set yourself free.
Posted by: maelisa | November 27, 2007 11:04 PM
...and another thing. What is with this term "elite"? Why is being elite a bad thing (as pickens77 claims)? Who do you want up there, some beer swilling rednecks chewing tobacco and scratching themselves? Are you intimidated by intelligence? Who do want defending our country, an "elite fighting force" or some flabby, out of shape losers? You have swallowed the Kool-Aid. You need to think for yourself and not be fed by those that tell you that being successful and great is bad.
Posted by: bbn70 | November 27, 2007 10:44 PM
Goodness! Only AFTER I read this tripe, did I look at the top of the web page and see that this garbage is affiliated with a real NEWS organization- The Washington Post. Mr./Ms//Mrs. (whatever your title is) MacGillis, I have never heard of you, but it would seem to me (after reading your "article") that you fall in the category of Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck or other trash peddler that has unfortunately been promoted these days. Seriously, is this supposed to be NEWS or an Op-Ed? The danger of these news-o-blogs is that they look like news, smell like news but are not at all! This filth is just your opportunity to express your opinion. Did an editor read this? Is there an adult at your organization? In the future, call it what it is- opinion, rather than news.
Posted by: bbn70 | November 27, 2007 10:39 PM
I think this article pretty much says it like it is. Obama is too young, inexperienced and arrogant for the job. He can be easily manipulated by his "elite" group of advisers. This is a dangerous combination. Democrats know they would do well to go with Hillary Clinton who has the kind of political tact and expertise to do the job, and do it well. Saying that one candidate is preferable because they are more "forthright" is a bunch of baloney.
Posted by: pickens77 | November 27, 2007 10:28 PM
I only saw the hour during which Obama fielded questions. He was steady, informed, insightful, and decisive. None of this is communicated in your report.
Posted by: wizinit1 | November 27, 2007 9:47 PM
Alec you really are something else. It's just amazing how you can look at yourself & still think that you're a journalist.
I too watched this 3 hours session with great interests and came out hopeful that there are intelligent people who knows foreign policies inside and out who still care about the direction of our country. There are NOT a single presidential candidate who DOES what Obama just DID today for the American people to see for themselves the depth of where they plan to take this country if elected.
I take this forum any day over those 30 second soundbite debates combined. And you have the galls to mock & make fun & show your biasness thru your article? This forum is an excellent window for Americans in order to make sound judgment in selecting the next leader. At the very least you should report it as it actually happened. I watched it and it was wonderful. I'm still undecided, whether or not I will vote for him in the end is besides the point, but I really appreciate that he's giving us this insight.
If you can't be NOT biased, then don't write! You're wasting people's time. Go back to your corner Alec & relearn what it means to be a journalist.
Posted by: mmccunney | November 27, 2007 9:40 PM
Out of all the candidates on both sides, only Obama has the arrogance to pull this stunt off and expect voters to believe he is the Superman-Savior. Alec, you wrote this story perfectly.
Posted by: rdklingus | November 27, 2007 9:29 PM
remember this???
god I hope Obama wins... America needs a leader with some charisma and, honestly, someone from outside the norm we've come to know in this town for the last 20 years.
WASHINGTON --
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has sought out former Secretary of State Colin Powell for advice on foreign policy matters.
While Powell served in the administrations of two Republican presidents, he said Sunday it was too early in the 2008 race to say whether he would back the GOP nominee.
"I'm going to support the best person that I can find who will lead this country for the eight years beginning in January of 2009," Powell said.
Powell was secretary of state under President Bush and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman for the first President Bush.
Powell said he has met twice with Obama, the Illinois senator. "I've been around this town a long time and I know everybody who is running for office. And I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me," Powell said.
Powell said he does not want to serve in elected office but was less certain about a return to some government post.
"I would not rule it out. I am not at all interested in political life if you mean elected political life. That is unchanged. But I always keep my eyes open and my ears open to requests for service," he said.
Posted by: tk | November 27, 2007 9:26 PM
How sad that you, as a journalist, felt the need to trivialize and make fun of something very important like our foreign policy and the very people who have been and would be advising Obama if he is elected.
This is a rare chance for the voter to not just see this but, to hear for once an indepth discussion of our status and the state of affairs in the world. It also shows a serious candidate who has been continuiously underestimated and jeered by our press as some lightweight, to show a man with a brilliant mind and chance to show voters he posessess more than a passing familiarity with this complex subject.
Posted by: vwcat | November 27, 2007 9:04 PM
I watched the whole thing live streamed on my computer. I found it very interesting and enjoyable. It's always enjoyable to listen to exceptional and thoughtful people. Reading your pathectic article, written in your anti-journalistic style, made me want to stick my finger down my throat and poke myself in the eye at the same time. Impressive....not in a good way.
Posted by: dan.kemp | November 27, 2007 8:46 PM
By a vast majority the foreign policy elite (say what you want of the elite but I prefer to have the best people working on it, I can have a beer with someone else instead) is for Obama in this campaign. I wish this came up more when discussing his credentials--all these smart folks seem to trust him to be the best choice.
Alec--Seriously, THREE HOURS spent on an infinitely complex issue and it was really that terrible?
Posted by: roo_P | November 27, 2007 8:17 PM
Allec,
This a poor article. You don't need to show that you disagree or agree to be a good journalist. Why you just don't report and let the editorial pages agree or disagree?
Posted by: christophefiero | November 27, 2007 8:11 PM
Two comments, Alec:
One: The tone of your article makes it sound like medieval torture rack session. "those who survived..." and other similarly negative references; or you got confused and thought you were reviewing the latest sequel to Superman, the Politician. Please stop. This was an important gathering of some very smart people who could share their reasoning for backing Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton. I think it deserved less sarcasm and more substance.
Two: Amidst all of the serious talk about foreign policy, those 120 voters and those they will share their thoughts with, got to see Obama up close, discussing a difficult subject, our foreign policy future. And they got to see him in the context with some real heavyweights. The conclusion the "smart folks" came to is that Obama is the "face of our future."
Clinton is a poseur and lightweight. Her candidacy is surrogacy for a Clinton third term. Voters who loved impeachment and all of the attendant scandals, will vote for her, forgetting all of the sleaze and stench, and 4 years and $40 million dollars.
Those of us who want CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN, will not bother to turn up the heat on Clinton; we'll just turn her out to pasture.
OBAMA '08
Posted by: jade7243 | November 27, 2007 7:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
I am a staunch Sen. Obama supporter. Give Alec MacGillis a break! By conventional standards in American journalism, this article is OUTSTANDING. Unless, I read the article upside down, I thought it was objective narrative, and overall, cast Sen. Obama in a positive light. I did not find anything offensive, grossly inaccurate, or untoward about the article by MacGills, other than the comment about the duration of the forum.
However, the point is well taken, that forums such as this (devoted exclusively, on the future of US foreign policy) are important for the voters to have a candidate, substantively, discuss thematic and topical issues, for as long as it takes, rather than 15 second sound bites. This is particularly important, given the cowardice, ineptitude and acts of conflict of interests that have been witnessed in all the major news networks and by some of their so-called journalists. The public saw these in the manner in which CNN, other networks and media outlets have been manipulated by the Hillary Clinton "jackals" at the Democratic Presidential, as well as the Republican debates. It is also the case with some of the incompetent journalists and columnists at the Chicago Suntimes, who habitually write critical articles about Sen. Obama, but glossy articles that cast Hillary Clinton in an undeserved positive light.
It is a fact, that the bane of the American political culture is the dubious, self-conflicted and cowardly news media we have in this country. We ought we to send them back to journalism school and professional ethics training.
Ignatius Anyanwu
Folsom, California.